From 22c3bfee9148e1836817ef00b4829a8385570c69 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Christian Grothoff Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2022 17:04:26 +0200 Subject: update RMS articles --- .../articles/en/15-years-of-free-software.html | 26 +- .../blog/articles/en/ICT-for-prosperity.html | 99 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/about-gnu.html | 51 +- .../blog/articles/en/amazon-nat.html | 62 +- .../blog/articles/en/amazon-rms-tim.html | 54 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/amazon.html | 45 +- .../articles/en/android-and-users-freedom.html | 97 +- .../blog/articles/en/anonymous-response.html | 43 +- .../articles/en/applying-free-sw-criteria.html | 27 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/apsl.html | 23 +- .../blog/articles/en/assigning-copyright.html | 67 +- .../blog/articles/en/basic-freedoms.html | 45 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/bdk.html | 52 +- .../en/bill-gates-and-other-communists.html | 43 +- .../blog/articles/en/boldrin-levine.html | 36 +- .../en/bug-nobody-allowed-to-understand.html | 27 +- .../blog/articles/en/byte-interview.html | 46 +- .../blog/articles/en/can-you-trust.html | 66 +- .../blog/articles/en/categories.html | 96 +- .../blog/articles/en/censoring-emacs.html | 39 +- .../blog/articles/en/compromise.html | 114 +- .../blog/articles/en/computing-progress.html | 59 +- .../blog/articles/en/contradictory-support.html | 24 +- .../articles/en/copyright-and-globalization.html | 135 +- .../en/copyright-versus-community-2000.html | 27 +- .../articles/en/copyright-versus-community.html | 110 +- .../articles/en/correcting-france-mistake.html | 34 +- .../articles/en/danger-of-software-patents.html | 68 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/dat.html | 67 +- .../blog/articles/en/devils-advocate.html | 27 +- .../articles/en/digital-inclusion-in-freedom.html | 150 +- .../blog/articles/en/dmarti-patent.html | 48 +- .../blog/articles/en/drdobbs-letter.html | 43 +- .../articles/en/ebooks-must-increase-freedom.html | 74 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/ebooks.html | 80 +- .../blog/articles/en/eldred-amicus.html | 221 +- .../blog/articles/en/enforcing-gpl.html | 32 +- .../blog/articles/en/essays-and-articles.html | 1568 +++++--- .../blog/articles/en/europes-unitary-patent.html | 62 +- .../articles/en/fighting-software-patents.html | 55 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/fire.html | 50 +- .../articles/en/first-hackers-conference-1984.html | 172 + .../blog/articles/en/floss-and-foss.html | 47 +- .../blog/articles/en/free-digital-society.html | 70 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-doc.html | 53 +- .../blog/articles/en/free-hardware-designs.html | 123 +- .../blog/articles/en/free-open-overlap.html | 47 +- .../en/free-software-even-more-important.html | 85 +- .../articles/en/free-software-for-freedom.html | 101 +- .../blog/articles/en/free-software-intro.html | 33 +- .../blog/articles/en/free-software-rocket.html | 18 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-sw.html | 318 +- .../blog/articles/en/free-world-notes.html | 49 +- .../blog/articles/en/free-world.html | 57 +- .../blog/articles/en/freedom-or-copyright-old.html | 67 +- .../blog/articles/en/freedom-or-copyright.html | 53 +- .../blog/articles/en/freedom-or-power.html | 83 +- .../en/fs-and-sustainable-development.html | 33 +- .../blog/articles/en/fs-motives.html | 31 +- .../en/funding-art-vs-funding-software.html | 31 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/gates.html | 54 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/gif.html | 84 +- .../blog/articles/en/gnu-breadcrumb.html | 23 + .../blog/articles/en/gnu-history.html | 50 +- .../blog/articles/en/gnu-linux-faq.html | 339 +- .../blog/articles/en/gnu-structure.html | 61 +- .../articles/en/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.html | 49 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/gnu.html | 169 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/gnutella.html | 44 +- .../blog/articles/en/google-engineering-talk.html | 376 +- .../blog/articles/en/government-free-software.html | 58 +- .../blog/articles/en/gpl-american-dream.html | 29 +- .../blog/articles/en/gpl-american-way.html | 55 +- .../blog/articles/en/greve-clown.html | 57 +- .../blog/articles/en/guardian-article.html | 52 +- .../blog/articles/en/hackathons.html | 19 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/hague.html | 102 +- .../blog/articles/en/historical-apsl.html | 37 +- .../articles/en/imperfection-isnt-oppression.html | 49 +- .../blog/articles/en/incorrect-quotation.html | 23 +- .../blog/articles/en/initial-announcement.html | 100 +- .../blog/articles/en/install-fest-devil.html | 31 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/ipjustice.html | 28 +- .../en/is-ever-good-use-nonfree-program.html | 57 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/java-trap.html | 77 +- .../blog/articles/en/javascript-trap.html | 83 +- .../blog/articles/en/judge-internet-usage.html | 52 +- .../en/keep-control-of-your-computing.html | 54 +- .../blog/articles/en/kevin-cole-response.html | 62 +- .../blog/articles/en/kind-communication.html | 35 +- .../blog/articles/en/komongistan.html | 45 +- .../blog/articles/en/kragen-software.html | 75 +- .../blog/articles/en/lessig-fsfs-intro.html | 83 +- .../blog/articles/en/lest-codeplex-perplex.html | 56 +- .../blog/articles/en/limit-patent-effect.html | 48 +- .../blog/articles/en/linux-and-gnu.html | 101 +- .../blog/articles/en/linux-gnu-freedom.html | 98 +- .../blog/articles/en/loyal-computers.html | 35 +- .../blog/articles/en/luispo-rms-interview.html | 48 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/manifesto.html | 157 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/mcvoy.html | 30 +- .../blog/articles/en/microsoft-antitrust.html | 33 +- .../blog/articles/en/microsoft-new-monopoly.html | 37 +- .../blog/articles/en/microsoft-old.html | 39 +- .../blog/articles/en/microsoft-verdict.html | 47 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/microsoft.html | 45 +- .../articles/en/misinterpreting-copyright.html | 56 +- .../articles/en/moglen-harvard-speech-2004.html | 152 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/motif.html | 58 +- .../blog/articles/en/ms-doj-tunney.html | 39 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/my_doom.html | 52 +- .../blog/articles/en/netscape-npl-old.html | 36 +- .../blog/articles/en/netscape-npl.html | 40 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/netscape.html | 39 +- .../en/network-services-arent-free-or-nonfree.html | 30 +- .../blog/articles/en/new-monopoly.html | 65 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/nit-india.html | 81 +- .../blog/articles/en/no-ip-ethos.html | 91 +- .../blog/articles/en/no-word-attachments.html | 53 +- .../blog/articles/en/nonfree-games.html | 45 +- .../blog/articles/en/nonsoftware-copyleft.html | 90 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/not-ipr.html | 49 +- .../articles/en/open-source-misses-the-point.html | 160 +- .../blog/articles/en/opposing-drm.html | 49 +- .../blog/articles/en/ough-interview.html | 58 +- .../blog/articles/en/patent-practice-panel.html | 56 +- .../articles/en/patent-reform-is-not-enough.html | 44 +- .../blog/articles/en/ph-breadcrumb.html | 131 + .../blog/articles/en/philosophy.html | 88 +- .../blog/articles/en/phone-anonymous-payment.html | 22 +- .../blog/articles/en/pirate-party.html | 41 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/plan-nine.html | 46 +- .../blog/articles/en/posting-videos.html | 20 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/practical.html | 36 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/pragmatic.html | 38 +- .../blog/articles/en/privacyaction.html | 36 +- .../en/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.html | 67 +- .../blog/articles/en/pronunciation.html | 45 +- .../blog/articles/en/protecting.html | 36 +- .../blog/articles/en/public-domain-manifesto.html | 51 +- .../blog/articles/en/push-copyright-aside.html | 70 +- .../blog/articles/en/reevaluating-copyright.html | 202 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rieti.html | 49 +- .../blog/articles/en/right-to-read.html | 116 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-aj.html | 53 +- .../articles/en/rms-comment-longs-article.html | 53 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-hack.html | 85 +- .../blog/articles/en/rms-interview-edinburgh.html | 375 +- .../articles/en/rms-kernel-trap-interview.html | 44 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-kol.html | 112 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-lisp.html | 144 +- .../blog/articles/en/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html | 284 +- .../blog/articles/en/rms-on-radio-nz.html | 189 +- .../blog/articles/en/rms-patents.html | 42 +- .../articles/en/rms-pavia-doctoral-address.html | 310 ++ .../blog/articles/en/rtlinux-patent.html | 38 +- .../blog/articles/en/savingeurope.html | 39 +- .../blog/articles/en/saying-no-even-once.html | 18 +- .../blog/articles/en/second-sight.html | 68 +- .../blog/articles/en/self-interest.html | 61 +- .../blog/articles/en/selling-exceptions.html | 42 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/selling.html | 37 +- .../blog/articles/en/shouldbefree.html | 69 +- .../blog/articles/en/social-inertia.html | 26 +- .../en/software-libre-commercial-viability.html | 110 +- .../articles/en/software-literary-patents.html | 44 +- .../blog/articles/en/software-patents.html | 141 +- .../blog/articles/en/speeches-and-interview.html | 1153 ++++-- .../blog/articles/en/speeches-and-interviews.html | 817 ++++ .../blog/articles/en/stallman-kth.html | 296 +- .../blog/articles/en/stallman-mec-india.html | 4184 ++++++++++---------- .../blog/articles/en/stallmans-law.html | 22 +- .../blog/articles/en/stophr3028.html | 49 +- .../blog/articles/en/sun-in-night-time.html | 70 +- .../blog/articles/en/surveillance-testimony.html | 30 +- .../articles/en/surveillance-vs-democracy.html | 191 +- .../blog/articles/en/technological-neutrality.html | 33 +- .../blog/articles/en/the-danger-of-ebooks.html | 54 +- .../blog/articles/en/the-law-of-success-2.html | 237 +- .../blog/articles/en/the-root-of-this-problem.html | 59 +- .../blog/articles/en/thegnuproject.html | 248 +- .../blog/articles/en/third-party-ideas.html | 112 +- .../blog/articles/en/trivial-patent.html | 49 +- .../blog/articles/en/ubuntu-spyware.html | 36 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/ucita.html | 62 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/udi.html | 50 +- .../blog/articles/en/university.html | 48 +- .../blog/articles/en/upgrade-windows.html | 22 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/uruguay.html | 56 +- .../blog/articles/en/use-free-software.html | 44 +- .../blog/articles/en/using-gfdl.html | 38 +- .../blog/articles/en/vaccination.html | 72 +- .../blog/articles/en/w3c-patent.html | 52 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/wassenaar.html | 39 +- .../blog/articles/en/whats-wrong-with-youtube.html | 44 +- .../articles/en/when-free-depends-on-nonfree.html | 34 +- ...en-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.html | 27 +- .../en/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html | 81 +- .../blog/articles/en/why-audio-format-matters.html | 80 +- .../blog/articles/en/why-call-it-the-swindle.html | 28 +- .../blog/articles/en/why-copyleft.html | 32 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/why-free.html | 46 +- .../blog/articles/en/why-gnu-linux.html | 66 +- .../articles/en/why-programs-should-be-shared.html | 36 +- .../en/wipo-PublicAwarenessOfCopyright-2002.html | 34 +- .../blog/articles/en/words-to-avoid.html | 201 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/wsis-2003.html | 39 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/wsis.html | 70 +- .../blog/articles/en/wwworst-app-store.html | 19 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/x.html | 28 +- .../blog/articles/en/yes-give-it-away.html | 36 +- .../en/your-freedom-needs-free-software.html | 70 +- 212 files changed, 13877 insertions(+), 8887 deletions(-) create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/first-hackers-conference-1984.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/gnu-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/ph-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-pavia-doctoral-address.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/speeches-and-interviews.html (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en') diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/15-years-of-free-software.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/15-years-of-free-software.html index ec36cc4..2f40fd2 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/15-years-of-free-software.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/15-years-of-free-software.html @@ -1,5 +1,8 @@ - + + + + 15 Years of Free Software - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

15 Years of Free Software

-

- by Richard M. Stallman -

+

It is now just over 15 years since the beginning of the Free @@ -81,10 +86,11 @@ freedom for computer users, as well as developments affecting the GNU/Linux operating system.

+
- + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/ICT-for-prosperity.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/ICT-for-prosperity.html index 13e6649..b2ef491 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/ICT-for-prosperity.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/ICT-for-prosperity.html @@ -1,35 +1,42 @@ - + + + + Shaping Collaborative ICT Development and Initiatives for Global Prosperity - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation - + + + +

Shaping Collaborative ICT Development and Initiatives for Global Prosperity

-

-by Robert J. Chassell -

+ +

-[From a presentation given at the -Second Global Knowledge Conference
-in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on 7 March 2000.] +Second Global Knowledge Conference +in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on 7 March 2000.

+
+

-The title of this presentation is ‘Shaping +The title of this presentation is “Shaping Collaborative ICT Development and Initiatives for Global -Prosperity’ and the themes of this conference are -‘access’, ‘empowerment’ and -‘governance’. +Prosperity” and the themes of this conference are +“access,” “empowerment” and +“governance.”

What I want to do today is take one specific technology and talk about @@ -40,7 +47,7 @@ use the technology for better governance.

The technology is software. The shaping has to do with copyright -licensing terms — its legal and institutional framework. +licensing terms—its legal and institutional framework.

As a founder of the Free Software Foundation, I have been working for @@ -110,7 +117,7 @@ an Oxfam group that did this. People with older machines, even with the very old 80386 chips, can run efficient programs that do as much as programs that require a modern Pentium chip and expensive memory. And they can use these -machines as servers for Web pages and as routers — for +machines as servers for Web pages and as routers—for communications' infrastructure.

@@ -151,7 +158,7 @@ audio and listen to it.

All these applications came on a CD-ROM that was, as it happens, given me at no charge. I have also paid for CDs with a different version of -the software — sometimes it is more convenient just to buy. And +the software—sometimes it is more convenient just to buy. And if you have a fast Internet connection, you can readily download the software, paying only your connection costs.

@@ -185,7 +192,7 @@ First, the right to copy.

Not many people own a factory that would enable them to copy a car. Indeed, to copy a car is so difficult that we use a different word, we -speak of ‘manufacturing’ a car. And there are not many +speak of “manufacturing” a car. And there are not many car manufacturers in the world. Far fewer than one in thirty people own or have ready access to a car factory.

@@ -193,7 +200,7 @@ own or have ready access to a car factory. But everyone with a computer owns a software factory, a device for manufacturing software, that is to say, for making new copies. Because copying software is so easy, we don't use the word -‘manufacturing’; we usually do not even think of it as a +“manufacturing”; we usually do not even think of it as a kind of manufacturing, but it is.

@@ -367,7 +374,7 @@ redistribute the software.

Because of the freedoms associated with it, this software is called -‘free software.’ +“free software.”

While I am speaking of this phrase, let me clear up a verbal issue @@ -375,41 +382,41 @@ that sometimes confuses English speakers.

The low price of free software leads some English speakers to think -that the word ‘free’ in the phrase ‘free -software’ means they can obtain it without cost. This is not +that the word “free” in the phrase “free +software” means they can obtain it without cost. This is not the definition, which is about freedom, but it is an easy misunderstanding. After all, I have been talking of frugal use of resources, software that is inexpensive.

-The English word ‘free’ has several meanings. As a -Mexican friend of mine — and leader, by the way, of a major free -software project — once said to me, +The English word “free” has several meanings. As a +Mexican friend of mine—and leader, by the way, of a major free +software project—once said to me,

-English is broken; it does not distinguish between ‘free -beer’ and ‘free speech’. +English is broken; it does not distinguish between “free +beer” and “free speech.”

-Spanish, on the other hand, distinguishes between ‘gratis’ -and ‘libre’. Free software is ‘libre’ +Spanish, on the other hand, distinguishes between “gratis” +and “libre.” Free software is “libre” software.

Likewise, the language of our hosts, Bahasa Melayu, distinguishes -between ‘pecuma’ and ‘kebebasa’. Free -software is ‘kebebasa’ software. +between “pecuma” and “kebebasa.” Free +software is “kebebasa” software.

Incidentally, Eric Raymond and Bruce Perens invented the phrase -‘open source’ a few years ago as a synonym ‘free -software’. They wanted to work around the dislike many +“open source” a few years ago as a synonym “free +software.” They wanted to work around the dislike many companies have of free markets. The phrase is popular; Eric and Bruce succeeded in their purpose.

-However, I prefer the term ‘free software’ since it better +However, I prefer the term “free software” since it better conveys the goal of freedom; the proposition that every man and woman, even a person who lives in a third world country, has the right to do first rate work, and must not be forbidden from doing so. @@ -428,7 +435,7 @@ such. Instead, and this is often not understood, a business enters the industry to make money in other ways.

-Companies and people in the ‘software industry’ do not +Companies and people in the “software industry” do not sell software itself, but services associated with software or hardware or other solutions.

@@ -529,14 +536,14 @@ There is no need to acquire expensive, new hardware to run your software.

-In conclusion — +In conclusion—

I was asked to speak on

-‘Shaping Collaborative ICT Development and -Initiatives for Global Prosperity’ +“Shaping Collaborative ICT Development and +Initiatives for Global Prosperity”

Over the past 16 years, I have worked with people who shaped software @@ -588,10 +595,11 @@ will be law abiding and honest; free software encourages that.

Free software empowers people who previously were kept out.

+
- + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/about-gnu.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/about-gnu.html index 5718a80..1d079c0 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/about-gnu.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/about-gnu.html @@ -1,21 +1,20 @@ - -About the GNU Operating System +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 --> +<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html --> +<!--#set var="TAGS" value="gnu" --> +<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" --> +<title>GNU in a Nutshell - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation -

About the GNU Operating System

- -
-

The name “GNU” is a recursive acronym for “GNU's Not -Unix!”; it is pronounced as -one syllable with a hard g.

-
- -

[Other historical and general articles about -GNU.]

- -

GNU was launched by Richard Stallman (rms) in 1983, as an + + + +

+

GNU in a Nutshell

+
+ +

GNU [1] was launched by Richard Stallman (rms) in 1983, as an operating system which would be put together by people working together for the freedom of all software users to control their computing. rms remains the Chief GNUisance today.

@@ -31,7 +30,7 @@ But unlike Unix, GNU gives its users freedom.

Completely free system distributions (“distros”) meeting this goal are available today, many using the Linux-libre kernel (the Linux-libre kernel (the relationship between GNU and the Linux kernel is described more fully elsewhere). The GNU packages have been designed to @@ -50,10 +49,10 @@ today, and there are many ways to contribute, both technical and non-technical. GNU developers gather from time to time in GNU Hackers Meetings, sometimes as part of the larger free software community LibrePlanet conferences.

+href="https://libreplanet.org/">LibrePlanet conferences.

GNU has been supported in several ways by the Free Software Foundation, the nonprofit +href="https://www.fsf.org/">Free Software Foundation, the nonprofit organization also founded by rms to advocate free software ideals. Among other things, the FSF accepts copyright assignments and disclaimers, so it can act in court on behalf of GNU programs. (To be @@ -65,10 +64,18 @@ the copyright, enforcement will be up to you.)

The ultimate goal is to provide free software to do all of the jobs computer users want to do—and thus make proprietary software a thing of the past.

+
+ +

Footnote

+
    +
  1. “GNU” is pronounced as one syllable with a hard g.
  2. +
+
- - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/amazon-rms-tim.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/amazon-rms-tim.html index 55a4146..b21409c 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/amazon-rms-tim.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/amazon-rms-tim.html @@ -1,55 +1,66 @@ - -Amazon letter from RMS to Tim O'Reilly +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 --> +<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html --> +<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays laws patents" --> +<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" --> +<title>Amazon Letter from RMS to Tim O'Reilly - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

Letter from RMS to Tim O'Reilly

-

-Here's a message that Richard +

+

Here's a message that Richard M. Stallman sent to Tim O'Reilly on March 11, 2000, in regard to the statement by Jeff Bezos, CEO -of Amazon, which called for software patents to last just 3 or 5 years.

+of Amazon, which called for software patents to last just 3 or 5 years.

+
+

Please read more about this boycott.

Please also support us by making a link from your own home -page and sites to +page and sites to
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/amazon.html!

+
+
-
+

The idea that software patents should last 3 or 5 years has been proposed for a decade now, as a compromise that would eliminate most of the harm that software patents now do. Support for this idea from Jeff Bezos is a good thing, since it may bring us a step closer to action by Congress. Congratulations for helping to bring this about. - +

But such a law is far from imminent, and in the mean time, Amazon is still responsible for its actions. - +

We singled out Amazon for a boycott, among the thousands of companies that have obtained software patents, because Amazon is among the few that have gone so far as to actually sue someone. That makes them an egregious offender. Most software patent holders say they have -software patents "for defensive purposes", to press for +software patents “for defensive purposes.” to press for cross-licensing in case they are threatened with patent lawsuits. Since this is a real strategy for self-defense, many of these patent holders could mean what they say. But this excuse is not available for Amazon, because they fired the first shot. - +

Bezos's letter reaffirms Amazon's continuing intention to engage in unrestricted patent warfare, saying that the decision of when and -where to attack will be decided by "business reasons". I would gladly +where to attack will be decided by “business reasons.” I would gladly join Bezos in supporting a bill to limit software patents to 3 or 5 years, but I believe we must continue to criticize and boycott Amazon -until such a bill is actually adopted--or until Amazon makes some +until such a bill is actually adopted—or until Amazon makes some other suitable change in its own conduct to justify a change in ours. - +

This does not mean insisting that Amazon must go so far as to terminate its own patents. Deterrence with patents is an inadequate defense against aggressors armed with patents, but it is the only @@ -59,11 +70,12 @@ and other software patent holders should abjure the use of patents for aggression, and adopt a no-first-use policy. If Amazon does this, in an irrevocable and binding way, I would have no further criticism of Amazon. -

+

+
- + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/amazon.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/amazon.html index 70f904d..502ea8c 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/amazon.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/amazon.html @@ -1,24 +1,31 @@ - + + + + (Formerly) Boycott Amazon! - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

(Formerly) Boycott Amazon!

-
+

-The FSF decided to end its boycott of Amazon in September 2002. (We +The FSF decided to end its boycott of Amazon in September 2002. (We forgot to edit this page at the time.) We could not tell the precise result of the lawsuit against Barnes & Noble, but it did not seem to be very harmful to the defendant. And Amazon had not attacked anyone -else.

+else.

-Amazon has got a number of other menacing patents since then, but has +Amazon has got a number of other menacing patents since then, but has not as yet used them for aggression. Perhaps it will not do so. If -it does, we will take a look at how to denounce it.

+it does, we will take a look at how to denounce it.

-The rest of this page is as it was in 2001 while the boycott -was active.

+The rest of this page is as it was in 2001 while the boycott +was active.


@@ -40,7 +47,7 @@ patent (5,960,411) on an important and obvious idea for E-commerce: an idea sometimes known as one-click purchasing. The idea is that your command in a web browser to buy a certain item can carry along information about your identity. (It works by sending the -server a “cookie”, a kind of ID code that your browser +server a “cookie,” a kind of ID code that your browser received previously from the same server.)

Amazon has sued to block the use of this simple idea, showing that @@ -173,14 +180,14 @@ New information is added to the bottom of this section.

Tim O'Reilly has sent Amazon an -open +open letter disapproving of the use of this patent, stating the position about as forcefully as possible given an unwillingness to stop doing business with them.

-Richard M. Stallman has written a +Richard M. Stallman has written a letter to Tim O'Reilly in regard to the statement by Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon, which called for software @@ -204,19 +211,20 @@ obnoxious things in another courtroom, too.

See http://endsoftpatents.org for +href="https://endsoftpatents.org">endsoftpatents.org for more information about the broader issue of software patents.

- + Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility have dropped their affiliation with Amazon.

+
- - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/applying-free-sw-criteria.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/applying-free-sw-criteria.html index 9e41e56..6fd7000 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/applying-free-sw-criteria.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/applying-free-sw-criteria.html @@ -1,13 +1,19 @@ - + + + + Applying the Free Software Criteria - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation - + + + +

Applying the Free Software Criteria

-

by Richard Stallman

+

The four essential freedoms provide the criteria for whether a particular piece of code is @@ -82,7 +88,7 @@ nonfree plug-ins. When a program permits nonfree add-ons, it should at least not steer people towards using them. For instance, we choose LibreOffice over OpenOffice because OpenOffice suggests use of nonfree add-ons, while LibreOffice shuns them. We developed IceCat initially to +href="https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/IceCat">IceCat initially to avoid proposing the nonfree add-ons suggested by Firefox.

In practice, if the IceCat package explains how to run IceCat on @@ -269,10 +275,11 @@ freedom, in practice and in principle. By recommending only freedom-respecting programs, distros, and hardware products, and stating your policy, you can give much-needed support to the free software movement.

+
- + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/apsl.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/apsl.html index ad371be..7c5a627 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/apsl.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/apsl.html @@ -1,10 +1,18 @@ - + + + + FSF's Opinion on the Apple Public Source License (APSL) - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

FSF's Opinion of the Apple Public Source License (APSL) 2.0

+

The Apple Public Source License (APSL) version 2.0 qualifies as a free software license. Apple's lawyers worked with the FSF to produce a @@ -50,10 +58,11 @@ it does.

GNU-Darwin is a combination of GNU and Darwin that is supposed to include only free software.

+
- - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/basic-freedoms.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/basic-freedoms.html index 03a1bb7..5caa2ae 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/basic-freedoms.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/basic-freedoms.html @@ -1,11 +1,18 @@ - + + + + Freedom of Speech, Press and Association on the Internet - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

Freedom of Speech, Press, and Association on the Internet

- +

The Free Software Foundation supports the freedoms of speech, press, and association on the Internet. Please check out: @@ -34,14 +41,14 @@

  • - F.A.C.T.Net Inc. + F.A.C.T.Net Inc. is a non-profit Internet digest, news service, library, dialogue center, and archive dedicated to the promotion and defense of international free thought, free speech, and privacy rights.
  • - The Blue Ribbon Campaign + The Blue Ribbon Campaign for Online Freedom of Speech, Press and Association.
  • @@ -62,10 +69,11 @@ communications. +
    - diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/bill-gates-and-other-communists.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/bill-gates-and-other-communists.html index 7cff006..88abc4c 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/bill-gates-and-other-communists.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/bill-gates-and-other-communists.html @@ -1,18 +1,19 @@ - + + + + Bill Gates and Other Communists - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    Bill Gates and Other Communists

    -

    by Richard Stallman

    - -
    -

    Originally published in 2005 in -CNET -News.com.

    -
    +

    Bill Gates discussed patents with CNET under the heading of “intellectual @@ -89,11 +90,11 @@ these Communists have infiltrated even the Microsoft boardroom. Here's what Bill Gates told Microsoft employees in 1991:

    -

    “If people had understood how patents would be granted when +

    If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the -industry would be at a complete stand-still today...A future start-up +industry would be at a complete stand-still today. … A future start-up with no patents of its own will be forced to pay whatever price the -giants choose to impose.”

    +giants choose to impose.

    Mr. Gates' secret is out now—he too was a @@ -110,9 +111,17 @@ Europe. We persuaded the European Parliament once—we even got support from right-wing MEPs—and with your help we will do it again.

    +
    +
    + - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/boldrin-levine.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/boldrin-levine.html index 3959eee..2615b3c 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/boldrin-levine.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/boldrin-levine.html @@ -1,35 +1,42 @@ - + + + + Review: Boldrin and Levine, “The case against intellectual property” - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    Review: Boldrin and Levine, “The case against intellectual property”

    -

    -by Richard Stallman

    +

    - + The Case Against Intellectual Property, by Boldrin and Levine, argues on economic grounds that authors can make money by selling their work even in a world where everyone can copy.

    You've probably heard the superficial argument that “If the -program is free, you will only sell one copy”. The obvious +program is free, you will only sell one copy.” The obvious response is that today there are companies that sell thousands of copies a month. But this paper provides another response: it shows why people who are fully aware of the economic consequences of the freedom to copy would pay a high price for “the first -copy”.

    +copy.”

    The term “intellectual property” is biased and spreads confusion. The bias is easy to see—by calling copyright and -patents and trademarks “property”, it leads people to -think that criticizing them is “opposing property rights”. +patents and trademarks “property,” it leads people to +think that criticizing them is “opposing property rights.” The confusion is less evident: by lumping copyright and patents and trademarks together, it leads people to treat them as one thing, to ignore their large differences and consider them as a single issue in @@ -51,7 +58,7 @@ shows the gaps in it, gaps that the apparent simplicity tends to hide.

    I believe we should continue to reject the term “intellectual -property”. We need to call attention to the non-economic +property.” We need to call attention to the non-economic aspects of copyrights and the different non-economic aspects of patents. However, Boldrin and Levine's arguments will be useful for responding to people who insist on narrowing their values to @@ -60,10 +67,11 @@ economics.

    The paper is addressed to economists and somewhat mathematical. Popularization of its ideas would be useful.

    +
    - - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/byte-interview.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/byte-interview.html index d8626a4..603ac8e 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/byte-interview.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/byte-interview.html @@ -1,15 +1,25 @@ - + + + + BYTE Interview with Richard Stallman - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    BYTE Interview with Richard Stallman

    -

    Conducted by David Betz and Jon Edwards

    + -

    Richard Stallman discusses his public-domain Unix-compatible - software system with BYTE editors (July 1986)

    +
    +

    Richard Stallman discusses his public-domain Unix-compatible +software system with BYTE editors (July 1986).

    +
    +

    Richard Stallman has undertaken probably the most ambitious free software development project to date, the GNU system. In his GNU @@ -18,7 +28,7 @@ Stallman described GNU as a “complete Unix-compatible software system which I am writing so that I can give it away free to everyone who can use it… Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain good system software free, just like air.” (GNU is an -acronym for GNU's Not Unix; the “G” is pronounced.)

    +acronym for GNU's Not Unix; the g is pronounced.)

    Stallman is widely known as the author of EMACS, a powerful text editor that he developed at the -

    +
    diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/can-you-trust.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/can-you-trust.html index d6a504c..58de5e6 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/can-you-trust.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/can-you-trust.html @@ -1,17 +1,25 @@ - + + + + Can You Trust Your Computer? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    Can You Trust Your Computer?

    -

    by Richard Stallman

    +

    Who should your computer take its orders from? Most people think their computers should obey them, not obey someone else. With a plan -they call “trusted computing”, large media corporations +they call “trusted computing,” large media corporations (including the movie companies and record companies), together with computer companies such as Microsoft and Intel, are planning to make your computer obey them instead of you. (Microsoft's version of this @@ -141,12 +149,13 @@ situation only in terms of individual action (take it or leave it). To oppose treacherous computing, we must join together and confront the situation as a collective choice.

    -For further information about treacherous computing, see -http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/rja14/tcpa-faq.html.

    +For further information about treacherous computing, see the + +“Trusted Computing” Frequently Asked Questions.

    To block treacherous computing will require large numbers of citizens to organize. We need your help! Please support -Defective by Design, the +Defective by Design, the FSF's campaign against Digital Restrictions Management.

    Postscripts

    @@ -210,9 +219,9 @@ quotation marks, recognizing that this is somewhat of an absurdity in the context of Palladium.

    The presentation made frequent use of other terms that we frequently -associate with the context of security, such as “attack”, -“malicious code”, “spoofing”, as well as -“trusted”. None of them means what it normally means. +associate with the context of security, such as “attack,” +“malicious code,” “spoofing,” as well as +“trusted.” None of them means what it normally means. “Attack” doesn't mean someone trying to hurt you, it means you trying to copy music. “Malicious code” means code installed by you to do what someone else doesn't want your machine to @@ -261,16 +270,16 @@ is harmless only because it failed in the attempt to make remote attestation feasible. We must not presume that all future attempts will fail too.

    -
    - -

    This essay is published -in Free +


    +
    +M. Stallman.

    + - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/categories.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/categories.html index 5c4dbcb..75826d1 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/categories.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/categories.html @@ -1,32 +1,40 @@ - + + + + Categories of Free and Nonfree Software - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation - + -

    Categories of free and nonfree software

    - -

    Also see Confusing - Words which You Might Want to Avoid.

    + + + +
    +

    Categories of Free and Nonfree Software

    -

    +

     [Categories of software] -

    - -

    This diagram, originally by Chao-Kuei and updated by several +

    + This diagram, originally by Chao-Kuei and updated by several others since, explains the different categories of software. It's available as a Scalable Vector Graphic and as an XFig document, under the terms of any of the GNU GPL v2 or later, the GNU FDL v1.2 or later, or the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike v2.0 or later.

    +
    + +

    Free software

    @@ -69,7 +77,7 @@

    Many languages have two separate words for “free” as in freedom and “free” as in zero price. For example, French has “libre” and - “gratuit”. Not so English; there is a word + “gratuit.” Not so English; there is a word “gratis” that refers unambiguously to price, but no common adjective that refers unambiguously to freedom. So if you are speaking another language, we suggest you translate @@ -122,7 +130,7 @@ mean “free” or “available gratis.” However, “public domain” is a legal term and means, precisely, “not - copyrighted”. For clarity, we recommend using + copyrighted.” For clarity, we recommend using “public domain” for that meaning only, and using other terms to convey the other meanings.

    @@ -162,7 +170,7 @@ However, in actual practice nearly all copylefted software uses the GNU General Public License. Two different copyleft licenses are usually - “incompatible”, which means it is illegal to merge + “incompatible,” which means it is illegal to merge the code using one license with the code using the other license; therefore, it is good for the community if people use a single copyleft license.

    @@ -180,7 +188,7 @@ a proprietary software product.

    -

    The X Window System +

    The X Window System illustrates this. The X Consortium released X11 with distribution terms that made it noncopylefted free software, and subsequent developers have mostly followed the @@ -247,13 +255,13 @@

    “GNU programs” is equivalent to GNU software. A program Foo is a GNU program if it is GNU software. We also sometimes say it - is a “GNU package”.

    + is a “GNU package.”

    GNU software

    GNU software is - software that is released under the auspices of the GNU Project. If a program is GNU + software that is released under the auspices of the GNU Project. If a program is GNU software, we also say that it is a GNU program or a GNU package. The README or manual of a GNU package should say it is one; also, the Free Software @@ -264,9 +272,9 @@ all GNU software must be free software.

    -

    Some GNU software was written by staff of - the Free Software +

    Some GNU software was written by staff of + the Free Software Foundation, but most GNU software comes from many volunteers. (Some of these volunteers are paid by companies or universities, but they are @@ -298,9 +306,9 @@

    Proprietary software is another name for nonfree software. In the past we subdivided nonfree software into - “semifree software”, which could be modified and + “semifree software,” which could be modified and redistributed noncommercially, and “proprietary - software”, which could not be. But we have dropped that + software,” which could not be. But we have dropped that distinction and now use “proprietary software” as synonymous with nonfree software.

    @@ -402,16 +410,11 @@ software is possible. You can do this by making an effort not to say “commercial” when you mean “proprietary.”

    +
    - - - - - - - - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/compromise.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/compromise.html index 9887f7a..9559993 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/compromise.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/compromise.html @@ -1,67 +1,38 @@ - + + + + Avoiding Ruinous Compromises - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation - +--> + + + +

    Avoiding Ruinous Compromises

    -

    “Twenty-five years +

    Twenty-five years ago on September 27, 1983, I announced a plan to create a completely free operating system -called GNU—for ‘GNU's Not Unix’. As part of the +called GNU—for “GNU's Not Unix.” As part of the 25th anniversary of the GNU system, I have written this article on how our community can avoid ruinous compromises. In addition to avoiding such compromises, there are many ways you can help GNU and free software. One way is to say no to the use of a nonfree program or an online disservice as often as you can or -even once.”—Richard Stallman

    - +even once.

    +

    The free software movement aims for a social change: to make all software @@ -71,13 +42,16 @@ unjust power over the users. Our goal is to put an end to that injustice.

    The road to freedom -is +is a long road. It will take many steps and many years to reach a world in which it is normal for software users to have freedom. Some of these steps are hard, and require sacrifice. Some of them become easier if we make compromises with people that have different goals.

    -

    Thus, the Free Software + [GPL Logo]  + +

    Thus, the Free Software Foundation makes compromises—even major ones. For instance, we made compromises in the patent provisions of version 3 of the GNU General Public License @@ -85,7 +59,8 @@ the GNU General Public License GPLv3-covered software and thus bring some patents under the effect of these provisions.

    - [GPLv3 Logo] + [LGPL Logo] 

    The Lesser GPL's purpose is a compromise: we use it on certain chosen free libraries to permit their @@ -144,13 +119,15 @@ values, and this affirms and reinforces them. That's why we do not advocate open source.

    +
     [Levitating Gnu with a laptop] + alt=" [Levitating Gnu with a laptop] " /> +

    To establish a free community fully and lastingly, we need to do more than get people to use some free software. We need to spread the idea of judging software (and other things) on “citizen -values”, based on whether it respects users' freedom and +values,” based on whether it respects users' freedom and community, not just in terms of convenience. Then people will not fall into the trap of a proprietary program baited by an attractive, convenient feature.

    @@ -207,10 +184,10 @@ reinforce consumer values. We must reject these compromises if we wish to keep our values straight.

    If you want to move to free software without compromising the goal -of freedom, look at the FSF's +of freedom, look at the FSF's resources area. It lists hardware and machine configurations that work with free software, totally free -GNU/Linux distros to install, and +GNU/Linux distros to install, and thousands of free software packages that work in a 100 percent free software environment. If you want to help the community stay on the road to freedom, one important way is to publicly uphold citizen @@ -226,13 +203,14 @@ but beware of compromises that lead away from the goal.

    For a similar point in a different area of life, see +href="https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/19/nudge-is-not-enough-behaviour-change"> “Nudge” is not enough.

    +
    - - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/contradictory-support.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/contradictory-support.html index a043369..5cb7506 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/contradictory-support.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/contradictory-support.html @@ -1,13 +1,20 @@ - + + + + Beware of Contradictory “Support” - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    Beware of Contradictory “Support”

    -

    by Richard Stallman

    +

    There are organizations that proclaim support for free software or the GNU Project, and teach classes in use of nonfree software.

    @@ -50,10 +57,11 @@ choose free software, not legitimize nonfree software.

    teacher, that gives you an opportunity to say no for a change.

    +
    - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/copyright-and-globalization.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/copyright-and-globalization.html index 70b46e9..2d8681b 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/copyright-and-globalization.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/copyright-and-globalization.html @@ -1,28 +1,35 @@ - + + + + Copyright and Globalization in the Age of Computer Networks - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    Copyright and Globalization in the Age of Computer Networks

    -

    -The following is an edited transcript from a speech given +

    +

    The following is an edited transcript from a speech given at MIT in -the Communications Forum on Thursday, April 19, 2001 from 5:00pm - -7:00pm

    +the Communications Forum on Thursday, April 19, 2001.

    +
    +

    DAVID THORBURN, moderator: Our speaker today, Richard Stallman, is a legendary figure in the computing world, and my experience in trying to find a respondent to share the podium with him was -instructive. One distinguished MIT professor told me +instructive. One distinguished MIT professor told me that Stallman needs to be understood as a charismatic figure in a -biblical parable — a kind of Old Testament anecdote-lesson. -“Imagine,” he said, “a Moses or a Jeremiah — -better a Jeremiah.” And I said, “Well, that's very -admirable.”

    -

    +biblical parable—a kind of Old Testament anecdote-lesson. +“Imagine,” he said, “a Moses or a Jeremiah—better +a Jeremiah.” And I said, “Well, that's very +admirable. That sounds wonderful. It confirms my sense of the kind of contribution he has made to the world. Then why are you reluctant to share the podium with him?” His answer: “Like Jeremiah or @@ -63,7 +70,7 @@ free?”

    Well, what does that mean? Should you be free to copy it and change it? Well, as for changing it, if you buy the microphone, nobody is going to stop you from changing it. And as for copying it, nobody has -a microphone copier. Outside of “Star Trek,” those things +a microphone copier. Outside of Star Trek, those things don't exist. Maybe some day there'll be nanotechnological analyzers and assemblers, and it really will be possible to copy a physical object, and then these issues of whether you're free to do that will @@ -101,8 +108,8 @@ They knew, say, that this play was written by Sophocles but in between writing a book and copying a book, there were other useful things you could do. For instance, you could copy a part of a book, then write some new words, copy some more and write some new words and on and on. -This was called “writing a commentary” — that was a -common thing to do — and these commentaries were +This was called “writing a commentary”—that was a +common thing to do—and these commentaries were appreciated.

    You could also copy a passage out of one book, then write some other @@ -192,8 +199,8 @@ the benefit of more books' being written and published.

    Now, is this an advantageous trade? Well, when the general public can't make copies because they can only be efficiently made on -printing presses — and most people don't own printing presses -— the result is that the general public is trading away a +printing presses—and most people don't own printing presses—the +result is that the general public is trading away a freedom it is unable to exercise, a freedom that is of no practical value. So if you have something that is a byproduct of your life and it's useless and you have the opportunity to exchange it for something @@ -229,8 +236,8 @@ computer, the publishers consider restricting you to be their highest priority. Copyright was easy to enforce because it was a restriction only on publishers who were easy to find and what they published was easy to see. Now the copyright is a restriction on each and everyone -of you. To enforce it requires surveillance — an intrusion -— and harsh punishments, and we are seeing these being enacted +of you. To enforce it requires surveillance—an intrusion—and +harsh punishments, and we are seeing these being enacted into law in the U.S. and other countries.

    And copyright used to be, arguably, an advantageous trade for the @@ -265,7 +272,7 @@ maybe it would take 10 or 20 years before we all switched to e-books. Clearly, this kind of campaign comes from somebody paying for it. Now why are they doing that? I think I know. The reason is that e-books are the opportunity to take away some of the residual freedoms that -readers of printed books have always had and still have — the +readers of printed books have always had and still have—the freedom, for instance, to lend a book to your friend or borrow it from the public library or sell a copy to a used bookstore or buy a copy anonymously, without putting a record in the database of who bought @@ -286,8 +293,8 @@ taken away and when they might have fought back to retain them.

    We see at the same time efforts to take away people's freedom in using other kinds of published works. For instance, movies that are on DVDs -are published in an encrypted format that used to be secret — it -was meant to be secret — and the only way the movie companies +are published in an encrypted format that used to be secret—it +was meant to be secret—and the only way the movie companies would tell you the format, so that you could make a DVD player, was if you signed a contract to build certain restrictions into the player, with the result that the public would be stopped even from fully @@ -316,8 +323,8 @@ not surprising when you consider why the Digital Millennium Copyright Act was passed in the first place. The reason is the campaign finance system that we have in the U.S., which is essentially legalized bribery where the candidates are bought by business before they even -get elected. And, of course, they know who their master is — -they know whom they're working for — and they pass the laws to +get elected. And, of course, they know who their master is—they +know whom they're working for—and they pass the laws to give business more power.

    What will happen with that particular battle, we don't know. But @@ -329,14 +336,14 @@ distributing information that's been published.

    The U.S. though is not the first country to make a priority of this. The Soviet Union treated it as very important. There this -unauthorized copying and redistribution was known as Samizdat and to +unauthorized copying and redistribution was known as samizdat and to stamp it out, they developed a series of methods: First, guards watching every piece of copying equipment to check what people were copying to prevent forbidden copying. Second, harsh punishments for anyone caught doing forbidden copying. You could be sent to Siberia. Third, soliciting informers, asking everyone to rat on their neighbors and co-workers to the information police. Fourth, collective -responsibility — You! You're going to watch that group! If I +responsibility—You! You're going to watch that group! If I catch any of them doing forbidden copying, you are going to prison. So watch them hard. And, fifth, propaganda, starting in childhood to convince everyone that only a horrible enemy of the people would ever @@ -429,7 +436,7 @@ interfering with their profits in the other country. So foreign companies have more power than citizens of the country.

    There are attempts being made to extend this -beyond NAFTA. For instance, this is one of the goals of +beyond NAFTA. For instance, this is one of the goals of the so-called free trade area of the Americas, to extend this principle to all the countries in South America and the Caribbean as well, and the multilateral agreement on investment was intended to @@ -543,24 +550,24 @@ works is not a socially useful activity. And so verbatim copying is the only thing that people really need to be allowed to do.

    The next question is: Should people have the right to do commercial -verbatim copying? Or is non-commercial enough? You see, these are +verbatim copying? Or is noncommercial enough? You see, these are two different activities we can distinguish, so that we can consider -the questions separately — the right to do non-commercial +the questions separately—the right to do noncommercial verbatim copying and the right to do commercial verbatim copying. Well, it might be a good compromise policy to have copyright cover commercial verbatim copying but allow everyone the right to do -non-commercial verbatim copying. This way, the copyright on the -commercial verbatim copying, as well as on all modified versions -— only the author could approve a modified version — would +noncommercial verbatim copying. This way, the copyright on the +commercial verbatim copying, as well as on all modified versions—only +the author could approve a modified version—would still provide the same revenue stream that it provides now to fund the writing of these works, to whatever extent it does.

    -By allowing the non-commercial verbatim copying, it means the +By allowing the noncommercial verbatim copying, it means the copyright no longer has to intrude into everybody's home. It becomes an industrial regulation again, easy to enforce and painless, no longer requiring draconian punishments and informers for the sake of -its enforcement. So we get most of the benefit — and avoid most -of the horror — of the current system.

    +its enforcement. So we get most of the benefit—and avoid most +of the horror—of the current system.

    The third category of works is aesthetic or entertaining works, where the most important thing is just the sensation of looking at the @@ -621,7 +628,7 @@ the sale. The same publishers that are demanding total power over the public in the name of the authors and musicians are giving those authors and musicians the shaft all the time.

    -I recommend you read Courtney Love's article in “Salon” +I recommend you read Courtney Love's article in Salon magazine, an article about pirates that plan to use musicians' work without paying them. These pirates are the record companies that pay musicians 4% of the sales figures, on the average. Of course, the @@ -805,7 +812,7 @@ participating, it might work.

    The other thing is, we do not have this digital cash payment system; so we can't really try it today. You could try to do something a little bit like it. There are services you can sign up for where you -can pay money to someone — things like PayPal. But before you +can pay money to someone—things like PayPal. But before you can pay anyone through PayPal, you have to go through a lot of rigmarole and give them personal information about you, and they collect records of whom you pay. Can you trust them not to misuse @@ -826,7 +833,7 @@ copy the tapes. They didn't even lose their record sales.

    We are gradually moving from the age of the printing press to the age of the computer network, but it's not happening in a day. People are still buying lots of records, and that will probably continue for many -years — maybe forever. As long as that continues, simply having +years—maybe forever. As long as that continues, simply having copyrights that still apply to commercial sales of records ought to do about as good a job of supporting musicians as it does today. Of course, that's not very good, but, at least, it won't get any @@ -853,9 +860,9 @@ this.”

    Well, clearly, that's not the way to make the public feel like sending you money. You've got to make them love you, not fear you.

    -SPEAKER: The details were that he required a certain percentage -— I don't know the exact percentage, around 90% sounds correct -— of people to send a certain amount of money, which, I believe, +SPEAKER: The details were that he required a certain percentage—I +don't know the exact percentage, around 90% sounds correct—of +people to send a certain amount of money, which, I believe, was a dollar or two dollars, or somewhere in that order of magnitude. You had to type in your name and your e-mail address and some other information to get to download it and if that percentage of people was @@ -869,7 +876,7 @@ plagiarizing?

    STALLMAN: No. That's not what I proposed. Remember, I'm proposing that there should be copyright covering commercial distribution and -permitting only verbatim redistribution non-commercially. So anyone +permitting only verbatim redistribution noncommercially. So anyone who modified it to put in a pointer to his website, instead of a pointer to the real author's website, would still be infringing the copyright and could be sued exactly as he could be sued today.

    @@ -884,8 +891,8 @@ copyright powers, not abolish them.

    THORBURN: I guess one question that occurred to me while you were speaking, Richard, and, again, now when you're responding here to this question is why you don't consider the ways in which the -computer, itself, eliminates the middle men completely — in the -way that Stephen King refused to do — and might establish a +computer, itself, eliminates the middle men completely—in the +way that Stephen King refused to do—and might establish a personal relationship.

    STALLMAN: Well, they can and, in fact, this voluntary donation @@ -989,7 +996,7 @@ economy and the laws. So, in effect, it's a chicken-or-the-egg problem, you know. Which do we do first? How do we get the world where people don't have to desperately get money except by removing the control by business? And how can we remove the control by -business except — Anyway, I don't know, but that's why I'm +business except—Anyway, I don't know, but that's why I'm trying to propose first a compromise copyright system and, second, the voluntary payment supported by a compromise copyright system as a way to provide a revenue stream to the people who write those works.

    @@ -1035,7 +1042,7 @@ teacher of media, my access to images has been restricted in recent years in a way that had never been in place before. If I write an essay in which I want to use still images, even from films, they are much harder to get permission to use, and the prices charged to use -those still images are much higher — even when I make arguments +those still images are much higher—even when I make arguments about intellectual inquiry and the legal category of “fair use.” So I think, in this moment of extended transformation, the longer-term prospects may, in fact, not be as disturbing as what's @@ -1079,7 +1086,7 @@ machine. So maybe that's what affected their thinking.

    care to lay out for us?

    STALLMAN: Well, the idea of giving everyone permission for -non-commercial verbatim copying of two kinds of works, certainly, may +noncommercial verbatim copying of two kinds of works, certainly, may be thought of as extending what fair use is. It's bigger than what's fair use currently. If your idea is that the public trades away certain freedoms to get more progress, then you can draw the line at @@ -1091,18 +1098,18 @@ entertainment fields, we have the concept of a public presentation. So, for example, copyright does not prevent us from singing Christmas carols seasonally but it prevents the public performance. And I'm wondering if it might be useful to think about instead of expanding -fair use to unlimited, non-commercial, verbatim copying, to something +fair use to unlimited, noncommercial, verbatim copying, to something less than that but more than the present concept of fair use.

    STALLMAN: I used to think that that might be enough, and then Napster convinced me otherwise because Napster is used by its users for -non-commercial, verbatim redistribution. The Napster server, itself, +noncommercial, verbatim redistribution. The Napster server, itself, is a commercial activity but the people who are actually putting -things up are doing so non-commercially, and they could have done so +things up are doing so noncommercially, and they could have done so on their websites just as easily. The tremendous excitement about, interest in, and use of Napster shows that that's very useful. So I'm convinced now that people should have the right to publicly -non-commercially, redistributed, verbatim copies of everything.

    +noncommercially, redistributed, verbatim copies of everything.

    QUESTION: One analogy that was recently suggested to me for the whole Napster question was the analogy of the public library. I @@ -1149,7 +1156,7 @@ So that's a tremendously important issue, but it's a totally different issue. There's just one area where an issue arises with patents that is actually similar to these issues of freedom to copy, and that is in the area of agriculture. Because there are certain patented things -that can be copies, more or less — namely, living things. They +that can be copies, more or less—namely, living things. They copy themselves when they reproduce. It's not necessarily exact copying; they re-shuffle the genes. But the fact is, farmers for millennia have been making use of this capacity of the living things @@ -1191,8 +1198,8 @@ This tremendously boosts it. But I don't know how much it will work in various different areas, but I think that in the area of education, when you're looking for textbooks, I think I see a way it can be done. There are a lot of teachers in the world, teachers who are not at -prestigious universities — maybe they're in high-school; maybe -they're in college — where they don't write and publish a lot of +prestigious universities—maybe they're in high-school; maybe +they're in college—where they don't write and publish a lot of things and there's not a tremendous demand for them. But a lot of them are smart. A lot of them know their subjects well and they could write textbooks about lots of subjects and share them with the world @@ -1200,7 +1207,7 @@ and receive a tremendous amount of appreciation from the people who will have learned from them.

    QUESTION: That's what I proposed. But the funny thing is, I do -know the history of education. That's what I do — educational, +know the history of education. That's what I do—educational, electronic media projects. I couldn't find an example. Do you know of one?

    @@ -1249,16 +1256,16 @@ in terms of the size of the whole job. Think in terms of the piece that you're going to do. That will show people it can be done, and so others will do other pieces.

    - -
    -

    This speech is published -in Free +


    +
    +M. Stallman.

    + - - - - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/danger-of-software-patents.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/danger-of-software-patents.html index 2b95d27..e891742 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/danger-of-software-patents.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/danger-of-software-patents.html @@ -1,15 +1,26 @@ - + + + + The Danger of Software Patents - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation - + + + +

    The Danger of Software Patents

    -

    by Richard Stallman

    -

    This is the transcript of a talk presented by Richard M. Stallman -on 8 October 2009 at Victoria University of Wellington.

    + + +
    +

    This is the transcript of a talk presented on 8 October 2009 at +Victoria University of Wellington.

    +
    +
    SF:
    @@ -25,7 +36,7 @@ at this moment because she's doing what we do in universities which is teach.

    So it's my pleasure to welcome you to the lecture “The Danger -of Software Patents”. Richard Stallman has a suite of lectures +of Software Patents.” Richard Stallman has a suite of lectures that he offers, and after discussion with Brenda, I chose this topic precisely because for the first real time in New Zealand history, we have a somewhat prolonged, but important, debate about patent law @@ -247,10 +258,10 @@ the wrong number in it. I looked in it again, and sure enough it said, started to read it to see if it was indeed the wrong patent. I read the claims, and sure enough it was the natural order recalculation patent, but it didn't use those terms. It didn't use the term -“spreadsheet”. In fact, what the patent prohibited was +“spreadsheet.” In fact, what the patent prohibited was dozens of different ways of implementing topological sort—all the ways they could think of. But I don't think it used the term -“topological sort”.

    +“topological sort.”

    So if you were writing a spreadsheet and you tried to find relevant patents by searching, you might have found a lot of patents. But you @@ -371,7 +382,7 @@ by avoiding the two patents.

    Now there is GIF format, for images. That uses the LZW algorithm also. It didn't take long for people to define another image format, called PNG, which stands for “PNG's Not -GIF”. I think it uses the gzip algorithm. And we +GIF.” I think it uses the gzip algorithm. And we started saying to people, “Don't use GIF format, it's dangerous. Switch to PNG.” And the users said, “Well, maybe some day, but the browsers don't implement it @@ -448,8 +459,10 @@ that patent is not to implement that feature. For instance, the users of the word processor Xywrite once got a downgrade in the mail, which removed a feature. The feature was that you could define a list of abbreviations. For instance, if you define “exp” as an -abbreviation for “experiment”, then if you type “exp-space“ or “exp-comma”, the “exp” would change automatically to -“experiment”.

    +abbreviation for “experiment,” then if you type +“exp-space“ or “exp-comma,” the +“exp” would change automatically to +“experiment.”

    Then somebody who had a patent on this feature threatened them, and they concluded that the only thing they could do was to take the @@ -488,7 +501,7 @@ threatened by a patent holder who wanted to make his business shut down. He sent me the patent. Claim 1 was something like “a network with a multiplicity of computers, in which each computer supports a multiplicity of games, and allows a multiplicity of game -sessions at the same time”.

    +sessions at the same time.”

    Now, I'm sure in the 1980s there was a university that set up a room with a network of workstations, and each workstation had some @@ -599,7 +612,7 @@ brilliant designer of whatever, who's been working for years by himself in his attic coming up with a better way to do whatever it is. And now that it's ready, he wants to start a business and mass-produce this thing; and because his idea is so good his company will -inevitably succeed— except for one thing: the big companies will +inevitably succeed—except for one thing: the big companies will compete with him and take all his market the away. And because of this, his business will almost certainly fail, and then he will starve.

    @@ -734,7 +747,7 @@ circumstances, so some of the time, none of them is possible; and when that happens, your project is dead.

    But lawyers in most countries tell us, “Don't try to find the -patents in advance”, and the reason is that the penalty for +patents in advance,” and the reason is that the penalty for infringement is bigger if you knew about the patent. So what they tell you is “Keep your eyes shut. Don't try to find out about the patents, just go blindly taking your design decisions, and @@ -1237,7 +1250,7 @@ a central processing unit, a memory, input/output facilities, instruction-fetching facilities, and means to perform this particular computation. In effect they've written explicitly into the patent all the parts of an ordinary computer, and then they say, “Well, -this is a physical system which we would like to patent”, but +this is a physical system which we would like to patent,” but really it's just patenting certain software on a computer. There are many subterfuges that they've used.

    @@ -1277,7 +1290,7 @@ patent. patents are to all software developers. I don't like what Microsoft does, but that's an issue that's irrelevant for this purpose. It's not good that somebody can sue a software developer and say “I -won't let you distribute such software”. +won't let you distribute such software.”
    Q.
    Obviously we live in an imperfect world, and in some cases we run @@ -1353,7 +1366,7 @@ course there were nowhere near as many computer users.

    How many computer users were there in 1982, even in the US? It was a small fraction of the public. But there were software developers. -They weren't saying, “We desperately want patents”. They +They weren't saying, “We desperately want patents.” They weren't getting sued for patent infringement after they developed their programs. But there is a bit of [economic] research that I saw that apparently software patents resulted not in an increase in @@ -1400,15 +1413,16 @@ you Richard.

    -
    -

    This speech is published -in Free +


    +
    +M. Stallman.

    + - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/dat.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/dat.html index 29ff7cb..dc1efe0 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/dat.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/dat.html @@ -1,20 +1,28 @@ - + + + + The Right Way to Tax DAT - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    The Right Way to Tax DAT

    -

    by Richard -Stallman

    + +

    [This article does not concern software, not directly. It concerns a parallel issue about sharing copies of music.]

    -

    [The article was first published in Wired magazine in 1992; the +

    [The article was first published in Wired magazine in 1992; the text has not been changed; instead, I have added notes, in square brackets and with italics or other emphasis.]

    @@ -29,6 +37,8 @@ assistance, which includes some of these ideas, is called the Global Patronage system (in French, Mécénat Global). I support both solutions; that is to say, I favor adopting either one.]

    +
    +

    Record company magnates don't like the digital audio tape recorder (DAT), which can make @@ -84,7 +94,7 @@ lawyer specializing in the field knows this is a misunderstanding, a view rejected by the American legal system.

    The stated purpose of copyright, given in the U.S. Constitution, is -to “promote the progress of science and the useful arts”. +to “promote the progress of science and the useful arts.” Progress in music means new and varied music for the public to enjoy: copyright is supposed to promote a public good, not a private one.

    @@ -337,17 +347,18 @@ In order for this alternative, or any alternative, to have a chance, we must first prevent the hasty adoption of the record company plan. To help accomplish this, please write letters to:

    -
    -

    Congressman Barney Frank
    +

    +Congressman Barney Frank
    437 Cherry St
    -West Newton, MA 02165

    -

    Senator Metzenbaum
    +West Newton, MA 02165

    +
    +Senator Metzenbaum
    United States Senate
    -Washington, DC 20510

    -

    House Subcommittee on Intellectual Property
    +Washington, DC 20510

    +
    +House Subcommittee on Intellectual Property
    House of Representatives
    -Washington, DC 20515

    -
    +Washington, DC 20515

    Urge Congress to reject the record company bill so that this and other alternatives can be properly considered. It takes just a few @@ -358,11 +369,12 @@ people's letters it can do a great deal of good.

    copies of this article. Many musicians prefer this alternative to the record company tax plan, and they are strongly motivated to act on their concern.

    +
    - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/devils-advocate.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/devils-advocate.html index dfd5482..dffc70c 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/devils-advocate.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/devils-advocate.html @@ -1,11 +1,19 @@ + + + + Devil's Advocate - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    Why the Devil's Advocate Doesn't Help Reach the Truth

    -

    by Richard Stallman

    +

    Playing the devil's advocate means challenging a position by saying what a hypothetical adversary would say. I encounter this frequently @@ -78,17 +86,18 @@ that you adopt the goal of “probing the issues.” And if you are asked how you would answer if someone else asked a hostile question, perhaps this essay is a good response.

    -
    -

    Footnote

    +
    +

    Footnote

    1. The author uses the gender-neutral third person singular pronouns “person,” “per,” and “pers.”
    +
    - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/digital-inclusion-in-freedom.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/digital-inclusion-in-freedom.html index 3f78ea9..dd2744e 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/digital-inclusion-in-freedom.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/digital-inclusion-in-freedom.html @@ -1,17 +1,23 @@ - + + + + Is Digital Inclusion a Good Thing? How Can We Make Sure It Is? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + + +

    Is Digital Inclusion a Good Thing? How Can We Make Sure It Is?

    - -

    This essay was first published in the proceedings of the ITU's 2009 -Kaleidoscope conference in Mar del Plata, Argentina.

    -
    +Richard Stallman

    INTRODUCTION

    @@ -180,21 +186,21 @@ freedom, not price.

    A program is free/libre if it gives the user these four essential freedoms:16

    -
    + - - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/drdobbs-letter.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/drdobbs-letter.html index f34fe4a..8d8aaee 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/drdobbs-letter.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/drdobbs-letter.html @@ -1,17 +1,25 @@ - + + + + Letter to the Editor of Dr. Dobb's Journal - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    Letter to the Editor of Dr. Dobb's Journal

    +

    Dear Editor,

    I am sure you don't realize how ironic it is to associate me and Tim -O'Reilly with “open source”. +O'Reilly with “open source.”

    If the House Un-American Activities Committee asked me, “Are you @@ -33,7 +41,7 @@ free software movement.

    Years later, in 1998, another group began operating under the term -“open source”. They have contributed to the free software +“open source.” They have contributed to the free software community in practical ways, but they stand for very different views. They studiously avoid the issues of freedom and principle that we raise in the free software movement; they cite only short-term @@ -72,15 +80,16 @@ Please don't lump us in with the other movement in our community.

    Sincerely,

    -

    -     Richard Stallman -President, -Free Software Foundation -

    +
    +—
    +Richard Stallman
    +President,
    +Free Software Foundation
    +
    - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/ebooks-must-increase-freedom.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/ebooks-must-increase-freedom.html index 6abe5a9..e39819d 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/ebooks-must-increase-freedom.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/ebooks-must-increase-freedom.html @@ -1,32 +1,26 @@ - + + + + E-books must increase our freedom, not decrease it - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    E-books must increase our freedom, not decrease it

    -

    by Richard -Stallman

    - -

    This essay was originally published by The Guardian, on 17 April 2012, -as “Technology -Should Help Us Share, Not Constrain Us”, with some surprise editing. This -version incorporates parts of that editing while restoring parts of the original -text.

    - -
    -

    Also consider reading -E-Books: Freedom Or Copyright.

    -
    -
    +

    I love The Jehovah Contract, and I'd like everyone else to love it too. I have lent it out at least six times over the years. Printed books let us do that.

    -

    I couldn't do that with most commercial e-books. It's “not allowed”. +

    I couldn't do that with most commercial e-books. It's “not allowed.” And if I tried to disobey, the software in e-readers has malicious features called Digital Restrictions Management (DRM, for short) to restrict reading, so it simply won't work. The e-books are encrypted so that only @@ -39,7 +33,7 @@ users can't buy a book anonymously with cash. “Kindle” books are typically available from Amazon only, and Amazon makes users identify themselves. Thus, Amazon knows exactly which books each user has read. In a country such as the UK, where you can be prosecuted for +href="https://www.stallman.org/archives/2012-mar-jun.html#07_April_2012_%28Wrong_book%29">prosecuted for possessing a forbidden book, this is more than hypothetically Orwellian.

    @@ -67,13 +61,20 @@ that's not Libre. If a Libre program had malicious features like those, some users skilled at programming would remove them, then provide the corrected version to all the other users. Users can't change non-Libre software, which makes it an ideal -instrument for exercising power over the public.

    +href="https://bostonreview.net/forum_response/root-problem-software-controlled-its-developer/"> +an ideal instrument for exercising power over the public.

    Any one of these encroachments on our freedom is reason aplenty to say no. If these policies were limited to Amazon, we'd bypass them, but the other e-book dealers' policies are roughly similar.

    + +

    What worries me most is the prospect of losing the option of printed books. The Guardian has announced “digital-only reads”: in other words, books available only at the price of freedom. I will not read @@ -121,14 +122,27 @@ to be legal, and preventing sharing is no excuse to make e-books into handcuffs for readers. If e-books mean that readers' freedom must either increase or decrease, we must demand the increase.

    -

    -Join our mailing list -about the dangers of eBooks. -

    + + + +
    - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/ebooks.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/ebooks.html index b7830ec..7c6053d 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/ebooks.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/ebooks.html @@ -1,23 +1,20 @@ - + + + + E-Books: Freedom Or Copyright - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    E-Books: Freedom Or Copyright

    -

    by Richard -Stallman

    - -

    This is a slightly modified version of an article published -in Technology Review in 2000.

    - - -
    +

    Once upon a time, in the age of the printing press, an industrial regulation was established to cover the business of writing and @@ -68,9 +65,16 @@ Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, a law giving them total legal power over almost anything a reader might do with an e-book. Even reading it without authorization is a crime.

    + +

    We still have the same old freedoms in using paper books. But if e-books replace printed books, that exception will do little good. -With “electronic ink”, which makes it possible to download +With “electronic ink,” which makes it possible to download new text onto an apparently printed piece of paper, even newspapers could become ephemeral. Imagine: no more used book stores; no more lending a book to your friend; no more borrowing one from the public @@ -108,19 +112,28 @@ as well, since that encourages society to improve them.

    Eventually, when computer networks provide an easy way to send someone a small amount of money, the whole rationale for restricting verbatim copying will go away. If you like a book, and it pops up a -box saying, “Click here to give the author one dollar”, +box saying, “Click here to give the author one dollar,” wouldn't you click? Copyright for books and music, as it applies to distributing verbatim unmodified copies, will be entirely obsolete. And not a moment too soon!

    -
    -

    Join our mailing -list about the dangers of eBooks.

    -
    + + + +
    - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/eldred-amicus.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/eldred-amicus.html index 107f3eb..28ddb50 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/eldred-amicus.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/eldred-amicus.html @@ -1,27 +1,44 @@ - + + + + FSF's Brief Amicus Curiae, Eldred v. Ashcroft - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation - + + + + +
    -

    FSF's Brief Amicus Curiae, Eldred v. Ashcroft

    - +

    FSF's Brief Amicus Curiae, Eldred v. Ashcroft

    -

    -[ This file is also available +

    +

    +[This document is also available in PostScript -and PDF formats. ] +and PDF formats.]

    +
    -

    +


    +
    +

    No. 01-618

    @@ -55,8 +72,9 @@ in Support of Petitioners

    -
      -
    • EBEN MOGLEN +
      +
      +EBEN MOGLEN
      Counsel of record
      435 West 116th Street @@ -65,12 +83,12 @@ New York, NY 10027
      (212) 854-8382

      Counsel for Amicus Curiae - -
    • -
    + +
    +
    -

    Question Presented

    +
    +

    Question Presented

    1. Did the Court of Appeals err in holding that, under the Copyright @@ -78,45 +96,47 @@ Clause, Congress may indefinitely extend the term of existing copyrights by seriatim adoption of nominally “limited” extensions?
    +
    -

    Contents

    +
    +

    Contents

    +
    + +

    Table of Authorities

    -

    +

    +

    Cases -

    +

    -

    -Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919) 10 -
    +

      +
    • Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919) 10 +
    • Darcy v. Allen, (The Case of Monopolies),
      11 Co. Rep. 84 (1603) 5 -
      +
    • Eldred v. Reno, 239 F.3d 372 (CADC 2001) 7, passim -
      +
    • Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone
      Service, Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) 7,11,12 -
      +
    • Goldstein v. California, 412 U.S. 546 (1973) 12 -
      +
    • Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation
      Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985) 9 -
      +
    • Hawaii Housing Authority v.
      Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984) 14 -
      +
    • New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) 10 -
      +
    • Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union,
      521 U.S. 844 (1997) 10 -
      +
    • San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v.
      United States Olympic Committee,
      483 U.S. 522 (1987) 9 -
      +
    • Schnapper v. Foley, 667 F.2d 102 (CADC 1981) 11 -
      +
    • Singer Mfg. Co. v. June Mfg. Co., 163 U.S. 169 (1896) 11 -
      +
    • Trademark Cases, 100 U.S. 82 (1879) 11 -
      +
    • West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette,
      319 U.S. 624 (1943) 10 -

      +
    • +
    -

    +

    Constitutions, Statutes, and Regulations -

    +

    -

    +

      +
    • U.S. Const. Art. I, §8, cl. 8 3, passim -
      +
    • U.S. Const. Amend. I 7, passim -
      +
    • U.S. Const. Amend. V 13,14 -
      +
    • Copyright Act of 1709 (Statute of Anne),
      8 Anne, c. 19 6 -
      +
    • Copyright Act of 1790, 1 Stat. 124 6 -
      +
    • Sonny Bono Copyright Term
      Extension Act, Pub. L. No. 105-298,
      Title I, 112 Stat. 2827 3, passim -
      +
    • Statute of Monopolies, 21 Jac. I, c. 3 5 -

      +
    • +
    -

    +

    Other Materials -

    +

    -

    +

      +
    • Yochai Benkler, Free as the Air to Common
      Use: First Amendment Constraints on @@ -224,42 +252,47 @@ Use: First Amendment Constraints on Enclosure of the Public Domain,
      74 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 354 (1999) 8 -
      +
    • William Blackstone, Commentaries on
      the Laws of England (1769) 5 -
      +
    • The Charter and General Laws of the Colony
      and Province of Massachusetts Bay (Boston, 1814) 6 -
      +
    • 144 Cong. Rec. H9951 (daily ed. Oct. 7, 1998) 3 -
      +
    • Thomas I. Emerson, The System of Freedom
      of Expression (1970) 9 -
      +
    • Max Farrand, The Records of the Federal
      Convention of 1787 (1937) 6 -
      +
    • George Lee Haskins, Law and Authority
      in Early Massachusetts (1960) 6 -
      +
    • Melville B. Nimmer, Does Copyright Abridge
      the First Amendment Guaranties of Free Speech
      and the Press?, 17 UCLA L. Rev. 1180 (1970) 8 -
      +
    • Mark Rose, Authors and Owners:
      The Invention of Copyright (1993) 6 -
      +
    • Cecily Violet Wedgwood, The King's Peace (1955) 5 -

      +
    • +
    +
    +
    +
    +

    No. 01-618
    @@ -293,6 +326,7 @@ in Support of Petitioners

    +

    Interest of Amicus Curiae

    @@ -393,9 +427,9 @@ our tradition demand no less.

    Argument

    -

    The Framers Intended Copyright +

    I. The Framers Intended Copyright to Be a Statutory Monopoly Awarded to Works of Authorship For A -Strictly Limited Time

    +Strictly Limited Time

    The words “for limited Times” appear in the Copyright @@ -475,9 +509,9 @@ cessation of enlargements to the public domain, capped by the statute before the Court, which postpones the reversion on every single existing copyright for decades.

    -

    The Historical Policy Embodied +

    II. The Historical Policy Embodied in the Copyright Clause is Absolutely Essential to Reconcile the -Copyright Monopoly with the System of Free Expression

    +Copyright Monopoly with the System of Free Expression

    As important as the principle of limited time is in the general @@ -579,9 +613,9 @@ and in relation to the purposes established by the Copyright Clause itself, the Court of Appeals failed in its duty to protect the invaluable interests of the system of free expression.

    -

    Indefinite Extension of the +

    A. Indefinite Extension of the Term of Monopoly on Existing Works of Authorship is Incompatible with -Both the Copyright Clause and the First Amendment
    +Both the Copyright Clause and the First Amendment

    Precisely because the creation of exclusive rights in expressions @@ -660,11 +694,11 @@ result rejected by this Court in Feist: telephone directories are undeniably “writings” in the same crabbed sense that the term extension contained in the CTEA is “limited.”

    -

    The Fifth Amendment Prohibits +

    B. The Fifth Amendment Prohibits Legislative Action Such as This With Respect to Physical Property Rights, and There Is No Constitutional Justification for Permitting What Cannot Be Done with Mere Property to be Done with Free -Expression
    +Expression

    On the logic of the Court of Appeals' holding, which is apparently @@ -728,9 +762,9 @@ law in effect at the time the particular statutory monopolies at issue were granted, had it not been for unconstitutional Congressional interference.

    -

    Particular Dangers of Abuse and +

    III. Particular Dangers of Abuse and Corruption Justify Strict Constitutional Scrutiny When the Term of -Statutory Monopolies is Extended

    +Statutory Monopolies is Extended

    During the first century of our Republic, the term of copyright was @@ -778,13 +812,11 @@ decision of the Court of Appeals should be reversed.

    Respectfully submitted. -
    -
    -

    - + + +

    - -
      +
      • 1 Counsel for both parties have consented to the filing of this brief, and those consents have been filed with the Clerk of this Court. No counsel for @@ -827,11 +859,12 @@ mandated requirement of originality: Congress cannot elect to preserve books, films, or music by conveying to the conservator a statutory monopoly of copying and distribution lasting decades.
      - +
    + - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/enforcing-gpl.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/enforcing-gpl.html index e440c0e..55a0dd6 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/enforcing-gpl.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/enforcing-gpl.html @@ -1,12 +1,21 @@ - + + + + Enforcing the GNU GPL - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    Enforcing the GNU GPL

    -

    by Eben Moglen

    + +

    10 September 2001

    Microsoft's anti-GPL offensive this summer has sparked renewed @@ -180,14 +189,19 @@ has been as unusual as our way of doing software, but that's just the point. Free software matters because it turns out that the different way is the right way after all.

    -

    +

    +
    + - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/essays-and-articles.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/essays-and-articles.html index 411352b..1051e73 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/essays-and-articles.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/essays-and-articles.html @@ -1,68 +1,89 @@ - + + - Essays and Articles - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation - + - -
    - - -
    - - - - - +

    Essays and Articles

    +
    - - +

    This page lists a series of articles describing the philosophy of the free software movement, which is the motivation for our development of the free software operating system GNU.

    -

    A list of the latest -published articles is also available.

    +

    The most important articles are marked with asterisks, and listed first +in each category. The other ones are in reverse chronological order.

    +
    -

    - -We -also - - - -keep a list of -Organizations -that Work for Freedom in -Computer Development and Electronic Communications.

    +

    About Free Software

    @@ -73,555 +94,983 @@ gasoline—in that it can be copied and changed much more easily. These possibilities make software as useful as it is; we believe software users should be able to make use of them.

    -
    - - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/fighting-software-patents.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/fighting-software-patents.html index d4c977f..af7851f 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/fighting-software-patents.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/fighting-software-patents.html @@ -1,12 +1,19 @@ - + + + + Fighting Software Patents - Singly and Together - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    Fighting Software Patents - Singly and Together

    -

    by Richard Stallman

    +

    Software patents are the software project equivalent of land mines: @@ -27,8 +34,9 @@ usually be threatened by one patent at a time. When this happens, you may be able to escape unscathed if you find legal grounds to overturn the patent. You may as well try it; if you succeed, that will mean one less mine in the mine field. If this patent is particularly -threatening to the public, the Public -Patent Foundation (pubpat.org) may take up the case; that is its +threatening to the public, the +Public Patent Foundation may take up the case; that is its specialty. If you ask for the computer-using community's help in searching for prior publication of the same idea, to use as evidence to overturn a patent, we should all respond with whatever useful @@ -47,7 +55,7 @@ Some of these mines are impossible to clear. Every software patent is harmful, and every software patent unjustly restricts how you use your computer, but not every software patent is legally invalid according to the patent system's criteria. The software patents we can overturn -are those that result from “mistakes”, where the patent +are those that result from “mistakes,” where the patent system's rules were not properly carried out. There is nothing we can do when the only relevant mistake was the policy of allowing software patents.

    @@ -77,12 +85,14 @@ this has already reversed its vote. We must all do our utmost right now to convince an additional European country to change its vote, and to convince the newly elected members of the European Parliament to stand behind the previous vote. Please refer -to www.ffii.org for more +to ffii.org for more information on how to help, and to get in touch with other activists.

    +
    + - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/fire.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/fire.html index 6537d6c..334391f 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/fire.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/fire.html @@ -1,10 +1,21 @@ - -Copyrighting fire! +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.97 --> +<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html --> +<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" --> +<title>Copyrighting Fire! - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation -

    Copyrighting fire!

    + +
    +

    Copyrighting Fire!

    + +

    I was in the pub last night, and a guy asked me for a light for his cigarette. I suddenly realised that there was a demand here and money to be @@ -18,17 +29,17 @@ for a light and to my outrage he gave his cigarette to his friend and pirated my fire! I was furious, I started to make my way over to that side of the bar but to my added horror his friend then started to light other people's cigarettes left, right, and centre! Before long that whole side of the bar -was enjoying MY fire without paying me anything. Enraged I went from person +was enjoying my fire without paying me anything. Enraged I went from person to person grabbing their cigarettes from their hands, throwing them to the ground, and stamping on them.

    Strangely the door staff exhibited no respect for my property rights as they threw me out the door.

    +
    -

    --Ian Clarke

    - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/first-hackers-conference-1984.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/first-hackers-conference-1984.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..1ec6147 --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/first-hackers-conference-1984.html @@ -0,0 +1,172 @@ + + + + + +Richard Stallman at the First Hackers Conference in 1984 +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + + + +
    +

    Richard Stallman at the First Hackers Conference in 1984

    +
    + +

    The first Hackers Conference was held in Sausalito, California, in +November 1984. The makers of the documentary Hackers: Wizards of +the Electronic Age interviewed Richard Stallman at the event. +They included only parts of the interviews in the film, but made some +other footage available. Stallman's statements at the conference went +beyond what he had written in the initial announcement of GNU.

    + +

    It was at this conference that Richard Stallman first publicly and +explicitly stated the idea that all software should be free, +and makes it clear that “free” refers to freedom, not price, +by saying that software should be freely accessible to +everyone. This was probably the first time he made that distinction to +the public.

    + +

    Stallman continues by explaining why it is wrong to agree to accept a +program on condition of not sharing it with others. So what can one +say about a business based on developing nonfree software and luring +others into accepting that condition? Such things are bad for society +and shouldn't be done at all. (In later years he used stronger +condemnation.)

    + +

    Here are the things he said:

    + +
    +

    “My project is to make all software free.”

    +
    + +
    +

    “Imagine if you bought a house and the basement was locked + and only the original building contractor had the key. If you needed + to make any change, repair anything, you'd have to go to him, and if + he was too busy doing something else he'd tell you to get lost and + you'd be stuck. You are at that person's mercy and you become + downtrodden and resigned. That's what happens when the blueprints to a + computer program are kept secret by the organization that sells it. + That's the usual way things are done.” + + Video

    +
    + +
    +

    “If I'm offered a chance to use a piece of software + provided I would agree not to share it with anyone, I feel that it + would be wrong, it would spiritually [1] + hurt me to agree. So I don't want them investing in software that's owned. + And I don't believe that anything is justified to encourage them to invest in + software that's owned. I think the really great software has been done by + hackers who were doing it because they loved it, because it was playful + cleverness, and that will continue in any case. I think there are + alternative ways of arranging for some amount of money to go into + paying salaries of people, paying them to spend their time writing + programs. If people want certain kinds of programs to be written, they + can come up with other forms of organization—I can suggest a + few—but the important thing is there are lots of alternative + ways of doing things. This one has been chosen because it gets the + people investing in software companies the most profits of any of the + available ways.” + Video

    +
    + +
    +

    “I don't think it's a social imperative to give them the + most possible profit. I think the social imperative is that + information that's developed should be accessible to everyone as freely + as possible. If we look at the principle underlying—the incentive + principle, give people incentives to do the things you wish to + encourage—and then we say, ‘what are we giving people + incentives for?’ we see that we are not giving them any + incentives to do the things that benefit society most. If a person has + a choice, he can write a program and then encourage everyone to use it + in any way that's good for him or he can write the program and then + market it hoarding the plans, telling people they are not allowed to + share it with their neighbors, being very obnoxious and obstructive. + We see he has an incentive to be obnoxious and obstructive, he doesn't + have an incentive to cooperate. I think that's sick, I think that's a + bad social organization, because we are encouraging most what's not + good for us.” + Video

    +
    + +
    + +

    Footnote

    + +

    [1] +Subsequently Stallman decided to stop using the word “spiritually,” +so that people would not think he meant to refer to anything supernatural.

    + +
    + + + + + + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/floss-and-foss.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/floss-and-foss.html index 279c88f..eeaf586 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/floss-and-foss.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/floss-and-foss.html @@ -1,11 +1,18 @@ - + + + + FLOSS and FOSS - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    FLOSS and FOSS

    -

    by Richard Stallman

    +

    The two political camps in the free software community are the free software movement and open source. The free software movement is a @@ -53,14 +60,13 @@ source, and clear about them, the way to achieve that is to say

    We in the free software movement don't use either of these terms, because we don't want to be neutral on the political question. We stand for freedom, and we show it every time—by saying -“free” and “libre”— or “free -(libre)”.

    +“free” and “libre”—or “free +(libre).”

    +
    - - - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-digital-society.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-digital-society.html index 3a73a3b..f9944a4 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-digital-society.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-digital-society.html @@ -1,21 +1,38 @@ - + + + + A Free Digital Society - What Makes Digital Inclusion Good or Bad? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + + +

    A Free Digital Society - What Makes Digital Inclusion Good or Bad?

    -

    Transcription of a lecture at Sciences Po Paris, October 19, 2011  (video)

    -
    +
    +

    Transcription of a lecture at Sciences Po Paris, October 19, 2011  (video)

    +
    -
    +

    Table of Contents

    -
      +
      • Introduction
      • Surveillance
      • Censorship
      • @@ -62,7 +79,7 @@ doing surveillance. There are features in Windows that send data to some server, data about the use of the computer. A surveillance feature was discovered in the iPhone a few months ago, and people started calling it the “spy-phone.” Flash player has a surveillance feature -too, and so does the Amazon Swindle.” They call it the Kindle, but +too, and so does the Amazon “Swindle.” They call it the Kindle, but I call it “the Swindle,” l'escroc, because it's meant to swindle users out of their freedom. It makes @@ -184,7 +201,7 @@ they do? This is a very harsh system of censorship.

        officials to arbitrarily shut down an Internet site in Spain, or impose filtering to block access to a site outside of Spain. And they can do this without any kind of trial. This was one of the motivations for the -Indignados, who have been protesting in the street.

        +Indignados, who have been protesting in the street.

        There were protests in the street in Turkey as well, after that announcement, but the government refused to change its policy.

        @@ -272,15 +289,15 @@ free, but statements of opinion are different.

        Now this leads me to the next threat which comes from software that the users don't have control over. In other words, software that isn't -free, that is not libre. In this particular point French +free, that is not libre. In this particular point French is clearer than English. The English word “free” means -libre and gratuit, but what I mean when I say -“free software” is logiciel libre. I don't mean -gratuit. I'm not talking about price. Price is a side +libre and gratuit, but what I mean when I say +“free software” is logiciel libre. I don't mean +gratuit. I'm not talking about price. Price is a side issue, just a detail, because it doesn't matter ethically. You know, if I have a copy of a program and I sell it to you for one euro or a hundred euros, who cares? Right? Why should anyone think that's good or -bad? Or suppose I gave it to you gratuitement… +bad? Or suppose I gave it to you gratuitement… Still, who cares? But whether this program respects your freedom, that's important!

        @@ -295,8 +312,8 @@ through it, has power over the users.

        So, a nonfree program is an instrument to give somebody power over a lot of other people, and this is unjust power that nobody should -ever have. This is why nonfree software (les logiciels privateurs, -qui privent de la liberté), why proprietary software is +ever have. This is why nonfree software (les logiciels privateurs, +qui privent de la liberté), why proprietary software is an injustice and should not exist; because it leaves the users without freedom.

        @@ -443,14 +460,14 @@ people to demand freedom, to be ready to stand up for their freedom the next time someone threatens to take it away.

        Nowadays, you can tell who doesn't want to discuss these ideas of -freedom because they don't say logiciel libre. They don't -say libre, they say “open source.” That term +freedom because they don't say logiciel libre. They don't +say libre, they say “open source.” That term was coined by the people like Mr Torvalds who would prefer that these ethical issues don't get raised. And so the way you can help us raise -them is by saying libre. You know, it's up to you where you +them is by saying libre. You know, it's up to you where you stand, you're free to say what you think. If you agree with them, you can say open source. If you agree with us, show it, say -libre!

        +libre!

        Free software and education

        @@ -1066,18 +1083,19 @@ Software Foundation. You can go there and find many ways you can help us, for instance. You can also become a member of the Free Software Foundation through that site. […] There is also the Free Software Foundation of Europe fsfe.org. You can join FSF Europe also. […]

        -
        -

        Footnotes

        + +

        Footnote

        1. As of 2017 the patents on playing MP3 files have reportedly expired.
        +
    - - +
    diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-hardware-designs.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-hardware-designs.html index 9e862ea..3887189 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-hardware-designs.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-hardware-designs.html @@ -1,24 +1,27 @@ - + + + + Free Hardware and Free Hardware Designs - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    Free Hardware and Free Hardware Designs

    -

    by Richard M. Stallman

    - - -
    -

    Most of this article was published in two parts in Wired in -March 2015.

    -
    + +

    To what extent do the ideas of free software extend to hardware? Is it a moral obligation to make our hardware designs free, just as it is to make our software free? Does maintaining our freedom require rejecting hardware made from nonfree designs?

    +

    Definitions

    @@ -53,7 +56,7 @@ means you can get a copy gratis. Many free programs are available for zero price, since it costs you nothing to download your own copy, but that's not what “free” means here. (In fact, some spyware programs such as Flash +href="/proprietary/proprietary-surveillance.html">Flash Player and Angry Birds are gratis although they are not free.) Saying “libre” along with “free” helps clarify the point.

    @@ -69,7 +72,7 @@ denies freedom to its users is worth less than nothing.

    We can use the term “libre hardware” as a concise equivalent for “hardware made from a free (libre) -design”.

    +design.”

    The terms “open hardware” and “open source hardware” are used by some with the same concrete meaning as @@ -113,10 +116,22 @@ consequences.

    There is a gray area between hardware and software that contains firmware that can be upgraded or replaced, but is not meant -ever to be upgraded or replaced once the product is sold. In -conceptual terms, the gray area is rather narrow. In practice, it is -important because many products fall in it. We can treat that -firmware as hardware with a small stretch.

    +ever to be upgraded or replaced once the product is sold. Or perhaps +it is possible but unusual, or the manufacturer can release a +replacement but you can't. In conceptual terms, the gray area is +rather narrow. In practice, it is important because many products +fall in it. Indeed, nowadays keyboards, cameras, disk drives and USB +memories typically contain an embedded nonfree program that could be +replaced by the manufacturer.

    + +

    We can treat that firmware as hardware with a small stretch, but we +must not try to have it both ways. If we treat certain firmware as +impossible to change, since it is not realistically possible to avoid +that firmware, we must also treat it as impossible to change when we +might wish it could be changed. That entails refusing all upgrades or +patches to that firmware. That is what I do, and this is the reason I +do it. Until we can get computers with entirely free firmware, there +is no feasible way to do better than this.

    Some have said that preinstalled firmware programs and Field-Programmable Gate Array chips (FPGAs) “blur the boundary @@ -135,8 +150,9 @@ gate pattern file that gets loaded into the FPGA is secret. For many years there was no model of FPGA for which those files could be produced without nonfree (proprietary) tools.

    -

    As of 2015, free software tools are available for -programming the Lattice +

    As of 2015, free software tools are available for +programming the Lattice iCE40, a common model of FPGA, from input written in a hardware description language (HDL). It is also possible to compile C programs and run them on the Xilinx Spartan 6 LX9 FPGA @@ -167,15 +183,15 @@ program.

    Be careful to choose 3D printers that work with exclusively free software; the Free Software Foundation endorses such +href="https://ryf.fsf.org/">endorses such printers. Some 3D printers are made from free hardware designs, but Makerbot's +href="https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/pulling-back-from-open-source-hardware-makerbot-angers-some-adherents/">Makerbot's hardware designs are nonfree.

    Must We Reject Nonfree Digital Hardware?

    -

    Is a nonfree digital (*) hardware design an +

    Is a nonfree digital [1] hardware design an injustice? Must we, for our freedom's sake, reject all digital hardware made from nonfree designs, as we must reject nonfree software?

    @@ -213,8 +229,8 @@ computer. Constructing a big circuit is a lot of painstaking work, and that's once you have the circuit board. Fabricating a chip is not feasible for individuals today; only mass production can make them cheap enough. With today's hardware technology, users can't download -and run John H Hacker's modified version of a digital hardware design, -as they could run John S Hacker's modified version of a program. +and run a modified version of a widely used digital hardware design, +as they could run a modified version of a widely used program. Thus, the four freedoms don't give users today collective control over a hardware design as they give users collective control over a program. That's where the reasoning showing that all software must be @@ -242,12 +258,6 @@ software will then apply to nonfree hardware designs too.

    That future is years away, at least. In the meantime, there is no need to reject hardware with nonfree designs on principle.

    -
    - -

    * As used here, “digital hardware” includes -hardware with some analog circuits and components in addition to -digital ones.

    -

    We Need Free Digital Hardware Designs

    Although we need not reject digital hardware made from nonfree @@ -323,9 +333,9 @@ ideal future we will want the design be free at all levels. Under present circumstances, just making one level free is a significant advance.

    -

    However, if a design at one level combines free and nonfree parts -— for example, a “free” HDL circuit that -incorporates proprietary “soft cores” — we must +

    However, if a design at one level combines free and nonfree +parts—for example, a “free” HDL circuit that +incorporates proprietary “soft cores”—we must conclude that the design as a whole is nonfree at that level. Likewise for nonfree “wizards” or “macros,” if they specify part of the interconnections of chips or programmably @@ -367,9 +377,9 @@ from the drawing. As far as copyright is concerned, everyone is free to make them and use them (and that's a freedom we need very much). In the US, copyright does not cover the functional aspects that the design describes, but does cover decorative +href="https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap13.html#1301">does cover decorative aspects. When one object has decorative aspects and functional -aspects, you get into tricky ground (*).

    +aspects, you get into tricky ground [2].

    All this may be true in your country as well, or it may not. Before producing objects commercially or in quantity, you should @@ -384,16 +394,6 @@ common. This is why the term “intellectual property” is pure confusion and should be totally rejected.

    -
    - -

    * An article by Public Knowledge gives useful information -about this -complexity, for the US, though it falls into the common mistake of -using the bogus concept of “intellectual property” and the -propaganda term “protection.”

    -

    Promoting Free Hardware Designs Through Repositories

    The most effective way to push for published hardware designs to be @@ -419,7 +419,7 @@ or any of the CC licenses.

    The repository should require all designs to be published as source code, and source code in secret formats usable only by proprietary design programs is not really adequate. For a 3D model, the STL +href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STL_%28file_format%29">STL format is not the preferred format for changing the design and thus is not source code, so the repository should not accept it, except perhaps accompanying real source code.

    @@ -442,10 +442,35 @@ manufacturer.

    free. What we need is to recognize as a community that this is what we should do and to insist on free designs when we fabricate objects ourselves.

    +
    + +

    Footnotes

    +
      +
    1. As used here, “digital hardware” includes +hardware with some analog circuits and components in addition to +digital ones.
    2. + +
    3. An article by Public Knowledge gives useful information +about this +complexity, for the US, though it falls into the common mistake of +using the bogus concept of “intellectual property” and the +propaganda term “protection.”
    4. +
    + + + +
    - - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-software-even-more-important.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-software-even-more-important.html index 8b6d676..6032bda 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-software-even-more-important.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-software-even-more-important.html @@ -1,31 +1,22 @@ - + + + + Free Software Is Even More Important Now - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + - + + + +

    Free Software Is Even More Important Now

    -
    + - - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-software-intro.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-software-intro.html index c44402c..cdb2a5b 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-software-intro.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-software-intro.html @@ -1,9 +1,16 @@ - + + + + Free Software movement - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    Free Software Movement

    @@ -31,7 +38,7 @@ publishing improved versions so that other people can use them.

    Whether a program is free software depends mainly on its license. -However, a program can also be non-free because you don't have access +However, a program can also be nonfree because you don't have access to its source code, or because hardware won't let you put a modified version into use (this is called “tivoization”).

    @@ -61,11 +68,13 @@ decline to operate under their name.

    If you think that freedom and community are important for their own sake, please join us in proudly using the term “free -software”, and help spread the word. +software,” and help spread the word.

    +
    + -
    + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-software-rocket.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-software-rocket.html index 6b58f45..9cadaf9 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-software-rocket.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-software-rocket.html @@ -1,10 +1,16 @@ - + + + Should Rockets Have Only Free Software? Free Software and Appliances - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    Should Rockets Have Only Free Software? Free Software and Appliances

    @@ -111,7 +117,7 @@ your computing activities to them, by labeling those activities as control. Even things as minutely directed by the user as text editing! This is a scheme to get you to substitute their power for your freedom. We call that “Service as a Software -Substitute”, SaaSS for short (see +Substitute,” SaaSS for short (see “Who does that server really serve?”), and we reject it.

    @@ -126,11 +132,11 @@ your copy of free software on your own computer.

    non-computational service of transporting cargoes, and you could use it sometimes; or you could choose some other method, perhaps to buy a spaceship and operate it yourself.

    - +
    - diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-world.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-world.html index 5ae9c32..0983c58 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-world.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/free-world.html @@ -1,18 +1,19 @@ - + + + + Only the Free World Can Stand Up to Microsoft - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    Only the Free World Can Stand Up to Microsoft

    -

    by Tom Hull

    - -
    -

    This article is part of our section -of Third Party -Ideas.

    -
    +
    1. The reproduction and distribution cost of software is zero at @@ -87,8 +88,8 @@ today's tasks, and which they can collaboratively build on to handle future needs. Free software is the one thing that not even Microsoft can compete with.
    2. Still, there is one core problem: who pays for developing free -software? The usual answer — which leads to all of the trouble -above — is that investors pay for development, which they +software? The usual answer—which leads to all of the trouble +above—is that investors pay for development, which they recover from their profits. The only real answer is that development costs must be paid for by users. The key point here is that what is paid for is not the distribution or use of the software, but its @@ -122,8 +123,8 @@ organizations to budget a small fraction of their annual software outlays for proposals. Set up a review group for intellectual property issues, challenge dubious claims, and investigate the feasibility of buying and releasing rights to valid claims. Encourage the -development of more local organizations — local to place, to -industry, to niche, to taste — with the initial group breaking +development of more local organizations—local to place, to +industry, to niche, to taste—with the initial group breaking up or fading away: common methods and procedures, but no centralized control.
    3. Let's call this organization, this whole framework, “The @@ -133,15 +134,16 @@ contribution. You have nothing to lose but CTL-ALT-DEL.
    -
    +

    Additional notes can be found at -http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-world-notes.html.

    +gnu.org/philosophy/free-world-notes.html.

    +
    - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/freedom-or-copyright-old.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/freedom-or-copyright-old.html index 0b55b7f..94e2157 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/freedom-or-copyright-old.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/freedom-or-copyright-old.html @@ -1,23 +1,29 @@ - + + + + Freedom—or Copyright? (Old Version) - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    Freedom—or Copyright? (Old Version)

    -
    -

    There is an

    +this article.

    +
    -

    - by Richard M. Stallman -

    - -
    +

    The brave new world of e-books: no more used book stores, no more lending a book to your friend, no more borrowing one from the public @@ -25,7 +31,7 @@ library, no purchasing a book except with a credit card that identifies what you read. Even reading an e-book without authorization is a crime.

    -
    +

    Once upon a time, in the age of the printing press, an industrial @@ -84,7 +90,7 @@ crime.

    We still have the same old freedoms in using paper books. But if e-books replace printed books, that exception will do little -good. With “electronic ink”, which makes it possible to +good. With “electronic ink,” which makes it possible to download new text onto an apparently printed piece of paper, even newspapers could become ephemeral. Imagine: no more used book stores; no more lending a book to your friend; no more borrowing one from the @@ -100,7 +106,7 @@ political issues raised by this futuristic technology. Besides, the public has been taught that copyright exists to “protect” the copyright holders, with the implication that the public's interests do not count. (The biased term -“ intellectual +“intellectual property” also promotes that view; in addition, it encourages the mistake of trying to treat several laws that are almost totally different—such as copyright law and patent law—as @@ -135,12 +141,14 @@ Eventually, when computer networks provide an easy way to send someone a small amount of money, the whole rationale for restricting verbatim copying will go away. If you like a book, and a box pops up on your computer saying “Click here to give the author one -dollar”, wouldn't you click? Copyright for books and music, as +dollar,” wouldn't you click? Copyright for books and music, as it applies to distributing verbatim unmodified copies, will be entirely obsolete. And not a moment too soon!

    + + - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/freedom-or-copyright.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/freedom-or-copyright.html index c96ddc6..44099cc 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/freedom-or-copyright.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/freedom-or-copyright.html @@ -1,17 +1,26 @@ - + + + + Freedom or Copyright? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    Freedom—or Copyright?

    +

    This essay addresses how the principles of software freedom apply in some cases to other works of authorship and art. It's included here since it involves the application of the ideas of free software.

    +

    @@ -113,7 +122,7 @@ The organizations that profit most from copyright legally exercise it in the name of the authors (most of whom gain little). They would have you believe that copyright is a natural right of authors, and that we the public must suffer it no matter how painful it is. They -call sharing “piracy”, equating helping your neighbor with +call sharing “piracy,” equating helping your neighbor with attacking a ship.

    @@ -130,17 +139,17 @@ dissatisfied with that amount and called the experiment a failure, but it looks like a success to me.) Radiohead made millions in 2007 by inviting fans to copy an album and pay what they wished, while it was also shared on peer-to-peer networks. In -2008, +2008, Nine Inch Nails released an album with permission to share copies and made $750,000 in a few days.

    The possibility of success without oppression is not limited to bestsellers. Many artists of various levels of fame now make an -adequate living through voluntary +adequate living through voluntary support: donations and merchandise purchases of their fans. Kevin Kelly estimates the artist need only find around - + 1,000 true fans.

    @@ -149,7 +158,7 @@ When computer networks provide an easy anonymous method for sending someone a small amount of money, without a credit card, it will be easy to set up a much better system to support the arts. When you view a work, there will be a button you can press saying, “Click -here to send the artist one dollar”. Wouldn't you press it, at +here to send the artist one dollar.” Wouldn't you press it, at least once a week?

    @@ -171,7 +180,7 @@ the arts.

    The Global +href="https://stallman.org/mecenat/global-patronage.html">Global Patronage proposal combines aspects of those two systems, incorporating mandatory payments with voluntary allocation among artists.

    @@ -188,10 +197,11 @@ DRM. But until we win this battle, you must protect yourself: don't buy any products with DRM unless you personally have the means to break the DRM. Never use a product designed to attack your freedom unless you can nullify the attack.

    +
    - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/freedom-or-power.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/freedom-or-power.html index a0dcc32..64967d1 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/freedom-or-power.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/freedom-or-power.html @@ -1,21 +1,28 @@ - + + + + Freedom Or Power? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + + +

    Freedom or Power?

    -

    -by Bradley M. Kuhn and Richard -M. Stallman

    + -
    +

    The love of liberty is the love of others; the love of power is the -love of ourselves.
    --- William Hazlitt

    +love of ourselves. —William Hazlitt

    @@ -75,14 +82,15 @@ freedom.

    Discussions of rights and rules for software have often concentrated on the interests of programmers alone. Few people in the world program regularly, and fewer still are owners of proprietary software -businesses. But the entire developed world now needs and uses -software, so software developers now control the way it lives, -does business, communicates, and is entertained. The ethical and +businesses. But most of humanity now uses computers (specifically, smartphones) and thus uses +software, so software developers now control the way they live, +do business, communicate, and are entertained. The ethical and political issues are not addressed by the slogan of “freedom of choice (for developers only).”

    -If “code is law,” (1) then the real question we face is: who should control the +If “code is law,” (1) then the real +question we face is: who should control the code you use—you, or an elite few? We believe you are entitled to control the software you use, and giving you that control is the goal of free software.

    @@ -94,7 +102,7 @@ us in the position of power over users of our code, whether we like it or not. The ethical response to this situation is to proclaim freedom for each user, just as the Bill of Rights was supposed to exercise government power by guaranteeing each citizen's freedoms. That is what the GNU General Public License is for: +href="/licenses/copyleft.html">GNU General Public License is for: it puts you in control of your usage of the software while protecting you from others who would like to take control of your decisions.

    @@ -105,23 +113,25 @@ they too deserve freedom, they will see the importance of the freedoms we stand for, just as more and more users have come to appreciate the practical value of the free software we have developed.

    -

    Footnotes

    - - William J. Mitchell, -City of Bits: Space, Place, and the Infobahn (Cambridge, +

    Footnote

    +
      +
    1. William J. Mitchell, +City of Bits: Space, Place, and the Infobahn (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1995), p. 111, as quoted by Lawrence Lessig in -Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, Version 2.0 (New York, NY: -Basic Books, 2006), p. 5. +Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, Version 2.0 (New York, NY: +Basic Books, 2006), p. 5.
    2. +
    -
    -

    This essay is published -in Free +


    +
    +M. Stallman.

    + - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/fs-and-sustainable-development.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/fs-and-sustainable-development.html index 882a098..359bd74 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/fs-and-sustainable-development.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/fs-and-sustainable-development.html @@ -1,17 +1,20 @@ - + + + + Free Software and Sustainable Development - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    Free Software and Sustainable Development

    -

    by Richard Stallman

    - -

    First published on -insnet.org in 2005.

    +

    Many organizations that aim to promote development by spreading the use of computers make a fundamental mistake: they promote the use of @@ -48,9 +51,17 @@ software is not development, it is electronic colonization.

    For more information on free software and the popular GNU/Linux operating system, see www.gnu.org.

    + +
    + - - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/funding-art-vs-funding-software.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/funding-art-vs-funding-software.html index 4d6a0ff..04ace5f 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/funding-art-vs-funding-software.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/funding-art-vs-funding-software.html @@ -1,14 +1,21 @@ - + + + + Funding Art vs Funding Software - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    Funding Art vs Funding Software

    -

    by Richard -Stallman

    +

    I've proposed two new systems to fund artists in a world where we have legalized sharing (noncommercial redistribution of exact copies) of @@ -27,9 +34,8 @@ works that are free.

    In my view, works designed to be used to do practical jobs must be free. The people who use them deserve to have control over the jobs they do, which requires control over the works they use to do them, -which requires the four freedoms (see -http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html). Works to do practical +which requires the four freedoms. +Works to do practical jobs include educational resources, reference works, recipes, text fonts and, of course, software; these works must be free.

    @@ -122,10 +128,11 @@ support the foundation's work, and we invite targeted donations for certain specific projects. Other free software organizations do this too.

    +
    - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/gates.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/gates.html index 0669a71..f3cdbef 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/gates.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/gates.html @@ -1,21 +1,20 @@ - + + + + It's not the Gates, it's the bars - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    It's not the Gates, it's the bars

    -

    by Richard -Stallman
    -Founder, Free Software Foundation -

    - -
    -

    (This article was published by -BBC News in 2008.)

    -
    +

    To pay so much attention to Bill Gates' retirement is missing the point. What really matters is not Gates, nor @@ -37,7 +36,7 @@ BBC News in 2008.)

    degradation and illness in the same poor countries. (2010 update: The Gates Foundation is supporting a project with agribusiness giant Cargill on a project + href="https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2010/sep/29/gates-foundation-gm-monsanto">project that could involve pushing genetically modified crops in Africa.)

    Many computerists specially hate Gates and Microsoft. They have @@ -48,7 +47,7 @@ BBC News in 2008.)

    UK, Microsoft established a major office in Gordon Brown's constituency. Both lawful, both potentially corrupting.)

    -

    Many users hate the “Microsoft tax”, the retail +

    Many users hate the “Microsoft tax,” the retail contracts that make you pay for Windows on your computer even if you won't use it. (In some countries you can get a refund, but the effort required is daunting.) There's also the Digital Restrictions @@ -77,7 +76,7 @@ BBC News in 2008.)

    yourself or for someone else, you can't. If you're a business and you want to pay a programmer to make the software suit your needs better, you can't. If you copy it to share with your friend, which is simple - good-neighbourliness, they call you a “pirate”. + good-neighbourliness, they call you a “pirate.” Microsoft would have us believe that helping your neighbour is the moral equivalent of attacking a ship.

    @@ -120,9 +119,17 @@ BBC News in 2008.)

    he helped create remain—for now. Dismantling them is up to us.

    + +
    + - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/gif.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/gif.html index 55904db..da8426a 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/gif.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/gif.html @@ -1,21 +1,32 @@ - + + + + Why There Are No GIF Files on GNU Web Pages - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + + +

    Why There Are No GIF Files on GNU Web Pages

    +
    - -

    There is no special patent threat to GIF format nowadays +

    +

    There is no special patent threat to GIF format nowadays as far as we know; the patents that were used to attack GIF have expired. Nonetheless, this article will remain pertinent as long as programs can be forbidden by patents, since the same sorts of things could happen in any area of computing. See - our web -site policies regarding GIFs, and -our web guidelines.

    - +our +website policies regarding GIFs.

    +
    +

    There are no GIFs on the GNU web site because of the @@ -31,8 +42,8 @@ GNU does not use it or its format. Unisys and IBM both applied for patents in 1983. Unisys (and perhaps IBM) applied for these patents in a number of countries. Of the places whose patent databases we were able to search, the latest -expiration date seems to be 1 October 2006. -1 Until then, +expiration date seems to be 1 October 2006 [1]. Until then, anyone who releases a free program for making GIF files is likely to be sued. We don't know any reason to think that the patent owners would lose these lawsuits. @@ -61,7 +72,7 @@ applies. Unisys will not pursue previous inadvertent infringement by developers producing versions of software products for the Internet prior to 1995. The company does not require licensing, or fees to be paid for non-commercial, non-profit offerings on the Internet, -including “Freeware”.

    +including “Freeware.”

    Unfortunately, this doesn't permit @@ -83,10 +94,10 @@ terms.

    -The Free Software Foundation is a +The Free Software Foundation is a non-commercial, non-profit organization, so strictly speaking the -income from our sales of CD-ROMs -is not “profit”. Perhaps this means we could include +income from our sales of CD-ROMs +is not “profit.” Perhaps this means we could include a GIF program on our CD-ROM and claim to be acting within the scope of the Unisys permission—or perhaps not. But since we know that other redistributors of GNU would be unable to include it, @@ -197,7 +208,7 @@ patent-free compressed format, not large pseudo-GIFs.

    -The PNG +The PNG format is a patent-free compressed format. We hope it will become widely supported; then we will use it. We do provide PNG versions of most of the images on this server. @@ -208,7 +219,7 @@ For more information about the GIF patent problems, see the League for Programming Freedom GIF page. Through that page you can find more information about the problem of software patents in +href="https://endsoftwarepatents.org/">problem of software patents in general.

    @@ -218,14 +229,17 @@ uncompressed gifs to circumvent the Unisys patent.

    -http://burnallgifs.org is a + +burnallgifs.org is a web site devoted to discouraging the use of GIF files on the web.

    +
    -

    Footnote:

    - -

    1. We were able to search +

    Footnote

    +
      +
    1. +

      We were able to search the patent databases of the USA, Canada, Japan, and the European Union. The Unisys patent expired on 20 June 2003 in the USA, in Europe it expired on 18 June 2004, in Japan the patent expired on 20 June @@ -238,11 +252,14 @@ interfering with the use of static GIFs.

      might cover them. However, we have not heard reports of threats against use of animated GIFs. Any software can be threatened by patents, but we have no reason to consider animated GIFs to be in -particular danger — no particular reason to shun them.

      +particular danger—no particular reason to shun them.

      +
    2. +
    + - - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/gnu-linux-faq.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/gnu-linux-faq.html index 5d36592..5807955 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/gnu-linux-faq.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/gnu-linux-faq.html @@ -1,30 +1,30 @@ - + + + + GNU/Linux FAQ - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation -

    GNU/Linux FAQ

    + + + +
    +

    GNU/Linux FAQ

    - + -
    -
    -
    -

    To learn more about this issue, you can also read -our page on Linux and the GNU Project, our - page on Why GNU/Linux? -and our page on GNU -Users Who Have Never Heard of GNU.

    -
    -
    - -
    +

    When people see that we use and recommend the name GNU/Linux for a -system that many others call just “Linux”, they ask many questions. +system that many others call just “Linux,” they ask many questions. Here are common questions, and our answers.

    +
    +
    +
    +

    Table of Contents

    -
    +
    + +
    @@ -326,10 +338,13 @@ practical importance of these ideals.

    What is the real relationship between GNU and Linux? (#what)
    -
    The GNU operating system and the Linux kernel are separate +
    +

    +The GNU operating system and the Linux kernel are separate software projects that do complementary jobs. Typically they are packaged in a GNU/Linux distribution, and used -together.

    +together.

    +
    How did it come about that most people call the system “Linux”? (#howerror)
    @@ -352,7 +367,7 @@ picture of the system's origin, because people tend to suppose that the system's history was such as to fit that name. For instance, they often believe its development was started by Linus Torvalds in 1991. This false picture tends to reinforce the idea -that the system should be called “Linux”.

    +that the system should be called “Linux.”

    Many of the questions in this file represent people's attempts to justify the name they are accustomed to using.

    @@ -363,14 +378,14 @@ justify the name they are accustomed to using.

    Not always—only when you're talking about the whole system. When you're referring specifically to the kernel, you should call it -“Linux”, the name its developer chose. +“Linux,” the name its developer chose.

    -When people call the whole system “Linux”, as a consequence +When people call the whole system “Linux,” as a consequence they call the whole system by the same name as the kernel. This causes many kinds of confusion, because only experts can tell whether a statement is about the kernel or the whole system. -By calling the whole system “GNU/Linux”, and calling the kernel -“Linux”, you avoid the ambiguity.

    +By calling the whole system “GNU/Linux,” and calling the kernel +“Linux,” you avoid the ambiguity.

    Would Linux have @@ -400,7 +415,7 @@ framework, a complete free operating system: GNU/Linux.

    community if you did not divide people with this request? (#divide)
    -When we ask people to say “GNU/Linux”, we are not dividing people. We +When we ask people to say “GNU/Linux,” we are not dividing people. We are asking them to give the GNU Project credit for the GNU operating system. This does not criticize anyone or push anyone away.

    @@ -428,7 +443,7 @@ Source misses the point of Free Software.

    The disagreement over values partially aligns with the amount of attention people pay to the GNU Project's role in our community. People who value freedom are more likely to call the system -“GNU/Linux”, and people who learn that the system is “GNU/Linux” are +“GNU/Linux,” and people who learn that the system is “GNU/Linux” are more likely to pay attention to our philosophical arguments for freedom and community (which is why the choice of name for the system makes a real difference for society). However, the disagreement would @@ -442,11 +457,12 @@ are defeated entirely (let's hope not).

    support an individual's free speech rights to call the system by any name that individual chooses? (#freespeech)
    +

    Yes, indeed, we believe you have a free speech right to call the operating system by any name you wish. We ask that people call it GNU/Linux as a matter of doing justice to the GNU project, to promote the values of freedom that GNU stands for, and to inform others that -those values of freedom brought the system into existence. +those values of freedom brought the system into existence.

    Since everyone knows the role @@ -455,7 +471,7 @@ those values of freedom brought the system into existence.
    Experience shows that the system's users, and the computer-using public in general, often know nothing about the GNU system. Most -articles about the system do not mention the name “GNU”, or the ideals +articles about the system do not mention the name “GNU,” or the ideals that GNU stands for. GNU Users Who Have Never Heard of GNU explains further. @@ -463,7 +479,7 @@ Heard of GNU explains further. The people who say this are probably geeks thinking of the geeks they know. Geeks often do know about GNU, but many have a completely wrong idea of what GNU is. For instance, many think it is a collection -of “tools”, or a project to develop tools.

    +of “tools,” or a project to develop tools.

    The wording of this question, which is typical, illustrates another common misconception. To speak of “GNU's role” in developing @@ -476,11 +492,12 @@ this or some other activity, but not that of GNU.

    why does it matter what name I use? (#everyoneknows2)
    +

    If your words don't reflect your knowledge, you don't teach others. Most people who have heard of the GNU/Linux system think it is -“Linux”, that it was started by Linus Torvalds, and that -it was intended to be “open source”. If you don't tell -them, who will? +“Linux,” that it was started by Linus Torvalds, and that +it was intended to be “open source.” If you don't tell +them, who will?

    Isn't shortening “GNU/Linux” @@ -508,10 +525,10 @@ GNU is an operating system.

    People who think that Linux is an entire operating system, if they hear about GNU at all, often get a wrong idea of what GNU is. They may think that GNU is the name of a collection of programs—often they -say “programming tools”, since some of our programming tools became +say “programming tools,” since some of our programming tools became popular on their own. The idea that “GNU” is the name of an operating system is hard to fit into a conceptual framework in which that -operating system is labeled “Linux”. +operating system is labeled “Linux.”

    The GNU Project was named after the GNU operating system—it's the project to develop the GNU system. (See

    To confuse matters, some people use the term “operating system” to -mean “kernel”. Both uses of the term go back many years. The +mean “kernel.” Both uses of the term go back many years. The use of “operating system” to mean “kernel” is found in a number of textbooks on system design, going back to the 80s. At the same time, in the 80s, the “Unix operating system” was understood to include all @@ -551,12 +568,12 @@ use the term “operating system” in the same way.

    Most of the time when people speak of the “Linux operating system” they are using “operating system” in the same sense we use: they mean the whole collection of programs. If that's what you are referring -to, please call it “GNU/Linux”. If you mean just the kernel, then +to, please call it “GNU/Linux.” If you mean just the kernel, then “Linux” is the right name for it, but please say “kernel” also to avoid ambiguity about which body of software you mean.

    If you prefer to use some other term such as “system distribution” for -the entire collection of programs, instead of “operating system”, +the entire collection of programs, instead of “operating system,” that's fine. Then you would talk about GNU/Linux system distributions.

    @@ -587,16 +604,18 @@ essential module, that would be like the GNU system in 1992.
    Isn't the kernel the brain of the system? (#brain)
    +

    A computer system is not much like a human body, and no part of it plays a role comparable to that of -the brain in a human. +the brain in a human.

    Isn't writing the kernel most of the work in an operating system? (#kernelmost)
    -No, many components take a lot of work. +

    +No, many components take a lot of work.

    An operating system requires a kernel. @@ -606,8 +625,8 @@ No, many components take a lot of work.
    The people who argue that way for calling the system “Linux” are using a double standard. An operating system -requires compilers, editors, window systems, libraries, and much more -— hundreds of programs, even to match what BSD systems included +requires compilers, editors, window systems, libraries, and much +more—hundreds of programs, even to match what BSD systems included in 1983. Since Torvalds didn't develop any of those, how can the system be “Linux”? @@ -628,7 +647,7 @@ The name “GNU/Linux” gives credit to each.

    Many packaged and installable versions of GNU are available. None of them is called simply -“GNU”, but GNU is what they basically are. +“GNU,” but GNU is what they basically are.

    We expected to release the GNU system packaged for installation, but @@ -655,7 +674,7 @@ This includes repackaging a substantial part of the GNU system.

    We never took the last step of packaging GNU under the name -“GNU”, but that doesn't alter what kind of thing GNU is. +“GNU,” but that doesn't alter what kind of thing GNU is. GNU is an operating system.

    @@ -665,11 +684,11 @@ GNU is an operating system.

    That practice seems to be very rare—we can't find any examples other -than the misuse of the name “Linux”. Normally an operating system is +than the misuse of the name “Linux.” Normally an operating system is developed as a single unified project, and the developers choose a name for the system as a whole. The kernel usually does not have a name of its own—instead, people say “the kernel of such-and-such” or -“the such-and-such kernel”. +“the such-and-such kernel.”

    Because those two constructions are used synonymously, the expression “the Linux kernel” can easily be misunderstood as meaning “the kernel @@ -682,22 +701,23 @@ avoid the possibility of this misunderstanding by saying or writing feel of Linux”? (#feel)

    +

    There is no such thing as the “feel of Linux” because Linux has no user interfaces. Like any modern kernel, Linux is a base for running programs; user interfaces belong elsewhere in the system. Human interaction with GNU/Linux always goes through other programs, -and the “feel” comes from them. +and the “feel” comes from them.

    The problem with “GNU/Linux” is that it is too long. How about recommending a shorter name? (#long)
    -For a while we tried the name “LiGNUx”, which combines the words “GNU” -and “Linux”. The reaction was very bad. People accept “GNU/Linux” +For a while we tried the name “LiGNUx,” which combines the words “GNU” +and “Linux.” The reaction was very bad. People accept “GNU/Linux” much better.

    -The shortest legitimate name for this system is “GNU”, but +The shortest legitimate name for this system is “GNU,” but we call it “GNU/Linux” for the reasons given below.

    @@ -722,7 +742,7 @@ not read it.

    (#long2)
    -

    It only takes a second to say or type “GNU/”. If you +

    It only takes a second to say or type “GNU/.” If you appreciate the system that we developed, can't you take one second to recognize our work?

    @@ -773,25 +793,25 @@ disagree with his political views, but we deal with that disagreement honorably and openly, rather than by trying to cut him out of the credit for his contribution to the system.
  • -Since many people know of the system as “Linux”, if we say “GNU” they +Since many people know of the system as “Linux,” if we say “GNU” they may simply not recognize we're talking about the same system. If we -say “GNU/Linux”, they can make a connection to what they have heard +say “GNU/Linux,” they can make a connection to what they have heard about.
  • -

    +
    I would have to pay a fee if I use “Linux” in the name of a product, and that - would also apply if I say “GNU/Linux”. Is it wrong if I use “GNU” - without “Linux”, to save the fee? (#trademarkfee)
    + would also apply if I say “GNU/Linux.” Is it wrong if I use “GNU” + without “Linux,” to save the fee? (#trademarkfee)
    There's nothing wrong in calling the system “GNU”; basically, that's what it is. It is nice to give Linus Torvalds a share of the credit as well, but you have no obligation to pay for the privilege of doing so.

    -So if you want to refer to the system simply as “GNU”, to avoid paying -the fee for calling it “Linux”, we won't criticize you.

    +So if you want to refer to the system simply as “GNU,” to avoid paying +the fee for calling it “Linux,” we won't criticize you.

    Many other projects contributed to @@ -821,7 +841,7 @@ we won't argue against it.

    Different threshold levels would lead to different choices of name for the system. But one name that cannot result from concerns of fairness -and giving credit, not for any possible threshold level, is “Linux”. +and giving credit, not for any possible threshold level, is “Linux.” It can't be fair to give all the credit to one secondary contribution (Linux) while omitting the principal contribution (GNU).

    @@ -831,11 +851,12 @@ It can't be fair to give all the credit to one secondary contribution GNU/systemd/Linux? (#others)
    +

    systemd is a fairly important component, but not as important as the kernel (Linux), nor as important as the basis of the system as a whole (GNU). However, if you want to emphasize the presence of systemd -by calling the system “GNU/systemd/Linux”, there is nothing -wrong with doing so. +by calling the system “GNU/systemd/Linux,” there is nothing +wrong with doing so.

    Many other projects contributed to @@ -859,7 +880,7 @@ framework on which the system was made.

    In 2008, we found that GNU packages made up 15% of the “main” repository of the gNewSense GNU/Linux distribution. Linux made up 1.5%. So the same argument would apply even more -strongly to calling it “Linux”. +strongly to calling it “Linux.”

    GNU is a small fraction of the system nowadays, and Linux is an @@ -896,7 +917,7 @@ instead of “GNU Linux”? (separate version of -Linux, since the “standard” version contains non-free -firmware “blobs”. If this were part of the GNU Project, +a separate version of +Linux, since the “standard” version contains nonfree +firmware “blobs.” If this were part of the GNU Project, it could be considered “GNU Linux”; but we would not want to call it that, because it would be too confusing.

    We're talking about a version of GNU, the operating system, distinguished by having Linux as the kernel. A slash fits the situation because it means “combination.” (Think of -“Input/Output”.) This system is the combination of GNU -and Linux; hence, “GNU/Linux”.

    +“Input/Output.”) It's the GNU system, with the kernel +Linux underneath; hence, “GNU/Linux.”

    -There are other ways to express “combination”. If you +There are other ways to express “combination.” If you think that a plus-sign is clearer, please use that. In French, a -hyphen is clear: “GNU-Linux”. In Spanish, we sometimes -say “GNU con Linux”.

    +hyphen is clear: “GNU-Linux.” In Spanish, we sometimes +say “GNU con Linux.”

    + + +
    Does GNU have its own version of Linux, the kernel? (#linuxlibre)
    + +
    +Yes and no. The free GNU/Linux distros use slightly modified versions +of Linux, modified to remove the nonfree firmware “blobs” +contained in the “standard” release of Linux. Some of +them use GNU +Linux-Libre, which is the GNU Project's freed version of Linux. +But this is not a fork; rather, it is a version of Linux—we +take the source of each standard Linux release and de-blob it. +

    +Other free distros make their own arrangements to remove the blobs +from Linux.

    How is the name “GNU/Linux” @@ -941,7 +977,7 @@ rather than “GNU/Emacs”? (

    Following the rules of English, in the construction “GNU -Emacs” the word “GNU” modifies “Emacs”. +Emacs” the word “GNU” modifies “Emacs.” That is the right way to describe a program called Emacs which is a GNU package.

    @@ -962,13 +998,13 @@ prior to Linux, we actually started the whole activity.

    In addition, “GNU/Linux” fits the fact that Linux is the lowest level of the system and GNU fills technically higher levels.

    -However, if you prefer to call the system “Linux/GNU”, that is a lot +However, if you prefer to call the system “Linux/GNU,” that is a lot better than what people usually do, which is to omit GNU entirely and make it seem that the whole system is Linux.

    My distro's developers call it - “Foobar Linux”, but that doesn't say anything about + “Foobar Linux,” but that doesn't say anything about what the system consists of. Why shouldn't they call it whatever they like? (#distronames0)
    @@ -997,9 +1033,9 @@ encourage it to do the same.

    anything but “Foobar Linux”? (#distronames1)

    When they spread misinformation by changing “GNU” -to “Linux”, and call their version of it “Foobar -Linux”, it's proper for you to correct the misinformation by -calling it “Foobar GNU/Linux”.

    +to “Linux,” and call their version of it “Foobar +Linux,” it's proper for you to correct the misinformation by +calling it “Foobar GNU/Linux.”

    Wouldn't it be more effective to ask companies such as Mandrake, Red Hat and IBM to @@ -1020,7 +1056,7 @@ We can't make them do this right, but we're not the sort to give up just because the road isn't easy. You may not have as much influence at your disposal as IBM or Red Hat, but you can still help. Together we can change the situation to the point where companies will make -more profit calling it “GNU/Linux”.

    +more profit calling it “GNU/Linux.”

    Wouldn't it be better to @@ -1028,13 +1064,13 @@ more profit calling it “GNU/Linux”.

    free software? After all, that is the ideal of GNU. (#reserve)
    -The widespread practice of adding non-free software to the GNU/Linux +The widespread practice of adding nonfree software to the GNU/Linux system is a major problem for our community. It teaches the users -that non-free software is ok, and that using it is part of the spirit -of “Linux”. Many “Linux” User Groups make it part of their mission to -help users use non-free add-ons, and may even invite salesmen to come +that nonfree software is ok, and that using it is part of the spirit +of “Linux.” Many “Linux” User Groups make it part of their mission to +help users use nonfree add-ons, and may even invite salesmen to come and make sales pitches for them. They adopt goals such as “helping -the users” of GNU/Linux (including helping them use non-free +the users” of GNU/Linux (including helping them use nonfree applications and drivers), or making the system more popular even at the cost of freedom.

    @@ -1052,9 +1088,9 @@ exactly the opposite: to inform them that all these system versions are versions of GNU, that they all are based on a system that exists specifically for the sake of the users' freedom. With this understanding, they can start to recognize the distributions -that include non-free software as perverted, adulterated versions of +that include nonfree software as perverted, adulterated versions of GNU, instead of thinking they are proper and appropriate “versions of -Linux”.

    +Linux.”

    It is very useful to start GNU/Linux User Groups, which call the system GNU/Linux and adopt the ideals of the GNU Project as a basis @@ -1081,7 +1117,7 @@ unless the new distribution had substantial practical advantages over other distributions, it would serve no purpose.

    Instead we help the developers of 100% free GNU/Linux distributions, -such as gNewSense and Ututo.

    +such as Trisquel and Parabola.

    Why not just say “Linux is @@ -1094,8 +1130,8 @@ in 1992. If we had realized, then, how long it would take to get the GNU Hurd to work, we might have done that. (Alas, that is hindsight.)

    If we were to take an existing version of GNU/Linux and relabel it as -“GNU”, that would be somewhat like making a version of the GNU system -and labeling it “Linux”. That wasn't right, and we don't +“GNU,” that would be somewhat like making a version of the GNU system +and labeling it “Linux.” That wasn't right, and we don't want to act like that.

    @@ -1114,7 +1150,7 @@ up for installation.

    The people who had made the changes showed little interest in cooperating with us. One of them actually told us that he didn't care -about working with the GNU Project because he was a “Linux user”. +about working with the GNU Project because he was a “Linux user.” That came as a shock, because the people who ported GNU packages to other systems had generally wanted to work with us to get their changes installed. Yet these people, developing a system that was @@ -1122,7 +1158,7 @@ primarily based on GNU, were the first (and still practically the only) group that was unwilling to work with us.

    It was this experience that first showed us that people were calling a -version of the GNU system “Linux”, and that this confusion was +version of the GNU system “Linux,” and that this confusion was obstructing our work. Asking you to call the system “GNU/Linux” is our response to that problem, and to the other problems caused by the “Linux” misnomer.

    @@ -1141,8 +1177,8 @@ distributors about this in 1994, and made a more public campaign in convention be applied to all programs that are GPL'ed? (#allgpled)
    -We never refer to individual programs as “GNU/name”. When a program -is a GNU package, we may call it “GNU name”. +We never refer to individual programs as “GNU/name.” When a program +is a GNU package, we may call it “GNU name.”

    GNU, the operating system, is made up of many different programs. Some of the programs in GNU were written as part of the GNU Project or @@ -1195,17 +1231,17 @@ everything had to be written afresh.

    No code in GNU comes from Unix, but GNU is a Unix-compatible system; therefore, many of the ideas and specifications of GNU do come from -Unix. The name “GNU”, which stands for “GNU's Not -Unix”, is a humorous way of giving credit to Unix for this, +Unix. The name “GNU,” which stands for “GNU's Not +Unix,” is a humorous way of giving credit to Unix for this, following a hacker tradition of recursive acronyms that started in the 70s.

    The first such recursive acronym was TINT, “TINT Is Not -TECO”. The author of TINT wrote another implementation of TECO +TECO.” The author of TINT wrote another implementation of TECO (there were already many of them, for various systems), but instead of -calling it by a dull name like “somethingorother TECO”, he +calling it by a dull name like “somethingorother TECO,” he thought of a clever amusing name. (That's what hacking -means: playful +means: playful cleverness.)

    Other hackers enjoyed that name so much that we imitated the approach. @@ -1213,7 +1249,7 @@ It became a tradition that, when you were writing from scratch a program that was similar to some existing program (let's imagine its name was “Klever”), you could give it a recursive acronym name, such as “MINK” for “MINK Is Not Klever.” In this same spirit we called our -replacement for Unix “GNU's Not Unix”.

    +replacement for Unix “GNU's Not Unix.”

    Historically, AT&T which developed Unix did not want anyone to give it credit by using “Unix” in the name of a similar @@ -1221,7 +1257,7 @@ system, not even in a system 99% copied from Unix. AT&T actually threatened to sue anyone giving AT&T credit in that way. This is why each of the various modified versions of Unix (all proprietary, like Unix) had a completely different name that didn't include -“Unix”.

    +“Unix.”

    Should we say “GNU/BSD” @@ -1231,7 +1267,7 @@ too? (#bsd)
    We don't call the BSD systems (FreeBSD, etc.) “GNU/BSD” systems, because that term does not fit the history of the BSD systems.

    -The BSD system was developed by UC Berkeley as non-free software in +The BSD system was developed by UC Berkeley as nonfree software in the 80s, and became free in the early 90s. A free operating system that exists today is almost certainly either a variant of the GNU system, or a kind of BSD system.

    @@ -1252,7 +1288,7 @@ The connection between GNU/Linux and GNU is much closer, and that's why the name “GNU/Linux” is appropriate for it.

    There is a version of GNU which uses the kernel from NetBSD. Its -developers call it “Debian GNU/NetBSD”, but “GNU/kernelofNetBSD” +developers call it “Debian GNU/NetBSD,” but “GNU/kernelofNetBSD” would be more accurate, since NetBSD is an entire system, not just the kernel. This is not a BSD system, since most of the system is the same as the GNU/Linux system.

    @@ -1262,22 +1298,24 @@ is the same as the GNU/Linux system.

    on Windows, does that mean I am running a GNU/Windows system? (#othersys)
    -Not in the same sense that we mean by “GNU/Linux”. The tools of GNU +

    +Not in the same sense that we mean by “GNU/Linux.” The tools of GNU are just a part of the GNU software, which is just a part of the GNU system, and underneath them you would still have another complete operating system which has no code in common with GNU. All in all, -that's a very different situation from GNU/Linux. +that's a very different situation from GNU/Linux.

    Can't Linux be used without GNU? (#justlinux)
    +

    Linux is used by itself, or with small other programs, in some appliances. These small software systems are a far cry from the GNU/Linux system. Users do not install them on PCs, for instance, and would find them rather disappointing. It is useful to say that these appliances run just Linux, to show how different those small platforms -are from GNU/Linux. +are from GNU/Linux.

    How much of the GNU system is needed for the system @@ -1312,7 +1350,7 @@ Android is very different from the GNU/Linux system—because the two have very little code in common. In fact, the only thing they have in common is Linux.

    -If you call the whole GNU/Linux system “Linux”, +If you call the whole GNU/Linux system “Linux,” you will find it necessary to say things like, “Android contains Linux, but it isn't Linux, because it doesn't have the usual Linux [sic] libraries and utilities [meaning the GNU system].”

    @@ -1331,22 +1369,22 @@ Far from it. That usage is so strained that people will not understand the intended meaning.

    The public will find it very strange to speak of using Android as -“using Linux”. It's like having a conversation, then +“using Linux.” It's like having a conversation, then saying you were conversing with the person's intestines or the person's circulatory system.

    The public will understand the idea of “using Linux” when it's really GNU/Linux, by way of the usual misunderstanding: thinking of the whole system as -“Linux”.

    +“Linux.”

    Use of Android and use of GNU/Linux are totally different, as different as driving a car and riding a bicycle. The fact that the first two both contain Linux is irrelevant to using them, just as the fact that a car and a bicycle both have a structure of metal is irrelevant to using those two. If you wish to talk about using cars -and bikes, you wouldn't speak of “riding metal objects” -— not unless you're playing games with the reader. You would +and bikes, you wouldn't speak of “riding metal objects”—not +unless you're playing games with the reader. You would say, “using cars and bikes.” Likewise, the clear way to talk about using GNU/Linux and Android is to say “using GNU/Linux and Android.”

    @@ -1367,10 +1405,10 @@ ethical principle, which is why the public does not connect the name “Linux” with that principle.

    Linus publicly states his disagreement with the free software -movement's ideals. He developed non-free software in his job for many +movement's ideals. He developed nonfree software in his job for many years (and said so to a large audience at a “Linux”World show), and publicly invited fellow developers of Linux, the kernel, to use -non-free software to work on it with him. He goes even further, and +nonfree software to work on it with him. He goes even further, and rebukes people who suggest that engineers and scientists should consider social consequences of our technical work—rejecting the lessons society learned from the development of the atom bomb.

    @@ -1389,11 +1427,12 @@ stems from ideals of freedom, not from his views.

    work as GNU? (#claimlinux)
    +

    It would be wrong, so we don't do that. Torvalds' work is Linux, the kernel; we are careful not to attribute that work to the GNU Project -or label it as “GNU”. When we talk about the whole +or label it as “GNU.” When we talk about the whole system, the name “GNU/Linux” gives him a share of the -credit. +credit.

    @@ -1401,12 +1440,14 @@ credit. agree that Linux is just the kernel? (#linusagreed)
    -

    He recognized this at the beginning. The earliest Linux release notes -said, -“Most of the tools used with linux are GNU software and are under the +

    He recognized this at the beginning. The +earliest Linux release notes said:

    +

    +Most of the tools used with linux are GNU software and are under the GNU copyleft. These tools aren't in the distribution - ask me (or GNU) -for more info”.

    +for more info. +

    Why not finish the GNU Hurd kernel, release the GNU system @@ -1421,7 +1462,7 @@ kernel is used with it. a big job, and it's not clearly necessary. The only thing ethically wrong with Linux as a kernel is its inclusion of firmware “blobs”; the best fix for that problem -is developing +is developing free replacement for the blobs.

    @@ -1430,12 +1471,13 @@ free replacement for the blobs.

    it? (#lost)
    +

    This isn't a battle, it is a campaign of education. What to call the system is not a single decision, to be made at one moment by “society”: each person, each organization, can decide what -name to use. You can't make others say “GNU/Linux”, but +name to use. You can't make others say “GNU/Linux,” but you can decide to call the system “GNU/Linux” -yourself—and by doing so, you will help educate others. +yourself—and by doing so, you will help educate others.

    Society has made its @@ -1443,14 +1485,15 @@ yourself—and by doing so, you will help educate others. “GNU/Linux”? (#whatgood)
    +

    This is not an all-or-nothing situation: correct and incorrect pictures are being spread more or less by various people. If you call -the system “GNU/Linux”, you will help others learn the system's true +the system “GNU/Linux,” you will help others learn the system's true history, origin, and reason for being. You can't correct the misnomer everywhere on your own, any more than we can, but you can help. If -only a few hundred people see you use the term “GNU/Linux”, you will +only a few hundred people see you use the term “GNU/Linux,” you will have educated a substantial number of people with very little work. -And some of them will spread the correction to others. +And some of them will spread the correction to others.

    Wouldn't it be better to call @@ -1460,14 +1503,14 @@ And some of them will spread the correction to others.
    If you help us by explaining to others in that way, we appreciate your effort, but that is not the best method. It is not as effective as -calling the system “GNU/Linux”, and uses your time inefficiently. +calling the system “GNU/Linux,” and uses your time inefficiently.

    It is ineffective because it may not sink in, and surely will not propagate. Some of the people who hear your explanation will pay attention, and they may learn a correct picture of the system's origin. But they are unlikely to repeat the explanation to others whenever they talk about the system. They will probably just call it -“Linux”. Without particularly intending to, they will help spread the +“Linux.” Without particularly intending to, they will help spread the incorrect picture.

    It is inefficient because it takes a lot more time. Saying and @@ -1521,39 +1564,44 @@ Therefore, we will continue trying to correct the misnomer.

    is it legitimate to rename the operating system? (#rename)
    +

    We are not renaming anything; we have been calling this system “GNU” ever since we announced it in 1983. The people who tried to rename -it to “Linux” should not have done so.

    +it to “Linux” should not have done so.

    +
    Isn't it wrong to force people to call the system “GNU/Linux”? (#force)
    +

    It would be wrong to force them, and we don't try. We call the system -“GNU/Linux”, and we ask you to do it too. +“GNU/Linux,” and we ask you to do it too.

    Why not sue people who call the whole system “Linux”? (#whynotsue)
    +

    There are no legal grounds to sue them, but since we believe in freedom of speech, we wouldn't want to do that anyway. We ask people -to call the system “GNU/Linux” because that is the right thing to do. +to call the system “GNU/Linux” because that is the right thing to do.

    Shouldn't you put something in the GNU GPL to require people to call the system “GNU”? (#require)
    +

    The purpose of the GNU GPL is to protect the users' freedom from those who would make proprietary versions of free software. While it is true that those who call the system “Linux” often do things that limit -the users' freedom, such as bundling non-free software with the -GNU/Linux system or even developing non-free software for such use, +the users' freedom, such as bundling nonfree software with the +GNU/Linux system or even developing nonfree software for such use, the mere act of calling the system “Linux” does not, in itself, deny users their freedom. It seems improper to make the GPL restrict what -name people can use for the system. +name people can use for the system.

    Since you objected to the original BSD license's @@ -1572,7 +1620,7 @@ the term “BSD license” without specifying which one.

    Since you failed to put - something in the GNU GPL to require people to call the system “GNU”, + something in the GNU GPL to require people to call the system “GNU,” you deserve what happened; why are you complaining now? (#deserve)
    @@ -1598,20 +1646,22 @@ was legitimate and acceptable.

    Since many people call -it “Linux”, doesn't that make it right? (#somanyright)
    +it “Linux,” doesn't that make it right? (#somanyright)
    -We don't think that the popularity of an error makes it the truth. +

    +We don't think that the popularity of an error makes it the truth.

    Isn't it better to call the system by the name most users already know? (#knownname)
    +

    Users are not incapable of learning. Since “GNU/Linux” -includes “Linux”, they will recognize what you're talking +includes “Linux,” they will recognize what you're talking about. If you add “(often erroneously referred to as -‘Linux’)” once in a while, they will all understand. +‘Linux’)” once in a while, they will all understand.

    Many people care about what's @@ -1621,7 +1671,7 @@ about. If you add “(often erroneously referred to as
    To care only about what's convenient or who's winning is an amoral -approach to life. Non-free software is an example of that amoral +approach to life. Nonfree software is an example of that amoral approach and thrives on it. Thus, in the long run it would be self-defeating for us to adopt that approach. We will continue talking in terms of right and wrong. @@ -1631,7 +1681,6 @@ We hope that you are one of those for whom right and wrong do matter.

    -
    @@ -1680,7 +1729,7 @@ of this article.

    There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --> -

    Copyright © 2001, 2006-2008, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014-2018, 2020, 2021 +

    Copyright © 2001-2011, 2013-2018, 2020, 2022 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

    This page is licensed under a .

    Updated: -$Date: 2021/04/07 17:55:36 $ +$Date: 2022/07/27 07:00:34 $

    diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/gnu-structure.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/gnu-structure.html index a62fb01..cd45850 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/gnu-structure.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/gnu-structure.html @@ -1,22 +1,21 @@ - + + + + The Structure and Administration of the GNU Project - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation -

    The Structure and Administration of the GNU Project

    + + + +
    +

    The Structure and Administration of the GNU Project

    +

    Version 1.0.1

    -

    Version 1.0.1

    - -
    -

    An Org version of this -document is also available.

    -
    - -
    -

    The GNU Project develops and maintains the GNU operating system. Through this work, and other related activities, the GNU Project advocates and @@ -30,7 +29,7 @@ libraries, as well as the programs (utilities, tools, applications, and games) that users explicitly run. The GNU operating system comprises software across this entire spectrum. Many of the programs are specifically developed and released by the GNU Project; these are -termed “GNU packages”. The GNU system also includes +termed “GNU packages.” The GNU system also includes components that are free programs released by other developers, outside of the GNU Project.

    @@ -71,7 +70,7 @@ with a suggestion.

    Assistant GNUisances

    This team, residing at -maintainers@gnu.org, is +<maintainers@gnu.org>, is available as a first point-of-contact for maintainers of GNU Software. They keep track of development activity across the entire project, ensuring timely releases, checking that the maintainers follow @@ -133,8 +132,8 @@ behalf of the GNU Project.

    More complete information about the specific responsibilities of maintainers and technical guidance for maintaining GNU software can be -found in the Information for Maintainers of -GNU Software and GNU Coding +found in the Information for Maintainers of +GNU Software and GNU Coding Standards documents.

    We do not require that GNU package maintainers agree with our @@ -154,7 +153,7 @@ Coordinators for advice.

    Software Evaluation

    The software evaluation team at -gnueval@gnu.org evaluates +<gnueval@gnu.org> evaluates software packages proposed as GNU packages. This involves a careful assessment of the software's functionality as well as pertinent issues related to software freedom and how the program fits with the GNU @@ -167,7 +166,7 @@ preferable.

    Software Security Evaluation

    The software security evaluation team at -gnueval-security@gnu.org +<gnueval-security@gnu.org> works with the software evaluation team. They determine whether there are any security concerns in software that has been offered to GNU.

    @@ -199,8 +198,8 @@ platforms to ensure that it functions correctly.

    Mentors

    -

    The GNU Mentors -(mentors@gnu.org) volunteer to +

    The GNU Mentors at +<mentors@gnu.org> volunteer to provide guidance for new software maintainers.

    We ask long-time GNU maintainers to volunteer.

    @@ -209,7 +208,7 @@ provide guidance for new software maintainers.

    The proofreaders list is available to help GNU package maintainers by proofreading English text. To request proofreading, write to -proofreaders@gnu.org.

    +<proofreaders@gnu.org>.

    Other Teams and Services

    @@ -278,8 +277,8 @@ needed.

    GNU Volunteer Coordinators

    -

    The GNU Volunteer Coordinators -(gvc@gnu.org) help to guide new +

    The GNU Volunteer Coordinators at +<gvc@gnu.org> help to guide new volunteers towards suitable jobs within the GNU Project

    New GVC volunteers are welcome, but prior experience volunteering @@ -331,9 +330,17 @@ make a wise decision.

    both the Org version and the HTML version (see previous section), advancing the first and/or second version number.

    +
    +
    +

    An Org version of this +document is also available.

    +
    + +
    + - diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/gnu.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/gnu.html index 7536ed7..e076488 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/gnu.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/gnu.html @@ -1,44 +1,35 @@ - -The GNU Operating System +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.96--> +<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html --> +<title>About the GNU Operating System - GNU project - Free Software Foundation - - +--> -

    The GNU Operating System

    +

    About the GNU Operating System

    +
    -
    + + +

    Download distributions

     [GNU and Linux] 

    @@ -47,21 +38,51 @@ install, see our list of GNU/Linux distributions which are entirely free software.

    +
    +

    GNU History

    Here are two postings that Stallman wrote for a bulletin board at @@ -84,23 +103,56 @@ system. They don't use the term “free software”; apparently he had not yet started to put those two words together.

    +

    GNU Structure

    + +

    GNU and Linux

    @@ -122,10 +174,11 @@ after the GNU project in the Minor Planet Circular 41571. The asteroid was discovered at Kitt Peak by Spacewatch on the 5th March 1992.

    +
    - + - diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/gnutella.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/gnutella.html index 45d8de0..a4d7aec 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/gnutella.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/gnutella.html @@ -1,9 +1,16 @@ - + + + + Regarding Gnutella - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    Regarding Gnutella

    @@ -29,9 +36,9 @@ name to avoid confusion; perhaps that will happen in the future.

    There are a number of free software programs that implement the Gnutella protocol, such as Gtk-Gnutella, Mutella, and Gnucleus. Please +href="https://sourceforge.net/projects/gtk-gnutella/">Gtk-Gnutella, Mutella, and Gnucleus. Please note, however, that none of these programs are officially GNU software either. GNU has its own peer-to-peer networking program, rejects that anti-social idea.

    +
    + - - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/greve-clown.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/greve-clown.html index 18de75b..f091c7c 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/greve-clown.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/greve-clown.html @@ -1,5 +1,7 @@ - + + + History and Philosophy of the GNU Project - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    History and Philosophy of the GNU Project

    -
    - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/guardian-article.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/guardian-article.html index d606138..6e91c86 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/guardian-article.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/guardian-article.html @@ -1,23 +1,31 @@ - -Guardian Article on Software Patents +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 --> +<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html --> +<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays laws patents" --> +<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" --> +<title>Opposing The European Software Patent Directive - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    Opposing The European Software Patent Directive

    -

    by Richard -Stallman and Nick Hill

    + -
    -

    +

    +

    The European Union software patent directive, which this 2003 article opposed, was ultimately dropped by its own supporters after facing lots of opposition. However, they later found another way to impose software patents on most of Europe: through fine print in the unitary -patent.

    -
    +patent.

    +
    +

    The computer industry is threatened by a Wild West-style land grab. The @@ -55,8 +63,8 @@ patented in multiple ways.

    The US, which has had software patents since the 1980s, shows what this can do to development of everyday software. For example, in the US there are 39 monopoly claims over a standard way of showing video using software -techniques (the MPEG -2 format).

    +techniques (the MPEG 2 +format).

    Since a single piece of software can embody thousands of ideas together, @@ -111,7 +119,7 @@ suspect are designed to open the door for software patents.

    The text says that computer-related patents must make a “technical contribution”; the commission says that means -“no software patents”. But “technical” can be +“no software patents.” But “technical” can be interpreted in many ways. The European patent office is already registering software patents of dubious legal validity, defying the treaty that governs it and the governments that established it. @@ -135,12 +143,14 @@ future will not be hijacked by the interests of a few rich organisations.

    Please go -to http://www.softwarepatents.co.uk [Archived Page] to learn more, and then talk with the MEPs from +to +softwarepatents.co.uk [Archived Page] to learn more, and then talk with the MEPs from your region.

    + - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/hackathons.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/hackathons.html index e93f8c1..ac4fedb 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/hackathons.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/hackathons.html @@ -1,14 +1,19 @@ - + + + Hackathons should insist on free software - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation -
    + + + +

    Why hackathons should insist on free software

    + -

    Hackathons are an accepted method of giving community support to digital development projects. The community invites developers to @@ -46,8 +51,8 @@ spirit that they are based on.

    computing of certain companies: in some cases, European and Canadian banks, and - +href="https://www.hackathon.io/rbc-digital">Canadian banks, and + Expedia. While they don't explicitly say, the announcements give the impression that they aim to promote development of some nonfree software, and that attendees are meant to help these non-charitable @@ -161,10 +166,10 @@ Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

    Updated: -$Date: 2021/03/27 12:56:20 $ +$Date: 2021/09/14 16:23:30 $

    -
    + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/hague.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/hague.html index 10511f3..5ed555a 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/hague.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/hague.html @@ -1,19 +1,28 @@ - + + + + Harm from the Hague - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    Harm from the Hague

    -

    -By Richard Stallman, June 2001

    + + +

    June 2001

    Europeans have energetically opposed and thwarted the attempt to introduce software patents in Europe. A proposed treaty, now being negotiated, threatens to subject software developers in Europe and -other countries to U.S. software patents — and other harmful +other countries to U.S. software patents—and other harmful laws from around the world. The problem is not just for programmers; authors of all kinds will face new dangers. Even the censorship laws of various countries could have globalized effect.

    @@ -29,7 +38,7 @@ country he lives in (or has assets in) for enforcement.

    The treaty becomes a problem when it is extended to distribution of -information — because information now travels normally and +information—because information now travels normally and predictably to all countries. (The Internet is one way, but not the only way.) The consequence is that you could be sued about the information you distributed under the laws of any @@ -40,7 +49,7 @@ country.

    For instance, if you release a software package (either free or not) in Germany, and people use it in the U.S., you could be sued for infringing an absurd U.S. software patent. That part does not depend -on Hague — it could happen now. But right now you could ignore +on Hague—it could happen now. But right now you could ignore the U.S. judgment, safe in Germany, and the patent holder knows this. Under the Hague treaty, any German court would be required to enforce the U.S. judgment against you. In effect, the software patents of any @@ -86,12 +95,12 @@ be applied to the parent company in the U.S.

    It may come as a surprise to learn that exiled Chinese dissidents joined the case in support of Yahoo. But they knew what they were -doing — their democracy movement depends on the outcome.

    +doing—their democracy movement depends on the outcome.

    You see, Nazism is not the only political view whose expression is prohibited in certain places. Criticism of the Chinese government is -also prohibited — in China. If a French court ruling against +also prohibited—in China. If a French court ruling against Nazi statements is enforceable in the US, or in your country, maybe a Chinese court ruling against anti-Chinese-government statements will be enforceable there too. (This might be why China has joined the @@ -129,10 +138,10 @@ it to reject outright censorship judgments.

    However, even that won't help you if you publish on the Internet, because your ISP either has assets in other countries or communicates to the world through -larger ISPs that have them. A censorship judgment +larger ISPs that have them. A censorship judgment against your site, or any other kind, could be enforced against -your ISP, or your ISP's -ISP, in any other country where it has assets — and +your ISP, or your ISP's +ISP, in any other country where it has assets—and where there is no Bill of Rights, and freedom of speech does not enjoy the same exalted status as in the U.S. In response, the ISP will shut off your site. The Hague treaty would globalize pretexts for @@ -140,13 +149,13 @@ lawsuits, but not the protections for civil liberties, so any local protection could be bypassed.

    -Does suing your ISP seem far-fetched? It already +Does suing your ISP seem far-fetched? It already happens. When the multinational company Danone announced plans to close factories in France, Olivier Malnuit opened a site, jeboycottedanone.com, to criticize this. (The name is French for “I boycott Danone.”) Danone sued not only him but his site hosting company and domain name registrar for “counterfeiting of -goods” — and in April 2001 received a ruling prohibiting +goods”—and in April 2001 received a ruling prohibiting Malnuit from mentioning the name “Danone” either in the domain name or in the text of the site. Even more telling, the registrar removed the domain in fear before the court made a @@ -157,8 +166,8 @@ The natural response for French dissidents is to publish their criticism of Danone outside France, just as Chinese dissidents publish their criticism of China outside China. But the Hague treaty would enable Danone to attack them everywhere. Perhaps even this article -would be suppressed through its ISP or -its ISP's ISP.

    +would be suppressed through its ISP or +its ISP's ISP.

    The potential effects of the treaty are not limited to laws that exist @@ -186,14 +195,9 @@ investment if they did not support software patents. Meanwhile, the U.S. trade representative pressured Middle Eastern country Jordan to allow patents on mathematics.

    - -

    -A meeting of consumer organizations -(http://www.tacd.org) recommended in +A meeting of consumer organizations +recommended in May 2001 that patents, copyrights and trademarks (“intellectual property”) should be excluded from the scope of the Hague treaty, because these laws vary considerably between countries.

    @@ -209,33 +213,27 @@ distributor or transmitter operates should have jurisdiction.

    In Europe, people opposed to software patents will be active in -working to change the Hague treaty. - - +working to change the Hague treaty; for more information, see +www.noepatents.org. In the U.S., the Consumer Project for Technology is taking the lead; for more information, see -http://www.cptech.org/ecom/jurisdiction/hague.html.

    +www.cptech.org.

    A diplomatic conference is slated to begin today (June 6, 2001) to work on the details of the Hague treaty. We should make ministries and the public aware of the possible dangers as soon as possible.

    -
    +
    - -

    There is more information about the problems with the Hague -at http://web.lemuria.org/DeCSS/hague.html.

    +at web.lemuria.org.

    +
    + - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/historical-apsl.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/historical-apsl.html index 5b5f334..ee836a3 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/historical-apsl.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/historical-apsl.html @@ -1,21 +1,27 @@ - + + + + Problems with older versions of the Apple License (APSL) - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    The Problems with older versions of the Apple Public Source License (APSL)

    -

    FSF Position on the Older Versions of APSL

    -
    -

    The current version of the Apple Public Source License (APSL) does not have any of these problems. You can read our current position on the APSL elsewhere. This document is kept here for historical purposes only.

    -
    +
    + +

    FSF Position on the Older Versions of APSL

    Apple released an updated version, 1.1, of the APSL but it remained @@ -120,14 +126,15 @@ society we want to live in.

    Apple has grasped perfectly the concept with which “open source” is promoted, which is “show users the source and -they will help you fix bugs”. What Apple has not +they will help you fix bugs.” What Apple has not grasped—or has dismissed—is the spirit of free software, which is that we form a community to cooperate on the commons of software.

    +
    - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/imperfection-isnt-oppression.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/imperfection-isnt-oppression.html index 78343e6..78d32e4 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/imperfection-isnt-oppression.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/imperfection-isnt-oppression.html @@ -1,18 +1,25 @@ - - + + + + Imperfection is not the same as oppression - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    Imperfection is not the same as oppression

    -

    by Richard Stallman

    +

    When a free program lacks capabilities that users want, that is unfortunate; we urge people to add what is missing. Some would go further and claim that a program is not even free software if it lacks - certain functionality — that it denies freedom 0 (the freedom to + certain functionality—that it denies freedom 0 (the freedom to run the program as you wish) to users or uses that it does not support. This argument is misguided because it is based on identifying capacity with freedom, and imperfection with oppression.

    @@ -63,10 +70,11 @@ developers to turn their attention to the missing feature when they have time for more work. You can offer to help them. You can recruit people or raise funds to support the work.

    +
    - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/incorrect-quotation.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/incorrect-quotation.html index 0a2c26d..9d12db1 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/incorrect-quotation.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/incorrect-quotation.html @@ -1,12 +1,20 @@ - + + + + Incorrect Quotation - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation - + + + +

    Incorrect Quotation

    + +

    A quotation circulates on the Internet, attributed to me, but it wasn't written by me.

    @@ -54,10 +62,11 @@ important packages we could not find elsewhere.

    See Linux and GNU and GNU/Linux FAQ, plus the history in The GNU Project.

    +
    - diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/install-fest-devil.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/install-fest-devil.html index 366c2a6..a5ec16c 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/install-fest-devil.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/install-fest-devil.html @@ -1,14 +1,18 @@ - + + + + Install Fests - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    Install Fests: What to Do about the Deal with the Devil

    -

    by Richard Stallman

    - -

    Published for -LibrePlanet March 23/24 2019

    +

    Install fests invite users to bring their computers so that experts can install GNU/Linux on them. This is meant to promote the @@ -123,9 +127,16 @@ GNU/Linux knowing that there is a further step toward freedom that they should take.

    + + +
    - - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/is-ever-good-use-nonfree-program.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/is-ever-good-use-nonfree-program.html index 6aafacf..473f0fe 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/is-ever-good-use-nonfree-program.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/is-ever-good-use-nonfree-program.html @@ -1,9 +1,19 @@ - + + + + Is It Ever a Good Thing to Use a Nonfree Program? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + + +

    Is It Ever a Good Thing to Use a Nonfree Program?

    @@ -15,7 +25,7 @@ harmful to yourself and in some cases to others.

    If you run a nonfree program on your computer, it denies your freedom; the immediate wrong is directed at -you.(*)

    +you [1].

    That does not mean you're an “evildoer” or “sinner” for running a nonfree program. When the harm @@ -39,7 +49,7 @@ important to avoid any use of these programs.

    But there is one special case where using some nonfree software, and even urging others to use it, can be a positive thing. That's when the use of the nonfree software aims directly at putting an end to the -use of that very same nonfree software.

    +use of that very same nonfree software [2].

    In the past

    @@ -109,20 +119,12 @@ of releases for those systems.

    limits, and crucial for the progress of free software, but we must resist stretching it any further lest it turn into an all-purpose excuse for any profitable activity with nonfree software.

    +
    -

    Author's note

    - -

    Occasionally it is necessary to use and even upgrade a nonfree -system on a machine in order to install a free system to replace it on -that machine. This is not exactly the same issue, but the same -arguments apply: it is legitimate to recommend running some nonfree -software momentarily in order to remove it.

    - -
    - -

    Footnote

    - -

    [*] Using the nonfree +

    Footnotes

    +
      +
    1. +

      Using the nonfree program can have unfortunate indirect effects, such as rewarding the perpetrator and encouraging more use of that program. This is a further reason to shun use of nonfree programs.

      @@ -140,10 +142,21 @@ uncooperative.

      However, we think that the truly moral path is to carefully reject such agreements.

      +
    2. + +
    3. +

      Occasionally it is necessary to use and even upgrade a nonfree +system on a machine in order to install a free system to replace it on +that machine. This is not exactly the same issue, but the same +arguments apply: it is legitimate to recommend running some nonfree +software momentarily in order to remove it.

      +
    4. +
    +
    - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/java-trap.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/java-trap.html index 27e8fc4..507a222 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/java-trap.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/java-trap.html @@ -1,18 +1,26 @@ - + + + + Free but Shackled - The Java Trap - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    Free but Shackled - The Java Trap

    -

    by Richard Stallman

    + - -

    Headnote

    +
    +

    Headnote

    Since this article was first published, Sun (now part of Oracle) -has relicensed +has relicensed most of its Java platform reference implementation under the GNU General Public License, and there is now a free development environment for Java. Thus, the Java language as such is no longer a @@ -47,10 +55,10 @@ Java, so we can avoid other traps in the future.

    Please also see: The JavaScript Trap.

    -
    +
    -

    April 12, 2004

    +

    April 12, 2004

    If your program is free software, it is basically ethical—but @@ -65,8 +73,8 @@ The JavaScript Trap.

    freedoms. Roughly speaking, they are: the freedom to run the program, the freedom to study and change the source, the freedom to redistribute the source and binaries, and the freedom to publish - improved versions. (See - http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.) + improved versions. (See the + Free Software Definition.) Whether any given program in source form is free software depends solely on the meaning of its license.

    @@ -110,7 +118,8 @@ The JavaScript Trap.

    Sun's implementation of Java is nonfree. The standard Java libraries are nonfree also. We do have free implementations of Java, such as the GNU Compiler for Java (GCJ) and + GNU Compiler for Java (GCJ) and GNU Classpath, but they don't support all the features yet. We are still catching up.

    @@ -136,9 +145,11 @@ The JavaScript Trap.

    libraries, and nearly all of them are nonfree; in many cases, even a library's specification is a trade secret, and Sun's latest license for these specifications prohibits release of anything less - than a full implementation of the specification. (See - http://jcp.org/aboutJava/communityprocess/JSPA2.pdf and - http://jcp.org/aboutJava/communityprocess/final/jsr129/j2me_pb-1_0-fr-spec-license.html + than a full implementation of the specification. (See the + + Java Specification Participation Agreement and the + + J2ME™ Personal Basis Profile Specification for examples.)

    @@ -181,11 +192,11 @@ The JavaScript Trap.

    development environment and use it. More generally, whatever language you use, keep your eyes open, and check the free status of programs your code depends on. The easiest way to verify that a - program is free is by looking for it in the Free Software Directory - (http://www.fsf.org/directory). + program is free is by looking for it in the Free Software Directory. If a program is not in the directory, you can check its license(s) - against the list of free software licenses - (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html). + against the list of free software + licenses.

    @@ -199,13 +210,14 @@ The JavaScript Trap.

    today, write it to run on free facilities from the start.

    -

    See also:

    +

    See also:

    The Curious Incident of Sun in the Night-Time

    +
    - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/javascript-trap.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/javascript-trap.html index 591af5c..b369ea9 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/javascript-trap.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/javascript-trap.html @@ -1,12 +1,19 @@ - -The JavaScript Trap + + + + +The JavaScript Trap - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation - + + + +

    The JavaScript Trap

    -

    by Richard Stallman

    +

    You may be running nonfree programs on your computer every day without realizing it—through your web browser.

    @@ -14,11 +21,13 @@ day without realizing it—through your web browser.

    -
    +
    +

    Webmasters: there are several ways to indicate the license of JavaScript programs in a web site.

    -
    +
    +

    In the free software community, the idea that @@ -61,7 +70,7 @@ the programs are nonfree.

    In addition to being nonfree, many of these programs are malware because -they snoop +they snoop on the user. Even nastier, some sites use services which record all the user's actions while looking at the page. The services @@ -77,29 +86,38 @@ trouble to identify the nontrivial nonfree programs and block them. However, even in the free software community most users are not aware of this issue; the browsers' silence tends to conceal it.

    -

    It is possible to release a JavaScript program as free software, by +

    To be clear, the language JavaScript is not inherently better or worse +for users' freedom than any other language. +It is possible to release a JavaScript program as free software, by distributing the source code under a free software license. If the program is self-contained—if its functioning and purpose are independent of the page it came in—that is fine; you can copy it to a file on your machine, modify it, and visit that file with a -browser to run it. But that is an unusual case.

    - -

    In the usual case, JavaScript programs are meant to work with a +browser to run it. It's even possible to package it for installation +just like other free programs and invocation with a shell command. +These programs present no special moral issue different from those +of C programs.

    + +

    The issue of the JavaScript trap applies when the JavaScript +program comes along with a web page that users visit. +Those JavaScript programs are written to work with a particular page or site, and the page or site depends on them to -function. Then another problem arises: even if the program's source +function.

    + +

    Suppose you copy and modify the page's JavaScript code. +Then another problem arises: even if the program's source is available, browsers do not offer a way to run your modified version instead of the original when visiting that page or site. The effect is comparable to tivoization, although in principle not quite so hard to overcome.

    JavaScript is not the only language web sites use for programs sent -to the user. Flash supports programming through an extended variant -of JavaScript; if we ever have a sufficiently complete free Flash -player, we will need to deal with the issue of nonfree Flash programs. -Silverlight seems likely to create a problem similar to Flash, except -worse, since Microsoft uses it as a platform for nonfree codecs. A -free replacement for Silverlight does not do the job for the free -world unless it normally comes with free replacement codecs.

    +to the user. Flash supported programming through an extended variant +of JavaScript, but that is a thing of the past. Microsoft Silverlight +seems likely to create a problem similar to Flash, except worse, since +Microsoft uses it as a platform for nonfree codecs. A free +replacement for Silverlight does not do the job adequately for the +free world unless it normally comes with free replacement codecs.

    Java applets also run in the browser, and raise similar issues. In general, any sort of applet system poses this sort of problem. Having @@ -114,7 +132,7 @@ free, but CSS is not a serious problem for users' freedom as of

    A strong movement has developed that calls for web sites to communicate only through formats and protocols that are free (some say -"open"); that is to say, whose documentation is published and which +“open”); that is to say, whose documentation is published and which anyone is free to implement. However, the presence of JavaScript programs in web pages makes that criterion insufficient. The JavaScript language itself, as a format, is free, and use of JavaScript in a web site is @@ -127,8 +145,8 @@ programs to the user” must become part of the criterion for an ethical web site.

    Silently loading and running nonfree programs is one among several -issues raised by "web applications". The term "web -application" was designed to disregard the fundamental +issues raised by “web applications.” The term “web +application” was designed to disregard the fundamental distinction between software delivered to users and software running on a server. It can refer to a specialized client program running in a browser; it can refer to specialized server software; it can @@ -143,7 +161,7 @@ server issue separately.

    JavaScript programs in web sites? The first step is to avoid running it.

    -

    What do we mean by "nontrivial"? It is a matter of +

    What do we mean by “nontrivial”? It is a matter of degree, so this is a matter of designing a simple criterion that gives good results, rather than finding the one correct answer.

    @@ -224,20 +242,23 @@ that—but remember to disable it again afterwards.

    -
    +
    +

    Webmasters: there are several ways to indicate the license of JavaScript programs in a web site.

    -
    +
    +

    Acknowledgements: I thank Matt Lee -and John Resig for their help in +and John Resig for their help in defining our proposed criterion, and David Parunakian for bringing the problem to my attention.

    + - - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/keep-control-of-your-computing.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/keep-control-of-your-computing.html index 5345c97..515fd7d 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/keep-control-of-your-computing.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/keep-control-of-your-computing.html @@ -1,20 +1,29 @@ - -Keep control of your computing, so it doesn't control you! +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 --> +<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html --> +<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays cultural ns" --> +<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" --> +<title>Keep Control of Your Computing, So It Doesn't Control You! - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation -

    Keep control of your computing, so it doesn't control you!

    + + + +
    +

    Keep Control of Your Computing, So It Doesn't Control You!

    -

    by Richard Stallman
    First published in Der Spiegel Online

    + -

    The World Wide Web, developed by Tim Berners-Lee in 1990 as a system +

    +

    The World Wide Web, developed by Tim Berners-Lee in 1990 as a system for publishing and viewing information, is slowly being transformed into a system of remote computing. It will store your data, and data about you, often limiting your access to it but allowing FBI access at any time. It will do your computing for you, but you cannot control what it does. It provides various tempting attractions, but you must -resist them.

    +resist them.

    +

    In the 1980s, most people did not use computers; those who did, mostly used personal computers or timesharing services. Both allowed you to @@ -40,7 +49,7 @@ right for users to be controlled by their software.

    to develop an operating system and applications that would be entirely free (libre, freie), so that the users would have control over them. I gave this system the name GNU. (You have probably heard people call -it “Linux”, but that's an error.) People who switch to this system, +it “Linux,” but that's an error.) People who switch to this system, and insist on using only free software, are in a position to control their computing. We have liberated only a small part of cyberspace, as yet, but that is a foothold for freedom.

    @@ -73,7 +82,7 @@ Facebook's users do not pay, so they are not its clients. They are its merchandise, to be sold to other businesses. If the company is in the US, or is a subsidiary of a US company, the FBI can collect this data at whim without even a court order under an un-American US law, -named in purest blackwhiting the “Patriot Act”.

    +named in purest blackwhiting the “Patriot Act.”

    Services also offer to operate on the users data. In effect, this means that users do their computing on the servers, and the servers @@ -81,9 +90,9 @@ take complete control of that computing.

    There is a systematic marketing campaign to drive users to entrusting their computing and their data to companies they have absolutely no -reason to trust. Its buzzword is “cloud computing”, a term used for +reason to trust. Its buzzword is “cloud computing,” a term used for so many different computing structures that its only real meaning is, -“Do it without thinking about what you're doing”.

    +“Do it without thinking about what you're doing.”

    There is even a product, Google ChromeOS, designed so that it can only store data remotely, and the user must do her computing remotely. @@ -98,9 +107,15 @@ ChromeOS devices will be designed to prevent users from doing that.

    mean that Internet users can't have control of their computing. It does mean that you'll have to swim against the current to have them.

    + +
    + - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/kevin-cole-response.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/kevin-cole-response.html index 231c33e..be30a4f 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/kevin-cole-response.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/kevin-cole-response.html @@ -1,13 +1,21 @@ - + + + + A Response Letter to the Word Attachments - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation - + + + +

    A Response Letter to the Word Attachments

    + +

    This is an automatic message:

    @@ -43,28 +51,11 @@ Thank you. antitrust violations by both the U.S. District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals.)

    - - - +
    - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/kind-communication.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/kind-communication.html index 368d864..43f8403 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/kind-communication.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/kind-communication.html @@ -1,23 +1,21 @@ - + + + + GNU Kind Communications Guidelines - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation - - -
    + + + +

    GNU Kind Communications Guidelines

    -
    +Richard Stallman -

    Purpose

    The GNU Project encourages contributions from anyone who wishes to @@ -141,10 +139,9 @@ contributors off.

    By making an effort to follow these guidelines, we will encourage more contribution to our projects, and our discussions will be friendlier and reach conclusions more easily.

    +
    -
    - -

    Footnote

    +

    Footnote

    1. @@ -170,7 +167,7 @@ friendlier and reach conclusions more easily.

    - - +
    diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/kragen-software.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/kragen-software.html index a93bc14..3f15db3 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/kragen-software.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/kragen-software.html @@ -1,15 +1,22 @@ - -People, places, things and ideas +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 --> +<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html --> +<!--#set var="TAGS" value="thirdparty" --> +<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" --> +<title>People, Places, Things and Ideas - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation -

    People, places, things and ideas

    + + + +
    +

    People, Places, Things and Ideas

    -

    -by Kragen Sitaker -<kragen@pobox.com> -

    +

    Software

    @@ -33,7 +40,7 @@ essentially the same CD from CheapBytes for $2. The traditional way to deal with this is to lock ideas up inside people, places, and things. A lawyer can get quite a bit of money simply for spitting out the appropriate ideas, not doing any actual -creative work, or simply for applying rote procedures — most +creative work, or simply for applying rote procedures—most wills reportedly fall in this category. I have to go to the Georgia O'Keeffe Museum to see old Georgia's paintings, because they don't allow photography. Then they can charge me admission. (Great museum, @@ -63,7 +70,7 @@ And it was the nature of computer applications, in general, until recently. But now we have the Web, and people are talking a lot about application-specific embedded computers. Suddenly people can deliver applications like the ones they used to deliver as computer software, -but they can lock up the software — the ideas — inside +but they can lock up the software—the ideas—inside places and things.

    @@ -81,8 +88,8 @@ choices of spellings of Cathy are correlated with their last names.

    There are also several web sites containing the same set of phone listings, or newer versions. I can't do any of these things with -these web sites, because the phone listings — an idea — -are locked up in the web site — a place or a thing, depending on +these web sites, because the phone listings—an idea—are +locked up in the web site—a place or a thing, depending on how you look at it.

    @@ -96,7 +103,7 @@ too. (So far, I'm outside that curtain.) Recently, circumstances forced them to distribute software implementations of Skipjack, and so they declassified it. (See -http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-9807.html#skip [archived] +schneier.com [archived] for more.)

    @@ -120,7 +127,7 @@ special-purpose devices.

    I'm somewhat worried about this trend. I like using general-purpose -computers — though admittedly they are often difficult to use. +computers—though admittedly they are often difficult to use. I like the freedom it gives me. The computer is just an extension of my mind.

    @@ -139,8 +146,8 @@ people to download them. IBM's patent server has a many-terabyte database behind it.)

    -I believe that software — open-source software, in particular -— has the potential to give individuals significantly more +I believe that software—open-source software, in +particular—has the potential to give individuals significantly more control over their own lives, because it consists of ideas, not people, places, or things. The trend toward special-purpose devices and remote servers could reverse that. @@ -173,8 +180,8 @@ of general-purpose computers, but a limitation of their current state. Another big issue is that they just work. General-purpose computers often don't, particularly when running Microsoft OSes. Even in the best case, you still have to do a couple of seconds of irrelevant -stuff before getting to work on what you want to work on — -typing a letter or whatever. More typically, you have to click around +stuff before getting to work on what you want to work on—typing +a letter or whatever. More typically, you have to click around for ten seconds or so. At worst, you have to reinstall Windows and the application, reconfigure some peripherals, and reinstall their drivers before you can get anything done. @@ -198,9 +205,9 @@ haven't tried it yet.) But GNU/Linux is an incredibly long way away. This will require different hardware as well as different software.

    -The forces behind remote servers are similar — ease of use +The forces behind remote servers are similar—ease of use because of uniform interfaces through a web browser, “just -working”, and no installation — just using. But they have +working,” and no installation—just using. But they have a couple of other advantages as well: they can provide services that require massive storage or computational resources that can't reasonably be provided on your own machine, unless you want to spend @@ -209,13 +216,14 @@ very inefficient way to search the Web.)

    I think these extra advantages are probably impossible to overcome at -the moment — although I'm interested in research on distributing +the moment—although I'm interested in research on distributing big computational jobs over many machines.

    +
    - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/lessig-fsfs-intro.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/lessig-fsfs-intro.html index 9d7126d..1d577ea 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/lessig-fsfs-intro.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/lessig-fsfs-intro.html @@ -1,22 +1,26 @@ - + + + + Introduction to Free Software, Free Society - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation - - -

    Introduction -to Free -Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard -M. Stallman

    + + + +
    +

    Introduction to +Free Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of +Richard M. Stallman

    -

    -by Lawrence Lessig, Professor of Law, Stanford Law School -

    +

    -Every generation has its philosopher — a writer or an artist who +Every generation has its philosopher—a writer or an artist who captures the imagination of a time. Sometimes these philosophers are recognized as such; often it takes generations before the connection is made real. But recognized or not, a time gets marked by the people @@ -36,7 +40,7 @@ defined by “code.” “Code” is the technology that makes computers run. Whether inscribed in software or burned in hardware, it is the collection of instructions, first written in words, that directs the functionality -of machines. These machines — computers — increasingly +of machines. These machines—computers—increasingly define and control our life. They determine how phones connect, and what runs on TV. They decide whether video can be streamed across a broadband link to a computer. They control what a computer reports @@ -142,7 +146,7 @@ original lawyers. The opinions they produce can be quoted in later briefs. They can be copied and integrated into another brief or opinion. The “source code” for American law is by design, and by principle, open and free for anyone to take. And take lawyers -do — for it is a measure of a great brief that it achieves its +do—for it is a measure of a great brief that it achieves its creativity through the reuse of what happened before. The source is free; creativity and an economy is built upon it.

    @@ -156,7 +160,7 @@ doesn't demand such work without price. Instead this economy flourishes, with later work added to the earlier.

    -We could imagine a legal practice that was different — briefs +We could imagine a legal practice that was different—briefs and arguments that were kept secret; rulings that announced a result but not the reasoning. Laws that were kept by the police but published to no one else. Regulation that operated without explaining @@ -189,7 +193,7 @@ the free software movement. They include many arguments not well known, and among these, an especially insightful account of the changed circumstances that render copyright in the digital world suspect. They will serve as a resource for those who seek to -understand the thought of this most powerful man — powerful in +understand the thought of this most powerful man—powerful in his ideas, his passion, and his integrity, even if powerless in every other way. They will inspire others who would take these ideas, and build upon them. @@ -202,8 +206,8 @@ patient in both.

    Yet when our world finally comes to understand the power and danger of -code — when it finally sees that code, like laws, or like -government, must be transparent to be free — then we will look +code—when it finally sees that code, like laws, or like +government, must be transparent to be free—then we will look back at this uncompromising and persistent programmer and recognize the vision he has fought to make real: the vision of a world where freedom and knowledge survives the compiler. And we will come to see @@ -218,20 +222,22 @@ and works, there is inspiration for anyone who would, like Stallman, fight to create this freedom.

    -

    -Lawrence Lessig
    -Professor of Law, Stanford Law School. -

    - + + + +
    - - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/limit-patent-effect.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/limit-patent-effect.html index c9bc30d..a60a511 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/limit-patent-effect.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/limit-patent-effect.html @@ -1,17 +1,20 @@ - + + + + Giving the Software Field Protection from Patents - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    Giving the Software Field Protection from Patents

    -

    by Richard -Stallman

    - -

    A version of this article was first published at -Wired -in November 2012.

    +

    Patents threaten every software developer, and the patent wars we have long feared have broken out. Software developers and software @@ -19,11 +22,11 @@ users—which, in our society, is most people—need software to be free of patents.

    The patents that threaten us are often called “software -patents”, but that term is misleading. Such patents are not +patents,” but that term is misleading. Such patents are not about any specific program. Rather, each patent describes some practical idea, and says that anyone carrying out the idea can be sued. So it is clearer to call them “computational idea -patents”.

    +patents.”

    The US patent system doesn't label patents to say this one's a “software patent” and that one isn't. Software developers @@ -64,7 +67,7 @@ limit our criticism of software patents to just “patent trolls” or “bad quality” patents. The worst patent aggressor today is Apple, which isn't a “troll” by the usual definition; I don't know whether Apple's patents are “good -quality”, but the better the patent's “quality” the +quality,” but the better the patent's “quality” the more dangerous its threat.

    We need to fix the whole problem, not just part of it.

    @@ -103,7 +106,7 @@ infringement. This approach has several advantages:

    + - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/linux-and-gnu.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/linux-and-gnu.html index ec2e46a..bcc7de9 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/linux-and-gnu.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/linux-and-gnu.html @@ -1,36 +1,44 @@ - + + + + Linux and GNU - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + -

    Linux and the GNU System

    + + + +
    +

    Linux and the GNU System

    - -
    -
    -
    -

    For more information see also -the GNU/Linux FAQ, -and Why GNU/Linux?

    -
    -
    - -

    Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called -“Linux”, and many of its users +“Linux,” and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.

    + +

    There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in @@ -46,7 +54,7 @@ GNU/Linux.

    Many users do not understand the difference between the kernel, which is Linux, and the whole system, which they also call -“Linux”. The ambiguous use of the name doesn't help +“Linux.” The ambiguous use of the name doesn't help people understand. These users often think that Linus Torvalds developed the whole operating system in 1991, with a bit of help.

    @@ -83,7 +91,7 @@ kind of project by specific programs that came from the project.

    If we tried to measure the GNU Project's contribution in this way, what would we conclude? One CD-ROM vendor found that in their “Linux -distribution”, GNU +distribution,” GNU software was the largest single contingent, around 28% of the total source code, and this included some of the essential major components without which there could be no system. Linux itself was @@ -91,7 +99,7 @@ about 3%. (The proportions in 2008 are similar: in the “main” repository of gNewSense, Linux is 1.5% and GNU packages are 15%.) So if you were going to pick a name for the system based on who wrote the programs in the system, the most appropriate single -choice would be “GNU”.

    +choice would be “GNU.”

    But that is not the deepest way to consider the question. The GNU @@ -109,11 +117,11 @@ collection of useful programs—is because the GNU Project set out to make it one. We made a list of the programs needed to make a complete free system, and we systematically found, wrote, or found people to write everything on the list. We wrote essential -but unexciting -(1) components because you can't have a system +but unexciting [1] components +because you can't have a system without them. Some of our system components, the programming tools, became popular on their own among programmers, but we wrote many -components that are not tools (2). We even +components that are not tools [2]. We even developed a chess game, GNU Chess, because a complete system needs games too.

    @@ -130,14 +138,14 @@ from being ready for people to use in general.

    Fortunately, we didn't have to wait for the Hurd, because of Linux. Once Torvalds freed Linux in 1992, it fit into the last major gap in the GNU system. People could -then -combine Linux with the GNU system to make a complete free system -— a version of the GNU system which also contained Linux. The +then +combine Linux with the GNU system to make a complete free system—a +version of the GNU system which also contained Linux. The GNU/Linux system, in other words.

    Making them work well together was not a trivial job. Some GNU -components(3) needed substantial change +components [3] needed substantial change to work with Linux. Integrating a complete system as a distribution that would work “out of the box” was a big job, too. It required addressing the issue of how to install and boot the @@ -148,7 +156,7 @@ the nature of things, was surely going to be done by someone.

    The GNU Project supports GNU/Linux systems as well as the GNU -system. The FSF funded the rewriting of +system. The FSF funded the rewriting of the Linux-related extensions to the GNU C library, so that now they are well integrated, and the newest GNU/Linux systems use the current library release with no changes. The FSF also funded an early stage @@ -169,9 +177,9 @@ The FSF supports computer facilities for a few of them.

    eliminating various nonfree programs. Nowadays, the usual version of Linux contains nonfree programs too. These programs are intended to be loaded into I/O devices when the system starts, and they are -included, as long series of numbers, in the "source code" of Linux. +included, as long series of numbers, in the “source code” of Linux. Thus, maintaining free GNU/Linux distributions now entails maintaining -a free version of +a free version of Linux too.

    Whether you use GNU/Linux or not, please don't confuse the public @@ -179,14 +187,14 @@ by using the name “Linux” ambiguously. Linux is the kernel, one of the essential major components of the system. The system as a whole is basically the GNU system, with Linux added. When you're talking about this combination, please call it -“GNU/Linux”.

    +“GNU/Linux.”

    If you want to make a link on “GNU/Linux” for further -reference, this page and -http://www.gnu.org/gnu/the-gnu-project.html are good choices. If +reference, this page and +https://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html are good choices. If you mention Linux, the kernel, and want to add a link for further -reference, http://foldoc.org/linux +reference, https://foldoc.org/linux is a good URL to use.

    @@ -197,7 +205,7 @@ Aside from GNU, one other project has independently produced a free Unix-like operating system. This system is known as BSD, and it was developed at UC Berkeley. It was nonfree in the 80s, but became free in the early 90s. A free operating system that exists -today(4) is almost certainly either a +today [4] is almost certainly either a variant of the GNU system, or a kind of BSD system.

    @@ -209,39 +217,34 @@ with GNU. BSD systems today use some GNU programs, just as the GNU system and its variants use some BSD programs; however, taken as wholes, they are two different systems that evolved separately. The BSD developers did not write a kernel and add it to the GNU system, -and a name like GNU/BSD would not fit the situation.(5)

    +and a name like GNU/BSD would not fit the situation [5].

    -

    Notes

    +

    Footnotes

      -
    1. -These unexciting but essential components +
    2. These unexciting but essential components include the GNU assembler (GAS) and the linker (GLD), both are now part of the GNU Binutils package, GNU tar, and many more.
    3. -
    4. -For instance, The Bourne Again SHell (BASH), +
    5. For instance, The Bourne Again SHell (BASH), the PostScript interpreter Ghostscript, and the GNU C library are not programming tools. Neither are GNUCash, GNOME, and GNU Chess.
    6. -
    7. -For instance, the +
    8. For instance, the GNU C library.
    9. -
    10. -Since that was written, a nearly-all-free +
    11. Since that was written, a nearly-all-free Windows-like system has been developed, but technically it is not at all like GNU or Unix, so it doesn't really affect this issue. Most of the kernel of Solaris has been made free, but if you wanted to make a free system out of that, aside from replacing the missing parts of the kernel, you would also need to put it into GNU or BSD.
    12. -
    13. -On the other hand, in the years since this article +
    14. On the other hand, in the years since this article was written, the GNU C Library has been ported to several versions of the BSD kernel, which made it straightforward to combine the GNU system with that kernel. Just as with GNU/Linux, these are indeed variants of @@ -249,10 +252,8 @@ GNU, and are therefore called, for instance, GNU/kFreeBSD and GNU/kNetBSD depending on the kernel of the system. Ordinary users on typical desktops can hardly distinguish between GNU/Linux and GNU/*BSD.
    15. -
    -
    @@ -301,7 +302,7 @@ of this article.

    There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --> -

    Copyright © 1997-2002, 2007, 2014-2017, 2019, 2021 Richard M. Stallman

    +

    Copyright © 1997-2002, 2005, 2008, 2019, 2021 Richard Stallman

    This page is licensed under a Creative @@ -311,10 +312,10 @@ Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

    Updated: -$Date: 2021/04/07 17:55:37 $ +$Date: 2021/11/02 13:20:53 $

    - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/linux-gnu-freedom.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/linux-gnu-freedom.html index 256ac77..98226a4 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/linux-gnu-freedom.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/linux-gnu-freedom.html @@ -1,16 +1,22 @@ - -Linux, GNU, and freedom +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 --> +<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html --> +<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays aboutfs free-open" --> +<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" --> +<title>Linux, GNU, and Freedom - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation -

    Linux, GNU, and freedom

    + + + +
    +

    Linux, GNU, and Freedom

    -

    - by Richard M. Stallman

    +

    Since When SIGLINUX invited me to speak, it was a “Linux User Group”; that is, a group for users of the GNU/Linux system - which calls the whole system “Linux”. So I replied + which calls the whole system “Linux.” So I replied politely that if they'd like someone from the GNU Project to give a speech for them, they ought to treat the GNU Project right, and call - the system “GNU/Linux”. The system is a variant of GNU, + the system “GNU/Linux.” The system is a variant of GNU, and the GNU Project is its principal developer, so social convention says to call it by the name we chose. Unless there are powerful reasons for an exception, I usually decline to give speeches for @@ -37,14 +43,14 @@ user groups. Our webmaster told him that we would not list it under the name “SIGLINUX” because that name implies that the group is about Linux. Strunk proposed to change the name to - “SIGFREE”, and our webmaster agreed that would be fine. + “SIGFREE,” and our webmaster agreed that would be fine. (Barr's article said we rejected this proposal.) However, the group - ultimately decided to stay with “SIGLINUX”.

    + ultimately decided to stay with “SIGLINUX.”

    At that point, the matter came to my attention again, and I suggested they consider other possible names. There are many names they could choose that would not call the system - “Linux”, and I hope they will come up with one they + “Linux,” and I hope they will come up with one they like. There the matter rests as far as I know.

    Is it true, as Barr writes, that some people see these actions as an @@ -73,10 +79,10 @@ about the GNU Project and think them justified; his fellows will support him, because they want each other's support in maintaining their prejudice. Dissenters can be reviled; thus, if I decline to - participate in an activity under the rubric of “Linux”, + participate in an activity under the rubric of “Linux,” they may find that inexcusable, and hold me responsible for the ill will they feel afterwards. When so many people want me to call the - system “Linux”, how can I, who merely launched its + system “Linux,” how can I, who merely launched its development, not comply? And forcibly denying them a speech is forcibly making them unhappy. That's coercion, as bad as Microsoft!

    @@ -94,7 +100,7 @@ There are people like Barr, that want their software “free from ideology” and criticize anyone that says freedom matters. There are people like Torvalds that will pressure our community into - use of a non-free program, and challenge anyone who complains to + use of a nonfree program, and challenge anyone who complains to provide a (technically) better program immediately or shut up. There are people who say that technical decisions should not be “politicized” by consideration of their social @@ -111,11 +117,11 @@ Television Promotion Act">CBDTPA (formerly SSSCA), by the Broadcast “Protection” Discussion Group - (see
    http://www.eff.org/) which + (see www.eff.org) which proposes to prohibit free software to access digital TV broadcasts, by software patents (Europe is now considering whether to have software patents), by Microsoft nondisclosure agreements for vital - protocols, and by everyone who tempts us with a non-free program + protocols, and by everyone who tempts us with a nonfree program that is “better” (technically) than available free programs. We can lose our freedom again just as we lost it the first time, if we don't care enough to protect it.

    @@ -123,17 +129,17 @@ Will enough of us care? That depends on many things; among them, how much influence the GNU Project has, and how much influence Linus Torvalds has. The GNU Project says, “Value your - freedom!”. Joe Barr says, “Choose between non-free and - free programs on technical grounds alone!”. If people credit + freedom!” Joe Barr says, “Choose between nonfree and + free programs on technical grounds alone!” If people credit Torvalds as the main developer of the GNU/Linux system, that's not just inaccurate, it also makes his message more - influential—and that message says, “Non-free software is - ok; I use it and develop it myself.” If they recognize our + influential—and that message says, “Nonfree software is + OK; I use it and develop it myself.” If they recognize our role, they will listen to us more, and the message we will give them is, “This system exists because of people who care about freedom. Join us, value your freedom, and together we can preserve it.” - See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html + See The GNU Project for the history.

    When I ask people to call the system GNU/Linux, some of them respond @@ -150,7 +156,7 @@ Project campaign for freedom.

    Since this came up in the context of Linux (the kernel) and Bitkeeper, - the non-free version control system that Linus Torvalds now uses, I'd + the nonfree version control system that Linus Torvalds now uses, I'd like to address that issue as well.

    Bitkeeper issue

    @@ -159,10 +165,10 @@

    The use of Bitkeeper for the Linux sources has a grave effect on the free software community, because anyone who wants to closely track - patches to Linux can only do it by installing that non-free program. + patches to Linux can only do it by installing that nonfree program. There must be dozens or even hundreds of kernel hackers who have done this. Most of them are gradually convincing themselves that it is ok - to use non-free software, in order to avoid a sense of cognitive + to use nonfree software, in order to avoid a sense of cognitive dissonance about the presence of Bitkeeper on their machines. What can be done about this?

    @@ -173,14 +179,14 @@ That update process could run automatically and frequently.

    The FSF cannot do this, because we cannot install Bitkeeper on our - machines. We have no non-free systems or applications on them now, + machines. We have no nonfree systems or applications on them now, and our principles say we must keep it that way. Operating this repository would have to be done by someone else who is willing to have Bitkeeper on his machine, unless someone can find or make a way to do it using free software.

    The Linux sources themselves have an even more serious problem with - non-free software: they actually contain some. Quite a few device + nonfree software: they actually contain some. Quite a few device drivers contain series of numbers that represent firmware programs to be installed in the device. These programs are not free software. A few numbers to be deposited into device registers are one thing; a @@ -196,11 +202,11 @@ The Linux developers have a plan to move these firmware programs into separate files; it will take a few years to mature, but when completed it will solve the secondary problem; we could make a - “free Linux” version that doesn't have the non-free + “free Linux” version that doesn't have the nonfree firmware files. That by itself won't do much good if most people - use the non-free “official” version of Linux. That may + use the nonfree “official” version of Linux. That may well occur, because on many platforms the free version won't run - without the non-free firmware. The “free Linux” project + without the nonfree firmware. The “free Linux” project will have to figure out what the firmware does and write source code for it, perhaps in assembler language for whatever embedded processor it runs on. It's a daunting job. It would be less @@ -210,7 +216,7 @@ that the job is not necessary.

    Linux, the kernel, is often thought of as the flagship of free - software, yet its current version is partially non-free. How did + software, yet its current version is partially nonfree. How did this happen? This problem, like the decision to use Bitkeeper, reflects the attitude of the original developer of Linux, a person who thinks that “technically better” is more important @@ -219,19 +225,22 @@ Value your freedom, or you will lose it, teaches history. “Don't bother us with politics,” respond those who don't want to learn.

    +

    Update: Since 2005, BitKeeper is no longer used to manage the Linux kernel source tree. See the article, Thank You, Larry - McVoy. The Linux sources still contain non-free firmware blobs, + McVoy. The Linux sources still contain nonfree firmware blobs, but as of January 2008, a free version of Linux is now maintained for use in free GNU/Linux distributions.

    +
    + - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/loyal-computers.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/loyal-computers.html index 11960e8..40797bc 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/loyal-computers.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/loyal-computers.html @@ -1,13 +1,23 @@ - + + + + What Does It Mean for Your Computer to Be Loyal? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + - + + + +

    What Does It Mean for Your Computer to Be Loyal?

    -

    by Richard Stallman

    +

    We say that running free software on your computer means that its operation is

    +
    - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/luispo-rms-interview.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/luispo-rms-interview.html index 561de14..ae2342e 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/luispo-rms-interview.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/luispo-rms-interview.html @@ -1,22 +1,22 @@ - -Interview: Richard M. Stallman +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 --> +<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html --> +<!--#set var="TAGS" value="speeches" --> +<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" --> +<title>Interview with Richard Stallman (2001) - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation -

    Interview: Richard M. Stallman

    + + + +
    +

    Interview with Richard Stallman (2001)

    -

    -This is an interview between Louis Suarez-Potts and Richard -M. Stallman. -

    -
    +

    Richard M. Stallman is the most forceful and famous @@ -47,8 +47,8 @@ is governed. Stallman's work is of course resolutely practical. A short list of his coding accomplishments would include Emacs as well as most of the components of the GNU/Linux system, which he either wrote or helped write. In 1990, Stallman received a McArthur -Foundation fellowship; he has used the funds given him to further +href="https://www.macfound.org/fellows/class-of-1990/richard-m-stallman"> +McArthur Foundation fellowship; he has used the funds given him to further his free software work. (See Moody, Rebel Code for a good account of Stallman's mission.)

    @@ -144,7 +144,8 @@ software movement.) close to what political theorists such as Amitai Etzioni would describe as a communitarianism (see, for instance, https://communitariannetwork.org/about). + href="https://web.archive.org/web/20210509231234/https://communitariannetwork.org/about"> + communitariannetwork.org/about). And communitarianism is by no means hostile to the market economy that most people associate with capitalism. Quite the opposite. Would you speak to what could be called the politics of your ethical system?

    @@ -241,7 +242,7 @@ FUD, not to credit the errors of others.

    Stallman did not respond to this query for clarification, but as it - happened, a speech + happened, a speech he recently presented at New York University responded to Microsoft's propaganda. The Free Software Foundation has presented a defense, of free software, @@ -288,7 +289,7 @@ villainy either.

    In the age of the printing press, that was true: -copyright +copyright was an industrial restriction on publishers, requiring them to pay the author of a book. It did not restrict the readers, because the actions it restricted were things only a publisher could do. @@ -381,10 +382,11 @@ started in India. There is also great interest in Brazil.

    I accomplish mirth. That's the hacker spirit—Ha Ha, Only Serious.

    +
    - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/manifesto.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/manifesto.html index 787898f..167770f 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/manifesto.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/manifesto.html @@ -1,13 +1,25 @@ - + + + + The GNU Manifesto - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + + +

    The GNU Manifesto

    +
    +

    The GNU Manifesto (which appears below) was written -by Richard Stallman in 1985 to +by Richard Stallman 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, @@ -20,7 +32,7 @@ added since 1993 help clarify these points.

    If you want to install the GNU/Linux system, we recommend you use one of the 100% free software GNU/Linux distributions. For how to contribute, -see http://www.gnu.org/help.

    +see gnu.org/help.

    The GNU Project is part of the Free Software Movement, a campaign for freedom for users of @@ -29,13 +41,15 @@ software. It is a mistake to associate GNU with the term who disagree with the Free Software Movement's ethical values. They use it to promote an amoral approach to the same field.

    +
    +

    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 +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.

    @@ -94,7 +108,7 @@ institution where such things are done for me against my will.

    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.(2)

    +me from giving GNU away [2].

    Why GNU Will Be Compatible with Unix

    @@ -143,7 +157,7 @@ talk to, this is an important happiness that money cannot replace.

    How You Can Contribute

    -
    +

    (Nowadays, for software tasks to work on, see the High Priority Projects @@ -152,7 +166,7 @@ Wanted list, the general task list for GNU software packages. For other ways to help, see the guide to helping the GNU operating system.)

    -
    +

    I am asking computer manufacturers for donations of machines and @@ -191,7 +205,7 @@ the need to make a living in another way.

    Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain good system -software free, just like air.(3)

    +software free, just like air [3].

    This means much more than just saving everyone the price of a Unix @@ -237,18 +251,19 @@ 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.”

    +they can't rely on any support.”
    -

    +

    “You have to charge for the program to pay for providing -the support.”

    - +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.(4)

    +obtained GNU free ought to be profitable [4].

    We must distinguish between support in the form of real programming @@ -279,15 +294,15 @@ 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.”

    - -

    +you must charge for the program to support that.”

    +
    “It's no use advertising a program people can get -free.”

    - +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 @@ -301,12 +316,13 @@ 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?(5)

    +don't want to let the free market decide this? [5]

    +
    -

    +

    “My company needs a proprietary operating system to get -a competitive edge.”

    - +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 @@ -319,23 +335,25 @@ selling operating systems.

    I would like to see GNU development supported by gifts from many -manufacturers and users, reducing the cost to each.(6)

    +manufacturers and users, reducing the cost to each [6].

    +
    -

    +

    “Don't programmers deserve a reward for their -creativity?”

    - +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?”

    - +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 @@ -358,10 +376,11 @@ 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?”

    - +
    +“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 @@ -381,7 +400,7 @@ now.

    Restricting copying is not the only basis for business in software. -It is the most common basis(7) because it brings in +It is the most common basis [7] 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. @@ -394,11 +413,12 @@ 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?”

    - +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 @@ -406,7 +426,7 @@ their lives more difficult.

    People who have studied the issue of intellectual property -rights(8) carefully (such as lawyers) say that there +rights [8] 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.

    @@ -448,11 +468,12 @@ 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.”

    - +better.”
    +

    The paradigm of competition is a race: by rewarding the winner, we encourage everyone to run faster. When capitalism really works this @@ -468,11 +489,12 @@ 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?”

    - +incentive?”
    +

    Actually, many people will program with absolutely no monetary incentive. Programming has an irresistible fascination for some @@ -503,18 +525,20 @@ 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.”

    - +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.”

    - +
    +“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 @@ -533,7 +557,7 @@ also employ programmers.

    People with new ideas could distribute programs as -freeware(9), asking for donations from satisfied +freeware [9], asking for donations from satisfied users, or selling handholding services. I have met people who are already working this way successfully.

    @@ -570,6 +594,10 @@ the group's members would like to use.

  • 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 postscarcity world, where nobody will have to work very hard just to @@ -588,9 +616,9 @@ 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

    +

    Footnotes

    - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/mcvoy.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/mcvoy.html index eb9e4a4..57bc7b2 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/mcvoy.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/mcvoy.html @@ -1,12 +1,19 @@ - + + + + Thank You, Larry McVoy - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    Thank You, Larry McVoy

    -

    by Richard M. Stallman

    +

    For the first time in my life, I want to thank Larry McVoy. He @@ -124,10 +131,11 @@ We should not forget the lesson we have learned from it: Nonfree programs are dangerous to you and to your community. Don't let them get a place in your life.

    +
    - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/microsoft-antitrust.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/microsoft-antitrust.html index a03d3fb..f319fda 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/microsoft-antitrust.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/microsoft-antitrust.html @@ -1,17 +1,25 @@ - + + + + The Microsoft Antitrust Trial and Free Software - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    The Microsoft Antitrust Trial and Free Software

    +

    With the Microsoft antitrust trial moving toward a conclusion, the question of what to demand of Microsoft if it loses is coming to the fore. Ralph Nader is even [when this was written, in March 1999] organizing a conference about the question (see -http://www.appraising-microsoft.org/).

    +appraising-microsoft.org).

    The obvious answers—to restrict contracts between Microsoft and computer manufacturers, or to break up the company—will not make @@ -59,7 +67,7 @@ remedies together.

    Similar terms were included in an agreement between IBM and the European Community in 1984, settling another antitrust dispute. See - http://www.cptech.org/at/ibm/ibm1984ec.html.

    + www.cptech.org.

  • Require Microsoft to use its patents for defense only, in the field of software. (If they happen to own patents that apply to other @@ -110,10 +118,11 @@ crucial than being permitted to implement all parts. The remedies proposed above are what we really need. They will clear the way for us to develop a truly superior alternative to Microsoft Windows, in whatever area Microsoft does not make Windows free software.

    +
  • - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/microsoft-new-monopoly.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/microsoft-new-monopoly.html index 158e893..386b34a 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/microsoft-new-monopoly.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/microsoft-new-monopoly.html @@ -1,14 +1,22 @@ - + + + + Microsoft's New Monopoly - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    Microsoft's New Monopoly

    -

    by Richard Stallman

    + -
    +

    This article was written in July 2005. Microsoft adopted a different policy in 2006, so the specific policies described below and the specific criticisms of them are only of historical significance. @@ -17,7 +25,8 @@ The overall problem remains, however: Microsoft's cunningly worded new policy does not give anyone clear permission to implement OOXML.

    -
    +
    +

    European legislators who endorse software patents frequently claim that those wouldn't affect free software (or “open @@ -87,9 +96,8 @@ one is not required to endorse the statement as true or even meaningful, only to include it. The software developer could cancel its misleading effect with a disclaimer like this: “The following misleading statement has been imposed on us by Microsoft; please be advised that it is -propaganda. See -http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html for more -explanation.”

    +propaganda. See Richard Stallman's article +on ‘intellectual property’ for more explanation.”

    However, the requirement to include a fixed piece of text is actually quite cunning, because anyone who does so has explicitly @@ -131,13 +139,14 @@ keep Europeans safe.

    [2009 note]: the EU directive to allow software patents was rejected, but the European Patent Office has continued issuing them and some countries treat them as valid. -See ffii.org for more information and +See ffii.org for more information and to participate in the campaign against software patents in Europe.

    + - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/microsoft-old.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/microsoft-old.html index ff9efcb..fcc2219 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/microsoft-old.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/microsoft-old.html @@ -1,15 +1,23 @@ - + + + + Is Microsoft the Great Satan? (Old Version) - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    Is Microsoft the Great Satan? (Old Version)

    -

    There is an -updated version of this article.

    +

    There is an +updated version of this article.

    +

    Many people think of Microsoft as the monster menace of the software industry. There is even a campaign to boycott Microsoft. This feeling @@ -33,7 +41,7 @@ we must not exonerate the other companies that also make proprietary software. At the FSF, we don't run any proprietary software—not from Microsoft or anyone else.

    -

    In the “Halloween documents”, released at the end of +

    In the “Halloween documents,” released at the end of October 1998, Microsoft executives stated an intention to use various methods to obstruct the development of free software: specifically, designing secret protocols and file formats, and patenting algorithms @@ -45,7 +53,7 @@ past, probably, their motivation was to attack each other; now, it seems, we are among the intended targets. But that change in motivation has no practical consequence, because secret conventions and software patents obstruct everyone, regardless of the -“intended target”.

    +“intended target.”

    Secrecy and patents do threaten free software. They have obstructed us greatly in the past, and we must expect they will do so even more @@ -56,9 +64,11 @@ that the GNU/Linux system has the potential for great success.

    Thank you, Microsoft, and please get out of the way.

    +
    + - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/microsoft-verdict.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/microsoft-verdict.html index f98483c..ff9b071 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/microsoft-verdict.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/microsoft-verdict.html @@ -1,12 +1,17 @@ - - + + + + On the Microsoft Verdict - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation - - + + + +

    On the Microsoft Verdict

    +

    Many @@ -55,11 +60,12 @@ development of the GNU/Linux system).

    When we see what remedies the judge chooses, we will get an idea of whether the case has been helpful or harmful to the Free Software Movement.

    +
    - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/microsoft.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/microsoft.html index ab3867d..9af8cde 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/microsoft.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/microsoft.html @@ -1,16 +1,24 @@ - + + + + Is Microsoft the Great Satan? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    Is Microsoft the Great Satan?

    -
    -

    This article was given a major rewrite in 2009. +

    +

    This article was given a major rewrite in 2009. The old version is also -available.

    +available.

    +

    Many people think of Microsoft as the monster menace of the software industry. There is even a specific campaign to boycott @@ -43,14 +51,14 @@ it or who distributes it.

    There is no need to reject Microsoft non-software products, or services that you can use without proprietary software. (When you use a web service, whether Microsoft's or not, watch out for -non-free JavaScript +nonfree JavaScript programs that it may try to slip into your browser.) When Microsoft releases free programs, which it occasionally does, they are acceptable in theory. Alas, most of them depend fundamentally on Microsoft proprietary software, which we do need to reject, and that makes them useless for anyone that chooses to live in freedom.

    -

    In the “Halloween documents”, leaked in October 1998, +

    In the “Halloween documents,” leaked in October 1998, Microsoft executives stated an intention to use various methods to obstruct the development of free software: specifically, designing secret protocols and file formats, and patenting algorithms and @@ -62,7 +70,7 @@ and patents have obstructed us greatly, and they may be more damaging in the future. For the most part, the companies' main motivation in doing these things is to attack each other; now, it seems, we are specifically targeted. Microsoft is using its patents directly to - + attack the free software community, and our community is fighting back.

    @@ -70,7 +78,7 @@ back.

    (and software developers and users generally)—consider the harm that the MP3 patents have done. Thus, defending against specific attacks is necessary but not sufficient. The only full solution is -to eliminate software +to eliminate software patents.

    @@ -80,26 +88,28 @@ obstructs migration to GNU/Linux. For instance, when Microsoft “donates” copies of Windows to schools, it converts these schools into tools for implanting a dependence on Windows. There are indications that Microsoft systematically plans these -activities as +activities as a campaign against the adoption of GNU/Linux.

    Each Windows “upgrade” augments Microsoft's power over the users; Microsoft plans it that way. And each one is a step forward in malicious features, which -include Digital Restrictions +include Digital Restrictions Management and back doors. So the FSF runs campaigns to warn users against “upgrading” -to Windows Vista -and Windows 7. We aim to reduce +to Windows Vista +and Windows 7. We aim to reduce the amount of inertia they will create.

    We don't hate Microsoft, and we don't consider it the Great Satan. But we do recognize it as the company that has separated more users from their freedom than any other, and a powerful avowed enemy of computer users' freedom. We act accordingly.

    +
    + - - - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/motif.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/motif.html index 4bfe696..7dc76ad 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/motif.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/motif.html @@ -1,12 +1,19 @@ - + + + + The Motif License - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation - + + + +

    The Motif License

    -

    by Richard Stallman

    +

    A couple of weeks ago, the Open Group changed the license of Motif, @@ -15,7 +22,7 @@ license does not fit either the definition of free software, or the looser definition of open source software.

    Their announcement says they have released Motif to “the open -source community”, but this is true only in an unnatural +source community,” but this is true only in an unnatural interpretation of the words. They have not made Motif available within the free software community; instead, they have invited the people in the free software community to leave the community by using @@ -45,7 +52,7 @@ Here are some of the problems of the Motif license:

  • The license is restricted to use on certain operating systems, - those which fit a category they call “open source”. + those which fit a category they call “open source.” Both the free software movement and the open source camp consider use restrictions unacceptable.
  • @@ -64,15 +71,17 @@ stands for, we think people should not misrepresent what it stands for. The facts of the situation are complex enough; confusing the issue is not welcome.

    -

    Later Note

    +

    Later Note

    -In 2012, +In 2012, Motif was released under the GNU Lesser General Public License, version 2.1.

    +
    + - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/ms-doj-tunney.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/ms-doj-tunney.html index 27c5a72..b976367 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/ms-doj-tunney.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/ms-doj-tunney.html @@ -1,23 +1,29 @@ - + + + + FSF Statement in Response to Proposed Revised Final - Judgment in Microsoft vs. United States + Judgment in Microsoft v. United States - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation - - + + + +

    FSF Statement in Response to Proposed Revised Final Judgment - in Microsoft vs. United States

    + in Microsoft v. United States +

    January 28, 2002

    -

    Renata B. Hesse
    +

    Renata B. Hesse
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    601 D Street NW
    Suite 1200
    - Washington, DC 20530-0001

    + Washington, DC 20530-0001

    Dear Ms Hesse,

    @@ -274,10 +280,11 @@

    Very truly yours,
    Eben Moglen

    +
    - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/my_doom.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/my_doom.html index ddb4be6..3b9ea94 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/my_doom.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/my_doom.html @@ -1,13 +1,20 @@ - + + + + MyDoom and You - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    MyDoom and You

    -

    by Richard -Stallman

    +

    I grew up in a community whose other members sometimes committed crimes as @@ -19,8 +26,8 @@ even more common.

    Other evils involving information rather than physical violence were common also. For instance, some New York police regularly lied on the witness stand, and even made up a word for it: instead of -“testifying”, they described court appearances as -“testilying”. Some New York programmers fell into the +“testifying,” they described court appearances as +“testilying.” Some New York programmers fell into the lawful but socially destructive practice of proprietary software: they offered other people attractive software packages without source code, and exacted a promise not to share them with anyone else.

    @@ -83,9 +90,11 @@ hope he or she will come forth and make an accusation against specific people based on specific proof. But nobody should make accusations without proof, and there is no excuse for guilt by association. Not in New York, not in Cambridge, and not in the Free World.

    +
    + - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/netscape-npl-old.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/netscape-npl-old.html index ecd02a9..0bd99d8 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/netscape-npl-old.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/netscape-npl-old.html @@ -1,19 +1,26 @@ - -Netscape Public License +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 --> +<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html --> +<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays licensing non-cpleft" --> +<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" --> +<title>On the Netscape Public License (Original Version) - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    On the Netscape Public License (Original Version)

    -

    -by Richard Stallman -

    + -
    -

    This article was written March 10-12 1998, about the -draft of the NPL which was available at that time.

    +

    +This article was written March 10-12 1998, about the +draft of the NPL which was available at that time.

    +

    The Netscape Public License or NPL represents a serious attempt to @@ -227,10 +234,11 @@ compelled to, the same reasons ought to apply in the free software world as well. Netscape should recognize that this change is acceptable, and adopt it, to avoid confronting free software developers with a serious dilemma.

    +
    - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/netscape-npl.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/netscape-npl.html index 5afb689..41c39aa 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/netscape-npl.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/netscape-npl.html @@ -1,24 +1,29 @@ - -Netscape Public License +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 --> +<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html --> +<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays licensing non-cpleft" --> +<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" --> +<title>On the Netscape Public License - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation - - + + + +

    On the Netscape Public License

    -

    -by Richard Stallman

    + -
    -

    -(The original version +

    +The original version of this article was written in March 1998 about a draft of the NPL. Our first article on the subject was Netscape is considering making -the Netscape browser free software.)

    +the Netscape browser free software.

    +

    The Netscape Public License, or NPL, as it was ultimately designed in @@ -194,17 +199,18 @@ users.

    If Netscape feels it can live with the trouble of (effectively) proprietary modifications, surely the trouble of GPL-covered -modifications is a small by comparison. If Netscape believes that +modifications is small by comparison. If Netscape believes that practical considerations will encourage most of the proprietary software world to release its changes back to Netscape, without being compelled to, the same reasons ought to apply in the free software world as well. Netscape should recognize that this change is acceptable, and adopt it, to avoid confronting free software developers with a serious dilemma.

    +
    - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/netscape.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/netscape.html index 5ee5002..90c0d42 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/netscape.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/netscape.html @@ -1,16 +1,20 @@ - -Netscape +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 --> +<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html --> +<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays licensing non-cpleft" --> +<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" --> +<title>Netscape and Free Software - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    Netscape and Free Software

    - +

    More recent news about Netscape

    +

    People have been writing with joy to tell us that Netscape has announced a plan to make its browser free software, under the GNU GPL.

    @@ -36,12 +40,13 @@ will be a great day for the free software movement. But rather than rejoicing or criticizing now, let's see what actually happens, and then we'll know whether to celebrate. What we can usefully do now is urge Netscape, calmly and politely, to make the software free, and to -copyleft it with the GNU General Public +copyleft it with the GNU General Public License.

    +
    - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/network-services-arent-free-or-nonfree.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/network-services-arent-free-or-nonfree.html index 2c3da11..273894a 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/network-services-arent-free-or-nonfree.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/network-services-arent-free-or-nonfree.html @@ -1,17 +1,26 @@ - + + + + Network Services Aren't Free or Nonfree; They Raise Other Issues - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation - + + + +

    Network Services Aren't Free or Nonfree; They Raise Other Issues

    -

    by Richard Stallman

    + -

    Programs and services are different kinds of entities. A +

    +

    Programs and services are different kinds of entities. A program is a work that you can execute; a service is an activity that -you might interact with.

    +you might interact with.

    +

    For programs, we make a distinction between free and nonfree (proprietary). More precisely, this distinction applies to a program @@ -151,10 +160,11 @@ service providers who contribute to the community by releasing useful free software, and good to favor peer-to-peer communication over server-based centralized communication, for activities that don't inherently require a central hub.

    +
    - - - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/no-ip-ethos.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/no-ip-ethos.html index 4ab52e3..f826cac 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/no-ip-ethos.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/no-ip-ethos.html @@ -1,16 +1,22 @@ - - -Don't Let ‘Intellectual Property’ Twist Your Ethos - + + + + +Don't Let “Intellectual Property” Twist Your Ethos +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +
    +

    Don't Let “Intellectual Property” Twist Your Ethos

    -

    Don't Let ‘Intellectual Property’ Twist Your Ethos

    + -

    by Richard M. - Stallman
    - June 09, 2006

    +

    June 09, 2006

    Most free software licenses are based on copyright law, and for good reason: Copyright law is much more uniform among @@ -26,10 +32,10 @@

    It's true that in countries like China, where copyright law is generally not enforced, we may also have trouble enforcing free software license agreements, as Heather Meeker suggests in her - recent LinuxInsider column, “Only in - America? Copyright Law Key to Global Free Software - Model”.

    + recent LinuxInsider column, “Only + in America? Copyright Law Key to Global Free Software + Model.”

    However, this is not a reason to press for more copyright enforcement in China. Although we would use it to protect @@ -38,17 +44,17 @@ away.

    Ironically, we might have more success enforcing copyright in - China than Microsoft, Disney and Sony — because what we would + China than Microsoft, Disney and Sony—because what we would want to do is easier.

    Disney wishes to stamp out semi-underground organizations that sell exact copies. With free software, regardless of precisely which free license is used, that kind of copying is legal. What we want to prevent, when the free software license is the - GNU GPL, is the release of + GNU GPL, is the release of proprietary software products based on our code. That kind of abuse - is at its worst when carried out by large, well-known companies - — and they are easier targets for enforcement. So GPL + is at its worst when carried out by large, well-known companies—and + they are easier targets for enforcement. So GPL enforcement in China is not a lost cause, though it won't be easy.

    @@ -59,7 +65,7 @@ material copyrighted in the U.S. by moving it through China, as she ought to know.

    -

    If someone violates the GNU GPL by distributing a non-free +

    If someone violates the GNU GPL by distributing a nonfree modified version of GCC in the U.S., it won't make any difference if it was obtained or modified in China. U.S. copyright law will be enforced just the same.

    @@ -67,8 +73,8 @@

    Although this error might seem to be the central point of Meeker's article, it is not. The real central point of the article is the perspective embodied in her use of the term - “intellectual property”. She uses this term pervasively - as though it refers to something coherent — something it makes + “intellectual property.” She uses this term pervasively + as though it refers to something coherent—something it makes sense to talk about and think about. If you believe that, you have accepted the article's hidden assumption.

    @@ -94,9 +100,9 @@ mistakes.

    What is really in the U.S. Constitution? It doesn't mention - “intellectual property”, and it says nothing at all - about most of the laws that term is applied to. Only two of them — - copyright law and patent law — are treated there.

    + “intellectual property,” and it says nothing at all + about most of the laws that term is applied to. Only two of + them—copyright law and patent law—are treated there.

    What does the Constitution say about them? What is its ethos? It is nothing like the “intellectual property ethos” @@ -106,15 +112,15 @@

    What the Constitution says is that copyright law and patent law are optional. They need not exist. It says that if they do exist, - their purpose is to provide a public benefit — to promote + their purpose is to provide a public benefit—to promote progress by providing artificial incentives.

    They are not rights that their holders are entitled to; they are artificial privileges that we might, or might not, want to hand out to encourage people to do what we find useful.

    -

    It's a wise policy. Too bad Congress — which has to carry - it out on our behalf — takes its orders from Hollywood and +

    It's a wise policy. Too bad Congress—which has to carry + it out on our behalf—takes its orders from Hollywood and Microsoft instead of from us.

    If you appreciate the U.S. Constitution's wisdom, don't let @@ -126,11 +132,11 @@ have only one thing in common: Each is legitimate only as far as it serves the public interest. Your interest in your freedom is a part of the public interest that must be served.

    +
    - - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/no-word-attachments.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/no-word-attachments.html index fcec159..a40b41a 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/no-word-attachments.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/no-word-attachments.html @@ -1,17 +1,21 @@ - + + + + We Can Put an End to Word Attachments - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation - - + + + +

    We Can Put an End to Word Attachments

    -

    by Richard M. Stallman -

    +

    Don't you just hate receiving Word documents in email messages? Word @@ -131,7 +135,7 @@ replies to cover those as well, if you wish.

    With our numbers, simply by asking, we can make a difference.

    -
    +

    You sent the attachment in Microsoft Word format, a secret @@ -146,13 +150,11 @@ problem is a major obstacle to the broader adoption of GNU/Linux. Would you please reconsider the use of Word format for communication with other people?

    -
    -

    (Explanatory note: I can handle ODF too, but it isn't very convenient for me, so I don't include it in my list of suggestions.)

    -
    +

    You sent the attachment in Microsoft Word format, a secret @@ -166,7 +168,7 @@ with a different version of Word; they may not work at all.

    Receiving Word documents is bad for you because they can carry -viruses (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_virus_(computing)). +viruses (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_virus). Sending Word documents is bad for you because a Word document normally includes hidden information about the author, enabling those in the know to pry into the author's activities (maybe yours). Text that you @@ -217,18 +219,16 @@ the PDF converter. Click on the Print button and enter a name for the PDF file when requested.

    -See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html for more +See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html for more about this issue.

    -
    +

    Here's another approach, suggested by Bob Chassell. It requires that you edit it for the specific example, and it presumes you have a way to extract the contents and see how long they are.

    -
    -

    I am puzzled. Why did you choose to send me 876,377 bytes in your recent message when the content is only 27,133 bytes?

    @@ -245,27 +245,25 @@ prohibit entrepreneurs starting new companies, and prohibit professionals offering their services. Please don't give them your support.

    -
    +

    John D. Ramsdell suggests people discourage the use of proprietary -attachments by making a small statement in their .signature +attachments by making a small statement in their .signature file:

    -
    -

    Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
    -See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html

    +See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html

    -
    +

    Here is a response letter to an email message with a Word attachment.

    -
    +

    Kevin Cole of the Gallaudet University in Washington, @@ -274,10 +272,11 @@ automatic reply message whenever he receives a word attachment. (I think it is better to send the responses by hand, and make it clear that you have done so, because people will receive them better.)

    +
    - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/nonfree-games.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/nonfree-games.html index c85f5f7..e5b820b 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/nonfree-games.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/nonfree-games.html @@ -1,12 +1,20 @@ - + + + + Nonfree DRM'd Games on GNU/Linux: Good or Bad? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    Nonfree DRM'd Games on GNU/Linux: Good or Bad?

    -

    by Richard Stallman

    +

    A well known company, Valve, that distributes nonfree computer games with Digital Restrictions Management, recently announced it would @@ -20,10 +28,10 @@ to bring freedom to the users . Thus, the larger question is how this development affects users' freedom.

    -

    The problem with these games -is not that they are -commercial. (We see nothing wrong with that.) It -is not that the developers +

    The problem with these games is not that +they are commercial. +(We see nothing wrong with that.) It +is not that the developers sell copies; that's not wrong either. The problem is that the games contain software that is not free @@ -39,7 +47,7 @@ clear.

    However, if you're going to use these games, you're better off using them on GNU/Linux rather than on Microsoft Windows. At least you avoid -the harm to your freedom that Windows +the harm to your freedom that Windows would do.

    Thus, in direct practical terms, this development can do both harm @@ -59,14 +67,14 @@ games to a distro would augment that effect.

    not be gratis. It is feasible to develop free games commercially, while respecting your freedom to change the software you use. Since the art in the game is not software, it is not ethically imperative to -make the art free — though free art is an additional +make the art free—though free art is an additional contribution. There is in fact free game software developed by companies, as well as free games developed noncommercially by volunteers. Crowdfunding development will only get easier.

    But if we suppose that it is not feasible in the current situation to develop a certain -kind of free game — what would follow then? There's no good in +kind of free game—what would follow then? There's no good in writing it as a nonfree game. To have freedom in your computing, requires rejecting nonfree software, pure and simple. You as a freedom-lover won't use the nonfree game if it exists, so @@ -77,21 +85,22 @@ take care not to talk about the availability of these games on GNU/Linux as support for our cause. Instead you could tell people about the libre games wiki that attempts to catalog free -games, the Free Game +games, the Free Game Dev Forum, and the LibrePlanet Gaming -Collective's +Collective's free gaming night.

    -

    Notes

    +

    Note

    - + Watch out for “nonfree game data” that actually contains software.

    +
    - - - - - - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/opposing-drm.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/opposing-drm.html index 883c6a2..0309ee9 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/opposing-drm.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/opposing-drm.html @@ -1,20 +1,21 @@ - + + + + Opposing Digital Rights Mismanagement - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation - + + + +

    Opposing Digital Rights Mismanagement
    (Or Digital Restrictions Management, as we now call it)

    -

    by Richard Stallman -

    -

    First published by BusinessWeek Online.

    - -

    -Join our campaign against DRM. -

    +

    In 1989, in a very different world, I wrote the first version of the GNU General Public License, a license that gives computer users freedom. The @@ -41,6 +42,11 @@ increasingly powerful embedded computers, are being turned against us by their manufacturers before we buy them—they are designed to restrict what we can use them to do.

    + + +

    First, there was the TiVo. People may think of it as an appliance to record TV programs, but it contains a real computer running a GNU/Linux @@ -64,7 +70,7 @@ application program to “seal” data so that no other program can access it. If Disney distributes movies this way, you'll be unable to exercise your legal rights of fair use and de minimis use. If an application records your data this way, it will be the -ultimate in vendor lock-in. This too destroys freedom No. 1 — if +ultimate in vendor lock-in. This too destroys freedom No. 1; if modified versions of a program cannot access the same data, you can't really change the program to do what you wish. Something like Palladium is planned for a coming version of Windows. @@ -81,9 +87,9 @@ and you won't be able to remove it. This plan explicitly requires devices to be “robust”—meaning you cannot change them. Its implementors will surely want to include GPL-covered software, trampling freedom No. 1. This scheme should get -“AACSed,” and a boycott of HD DVD and Blu-ray has already -been announced -(http://bluraysucks.com/ [archived]). +“AACSed,” and +a boycott of HD DVD and Blu-ray has already been announced.

    Allowing a few businesses to organize a scheme to deny our freedoms for @@ -127,9 +133,14 @@ itself, cannot justify denying the public control over its technology. Defending freedom means thwarting DRM.

    + +
    + - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/ough-interview.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/ough-interview.html index f456e28..15485e0 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/ough-interview.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/ough-interview.html @@ -1,14 +1,26 @@ - + + + + An interview for OUGH! - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + + +

    An interview for OUGH!

    -

    This is a transcript of an interview with Richard -Stallman conducted by Theodoros Papatheodorou [1] -in May, 2012.

    +
    +

    This is a transcript of an interview with Richard Stallman conducted +by Theodoros Papatheodorou [*] +in May, 2012.

    +

    Richard Stallman, the free software activist and software @@ -323,13 +335,13 @@ patents.”

    You've often spoken against the use of the word -“piracy”.
    +“piracy.”

    It's a smear term! They want to say that sharing is the moral equivalent of attacking ships. I don't agree with that position, so I -don't call sharing “piracy”. I call it -“sharing”.

    +don't call sharing “piracy.” I call it +“sharing.”

    I am not against profit in general. I'm against mistreating people. Any given way of doing business may or may not involve mistreating @@ -535,7 +547,7 @@ everyone else escape. Let's put an end to that injustice.

    And by free of course, you don't just mean just -“gratis”, you mean a lot more than that.
    +“gratis,” you mean a lot more than that.

    I mean “free” as in freedom.

    @@ -644,7 +656,7 @@ freedoms of readers of books.

    the users can't. They can only get a license to read the book under Amazon's choice of conditions. Then there's the freedom to acquire the book anonymously, which is basically impossible for most well-known -books with the “Swindle”.

    +books with the “Swindle.”

    They're only available from Amazon, and Amazon requires users to identify themselves, as it doesn't allow any way to pay anonymously with @@ -665,7 +677,7 @@ freedom to keep the book as long as you wish.

    There was an Orwellian twist to the tale…
    -

    Yes, because they deleted thousands of copies of “1984”. +

    Yes, because they deleted thousands of copies of “1984.” That was in 2009. Those copies were authorized copies until the day Amazon decided to delete them. After this, there was a lot of criticism, and so Amazon promised it would never do this again unless @@ -721,7 +733,7 @@ coined a different term so that they could avoid any reference to our philosophy and avoid presenting the issue as a matter of justice versus injustice.

    -

    So that's the purpose of the term “open source”. It's to +

    So that's the purpose of the term “open source.” It's to talk about more or less the same category of software but without presenting it as an ethical issue. They don't say that if a program is not open source then it's an injustice and you must try to escape from @@ -999,17 +1011,17 @@ people fighting against the domination of society by the rich few.

    -
    -

    Footnote

    -
      -
    1. Theodoros Papatheodorou < +
      +

      [*] Theodoros Papatheodorou <marinero@gmail.com> holds a PhD -in Computer Science, and is teaching at the Athens School of Fine Arts.

    2. -
    +in Computer Science, and is teaching at the Athens School of Fine Arts.

    +
    + - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/patent-practice-panel.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/patent-practice-panel.html index 9846983..e555743 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/patent-practice-panel.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/patent-practice-panel.html @@ -1,19 +1,34 @@ - + + + + Daniel Ravicher's FFII panel presentation - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    New Developments in Patent Practice: Assessing the Risks and Cost of Portfolio Licensing and Hold-ups

    -

    by Daniel B. Ravicher

    + -

    This is a transcript of a panel presentation given by Daniel B. +

    +

    This is a transcript of a panel presentation given by Daniel B. Ravicher as the executive director of the Public Patent Foundation on Wednesday, November 10, 2004, at a conference organized by the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII) in Brussels, -Belgium. The transcription was done by Aendrew Rininsland.

    +Belgium. The transcription was done by Aendrew Rininsland.

    + +

    The GNU Project agrees with the premise that patents on computational +ideas are bad, but it disagrees with the assumption that nonfree +programs are morally legitimate competitors.

    +
    +

    Thanks. I think, for me, the whole two days of conferences boils to really one question, and the whole debate boils down to one question: @@ -30,7 +45,7 @@ the decision about who wins and who fails. If we want software to succeed because we want it to succeed on its merits and be the best software that the public can have, it's more likely we want a system that lets consumers and end-users make the decision about which -software is selected — not bureaucrats. +software is selected—not bureaucrats.

    Now, what does that have to do with patents? The larger you make a @@ -49,10 +64,10 @@ developers have intrinsic advantages over small developers. Large developers have the resources, large developers have the relationships, large developers have the distribution channels, large developers have the brand. So even without software patents, large -developers are still at an advantage — they start out at an +developers are still at an advantage—they start out at an advantage. Well, then, the next question to me is, “If we have software patents, does that increase the advantage of large developers -or decrease it?”, because the patent system could benefit small +or decrease it?” because the patent system could benefit small developers and therefore that could erode some of the naturally existing benefits that large corporations have.

    @@ -109,7 +124,7 @@ price?

    Now, I think it's important to concede the point that people on the other side will make, which is, will a less-onerous patent system, or -they would call it a ‘less-beneficial’ patent system, I +they would call it a “less-beneficial” patent system, I call it less-onerous, will harm their business, because people could copy them. Well, large businesses aren't worried about being copied. They really aren't. At least not by other large businesses, @@ -118,8 +133,8 @@ this is why they enter into cross-licenses all the time. company really didn't want its software to be copied, why is it licensing its patent portfolio to every other big company in the world? Because it can't stop them from copying it once they enter into -that agreement, so this argument that , “Well, we're worried -about people copying our software”, the most likely people to +that agreement, so this argument that, “Well, we're worried +about people copying our software,” the most likely people to copy your software are other large businesses because they have the resources and the ability and the distribution channels and the brand and the relationships. Why are you letting them copy it? You must not @@ -149,8 +164,8 @@ States. Microsoft is a very successful software company, I don't think anyone would debate that. They've never had to sue anyone for patent infringement. So they claim they need patents, but yet they've never had to use them. They cross-license them and that's where we wonder, -‘If you're worried about people copying, then why are you -cross-licensing them to people?’. +“If you're worried about people copying, then why are you +cross-licensing them to people?”

    @@ -158,8 +173,8 @@ You know, the last point is, who else does a patent system benefit? If it benefits large developers over small developers, is there anyone else? A patent system benefits non-developers. Do we really want a bureaucratic system that helps people who aren't adding anything to -society? What I mean by non-developers are trolls — which -everyone here is familiar with — people who get a patent either +society? What I mean by non-developers are trolls—which +everyone here is familiar with—people who get a patent either by applying for it or acquiring it in some asset purchase and then use it to tax other developers, other distributors of a product.

    @@ -169,10 +184,11 @@ Do we really want a system which encourages people to not add products or services to the market place but only detracts from the profits and capabilities of those that do?

    +
    - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/patent-reform-is-not-enough.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/patent-reform-is-not-enough.html index 4424d8b..319a104 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/patent-reform-is-not-enough.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/patent-reform-is-not-enough.html @@ -1,12 +1,19 @@ - + + + + Patent Reform Is Not Enough - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation - + + + +

    Patent Reform Is Not Enough

    +

    When people first learn about the problem of software patents, their @@ -100,13 +107,14 @@ Economist says, software patents are simply bad for business.

    There is a massive effort in Europe to stop software patents. Please see the FFII web site for full details of +href="https://ffii.org/"> the FFII web site for full details of how you can help.

    +
    - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/ph-breadcrumb.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/ph-breadcrumb.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6ac4a04 --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/ph-breadcrumb.html @@ -0,0 +1,131 @@ + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/philosophy.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/philosophy.html index d123616..fba75ae 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/philosophy.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/philosophy.html @@ -1,32 +1,31 @@ - + + - Philosophy of the GNU Project - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation - + - -
    - - -
    - - - - -

    Philosophy of the GNU Project

    +
    -

    -See audio-video.gnu.org -for recordings of Richard Stallman's speeches. -

    - +
    +

    Free software means that the software's users have freedom. (The issue is not about price.) We developed the GNU operating system so that users can have freedom in their @@ -44,20 +43,34 @@ much more easily. These facilities are why software is useful; we believe a program's users should be free to take advantage of them, not solely its developer.

    -

    For further reading, please select a section -from the menu above.

    +
    +

    The articles in the short list below give an overview of GNU +philosophy. For further reading, please check the menu above, especially +Essays & +Articles, and +Speeches & Interviews.

    +
    +
    -

    We also maintain a list of most recently added articles.

    +
    +
    +

    +See audio-video.gnu.org +for recordings of Richard Stallman's speeches.

    +
    +
    +

    Introduction

    +
    + -
    - - - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/plan-nine.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/plan-nine.html index bad415b..0d81d64 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/plan-nine.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/plan-nine.html @@ -1,36 +1,45 @@ - -The Problems of the Plan 9 License +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 --> +<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html --> +<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays licensing non-cpleft" --> +<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" --> +<title>The Problems of the (Earlier) Plan 9 License - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    The Problems of the (Earlier) Plan 9 License

    -

    by Richard Stallman

    + +

    Note: This applies to the earlier license used for Plan 9. The current license of Plan 9 does qualify as free software (and also as open source). So this article's specific example is of historical relevance only. Nonetheless, the general point remains valid.

    - -
    +
    +

    When I saw the announcement that the Plan 9 software had been released -as “open source”, I wondered whether it might be free +as “open source,” I wondered whether it might be free software as well. After studying the license, my conclusion was that it is not free; the license contains several restrictions that are totally unacceptable for the Free Software Movement. (See -http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.)

    +gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.)

    I am not a supporter of the Open Source Movement, but I was glad when one of their leaders told me they don't consider the license acceptable either. When the developers of Plan 9 describe it as -“open source”, they are altering the meaning of that term +“open source,” they are altering the meaning of that term and thus spreading confusion. (The term “open source” is widely misunderstood; -see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html.)

    +see gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html.)

    Here is a list of the problems that I found in the Plan 9 license. @@ -141,10 +150,11 @@ asymmetry: you get limited rights to use their code, but they get unlimited rights to use your changes. While this does not by itself disqualify the license as a free software license (if the other problems were corrected), it is unfortunate.

    +
    - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/posting-videos.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/posting-videos.html index 219f787..74b1b8e 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/posting-videos.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/posting-videos.html @@ -1,14 +1,19 @@ - + + + Posting Videos - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    Posting Videos

    -

    You don't need a “free software based streaming platform” to post a video for streaming.

    @@ -49,10 +54,11 @@ elsewhere.

    Depending on the rest of that site, it may have other flaws or moral problems, but it will at least avoid directly mistreating users who watch the video.

    +
    - - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/pragmatic.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/pragmatic.html index 8f6b051..50710a4 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/pragmatic.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/pragmatic.html @@ -1,15 +1,20 @@ - + + + + Copyleft: Pragmatic Idealism - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation - - + + + +

    Copyleft: Pragmatic Idealism

    -

    -by Richard Stallman

    +

    Every decision a person makes stems from the person's values and @@ -26,7 +31,7 @@ spread, replacing proprietary software that forbids cooperation, and thus make our society better.

    That's the basic reason why the GNU General Public License is written -the way it is—as a copyleft. +the way it is—as a copyleft. All code added to a GPL-covered program must be free software, even if it is put in a separate file. I make my code available for use in free software, and not for use in @@ -152,15 +157,16 @@ And if cynics ridicule freedom, ridicule community…if “hard-nosed realists” say that profit is the only ideal…just ignore them, and use copyleft all the same.

    -
    -

    This essay is published -in Free +


    +
    +M. Stallman.

    + - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/privacyaction.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/privacyaction.html index dde4de6..68fc819 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/privacyaction.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/privacyaction.html @@ -1,15 +1,25 @@ - + + + + Protect Postal Privacy - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    Protect Postal Privacy

    -

    -The following information was written by Kathleen Ellis. The Free +

    + +
    +

    The Free Software Foundation does not lead this campaign, but we support it by spreading the word and hope that you do too.

    +

    Background

    @@ -20,7 +30,7 @@ all clients using their services. This would certainly affect anonymous mail transactions, and could put millions of CMRA customers in danger. Any CMRA or CMRA customer who refuses to comply with this regulation would effectively lose their right to -recieve mail.

    +receive mail.

    The proposed regulation (published in the Federal Register on March 25, 1999) requires that CMRAs collect names, home addresses, @@ -38,7 +48,7 @@ However, experts state that the Postal Service's proposal will not serve as a deterrent to criminals. “It will be a simple process for those with financial means to rent homes, apartments, office space, or the executive suites available in most major metropolitan -areas”, says Postal Watch's website.

    +area,” says Postal Watch's website.

    Congressman Ron Paul has introduced House Joint Resolution 55, which would effectively revoke the Postal Service's new regulations @@ -65,14 +75,15 @@ ensure that this insidious assault on consumer privacy is defeated.

    For further information, see the following web pages: +
    - - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/pronunciation.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/pronunciation.html index 842b775..75d6031 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/pronunciation.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/pronunciation.html @@ -1,18 +1,20 @@ - - + + + How To Pronounce GNU - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation +

    How To Pronounce GNU

    The name “GNU” is a recursive acronym for “GNU's Not -Unix!”; it is pronounced as one syllable with a hard g, like -“grew” but with the letter “n” instead of -“r”.

    +Unix!”; it is pronounced as one syllable with a hard g, like +“grew” but with the letter n instead of +r.

    -This is a recording of Richard Stallman +This is a recording of Richard Stallman saying “GNU” and another with a short explanation about how GNU was named:

    @@ -30,22 +32,26 @@ was named:

    The combination of GNU and Linux is the GNU/Linux operating system, now used by millions and sometimes incorrectly called simply -“Linux”.

    +“Linux.”

    For more detailed information and history of the GNU -Operating System visit -http://www.gnu.org/gnu/

    +Operating System visit +gnu.org/gnu/

    + +
    - + - diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/protecting.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/protecting.html index d9c2c23..f636ee7 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/protecting.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/protecting.html @@ -1,18 +1,23 @@ - - -Help Protect the Rights to Write Both Non-Free and Free Software - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation - + + + + +Help Protect the Rights to Write Both Nonfree and Free Software - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation - + + + +

    Help Protect the Rights to Write Both Nonfree and Free Software

    -

    +

    The League for Programming Freedom is inactive now and its website is archived. -Please join our End Software Patents +Please join our End Software Patents campaign! -

    +

    +

    The right to write both nonfree and free software is threatened by @@ -51,11 +56,11 @@ href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150329142830/http://progfree.org/Help/help.h problem until you or your employer is sued, but it is more prudent to organize before that happens.

    + - - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/public-domain-manifesto.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/public-domain-manifesto.html index 9d475d0..f3a1aad 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/public-domain-manifesto.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/public-domain-manifesto.html @@ -1,16 +1,24 @@ - + + + + Why I Will Not Sign the Public Domain Manifesto - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    Why I Will Not Sign the Public Domain Manifesto

    -

    by Richard M. Stallman

    + -

    The Public Domain Manifesto -(https://publicdomainmanifesto.org/manifesto/) +

    The Public Domain Manifesto has its heart in the right place as it objects to some of the unjust extensions of copyright power, so I wish I could support it. However, it falls far short of what is needed.

    @@ -18,15 +26,16 @@ it falls far short of what is needed.

    Some flaws are at the level of implicit assumptions. The manifesto frequently uses propaganda terms of the copyright industry, such as -“copyright -protection”. These terms were chosen to lead people to +“copyright +protection.” These terms were chosen to lead people to sympathize with the copyright industry and its demands for power.

    The manifesto and its signatories use the term “intellectual -property”, which confuses the issue of copyright by lumping it +property,” which confuses the issue of copyright by lumping it together with a dozen other laws that have nothing significant in common. -(See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html +(See “Did You Say +‘Intellectual Property’? It's a Seductive Mirage” for more explanation about this point.) Ironically it uses the term first in a sentence which points out that this manifesto is concerned only with copyright law, not with those other laws. That is with good @@ -37,10 +46,11 @@ together.

    General Principle 2 repeats the common error that copyright should balance the public interest with “protecting and rewarding the -author”. This error interferes with proper judgment of any +author.” This error interferes with proper judgment of any copyright policy question, since that should be based on the public -interest. -http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html +interest. “Misinterpreting +Copyright—A Series of Errors” explains this error and how to avoid it.

    It would be difficult to stand aside from a campaign for the right @@ -69,8 +79,8 @@ legitimizes most real DRM by omitting it from criticism.

    calls for allowing “personal copying” of copyrighted works. Since it omits the issue of the freedom to share copies of published works with others, it fails to address the nastiest aspect -of copyright: the -vicious War +of copyright: the vicious War on Sharing that the entertainment companies are now waging.

    The demands and recommendations of the Public Domain Manifesto @@ -86,12 +96,13 @@ it. This is not enough.

    I ask the authors of the Public Domain Manifesto, and the public, to please join me in demanding the freedom to noncommercially share copies of all published works. Also please -join DefectiveByDesign.org +join Defective by Design and help our fight against DRM wherever it may be found.

    +
    - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/push-copyright-aside.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/push-copyright-aside.html index 3227d2e..fd7ce63 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/push-copyright-aside.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/push-copyright-aside.html @@ -1,13 +1,21 @@ - -Science must “push copyright aside” +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 --> +<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html --> +<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays laws copyright" --> +<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" --> +<title>Science Must Push Copyright Aside - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation -

    Science must push copyright aside

    + + + +
    +

    Science Must Push Copyright Aside

    -

    by Richard M. Stallman

    + +

    Many points that lead to a conclusion that software freedom must be universal often apply to other forms of expressive works, albeit in different ways. This essay concerns the application of principles @@ -16,9 +24,7 @@ Generally, such issues are orthogonal to software freedom, but we include essays like this here since many people interested in Free Software want to know more about how the principles can be applied to areas other than software.

    - -

    (This article appeared in Nature magazine's -webdebates forum in 2001.)

    +

    It should be a truism that the scientific literature exists to disseminate scientific knowledge, and that scientific journals exist @@ -54,7 +60,7 @@ that began this article. Many journal publishers appear to believe that the purpose of scientific literature is to enable them to publish journals so as to collect subscriptions from scientists and students. Such thinking is known as “confusion of the means with -the ends”.

    +the ends.”

    Their approach has been to restrict access even to read the scientific literature to those who can and will pay for it. They use @@ -104,41 +110,49 @@ more. It is self-defeating to digitize the archives and waste the results by restricting access.

    The US Constitution says that copyright exists “to promote -the Progress of Science”. When copyright impedes the progress of +the Progress of Science.” When copyright impedes the progress of science, science must push copyright out of the way.

    -
    +
    -Later developments: +

    Later developments

    Some universities have adopted policies to thwart the journal -publishers' power. For instance, here is MIT's.
    +publishers' power. For instance, look at the -https://libraries.mit.edu/scholarly/mit-open-access/open-access-policy/. +MIT Faculty Open Access Policy. Stronger policies are needed, however, as this one permits individual -authors to "opt out" (i.e., cave in).

    +authors to “opt out” (i.e., cave in).

    -

    The US government has imposed a requirement known as "public -access" on some funded research. This requires publication within a +

    The US government has imposed a requirement known as “public +access” on some funded research. This requires publication within a certain period in a site that allows anyone to view the article. This requirement is a positive step, but inadequate because it does not include freedom to redistribute the article.

    -

    Curiously, the concept of "open access" in the 2002 Budapest Open +

    Curiously, the concept of “open access” in the 2002 Budapest Open Access Initiative did include freedom to redistribute. I signed that -declaration, despite my distaste for the word "open", because the +declaration, despite my distaste for the word “open,” because the substance of the position was right.

    -

    However, the word "open" had the last laugh: influential -campaigners for "open access" subsequently dropped freedom to +

    However, the word “open” had the last laugh: influential +campaigners for “open access” subsequently dropped freedom to redistribute from their goals. I stand by the position of -the BOAI, but now that -"open access" means something else, I refer to it as "redistributable -publication" or "free-to-mirror publication".

    +the BOAI, but now that +“open access” means something else, I refer to it as “redistributable +publication” or “free-to-mirror publication.”

    + + +
    - - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rieti.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rieti.html index 4f021ae..34a8d60 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rieti.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rieti.html @@ -1,24 +1,28 @@ - + + + + The Future of Jiyuna Software - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    The Future of Jiyuna Software

    -

    Keynote Speech -by Richard -Stallman

    + -
    -
    - (Transcript)
    +
    +

    Transcript of a keynote speech at the Research Institute of Economy, +Trade and Industry (RIETI), Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, +21 April 2003.

    +
    +
    -Date: 21 April 2003 -Venue: Seminar Room, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry -(RIETI), (Annex 11th Floor, 1121 Ministry of Economy, Trade and -Industry (METI)) -

    Mr. Richard Stallman, GNU Project: I am going to speak about free software and, first of all, its ethical, social and political @@ -161,7 +165,7 @@ stuck with it. But it is not just Microsoft. Consider WAP, for instance. WAP contains modified versions of ordinary Internet protocols, modified to be incompatible, and the idea was they would make these telephones and they would say “they can talk on the -Internet”, but since they did not use the ordinary Internet +Internet,” but since they did not use the ordinary Internet protocols, the incompatibility would be imposed on the user. That was their plan. It did not work, fortunately. But that is the danger you face when the users are not really in control: Somebody will try to @@ -509,10 +513,11 @@ the region, creating employment locally instead of filling somebody's pockets. But more important, it creates a way of life where the country and the people are independent and free.

    +
    - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/right-to-read.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/right-to-read.html index 4f3252d..c8cb1c0 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/right-to-read.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/right-to-read.html @@ -1,20 +1,20 @@ - + + + + The Right to Read - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    The Right to Read

    -

    -This article appeared in the February 1997 issue -of Communications of the ACM (Volume 40, Number -2).

    -
    +by Richard Stallman -
    -

    +

    From The Road To Tycho, a collection of articles about the antecedents of the Lunarian Revolution, published in Luna City in 2096. -

    +

    +

    @@ -227,10 +216,11 @@ the long arm of the SPA. When the Tycho Uprising began in 2062, the universal right to read soon became one of its central aims.

    -
    -
    -

    Join our mailing list about the dangers of e-books.

    -
    +
    @@ -255,9 +245,9 @@ href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Piracy">“Piracy”.

    Computer-enforced restrictions on lending or reading books (and other kinds of published works) are known as DRM, short for -“Digital Restrictions Management”. To +“Digital Restrictions Management.” To eliminate DRM, the Free Software Foundation has -established the Defective by +established the Defective by Design campaign. We ask for your support.

    The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a separate organization not @@ -268,7 +258,7 @@ DRM.

    -

    +

    The following note has been updated several times since the first publication of the story.

    @@ -348,8 +338,8 @@ them.

    The proponents of this scheme gave early versions names such as -“trusted computing” and “Palladium”, but as -ultimately put into use, it is called “secure boot”.

    +“trusted computing” and “Palladium,” but as +ultimately put into use, it is called “secure boot.”

    What Microsoft keeps is not exactly a password in the traditional @@ -475,19 +465,17 @@ software, for e-books, for music, or for anything else.

    If we want to stop the bad news and create some good news, we need to organize and fight. Subscribe to the -FSF's Defective by Design +FSF's Defective by Design campaign to lend a hand. You -can join the FSF to support +can join the FSF to support our work more generally. There is also a list of ways to participate in our work.

    -
    -
    -

    References

    +

    References

    + + -
    -

    This essay is published -in Free +

    +M. Stallman.

    +
    - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-aj.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-aj.html index d2e7402..1f43532 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-aj.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-aj.html @@ -1,17 +1,33 @@ - -RMS on the Alex Jones Show +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 --> +<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html --> +<!--#set var="TAGS" value="speeches" --> +<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" --> +<title>Richard Stallman Interviewed The Day After SOPA/PIPA Global Protests - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation -

    Richard Stallman on the Alex Jones Show

    - -

    Transcript of an interview that took place on -January 19, 2012.

    + + + +
    +

    Richard Stallman Interviewed The Day After SOPA/PIPA Global Protests

    + +
    +

    Transcript of an interview conducted on January 19, 2012, the day +after the global web blackout protests took place against the controversial +SOPA and PIPA copyright bills. The GNU Project and the Free Software Foundation + +joined the protest.

    + +

    At the time of the interview, the controversial positions of the interviewer +were not widely spread and not known to Richard Stallman. Since then, Jones's +views have become more extreme and well-known, and Stallman strongly disagrees +with them.

    +

    -
    Alex Jones
    @@ -626,13 +642,13 @@ other websites you think are important for people to look at.
    RS
    For free software, look at the Free Software Foundation site, that -is http://fsf.org, and you can join, if you +is http://fsf.org, and you can join, if you wish. For my other political causes, look at http://stallman.org. And if you want to +href="https://stallman.org"> http://stallman.org. And if you want to join our fight against digital handcuffs (DRM), go to http://defectivebydesign.org. +href="https://www.defectivebydesign.org"> http://defectivebydesign.org. And for the danger of eBooks and how they take away our freedom, look at - + http://stallman.org/articles/ebooks.pdf.
    AJ
    @@ -690,17 +706,18 @@ much, Doctor.
    -

    Footnote

    +

    Footnote

    1. [2019] We call it the Swindle because it's designed to swindle readers out of the traditional freedoms of readers of books.
    +
    - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-comment-longs-article.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-comment-longs-article.html index 42117f9..516a7fa 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-comment-longs-article.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-comment-longs-article.html @@ -1,31 +1,34 @@ - + + + + Comments on Roderick Long's Article - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    Comments on Roderick Long's Article

    -

    by Richard Stallman

    + -

    -Roderick Long's article can be found -at this address. -

    - -

    +

    The ideas of the free software movement are compatible with social-democratic (US liberal) views and with laissez-faire (US -libertarian) views. -

    +libertarian [1]) views. +

    Free software is a matter of freedom. From our point of view, -precisely which legal mechanism* +precisely which legal mechanism [2] is used to deny software users their freedom is just an implementation detail. Whether it is done with copyright, with contracts, or in some other way, it is wrong to deny the public the freedoms necessary to form a community and cooperate. -This is why it is inaccurate to understand the Free Software Movement +This is why it is inaccurate to understand the free software movement as specifically a matter of opposition to copyright on software. It is both more and less than that.

    @@ -38,13 +41,22 @@ regards property rights as the highest moral principle, is useful as a refutation. It shows that even if you adore property rights for physical objects, you are not compelled to accept copyright.

    -

    * = Or technical mechanism, such as withholding the +

    +
    +
      +
    1. Roderick T. Long, “The Libertarian Case Against +Intellectual Property Rights” at freenation.org, 1995.
    2. +
    3. … or technical mechanism, such as withholding the source code, or -tivoization.

      +tivoization.
    4. +
    +
    + - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-hack.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-hack.html index 58e62f9..4f5ac95 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-hack.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-hack.html @@ -1,18 +1,26 @@ - + + + + The Hacker Community and Ethics - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation - - -

    The Hacker Community and Ethics: An Interview with Richard M. Stallman, 2002

    - -

    by Richard Stallman

    -

    Published in Finnish in Tere Vadén & Richard -M. Stallman: -Koodi vapaaksi - Hakkerietiikan vaativuus, Tampere University -Press. 2002, sivut 62-80.

    + + + +
    +

    The Hacker Community and Ethics

    + + + +
    +

    Transcript of an interview that took place in 2002.[*]

    +
    +

    Hackerism

    @@ -40,7 +48,7 @@ destroyed by commercial interests.

    share and change software; that was the basis for our free-wheeling community.

    -TV: What does the word ‘hacker’ mean to you, +TV: What does the word “hacker” mean to you, personally?

    RMS: It means someone who enjoys playful cleverness, especially @@ -70,7 +78,7 @@ software creates the best kinds of communities or at least better than those based on commercial limitations on distribution and sharing.

    RMS: I think it is a mistake to label these restrictions as -“commercial”, because that pertains to the motive for the +“commercial,” 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 @@ -96,7 +104,7 @@ interpretation?

    RMS: More or less. I would say that freedom has value in itself, just as powerful reliable software does.

    -

    TV: But isn't there a problem here; one of the utilitarian +

    TV: But isn't there a problem here? one of the utilitarian calculations of “open source” is that it is more profitable—in the sense of making more money or making better software—to use an open source license than a copyleft @@ -138,7 +146,7 @@ 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 “The Hacker -Ethics”.

    +Ethics.”

    RMS: That is true. Just because someone enjoys hacking does not mean he has an ethical commitment to treating other people @@ -161,7 +169,7 @@ years old. This is the basic idea of ethics.

    TV: The question about hacker aesthetics—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.

    +ethical behavior.

    RMS: 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 @@ -173,13 +181,13 @@ Although someone said that there was a hacker aesthetic rather than a hacker ethic, I think “aesthetic” 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 “the hacker way”, but that sounds rather +can think of “the hacker way,” but that sounds rather pompous and new-age.

    Community

    TV: Now that brings to mind several questions. For the -first, one could maybe inquire after an ideal society or do forth, but +first, one could maybe inquire after an ideal society or go forth, but let's leave that for the moment.

    RMS: I approach these issues incrementally. I don't think I @@ -193,7 +201,7 @@ knew that from having tried it.

    TV: Is there something that digitalization offers for community-building, something that other media (like printed books) -could not offer, or does digitalization mean ‘just’ and +could not offer, or does digitalization mean “just” an effectivization of existing means?

    RMS: Computers and the web make it much easier to work @@ -281,7 +289,7 @@ communal purposes. Could you tell a little on how you arrived at the idea?

    RMS: I had seen simple notices of the form “verbatim -copying permitted provided this notice is preserved”, and +copying permitted provided this notice is preserved,” and investigated extending this to handle modification as well.

    TV: Let's take a case here. I can see that a free software @@ -302,7 +310,7 @@ methods of support could do just as good a job as the present system—maybe better.

    TV: This seems to lead to some kind of -“americanization” or “anglization”.

    +“americanization” or “anglization.”

    RMS: You can't be serious, can you? Don't you realize that the media-copyright complex is fueling the americanization of culture @@ -323,7 +331,7 @@ and Globalization.

    TV: 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 +third world countries in an unfavorable position. Do you think that those countries should not follow the copyright laws?

    RMS: The US when it was a developing country did not @@ -405,11 +413,11 @@ global business over governments.

    TV: 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 “tools -to make tools”.

    +to make tools.”

    RMS: I don't think so. A number of our programs were tools for making programs, but very few were specifically “tools to -make tools”. Why were many of them tools? Because hackers +make tools.” 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.
    @@ -422,7 +430,7 @@ square dancing, but many are interested in programs they can use while programming.

    TV: Levy is not too hard on the point, but the -unscrupulousness with which the early MIT hackers +unscrupulousness with which the early MIT hackers accepted the Department of Defence funding is a case in point.

    RMS: Some of the hackers were uncomfortable with DoD funding @@ -477,7 +485,7 @@ and reliable free software.

    TV: 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 -‘non-earthly’ kind. Is there a link? Should there be? And +“non-earthly” kind. Is there a link? Should there be? And how do you bridge the two?

    RMS: Is there a link between the pleasure of pure math and @@ -489,9 +497,18 @@ link between either of those pleasures and the rest of what I do. Why should there be? They are both harmless. Is there a “gap” that I need to “bridge”?

    + +
    + - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-interview-edinburgh.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-interview-edinburgh.html index 0657797..1103431 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-interview-edinburgh.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-interview-edinburgh.html @@ -1,16 +1,27 @@ - + + + + Interview with Richard Stallman, Edinburgh, 2004 - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    Interview with Richard Stallman, Edinburgh, 2004

    -

    Transcript of an interview with Richard Stallman that took place -at the School of Informatics, Edinburgh University, on 27th -May 2004; originally published -at -Indymedia.

    +
    +

    Transcript of an interview that took place at the School of +Informatics, Edinburgh University, on 27 May 2004; +originally published at Indymedia (audio +recording).

    +
    +
    @@ -20,230 +31,240 @@ What drives you to spend so much time on software freedoms?
    -First of all growing up in the US in the 1960s, I certainly was -exposed to ideas of freedom and then in the 1970s at MIT, I worked as -part of a community of programmers who cooperated and thought about -the ethical and social meaning of this cooperation. When that +

    First of all, growing up in the US in the 1960s, I certainly was +exposed to ideas of freedom. And then, in the 1970s at MIT, I worked as +part of a community of programmers who cooperated, and thought about +the ethical and social meaning of this cooperation. Then that community died in the early eighties, and by contrast with that, the world of proprietary software, which most computer users at the time were participating in, was morally sickening. And I decided that I was going to try to create once again a community of cooperation. I realized that, what I could get out of a life of participation in the competition to subjugate each other, which is what nonfree software -is, all I could get out of that was money and I would have a life that -I would hate. +is, all I could get out of that was money, and I would have a life that +I would hate.

    -Do you think that the Free Software movement, or parts of it, could or +Do you think that the free software movement, or parts of it, could or does benefit from collaboration with other social movements?
    -I don't see very much direct benefit to free software itself. On the +

    I don't see very much direct benefit to free software itself. On the other hand we are starting to see some political parties take up the cause of free software, because it fits in with ideas of freedom and -cooperation, that they generally support. So in that sense, we are +cooperation that they generally support. So in that sense, we're starting to see a contribution to the ideas of free software from -other movements. +other movements.

    -Have you considered that the Free Software movement is vital to +Have you considered that the free software movement is vital to oppositional movements in the world that are against corporate rule, militarism, capitalism, etc.?
    -Well, we are not against capitalism at all. We are against +

    Well, we are not against capitalism at all. We are against subjugating people who use computers, one particular business -practice. There are businesses, both large and small that distribute -free software, and contribute to free software, and they are welcome -to use it, welcome to sell copies and we thank them for contributing. +practice. There are businesses, both large and small, that distribute +free software, and contribute to free software, and they're welcome +to use it, welcome to sell copies, and we thank them for contributing. However, free software is a movement against domination, not -necessarily against corporate domination, but against any domination. +necessarily against corporate domination, but against any domination. The users of software should not be dominated by the developers of the software, whether those developers be corporations or individuals or -universities or what. -The users shouldn't be kept divided and -helpless. And that's what nonfree software does; It keeps the users -divided and helpless. Divided because you are forbidden to share -copies with anyone else and helpless because you don't get the source +universities or what.

    + +

    The users shouldn't be kept divided and +helpless. And that's what nonfree software does; it keeps the users +divided and helpless. Divided because you're forbidden to share +copies with anyone else, and helpless because you don't get the source code. So you can't even tell what the program does, let alone change it. So there is definitely a relationship. We are working against -domination by software developers, many of those software developers -are corporations. And some large corporations exert a form of -domination through nonfree software. +domination by software developers. Many of those software developers +are corporations, and some large corporations exert a form of +domination through nonfree software.

    -And also that Free Software developers could provide a technical +And also that free software developers could provide a technical infrastructure for these movements that would be impossible to develop using proprietary software, which are too expensive and locked into an ideological model that reflects the interests of the dominant world-system like commoditization, exploitation, control and -surveillance instead of sharing, justice, freedom and democracy? +surveillance, instead of sharing, justice, freedom and democracy?
    -At the moment I would not go quite so far as to say that nonfree +

    At the moment I wouldn't go quite so far as to say that nonfree software couldn't be usable by opposition movements, because many of them are using it. It is not ethical to use nonfree software. Because… At least it is not ethical to use authorized copies. -But it is not a good thing to use any copies. You see to use -authorized copies, you have to agree not to share with other people +But it's not a good thing to use any copies.

    + +

    You see, to use +authorized copies, you have to agree not to share with other people, and to agree to that is an unethical act in itself, which we should reject. And that is the basic reason why I started the free software movement. I wanted to make it easy to reject the unethical act of agreeing to the license of a nonfree program. -If you are using an -unauthorized copy then you haven't agreed to that. You haven't +If you're using an +unauthorized copy, then you haven't agreed to that. You haven't committed that unethical act. But you are still… you are -condemned to living underground. And, you are still unable to get the +condemned to living underground. And you're still unable to get the source code, so you can't tell for certain what those programs do. And they might in fact be carrying out surveillance. And I was told that in Brazil, the use of unauthorized copies was in fact used as an excuse to imprison the activists of the landless rural workers movement, which has since switched to free software to escape from -this danger. And they indeed could not afford the authorized copies +this danger. And they indeed couldn't afford the authorized copies of software. So, these things are not lined up directly on a straight -line, but there is an increasing parallel between them, an increasing -relationship. +line, but there's an increasing parallel between them, an increasing +relationship.

    -The business corporation as a social form is very closed — it -answers to no one except its shareholders for example a small group of +The business corporation as a social form is very closed—it +answers to no one except its shareholders, for example a small group of people with money, and its internal bureaucratic organization is about as democratic as a Soviet ministry. Does the increasing involvement -of corporations with Free Software strike you as something to be +of corporations with free software strike you as something to be concerned about?
    -Not directly. Because as long as a program is free software, that -means the users are not being dominated by its developers whether -these developers be it a large business, a small business, a few -individuals or whatever, as long as the software is free they are not -dominating people. However, most of the users of free software do not -view it in ethical and social terms, there is a very effective and -large movement called the Open Source movement, which is designed -specifically to distract the users attention from these ethical and -social issues while talking about our work. And they have been quite -successful, there are many people who use our free software, which we -developed for the sake of freedom and cooperation who have never heard +

    Not directly. Because as long as a program is free software, that +means the users are not being dominated by its developers. Whether +these developers be a large business, a small business, a few +individuals or whatever, as long as the software is free, they are not +dominating people.

    + +

    However, most of the users of free software do not +view it in ethical and social terms. There is a very effective and +large movement called the open source movement, which is designed +specifically to distract the users' attention from these ethical and +social issues while talking about our work. And they've been quite +successful; there are many people who use our free software, which we +developed for the sake of freedom and cooperation, who have never heard the reasons for which we did so. And, this makes our community weak. - -It is like a nation that has freedom but most of its people have never +It's like a nation that has freedom, +but most of its people have never been taught to value freedom. They are in a vulnerable position, -because if you say to them: “Give up your freedom and I give you -this valuable thing”, they might say “yes” because -they never learnt why they should say “no”. You put that +because if you say to them, “Give up your freedom and I'll give you +this valuable thing,” they might say yes because +they've never learnt why they should say no.

    + +

    You put that together with corporations that might want to take away people's -freedom, gradually and encroach on freedom and you have a +freedom, to gradually encroach on freedom, and you have a vulnerability. And what we see is that many of the corporate developers and distributors of free software put it in a package -together with some nonfree user subjugating software and so they say -the user subjugating software is a bonus, that it enhances the system. +together with some nonfree user-subjugating software. And so they say that +the user-subjugating software is a bonus, that it enhances the system. And if you haven't learnt to value freedom, you won't see any reason -to disbelieve them. -But this is not a new problem and it is not +to disbelieve them.

    + +

    But this is not a new problem and it's not limited to large corporations. All of the commercial distributors of -the GNU/Linux system going back something like 7 or 8 years, have made +the GNU/Linux system, going back something like 7 or 8 years, have made a practice of including nonfree software in their distributions, and -this is something I have been trying to push against in various ways, -without much success. But, in fact, even the non commercial +this is something that I've been trying to push against in various ways, +without much success. But, in fact, even the noncommercial distributors of the GNU+Linux operating system have been including and -distributing nonfree software, and the sad thing was, that of all the -many distributions, until recently there was none, that I could -recommend. Now I know of one, that I can recommend, its called -“Ututo-e”, it comes from Argentina. I hope that very soon -I will be able to recommend another. +distributing nonfree software; and the sad thing was that, of all the +many distributions, until recently there was none that I could +recommend. Now I know of one, that I can recommend; its called +“Ututo-e”; it comes from Argentina. I hope that very soon +I will be able to recommend another.

    -Why are the more technically-oriented beliefs of the Open Source +Why are the more technically-oriented beliefs of the open source movement not enough for you?
    -The Open Source Movement was founded specifically to discard the -ethical foundation of the free software movement. The Free Software +

    The open source movement was founded specifically to discard the +ethical foundation of the free software movement. The free software movement starts from an ethical judgment, that nonfree software is -anti-social, it is wrong treatment of other people. And I reached +antisocial; it's wrong treatment of other people. And I reached this conclusion before I started developing the GNU system. I developed the GNU system specifically to create an alternative to an -unethical way of using software. When someone says to you: -“you can have this nice package of software, but only if you -first sign a promise you will not share it with anyone else”, +unethical way of using software. When someone says to you, +“You can have this nice package of software, but only if you +first sign a promise you will not share it with anyone else,” you are being asked to betray the rest of humanity. And I reached the -conclusion in the early eighties, that this was evil, it is wrong -treatment of other people. But there was no other way of using a -modern computer. -All the operating systems required exactly such a +conclusion in the early eighties that this was evil.

    + +

    But there was no other way to use a modern computer. +All the operating systems required exactly such a betrayal before you could get a copy. And that was in order to get an -executable binary copy. You could not have the source code at all. +executable binary copy. You couldn't have the source code at all. The executable binary copy is just a series of numbers, which even a -programmer has trouble making any sense out of it. The source code -looks sort of like mathematics, and if you have learned how to program -you could read that. But that intelligible form you could not even -get after you signed the betrayal. All you would get is the -nonsensical numbers, which only the computer can understand. -So, I -decided to create an alternative, which meant, another operating -system, one that would not have these unethical requirements. One, +programmer has trouble making any sense out of. The source code +looks sort of like mathematics, and if you've learnt how to program +you can read that. But that intelligible form, you couldn't +get, even after you signed this betrayal. All you would get is the +nonsensical numbers, which only the computer can understand.

    + +

    So, I decided to create an alternative, which meant another operating +system, one that would not have these unethical requirements, one that you could get in the form of source code, so that, if you decided -to learn to program you could understand it. And you would get it -without betraying other people and you would be free to pass it on to +to learn to program, you could understand it. And you would get it +without betraying other people, you'd be free to pass it on to others. Free either to give away copies or sell copies. So I began developing the GNU system, which in the early nineties was the bulk of -what people erroneously started to call Linux. And so it all exists -because of an ethical refusal to go along with an antisocial practice. -But this is controversial. +what people erroneously started calling Linux.

    + +

    So it all exists because of an ethical refusal to go along +with an antisocial practice. But this is controversial.

    -

    In the nineties as the GNU+Linux system became popular and got to +

    In the nineties, as the GNU+Linux system became popular and got to have some millions of users, many of them were techies with technical -blinders on, who did not want to look at things in terms of right and +blinders on, who didn't want to look at things in terms of right and wrong, but only in terms of effective or ineffective. So they began -telling many other people, here is an operating system that is very +telling many other people, “Here is an operating system that's very reliable, and is powerful, and it's cool and exciting, and you can -get it cheap. And they did not mention, that this allowed you to -avoid an unethical betrayal of the rest of society. That it allowed -users to avoid being kept divided and helpless. -So, there were many +get it cheap.” And they did not mention that this allowed you to +avoid an unethical betrayal of the rest of society, that it allowed +users to avoid being kept divided and helpless.

    + +

    So, there were many people who used free software, but had never even heard of these ideas. And that included people in business, who were committed to an amoral approach to their lives. So, when somebody proposed the term -“Open Source”, they seized on that, as a way that they +“open source,” they seized on that, as a way that they could bury these ethical ideas. Now, they have a right to promote their views. But, I don't share their views, so I decline ever to do -anything under the rubric of “Open Source”, and I hope +anything under the rubric of “open source,” and I hope that you will, too.

    Given that it helps users to understand the freedoms in free software when the ambiguous use of the word free in English is clarified, what -do you think of use of name FLOSS as in Free/Libre Open Source +do you think of the use of the name FLOSS as in Free/Libre Open Source Software?
    -There are many people, who, for instance, want to study our community, +

    There are many people who, for instance, want to study our community, or write about our community, and want to avoid taking sides between -the Free Software movement and the Open Source movement. Often they -have heard primarily of the Open Source movement, and they think that +the free software movement and the open source movement. Often they +have heard primarily of the open source movement, and they think that we all support it. So, I point out to them that, in fact, our -community was created by the Free Software movement. But then they +community was created by the free software movement. But then, they often say that they are not addressing that particular disagreement, -and that they would like to mention both movements without taking a +and they'd like to mention both movements without taking a side. So I recommend the term Free/Libre Open Source Software as a way they can mention both movements and give equal weight to both. -And they abbreviate FLOSS once they have said what it stands for. So +And they abbreviated FLOSS once they have said what it stands for. So I think that's a… If you don't want to take a side between the -two movements, then yes, by all means, use that term. Cause what I +two movements, then yes, by all means, use that term. Of course what I hope you will do is take the side of the free software movement. But -not everybody has to. The term is legitimate. +not everybody has to. That term is legitimate.

    @@ -253,84 +274,86 @@ develop differently from the vision you had at the beginning?
    -Well, by and large, I am pretty happy with it. But of course there +

    Well, by and large, I am pretty happy with it. But of course there are some things that I am not happy with, mainly the weakness that so -many people in the community do not think of it is an issue of -freedom, have not learned to value their freedom or even to recognize +many people in the community do not think of it as an issue of +freedom, have not learned to value their freedom, or even to recognize it. That makes our future survival questionable. It makes us weak. And so, when we face various threats, this weakness hampers our -response. Our community could be destroyed by software idea patents. -It could be destroyed by treacherous computing. It can be destroyed +response. Our community could be destroyed by software-idea patents. +It could be destroyed by treacherous computing. It could be destroyed simply by hardware manufacturers' refusal to tell us enough about how to use the hardware, so that we can't write free software to run the hardware. -There are many vulnerabilities, that we have over the -long-term. And, well the things we have to do to survive these threats -are different, in all cases, the more aware we are, the more motivated -we are, the easier it will be for us to do whatever it takes. So the -most fundamental long-term thing we have to recognize and then value -the freedom that free software gives so that the users fight for their -freedoms the same like people fight for freedom of speech, freedom of +There're many vulnerabilities that we have over the +long-term. And, well, the things we have to do to survive these threats +are different. In all cases, the more aware we are, the more motivated +we are, the easier it will be for us to do whatever it takes. So, the +most fundamental long-term thing we have to [do is to] recognize and then value +the freedom that free software gives, so that they will fight for their +freedoms the same way people fight for freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, because those freedoms are also -greatly threatened in the world today. +greatly threatened in the world today.

    -So what in your opinion threatens the growth of free software at the +So, what in your opinion threatens the growth of free software at the moment?
    -I have to point out that our goal is not precisely growth. Our goal -is to liberate cyber-space. Now that does mean liberating all the +

    I have to point out that our goal is not precisely growth. Our goal +is to liberate cyberspace. Now, that does mean liberating all the users of computers. We hope eventually they all switch to free -software, but we shouldn't take mere success as our goal, that's -missing the ultimate point. But if I take this to mean “what is -holding back the spread of free software”. Well partly at this -point it is inertia, social inertia. Lots of people have learnt to -use windows. And they haven't yet learned to use GNU/Linux. It is no -longer very hard to learn GNU/Linux, 5 years ago it was hard, now it -is not. But still, it is more than zero. +software, but we shouldn't take mere success as our goal; that's +missing the ultimate point. But if I take this to mean, “What is +holding back the spread of free software?” Well, partly at this +point it's inertia, social inertia. Lots of people have learnt to +use Windows. And they haven't yet learnt to use GNU/Linux. It's no +longer very hard to learn to use GNU/Linux. Five years ago it was hard, now it +is not. But still, it's more than zero. And people who are, you -know,… if you never learned any computer system, than learning -GNU/Linux is as easy as anything, but if you already learned windows -it's easier. It's easier to keep doing what you know. So that's -inertia. And there are more people trained in running windows systems -than in running GNU/Linux systems. So, any time you are trying to -convince people to change over, you are working against inertia. In -addition we have a problem that hardware manufacturers don't cooperate +know,… if you never learned any computer system, then learning +GNU/Linux is as easy as anything, but if you've already learnt Windows, +it's easier… it's easier to keep doing what you know. So that's +inertia. And there are more people trained in running Windows systems +than in running GNU/Linux systems. So, any time you're trying to +convince people to change over, you're working against inertia. In +addition, we have a problem that hardware manufacturers don't cooperate with us the way they cooperate with Microsoft. So we have that -inertia as well. -And then we have the danger in some countries of -software idea patents. I would like everybody reading this to talk to -all of — or anybody listening to this — to talk to all of -their candidates for the European Parliament and ask where do you -stand on software idea patents? Will you vote to reinstate the -parliament's amendments that were adopted last September and that +inertia as well.

    + +

    And then, we have the danger in some countries of +software-idea patents. I would like everybody reading this to talk to +all of… or anybody listening to this to talk to all of +their candidates for the European Parliament, and ask, “Where do you +stand on software-idea patents? Will you vote to reinstate the +Parliament's amendments that were adopted last September and that apparently are being removed by the Council of Ministers? Will you -vote to bring back those amendments in the second reading? This is a +vote to bring back those amendments in the second reading?” This is a very concrete question. With a yes or no answer. You will often get -other kinds of — you may get evasive answers if you ask -“Do you support or oppose software idea patents?” The -people who wrote the directives claim that it does not authorize -software idea patents, they say that this is because the directive -says, that anything to be patented must have a technical character. -But, somebody in the European Commission involved in this, admitted -that, that terms means exactly what they want it to mean, -humpty-dumpty style, so, in fact, it is no limitation on anything. So -if a candidate says: I support the commissions draft because it won't -allow software idea patents you can point this out. And press the -question: “Will you vote for the parliaments previous -amendments?” +other kinds of… you may get evasive answers if you ask, +“Do you support or oppose software-idea patents?” The +people who wrote the directive claim that it does not authorize +software-idea patents. They say that this is because the directive +says that anything to be patented must have a technical character. +But somebody in the European Commission involved in this admitted +that, that term means exactly what they want it to mean, +humpty-dumpty style. So, in fact, it's no limitation on anything. So +if a candidate says, “I support the Commission's draft because it won't +allow software-idea patents,” you can point this out, and press the +question, “Will you vote for the Parliament's previous +amendments?”

    -
    Okay thanks very much.
    +
    OK, thanks very much.
    +
    - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-kernel-trap-interview.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-kernel-trap-interview.html index 7c4e8fb..f681fbd 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-kernel-trap-interview.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-kernel-trap-interview.html @@ -1,20 +1,19 @@ - - + + + + Interview with Richard Stallman, KernelTrap.org, 2005 - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    Interview with Richard Stallman, KernelTrap.org, 2005

    - -

    An interview by Jeremy Andrews with Richard Stallman in -2005
    -Source: - - http://kerneltrap.org/node/4484 - [Archived]

    -
    +

    Richard Stallman founded the GNU Project in 1984, and the Free Software Foundation in 1985. He also originally authored a number of @@ -22,7 +21,7 @@ well known and highly used development tools, including the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC), the GNU symbolic debugger (GDB) and GNU Emacs.

    -

    To better understand Richard Stallman and the GNU project, I +

    To better understand Richard Stallman and the GNU Project, I recommend you begin by reviewing their philosophy page. On it you will find a wealth of information.

    @@ -180,7 +179,7 @@ problems that today I see no way to solve.

    “GNU/Linux”

    JA: Another frequent area of confusion is the name -“GNU/Linux.” Why is the GNU project's contribution significant enough +“GNU/Linux.” Why is the GNU Project's contribution significant enough that it should be in the name of the operating system, especially compared to other large pieces of any Linux-kernel based operating system, such as XFree86?

    @@ -316,7 +315,7 @@ make sure it doesn't start writing in files it wasn't expected to.

    Hurd's architecture, but with the Hurd it's trivial and the most natural thing in the world.

    -

    Writing Code vs. Management

    +

    Writing Code versus Management

    JA: How much source code do you write these days?

    @@ -768,9 +767,18 @@ win.

    Richard Stallman: Happy hacking!

    + +
    + - - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-lisp.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-lisp.html index a5f0dd1..ec94a91 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-lisp.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-lisp.html @@ -1,13 +1,26 @@ - + + + + My Lisp Experiences and the Development of GNU Emacs - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + + +

    My Lisp Experiences and the Development of GNU Emacs

    -

    (Transcript of Richard Stallman's Speech, 28 Oct 2002, at the -International Lisp Conference).

    +
    +

    Transcript of Richard Stallman's speech at the +International Lisp Conference, 28 Oct 2002.

    +
    +

    Since none of my usual speeches have anything to do with Lisp, none of them were appropriate for today. So I'm going to have to wing it. @@ -19,8 +32,8 @@ in high school. That's when I had my mind blown by the idea that there could be a computer language like that. The first time I had a chance to do anything with Lisp was when I was a freshman at Harvard and I wrote a Lisp interpreter for the PDP-11. It was a very small machine -— it had something like 8k of memory — and I managed to write the +Processor">PDP-11. It was a very small machine—it +had something like 8k of memory—and I managed to write the interpreter in a thousand instructions. This gave me some room for a little bit of data. That was before I got to see what real software was like, that did real system jobs.

    @@ -29,7 +42,7 @@ was like, that did real system jobs.

    once I started working at MIT. I got hired at the Artificial Intelligence Lab not by JonL, but by Russ Noftsker, which was most ironic considering -what was to come — he must have really regretted that day.

    +what was to come—he must have really regretted that day.

    During the 1970s, before my life became politicized by horrible events, I was just going along making one extension after another for @@ -57,25 +70,25 @@ nature of the way we lived at the AI Lab that led to Emacs and made it what it was.

    The original Emacs did not have Lisp in it. The lower level -language, the non-interpreted language — was PDP-10 +language, the non-interpreted language—was PDP-10 Assembler. The interpreter we wrote in that actually wasn't written for Emacs, it was written for TECO. It was our text editor, and was an extremely ugly programming language, as ugly as could possibly be. The reason was that it wasn't designed to be a programming language, it was designed to be an editor and command language. There were commands -like ‘5l’, meaning ‘move five lines’, or -‘i’ and then a string and then an ESC to insert that +like 5l, meaning move five lines, or +i and then a string and then an ESC to insert that string. You would type a string that was a series of commands, which was called a command string. You would end it with ESC ESC, and it would get executed.

    Well, people wanted to extend this language with programming facilities, so they added some. For instance, one of the first was a -looping construct, which was < >. You would put those around +looping construct, which was < >. You would put those around things and it would loop. There were other cryptic commands that could -be used to conditionally exit the loop. To make Emacs, we -(1) added facilities to have subroutines with +be used to conditionally exit the loop. To make Emacs, we [1] added facilities to have subroutines with names. Before that, it was sort of like Basic, and the subroutines could only have single letters as their names. That was hard to program big programs with, so we added code so they could have longer @@ -84,7 +97,7 @@ think that Lisp got its unwind-protect facility from TECO.

    We started putting in rather sophisticated facilities, all with the -ugliest syntax you could ever think of, and it worked — people were +ugliest syntax you could ever think of, and it worked—people were able to write large programs in it anyway. The obvious lesson was that a language like TECO, which wasn't designed to be a programming language, was the wrong way to go. The language that you @@ -94,10 +107,10 @@ language. In fact, we discovered that the best programming language for that purpose was Lisp.

    It was Bernie Greenberg, who discovered that it -was (2). He wrote a version of Emacs in Multics +was [2]. He wrote a version of Emacs in Multics MacLisp, and he wrote his commands in MacLisp in a straightforward fashion. The editor itself was written entirely in Lisp. Multics Emacs -proved to be a great success — programming new editing commands +proved to be a great success—programming new editing commands was so convenient that even the secretaries in his office started learning how to use it. They used a manual someone had written which showed how to extend Emacs, but didn't say it was a programming. So @@ -105,22 +118,22 @@ the secretaries, who believed they couldn't do programming, weren't scared off. They read the manual, discovered they could do useful things and they learned to program.

    -

    So Bernie saw that an application — a program that does something -useful for you — which has Lisp inside it and which you could extend +

    So Bernie saw that an application—a program that does something +useful for you—which has Lisp inside it and which you could extend by rewriting the Lisp programs, is actually a very good way for people to learn programming. It gives them a chance to write small programs that are useful for them, which in most arenas you can't possibly -do. They can get encouragement for their own practical use — at the -stage where it's the hardest — where they don't believe they can +do. They can get encouragement for their own practical use—at the +stage where it's the hardest—where they don't believe they can program, until they get to the point where they are programmers.

    At that point, people began to wonder how they could get something like this on a platform where they didn't have full service Lisp implementation. Multics MacLisp had a compiler as well as an -interpreter — it was a full-fledged Lisp system — but people wanted +interpreter—it was a full-fledged Lisp system—but people wanted to implement something like that on other systems where they had not already written a Lisp compiler. Well, if you didn't have the Lisp -compiler you couldn't write the whole editor in Lisp — it would be +compiler you couldn't write the whole editor in Lisp—it would be too slow, especially redisplay, if it had to run interpreted Lisp. So we developed a hybrid technique. The idea was to write a Lisp interpreter and the lower level parts of the editor together, so that @@ -145,7 +158,7 @@ followed the same kind of design. The low level language was not machine language anymore, it was C. C was a good, efficient language for portable programs to run in a Unix-like operating system. There was a Lisp interpreter, but I implemented facilities for special -purpose editing jobs directly in C — manipulating editor buffers, +purpose editing jobs directly in C—manipulating editor buffers, inserting leading text, reading and writing files, redisplaying the buffer on the screen, managing editor windows.

    @@ -154,7 +167,7 @@ Unix. The first was written by James Gosling, and was referred to as GosMacs. A strange thing happened with him. In the beginning, he seemed to be influenced by the same spirit of sharing and cooperation of the original Emacs. I first released the original Emacs to people -at MIT. Someone wanted to port it to run on Twenex — it +at MIT. Someone wanted to port it to run on Twenex—it originally only ran on the Incompatible Timesharing System we used at MIT. They ported it to Twenex, which meant that there were a few hundred installations around the world that could @@ -166,7 +179,7 @@ know people did cooperate.

    Gosling did, at first, seem to participate in this spirit. He wrote in a manual that he called the program Emacs hoping that others in the community would improve it until it was worthy of that name. That's -the right approach to take towards a community — to ask them to join +the right approach to take towards a community—to ask them to join in and make the program better. But after that he seemed to change the spirit, and sold it to a company.

    @@ -178,7 +191,7 @@ developing Gosling's Emacs. Gosling had given him, by email, permission to distribute his own version. He proposed to me that I use that version. Then I discovered that Gosling's Emacs did not have a real Lisp. It had a programming language that was known as -‘mocklisp’, which looks syntactically like Lisp, but didn't +“mocklisp,” which looks syntactically like Lisp, but didn't have the data structures of Lisp. So programs were not data, and vital elements of Lisp were missing. Its data structures were strings, numbers and a few other specialized things.

    @@ -195,17 +208,17 @@ sort of an alternate world. The editor would enter the world of redisplay and things would go on with very special data structures that were not safe for garbage collection, not safe for interruption, and you couldn't run any Lisp programs during that. We've changed that -since — it's now possible to run Lisp code during redisplay. It's +since—it's now possible to run Lisp code during redisplay. It's quite a convenient thing.

    -

    This second Emacs program was ‘free software’ in the -modern sense of the term — it was part of an explicit political +

    This second Emacs program was “free software” in the +modern sense of the term—it was part of an explicit political campaign to make software free. The essence of this campaign was that everybody should be free to do the things we did in the old days at MIT, working together on software and working with whomever wanted to work with us. That is the basis for the free -software movement — the experience I had, the life that I've lived at -the MIT AI lab — to be working on human knowledge, and +software movement—the experience I had, the life that I've lived at +the MIT AI lab—to be working on human knowledge, and not be standing in the way of anybody's further using and further disseminating human knowledge.

    @@ -219,8 +232,8 @@ take car of a number, it got nonsensical results and eventually crashed at some point.

    The Lisp machine was able to execute instructions about as fast as -those other machines, but each instruction — a car instruction would -do data typechecking — so when you tried to get the car of a number +those other machines, but each instruction—a car instruction would +do data typechecking—so when you tried to get the car of a number in a compiled program, it would give you an immediate error. We built the machine and had a Lisp operating system for it. It was written almost entirely in Lisp, the only exceptions being parts written in @@ -231,7 +244,7 @@ meant they should start a company.

    like. Greenblatt wanted to start what he called a “hacker” company. This meant it would be a company run by hackers and would operate in a way conducive to hackers. Another goal -was to maintain the AI Lab culture (3). +was to maintain the AI Lab culture [3]. Unfortunately, Greenblatt didn't have any business experience, so other people in the Lisp machine group said they doubted whether he could succeed. They thought that his plan to avoid outside investment @@ -284,7 +297,7 @@ was entitled to put them into the MIT Lisp machine systems that both companies had licensed. Nobody had envisioned that the AI lab's hacker group would be wiped out, but it was.

    -

    So Symbolics came up with a plan (4). They +

    So Symbolics came up with a plan [4]. They said to the lab, “We will continue making our changes to the system available for you to use, but you can't put it into the MIT Lisp machine system. Instead, we'll give you @@ -305,12 +318,12 @@ we were not allowed to be neutral anymore.

    although it made me miserable to see what had happened to our community and the software. But now, Symbolics had forced the issue. So, in an effort to help keep Lisp Machines -Inc. going (5) — I began duplicating all +Inc. going [5]—I began duplicating all of the improvements Symbolics had made to the Lisp machine system. I wrote the equivalent improvements again myself (i.e., the code was my own).

    -

    After a while (6), I came to the conclusion +

    After a while [6], I came to the conclusion that it would be best if I didn't even look at their code. When they made a beta announcement that gave the release notes, I would see what the features were and then implement them. By the time they had a real @@ -321,7 +334,7 @@ Machines Incorporated, and the two companies went on. But, I didn't want to spend years and years punishing someone, just thwarting an evil deed. I figured they had been punished pretty thoroughly because they were stuck with competition that was not leaving or going to -disappear (7). Meanwhile, it was time to start +disappear [7]. Meanwhile, it was time to start building a new community to replace the one that their actions and others had wiped out.

    @@ -333,7 +346,7 @@ were people giving up on cooperation, and together this wiped out the community and there wasn't much left.

    Once I stopped punishing Symbolics, I had to figure out what to do -next. I had to make a free operating system, that was clear — the +next. I had to make a free operating system, that was clear—the only way that people could work together and share was with a free operating system.

    @@ -344,7 +357,7 @@ made it possible to run programs as fast as other computers would run their programs and still get the benefit of typechecking. Without that, you would be reduced to something like the Lisp compilers for other machines. The programs would be faster, but unstable. Now that's -okay if you're running one program on a timesharing system — if one +okay if you're running one program on a timesharing system—if one program crashes, that's not a disaster, that's something your program occasionally does. But that didn't make it good for writing the operating system in, so I rejected the idea of making a system like @@ -363,21 +376,21 @@ machines without virtual memory. They wanted to be able to use GNU Emacs. This meant I had to keep the program as small as possible.

    For instance, at the time the only looping construct was -‘while’, which was extremely simple. There was no way to -break out of the ‘while’ statement, you just had to do a +while, which was extremely simple. There was no way to +break out of the while statement, you just had to do a catch and a throw, or test a variable that ran the loop. That shows how far I was pushing to keep things small. We didn't have -‘caar’ and ‘cadr’ and so on; “squeeze +caar and cadr and so on; “squeeze out everything possible” was the spirit of GNU Emacs, the spirit of Emacs Lisp, from the beginning.

    Obviously, machines are bigger now, and we don't do it that way -any more. We put in ‘caar’ and ‘cadr’ and so +any more. We put in caar and cadr and so on, and we might put in another looping construct one of these days. We're willing to extend it some now, but we don't want to extend it to the level of common Lisp. I implemented Common Lisp once on the Lisp machine, and I'm not all that happy with it. One thing I don't -like terribly much is keyword arguments (8). +like terribly much is keyword arguments [8]. They don't seem quite Lispy to me; I'll do it sometimes but I minimize the times when I do that.

    @@ -420,14 +433,14 @@ work with other customizations as well.

    As long as the extensibility languages are weak, the users have to use only the language you provided them. Which means that people who love any given language have to compete for the choice of the -developers of applications — saying “Please, application +developers of applications—saying “Please, application developer, put my language into your application, not his -language.” Then the users get no choices at all — whichever +language.” Then the users get no choices at all—whichever application they're using comes with one language and they're stuck with [that language]. But when you have a powerful language that can implement others by translating into it, then you give the user a choice of language and we don't have to have a language war -anymore. That's what we're hoping ‘Guile’, our scheme +anymore. That's what we're hoping Guile, our scheme interpreter, will do. We had a person working last summer finishing up a translator from Python to Scheme. I don't know if it's entirely finished yet, but for anyone interested in this project, please get in @@ -441,13 +454,13 @@ freedom as a user. The crucial thing is that you are free to run the program, free to study what it does, free to change it to suit your needs, free to redistribute the copies of others and free to publish improved, extended versions. This is what free software means. If you -are using a non-free program, you have lost crucial freedom, so don't +are using a nonfree program, you have lost crucial freedom, so don't ever do that.

    The purpose of the GNU project is to make it easier for people to -reject freedom-trampling, user-dominating, non-free software by +reject freedom-trampling, user-dominating, nonfree software by providing free software to replace it. For those who don't have the -moral courage to reject the non-free software, when that means some +moral courage to reject the nonfree software, when that means some practical inconvenience, what we try to do is give a free alternative so that you can move to freedom with less of a mess and less of a sacrifice in practical terms. The less sacrifice the better. We want @@ -457,27 +470,29 @@ to make it easier for you to live in freedom, to cooperate.

    thinking of freedom and cooperation with society as if they are opposites. But here they're on the same side. With free software you are free to cooperate with other people as well as free to help -yourself. With non-free software, somebody is dominating you and +yourself. With nonfree software, somebody is dominating you and keeping people divided. You're not allowed to share with them, you're not free to cooperate or help society, anymore than you're free to help yourself. Divided and helpless is the state of users using -non-free software.

    +nonfree software.

    We've produced a tremendous range of free software. We've done what people said we could never do; we have two operating systems of free software. We have many applications and we obviously have a lot farther to go. So we need your help. I would like to ask you to volunteer for the GNU project; help us develop free software for more -jobs. Take a look at http://www.gnu.org/help to +jobs. Take a look at gnu.org/help to find suggestions for how to help. If you want to order things, there's a link to that from the home page. If you want to read about philosophical issues, look in /philosophy. If you're looking for free software to use, look in /directory, which lists about 1900 packages now (which is a fraction of all the free software out there). Please write more and contribute to us. My book of essays, “Free -Software and Free Society”, is on sale and can be purchased at -www.gnu.org. Happy hacking!

    +Software and Free Society,” is on sale and can be purchased at +www.gnu.org [9]. Happy hacking!

    +
    +

    Footnotes

    1. Guy Steele designed the original symmetrical Emacs command set; then he and I began implementing Emacs (on top of TECO), @@ -498,7 +513,7 @@ MIT.
    2. The background of this plan, which I did not state explicitly in the talk, is that during an initial period the ex-AI-Lab hackers, whether at Symbolics or LMI, continued contributing their -changes to the MIT Lisp Machine system — even though the +changes to the MIT Lisp Machine system—even though the contract did not require this. Symbolics' plan was to rupture this cooperation unilaterally.
    3. @@ -524,11 +539,16 @@ by thwarting their plan, had cost Symbolics a million dollars.
    4. I don't mind if a very complex and heavyweight function takes keyword arguments. What bothers me is making simple basic functions such as “member” use them.
    5. + +
    6. In 2021, this book can be purchased from +GNU Press.
    +
    - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html index aaf0b6b..88cd692 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html @@ -1,23 +1,33 @@ - + + + + Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + + +

    Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation

    -

    Transcript of -Richard M. Stallman's speech, -“Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation”, -given at New York University in New York, NY, -on 29 May 2001

    + -
    -

    A plain +

    +are also available.

    +

    URETSKY: I'm Mike Uretsky. I'm over at the Stern School of Business. I'm also one of the Co-Directors of the Center @@ -93,12 +103,12 @@ relates to business, and some other areas of social life.

    you cook. And if you cook, unless you're really great, you probably use recipes. And, if you use recipes, you've probably had the experience of getting a copy of a recipe from a friend who's sharing -it. And you've probably also had the experience — unless you're -a total neophyte — of changing a recipe. You know, it says +it. And you've probably also had the experience—unless you're +a total neophyte—of changing a recipe. You know, it says certain things, but you don't have to do exactly that. You can leave out some ingredients. Add some mushrooms, 'cause you like mushrooms. -Put in less salt because your doctor said you should cut down on salt -— whatever. You can even make bigger changes according to your +Put in less salt because your doctor said you should cut down on +salt—whatever. You can even make bigger changes according to your skill. And if you've made changes in a recipe, and you cook it for your friends, and they like it, one of your friends might say, “Hey, could I have the recipe?” And then, what do you do? @@ -109,7 +119,7 @@ functionally useful recipes of any kind.

    Now a recipe is a lot like a computer program. A computer program's a lot like a recipe: a series of steps to be carried out to get some result that you want. So it's just as natural to do those -same things with computer programs — hand a copy to your friend. +same things with computer programs—hand a copy to your friend. Make changes in it because the job it was written to do isn't exactly what you want. It did a great job for somebody else, but your job is a different job. And after you've changed it, that's likely to be @@ -146,12 +156,12 @@ software, but there was no free software movement.

    But then our community was destroyed by a series of calamities that happened to it. Ultimately it was wiped out. Ultimately, the PDP-10 computer which we used for all our work was discontinued. And you -know, our system — the Incompatible Timesharing System — -was written starting in the '60's, so it was written in assembler +know, our system—the Incompatible Timesharing System—was +written starting in the '60's, so it was written in assembler language. That's what you used to write an operating system in the '60's. So, of course, assembler language is for one particular computer architecture; if that gets discontinued, all your work turns -into dust — it's useless. And that's what happened to us. The +into dust—it's useless. And that's what happened to us. The 20 years or so of work of our community turned into dust.

    But before this happened, I had an experience that prepared me, @@ -179,18 +189,18 @@ it.

    that ran that printer was not free software. It had come with the printer, and it was just a binary. We couldn't have the source code; Xerox wouldn't let us have the source code. So, despite our skill as -programmers — after all, we had written our own timesharing -system — we were completely helpless to add this feature to the +programmers—after all, we had written our own timesharing +system—we were completely helpless to add this feature to the printer software.

    And we just had to suffer with waiting. It would take an hour or two to get your printout because the machine would be jammed most of -the time. And only once in a while — you'd wait an hour +the time. And only once in a while—you'd wait an hour figuring “I know it's going to be jammed. I'll wait an hour and go collect my printout,” and then you'd see that it had been jammed the whole time, and in fact, nobody else had fixed it. So you'd fix it and you'd go wait another half hour. Then, you'd come -back, and you'd see it jammed again — before it got to your +back, and you'd see it jammed again—before it got to your output. It would print three minutes and be jammed thirty minutes. Frustration up the whazzoo. But the thing that made it worse was knowing that we could have fixed it, but somebody else, for his own @@ -201,37 +211,37 @@ software. So, of course, we felt some resentment.

    copy of that software. So I was visiting there later, so I went to his office and I said, “Hi, I'm from MIT. Could I have a copy of the printer source code?” And he said “No, I promised not -to give you a copy.” [Laughter] I was stunned. I was so -— I was angry, and I had no idea how I could do justice to it. +to give you a copy.” [Laughter] I was stunned. I was +so… I was angry, and I had no idea how I could do justice to it. All I could think of was to turn around on my heel and walk out of his room. Maybe I slammed the door. [Laughter] And I thought about it later on, because I realized that I was seeing not just an isolated jerk, but a social phenomenon that was important and affected a lot of people.

    -

    This was — for me — I was lucky, I only got a taste of +

    This was—for me—I was lucky, I only got a taste of it, but other people had to live in this all the time. So I thought about it at length. See, he had promised to refuse to cooperate with -us — his colleagues at MIT. He had betrayed us. But he didn't +us—his colleagues at MIT. He had betrayed us. But he didn't just do it to us. Chances are he did it to you too. [Pointing at member of audience.] And I think, mostly likely, he did it to you too. [Pointing at another member of audience.] [Laughter] And he probably did it to you as well. [Pointing to third member of audience.] He probably did it to most of the people here in this -room — except a few, maybe, who weren't born yet in 1980. +room—except a few, maybe, who weren't born yet in 1980. Because he had promised to refuse to cooperate with just about the entire population of the Planet Earth. He had signed a non-disclosure agreement.

    Now, this was my first, direct encounter with a non-disclosure -agreement, and it taught me an important lesson — a lesson +agreement, and it taught me an important lesson—a lesson that's important because most programmers never learn it. You see, this was my first encounter with a non-disclosure agreement, and I was the victim. I, and my whole lab, were the victims. And the lesson it taught me was that non-disclosure agreements have victims. They're not innocent. They're not harmless. Most programmers first encounter a non-disclosure agreement when they're invited to sign one. And -there's always some temptation — some goody they're going to get +there's always some temptation—some goody they're going to get if they sign. So, they make up excuses. They say, “Well, he's never going to get a copy no matter what, so why shouldn't I join the conspiracy to deprive him?” They say, “This is the way @@ -246,7 +256,7 @@ problem. And I couldn't turn around and do the exact same thing to somebody else who had never done me any harm. You know, if somebody asked me to promise not to share some useful information with a hated enemy, I would have said yes. You know? If somebody's done something -bad, he deserves it. But, strangers — they haven't done me any +bad, he deserves it. But, strangers—they haven't done me any harm. How could they deserve that kind of mistreatment? You can't let yourself start treating just anybody and everybody badly. Then you become a predator on society. So I said, “Thank you very @@ -259,23 +269,23 @@ technical information such as software.

    Now there are other kinds of information which raise different ethical issues. For instance, there's personal information. You know, if you wanted to talk with me about what was happening between -you and your boyfriend, and you asked me not to tell anybody — -you know, I could keep — I could agree to keep that a secret for +you and your boyfriend, and you asked me not to tell anybody—you +know, I could keep—I could agree to keep that a secret for you, because that's not generally useful technical information. At least, it's probably not generally useful. [Laughter]

    -

    There is a small chance — and it's a possibility though -— that you might reveal to me some marvelous new sex +

    There is a small chance—and it's a possibility +though—that you might reveal to me some marvelous new sex technique, [Laughter] and I would then feel a moral duty [Laughter] to pass it onto the rest of humanity, so that everyone could get the benefit of it. So, I'd have to put a proviso in that promise, you know? If it's just details about who wants this, -and who's angry at whom, and things like that — soap opera -— that I can keep private for you, but something that humanity +and who's angry at whom, and things like that—soap opera—that +I can keep private for you, but something that humanity could tremendously benefit from knowing, I mustn't withhold. You see, the purpose of science and technology is to develop useful information for humanity to help people live their lives better. If we promise to -withhold that information — if we keep it secret — then we +withhold that information—if we keep it secret—then we are betraying the mission of our field. And this, I decided I shouldn't do.

    @@ -293,8 +303,8 @@ To accept that things were different, and that I'd just have to give up those principles and start signing non-disclosure agreements for proprietary operating systems, and most likely writing proprietary software as well. But I realized that that way I could have fun -coding, and I could make money — especially if I did it other -than at MIT — but at the end, I'd have to look back at my career +coding, and I could make money—especially if I did it other +than at MIT—but at the end, I'd have to look back at my career and say, “I've spent my life building walls to divide people,” and I would have been ashamed of my life.

    @@ -307,8 +317,8 @@ many programmers, they say to me, “The people who hire programmers demand this, this and this. If I don't do those things, I'll starve.” It's literally the word they use. Well, you know, as a waiter, you're not going to starve. [Laughter] So, -really, they're in no danger. But — and this is important, you -see — because sometimes you can justify doing something that +really, they're in no danger. But—and this is important, you +see—because sometimes you can justify doing something that hurts other people by saying otherwise something worse is going to happen to me. You know, if you were really going to starve, you'd be justified in writing proprietary software. [Laughter] @@ -330,11 +340,11 @@ operating system developer was exactly what was needed. The problem, the dilemma, existed for me and for everyone else because all of the available operating systems for modern computers were proprietary. The free operating systems were for old, obsolete computers, right? -So for the modern computers — if you wanted to get a modern +So for the modern computers—if you wanted to get a modern computer and use it, you were forced into a proprietary operating system. So if an operating system developer wrote another operating system, and then said, “Everybody come and share this; you're -welcome to this” — that would give everybody a way out of +welcome to this”—that would give everybody a way out of the dilemma, another alternative. So I realized that there was something I could do that would solve the problem. I had just the right skills to be able to do it. And it was the most useful thing I @@ -356,8 +366,8 @@ followed the design of Unix, I had a pretty good chance that I could make a system that would also be portable and workable. And furthermore, why [Tape unclear] be compatible with it in the details. The reason is, users hate incompatible changes. If I had -just designed the system in my favorite way — which I would have -loved doing, I'm sure — I would have produced something that was +just designed the system in my favorite way—which I would have +loved doing, I'm sure—I would have produced something that was incompatible. You know, the details would be different. So, if I wrote the system, then the users would have said to me, “Well, this is very nice, but it's incompatible. It will be too much work to @@ -388,7 +398,7 @@ similar to some existing program. You can give it a recursive acronym name which says: this one's not the other. So, for instance, there were many Tico text editors in the '60's and '70's, and they were generally called something-or-other Tico. Then one clever hacker -called his Tint, for Tint Is Not Tico — the first recursive +called his Tint, for Tint Is Not Tico—the first recursive acronym. In 1975, I developed the first Emacs text editor, and there were many imitations of Emacs, and a lot of them were called something-or-other Emacs, but one was called Fine, for Fine Is Not @@ -402,11 +412,11 @@ called Zwei, for Zwei Was Eine Initially. [Laughter]

    I tried all 26 letters, and discovered that none of them was a word. [Laughter] Hmm, try another way. I made a contraction. That way I could have a three-letter acronym, for Something's not Unix. -And I tried letters, and I came across the word “GNU” -— the word “GNU” is the funniest word in the English +And I tried letters, and I came across the word “GNU”—the +word “GNU” is the funniest word in the English language. [Laughter] That was it. Of course, the reason it's funny is that according to the dictionary, it's pronounced -“new”. You see? And so that's why people use it for a +“new.” You see? And so that's why people use it for a lot of wordplay. Let me tell you, this is the name of an animal that lives in Africa. And the African pronunciation had a click sound in it. [Laughter] Maybe still does. And so, the European @@ -421,18 +431,18 @@ so that I'll know how to pronounce GNU the correct way, when it's the animal.

    But, when it's the name of our system, the correct pronunciation is -“guh-NEW” — pronounce the hard “G”. If +“guh-NEW”—pronounce the hard “G.” If you talk about the “new” operating system, you'll get people very confused, because we've been working on it for 17 years now, so it is not new any more. [Laughter] But it still is, -and always will be, GNU — no matter how many people call it +and always will be, GNU—no matter how many people call it Linux by mistake. [Laughter]

    So, in January 1984, I quit my job at MIT to start writing pieces of GNU. They were nice enough to let me keep using their facilities though. And, at the time, I thought we would write all these pieces, and make an entire GNU system, and then we'd say, “Come and get -it”, and people would start to use it. That's not what +it,” and people would start to use it. That's not what happened. The first pieces I wrote were just equally good replacements, with fewer bugs for some pieces of Unix, but they weren't tremendously exciting. Nobody particularly wanted to get them @@ -443,7 +453,7 @@ relief, because I had no intention of learning to use VI, the Unix editor. [Laughter] So, until that time, I did my editing on some other machine, and saved the files through the network, so that I could test them. But when GNU Emacs was running well enough for me to -use it, it was also — other people wanted to use it too.

    +use it, it was also—other people wanted to use it too.

    So I had to work out the details of distribution. Of course, I put a copy in the anonymous FTP directory, and that was fine for people @@ -473,16 +483,17 @@ people with the money will dictate what you do with your life. You won't be able to do what's really important to you.

    So, that was fine, but people used to ask me, “What do you -mean it's free software if it costs $150?” [Laughter] Well, the reason they asked this was +mean it's free software if it costs $150?” [Laughter] +Well, the reason they asked this was that they were confused by the multiple meanings of the English word -“free”. One meaning refers to price, and another meaning +“free.” One meaning refers to price, and another meaning refers to freedom. When I speak of free software, I'm referring to freedom, not price. So think of free speech, not free beer. [Laughter] Now, I wouldn't have dedicated so many years of my life to making sure programmers got less money. That's not my goal. I'm a programmer and I don't mind getting money myself. I won't dedicate my whole life to getting it, but I don't mind getting -it. And I'm not — and therefore, ethics is the same for +it. And I'm not—and therefore, ethics is the same for everyone. I'm not against some other programmer getting money either. I don't want prices to be low. That's not the issue at all. The issue is freedom. Freedom for everyone who's using software, whether @@ -512,7 +523,7 @@ work.

    If you have all of these freedoms, the program is free software, -for you — and that's crucial. That's why I phrase it that way. +for you—and that's crucial. That's why I phrase it that way. I'll explain why later, when I talk about the GNU General Public License, but right now I'm explaining what free software means, which is a more basic question.

    @@ -521,7 +532,7 @@ is a more basic question.

    run the program anyway you like, it is a pretty damn restrictive program. But as it happens, most programs will at least give you Freedom Zero. And Freedom Zero follows, legally, as a consequence of -Freedoms One, Two, and Three — that's the way that copyright law +Freedoms One, Two, and Three—that's the way that copyright law works. So the freedoms that distinguish free software from typical software are Freedoms One, Two, and Three, so I'll say more about them and why they are important.

    @@ -574,14 +585,14 @@ sharing useful knowledge is a fundamental act of friendship. When these beings use computers, this act of friendship takes the form of sharing software. Friends share with each other. Friends help each other. This is the nature of friendship. And, in fact, this spirit -of goodwill — the spirit of helping your neighbor, voluntarily -— is society's most important resource. It makes the difference +of goodwill—the spirit of helping your neighbor, voluntarily—is +society's most important resource. It makes the difference between a livable society and a dog-eat-dog jungle. Its importance has been recognized by the world's major religions for thousands of years, and they explicitly try to encourage this attitude.

    When I was going to kindergarten, the teachers were trying to teach -us this attitude — the spirit of sharing — by having us do +us this attitude—the spirit of sharing—by having us do it. They figured if we did it, we'd learn. So they said, “If you bring candy to school, you can't keep it all for yourself; you have to share some with the other kids.” Teaching us, the @@ -620,10 +631,10 @@ dead…

    STALLMAN: Yes, that's true. [Laughter] So I guess, in that regard, L. Ron Hubbard is no worse than the -others. [Laughter] Anyway — [Inaudible]

    +others. [Laughter] Anyway—[Inaudible]

    -

    QUESTION: L. Ron always used free software — -it freed him from Zanu. [Laughter]

    +

    QUESTION: L. Ron always used free software—it +freed him from Zanu. [Laughter]

    STALLMAN: Anyway, so, I think this is actually the most important reason why software should be free: We can't afford to @@ -632,13 +643,13 @@ physical resource like clean air and clean water. It's a psycho-social resource, but it's just as real for all that, and it makes a tremendous difference to our lives. You see, the actions we take influence the thoughts of other people. When we go around -telling people, “Don't share with each other”, if they +telling people, “Don't share with each other,” if they listen to us, we've had an effect on society, and it's not a good one. That's Freedom Two, the freedom to help your neighbor.

    Oh, and by the way, if you don't have that freedom, it doesn't just cause this harm to society's psycho-social resource, it also causes -waste — practical, material harm. If the program has an owner, +waste—practical, material harm. If the program has an owner, and the owner arranges a state of affairs where each user has to pay in order to be able to use it, some people are going to say, “Never mind, I'll do without it.” And that's waste, @@ -680,8 +691,8 @@ that hundreds of people are being paid to write free software, and over 100,000 are doing it as volunteers. We get lots of people working on free software, for various different motives.

    -

    When I first released GNU Emacs — the first piece of the GNU -system that people actually wanted to use — and when it started +

    When I first released GNU Emacs—the first piece of the GNU +system that people actually wanted to use—and when it started having users, after a while, I got a message saying, “I think I saw a bug in the source code, and here's a fix.” And I got another message, “Here's code to add a new feature.” And @@ -702,8 +713,8 @@ powerful, and more reliable, than the proprietary alternatives.

    In the early '90's, somebody found a way to do a scientific measurement of reliability of software. Here's what he did. He took -several sets of comparable programs that did the same jobs — the -exact same jobs — in different systems. Because there were +several sets of comparable programs that did the same jobs—the +exact same jobs—in different systems. Because there were certain basic Unix-like utilities. And the jobs that they did, we know, was all, more or less, imitating the same thing, or they were following the POSIX spec, so they were all the same in terms of what @@ -715,7 +726,7 @@ of programs was the GNU programs. All the commercial alternatives which were proprietary software were less reliable. So he published this and he told all the developers, and a few years later, he did the same experiment with the newest versions, and he got the same result. -The GNU versions were the most reliable. People — you know +The GNU versions were the most reliable. People—you know there are cancer clinics and 911 operations that use the GNU system, because it's so reliable, and reliability is very important to them.

    @@ -729,8 +740,8 @@ of ethics, and what kind of a society we want to live in, what makes for a good society, as well as practical, material benefits. They're both important. That's the free software movement.

    -

    That other group of people — which is called the open source -movement — they only cite the practical benefits. They deny +

    That other group of people—which is called the open source +movement—they only cite the practical benefits. They deny that this is an issue of principle. They deny that people are entitled to the freedom to share with their neighbor and to see what the program's doing and change it if they don't like it. They say, @@ -747,7 +758,7 @@ movement we say, “You're entitled to these freedoms. People shouldn't stop you from doing these things.” In the open source movement, they say, “Yes, they can stop you if you want, but we'll try to convince them to deign to let you to do these -things.” Well, they have contributed — they have convinced +things.” Well, they have contributed—they have convinced a certain number of businesses to release substantial pieces of software as free software in our community. So they, the open source movement, has contributed substantially to our community. And so we @@ -760,7 +771,7 @@ describe it as open source, and a lot of people just innocently think that we're all part of the open source movement. So that's why I'm mentioning this distinction. I want you to be aware that the free software movement, which brought our community into existence and -developed the free operating system, is still here — and that we +developed the free operating system, is still here—and that we still stand for this ethical philosophy. I want you to know about this, so that you won't mislead someone else unknowingly.

    @@ -771,9 +782,9 @@ with the free software movements and my views. You might agree with the open source movement. You might disagree with them both. You decide where you stand on these political issues.

    -

    But if you agree with the free software movement — if you see +

    But if you agree with the free software movement—if you see that there's an issue here that the people whose lives are controlled -and directed by this decision deserve a say in it — then I hope +and directed by this decision deserve a say in it—then I hope you'll say that you agree with the free software movement, and one way you can do that is by using the term free software and just helping people know we exist.

    @@ -782,8 +793,8 @@ people know we exist.

    psycho-socially. If you don't have this freedom, it causes practical material harm, because this community development doesn't happen, and we don't make powerful, reliable software. But it also causes -psycho-social harm, which affects the spirit of scientific cooperation -— the idea that we're working together to advance human +psycho-social harm, which affects the spirit of scientific +cooperation—the idea that we're working together to advance human knowledge. You see, progress in science crucially depends on people being able to work together. And nowadays though, you often find each little group of scientists acting like it's a war with each other gang @@ -818,7 +829,7 @@ make an exact copy, and hand it to your friends, so now your friend can use it. Or maybe you make exact copies and you sell them to a bunch of people, and then they can use it.

    -

    Freedom Three is where you make improvements — or at least +

    Freedom Three is where you make improvements—or at least you think they're improvements, and some other people may agree with you. So that's the difference. Oh, and by the way, one crucial point. Freedoms One and Three depend on your having access to the @@ -832,8 +843,8 @@ precondition, a requirement, for free software.

    you? The reason is that sometimes the same program can be free software for some people, and nonfree for others. Now, that might seem like a paradoxical situation, so let me give you an example -to show you how it happens. A very big example — maybe the -biggest ever — of this problem was the X Window System which was +to show you how it happens. A very big example—maybe the +biggest ever—of this problem was the X Window System which was developed at MIT and released under a license that made it free software. If you got the MIT version with the MIT license, you had Freedoms One, Two, and Three. It was free software for you. But @@ -870,7 +881,7 @@ versions of GNU, that wouldn't be success at all. The whole thing would have been perverted into nothing like the goal.

    So, I looked for a way to stop that from happening. The method I -came up with is called “copyleft”. It's called copyleft +came up with is called “copyleft.” It's called copyleft because it's sort of like taking copyright and flipping it over. [Laughter] Legally, copyleft works based on copyright. We use the existing copyright law, but we use it to achieve a very @@ -889,13 +900,13 @@ that contains any piece of this program, that whole program must be distributed under these same terms, no more and no less. So you can change the program and distribute a modified version, but when you do, the people who get that from you must get the same freedom that you -got from us. And not just for the parts of it — the excerpts -that you copied from our program — but also for the other parts +got from us. And not just for the parts of it—the excerpts +that you copied from our program—but also for the other parts of that program that they got from you. The whole of that program has to be free software for them.

    The freedoms to change and redistribute this program become -inalienable rights — a concept from the Declaration of +inalienable rights—a concept from the Declaration of Independence. Rights that we make sure can't be taken away from you. And, of course, the specific license that embodies the idea of copyleft is the GNU General Public License, a controversial license @@ -905,29 +916,29 @@ parasites on our community.

    There are lots of people who don't appreciate the ideals of freedom. And they'd be very glad to take the work that we have done, and use it to get a head start in distributing a nonfree program and -tempting people to give up their freedom. And the result would be -— you know, if we let people do that — that we would be +tempting people to give up their freedom. And the result would +be—you know, if we let people do that—that we would developing these free programs, and we'd constantly have to compete with improved versions of our own programs. That's no fun.

    -

    And, a lot of people also feel — you know, I'm willing to +

    And, a lot of people also feel—you know, I'm willing to volunteer my time to contribute to the community, but why should I volunteer my time to contribute to that company's, to improving that company's, proprietary program? You know, some people might not even think that that's evil, but they want to get paid if they're going to do that. I, personally, would rather not do it at all.

    -

    But both of these groups of people — both the ones like me +

    But both of these groups of people—both the ones like me who say, “I don't want to help that nonfree program to get a foothold in our community” and the ones that say, “Sure, -I'd work for them, but then they better pay me” — both of +I'd work for them, but then they better pay me”—both of us have a good reason to use the GNU General Public License. Because that says to that company, “You can't just take my work, and distribute it without the freedom.” Whereas, the non-copyleft licenses, like the X Windows license, do permit that.

    So that is the big division between the two categories of free -software — license-wise. There are the programs that are +software—license-wise. There are the programs that are copylefted so that the license defends the freedom of the software for every user. And there are the non-copylefted programs for which nonfree versions are allowed. Somebody can take those @@ -936,7 +947,7 @@ nonfree version.

    And that problem exists today. There are still nonfree versions of X Windows being used on our free operating systems. There is even -hardware — which is not really supported — except by a +hardware—which is not really supported—except by a nonfree version of X Windows. And that's a major problem in our community. Nonetheless, I wouldn't say that X Windows is a bad thing, you know. I'd say that the developers did not do the best possible @@ -964,12 +975,12 @@ it better to have their version supplant ours. They just have to make it different and incompatible. And then, put it on everybody's desktop. So they really don't like the GNU GPL. Because the GNU GPL won't let them do that. It doesn't allow “embrace and -extend”. It says, if you want to share our code in your +extend.” It says, if you want to share our code in your programs, you can. But, you've got to share and share alike. The changes that you make we have to be allowed to share. So, it's a two-way cooperation, which is real cooperation.

    -

    Many companies — even big companies like IBM and HP are +

    Many companies—even big companies like IBM and HP are willing to use our software on this basis. IBM and HP contribute substantial improvements to GNU software. And they develop other free software. But, Microsoft doesn't want to do that, so they give it out @@ -1050,9 +1061,9 @@ with the rest of the GNU system to make a complete free operating system. Essentially, to make the GNU plus Linux combination.

    But, they didn't realize that's what they were doing. You see, -they said, We have a kernel — let's look around and see what +they said, We have a kernel—let's look around and see what other pieces we can find to put together with the kernel. So, they -looked around — and lo and behold, everything they needed was +looked around—and lo and behold, everything they needed was already available. What good fortune, they said. [Laughter] It's all here. We can find everything we need. Let's just take all these different things and put it together, and have a system.

    @@ -1064,11 +1075,11 @@ a system out of Linux. So they called it a Linux system.

    QUESTION: [Inaudible]

    -

    STALLMAN: Can't hear you — what?

    +

    STALLMAN: Can't hear you—what?

    QUESTION: [Inaudible]

    -

    STALLMAN: Well, it's just not — you know, +

    STALLMAN: Well, it's just not—you know, it's provincial.

    QUESTION: But it's more good fortune then finding @@ -1079,11 +1090,11 @@ people who developed X and Mach didn't have the goal of making a complete free operating system. We're the only ones who had that. And, it was our tremendous work that made the system exist. We actually did a larger part of the system than any other project. No -coincidence, because those people — they wrote useful parts of +coincidence, because those people—they wrote useful parts of the system. But they didn't do it because they wanted the system to be finished. They had other reasons.

    -

    Now the people who developed X — they thought that designing +

    Now the people who developed X—they thought that designing across the network window system would be a good project, and it was. And it turned out to help us make a good free operating system. But that's not what they hoped for. They didn't even think about that. @@ -1092,12 +1103,12 @@ what they did was bad. They did a large free software project. That's a good thing to do. But they didn't have that ultimate vision. The GNU Project is where that vision was.

    -

    And, so, we were the ones whose — every little piece that +

    And, so, we were the ones whose—every little piece that didn't get done by somebody else, we did it. Because we knew that we wouldn't have a complete system without it. And even if it was totally boring and unromantic, like tar or mv. [Laughter] We did it. Or ld, you know -there's nothing very exciting in ld — but I wrote +there's nothing very exciting in ld—but I wrote one. [Laughter] And I did make efforts to have it do a minimal amount of disk I/O so that it would be faster and handle bigger programs. But, you know, I like to do a good job. I like to improve @@ -1130,7 +1141,7 @@ stuffed animal! [Laughter]

    QUESTION: You do?

    -

    STALLMAN: We have an animal — a +

    STALLMAN: We have an animal—a gnu. [Laughter] Anyway. So, yes, when you draw a penguin, draw a gnu next to it. [Laughter] But, let's save the questions for the end. I have more to go through.

    @@ -1140,7 +1151,7 @@ is worth bothering you and perhaps giving you a, perhaps lowering your opinion of me, [Laughter] to raise this issue of credit? Because, you know, some people when I do this, some people think that it's because I want my ego to be fed, right? Of course, I'm not -saying — I'm not asking you to call it “Stallmanix,” +saying—I'm not asking you to call it “Stallmanix,” right? [Laughter] [Applause]

    I'm asking you to call it GNU, because I want the GNU Project to @@ -1148,22 +1159,22 @@ get credit. And there's a very specific reason for that, which is a lot more important than anybody getting credit, in and of itself. You see, these days, if you look around in our community most of the people talking about it and writing about it don't ever mention GNU, -and they don't ever mention these goals of freedom — these +and they don't ever mention these goals of freedom—these political and social ideals, either. Because the place they come from is GNU.

    -

    The ideas associated with Linux — the philosophy is very +

    The ideas associated with Linux—the philosophy is very different. It is basically the apolitical philosophy of Linus Torvalds. So, when people think that the whole system is Linux, they tend to think: “Oh, it must have been all started by Linux Torvalds. His philosophy must be the one that we should look at -carefully”. And when they hear about the GNU philosophy, they +carefully.” And when they hear about the GNU philosophy, they say: “Boy, this is so idealistic, this must be awfully impractical. I'm a Linux-user, not a GNU-user.” [Laughter]

    What irony! If they only knew! If they knew that the system they -liked — or, in some cases, love and go wild over — is our +liked—or, in some cases, love and go wild over—is our idealistic, political philosophy made real.

    They still wouldn't have to agree with us. But at least they'd see @@ -1196,12 +1207,12 @@ put other separate programs on the same disk (of either kind, hard disk, or CD), and they can have other licenses. That's considered mere aggregation, and, essentially, just distributing two programs to somebody at the same time is not something we have any say over. So, -in fact, it is not true — sometimes, I wish it were true — -that if a company uses a GPL-covered program in a product that the -whole product has to be free software. It's not — it doesn't go -to that range — that scope. It's the whole program. If there +in fact, it is not true—sometimes, I wish it were true—that +if a company uses a GPL-covered program in a product that the +whole product has to be free software. It's not—it doesn't go +to that range—that scope. It's the whole program. If there are two separate programs that communicate with each other at arm's -length — like by sending messages to each other — then, +length—like by sending messages to each other—then, they're legally separate, in general. So, these companies, by adding nonfree software to the system, are giving the users, philosophically and politically, a very bad idea. They're telling the users, @@ -1209,23 +1220,23 @@ and politically, a very bad idea. They're telling the users, this as a bonus.”

    If you look at the magazines about the use of the GNU/Linux system, -most of them have a title like “Linux-something or other”. +most of them have a title like “Linux-something or other.” So they're calling the system Linux most of the time. And they're filled with ads for nonfree software that you could run on top of the GNU/Linux system. Now those ads have a common message. They say: Nonfree Software Is Good For You. It's So Good That You Might Even Pay To Get It. [Laughter]

    -

    And they call these things “value-added packages”, +

    And they call these things “value-added packages,” which makes a statement about their values. They're saying: Value practical convenience, not freedom. And, I don't agree with those values, so I call them “freedom-subtracted -packages”. [Laughter] Because if you have installed a +packages.” [Laughter] Because if you have installed a free operating system, then you now are living in the free world. You enjoy the benefits of liberty that we worked for so many years to give you. Those packages give you an opportunity to buckle on a chain.

    -

    And then if you look at the trade shows — about the use of +

    And then if you look at the trade shows—about the use of the, dedicated to the use of, the GNU/Linux system, they all call themselves “Linux” shows. And they're filled with booths exhibiting nonfree software, essentially putting the seal of approval @@ -1248,7 +1259,7 @@ them and their lives. And that, indirectly, makes a tremendous difference. So please help us.

    You'll note that Microsoft called the GPL an “open source -license”. They don't want people to be thinking in terms of +license.” They don't want people to be thinking in terms of freedom as the issue. You'll find that they invite people to think in a narrow way, as consumers, and, of course, not even think very rationally as consumers, if they're going to choose Microsoft @@ -1356,7 +1367,7 @@ operate. Professor Lessig, now at Stanford, noted that code functions as a kind of law. Whoever gets to write the code that just about everybody uses for all intents and purposes is writing the laws that run people's lives. With free software, these laws get written in a -democratic way. Not the classical form of democracy — we don't +democratic way. Not the classical form of democracy—we don't have a big election and say, “Everybody vote which way should this feature be done.” [Laughter] Instead we say, basically, those of you who want to work on implementing the feature @@ -1558,7 +1569,7 @@ from that investment.

    I'd like to mention that there's a new approach to free software business being proposed by Tony Stanco, which he calls “Free -Developers”, which involves a certain business structure which +Developers,” which involves a certain business structure which hopes eventually to pay out a certain share of the profits to every, to all the authors of the free software who've joined the organization. And they're looking at the prospects of getting me some @@ -1596,8 +1607,8 @@ into the Microsoft Company Town.

    And this is relevant because, you know, the trial court in the Microsoft antitrust trial recommended breaking up the company, -Microsoft. But in a way, that makes no sense — it wouldn't do -any good at all — into the operating part and the applications +Microsoft. But in a way, that makes no sense—it wouldn't do +any good at all—into the operating part and the applications part.

    But having seen that article, I now see a useful, effective way to @@ -1616,7 +1627,7 @@ will be able to make the free software, and maybe you people will use it to talk to Microsoft services, and we won't mind.

    Because, after all, although Microsoft is the proprietary software -company that has subjugated the most people — the others have +company that has subjugated the most people—the others have subjugated fewer people, it's not for want of trying. [Laughter] They just haven't succeeded in subjugating as many people. So, the problem is not Microsoft and only Microsoft. @@ -1735,8 +1746,8 @@ restricted publishers. Now, it's a restriction imposed by the publishers on the public. So, the power relationship is turned around 180 degrees, even if it's the same law.

    -

    QUESTION: So you can have the same thing — -but like in making music from other music?

    +

    QUESTION: So you can have the same thing—but +like in making music from other music?

    STALLMAN: Right. That is an interesting …

    @@ -1848,8 +1859,8 @@ a shame, you know.

    There's another more important and more substantive issue about what IBM is doing. They're saying that they're putting a billion -dollars into “Linux”. But perhaps, I should also put -quotes around “into”, as well, because some of that money +dollars into “Linux.” But perhaps, I should also put +quotes around “into,” as well, because some of that money is paying people to develop free software. That really is a contribution to our community. But other parts is paying to pay people to write proprietary software, or port proprietary software to @@ -1865,15 +1876,15 @@ oversimplification.

    QUESTION: Can you talk a little bit more about the thinking that went into the General Public License?

    -

    STALLMAN: Well, here's the — I'm sorry, I'm +

    STALLMAN: Well, here's the—I'm sorry, I'm answering his question now. [Laughter]

    SCHONBERG: Do you want to reserve some time for the press conference? Or do you want to continue here?

    STALLMAN: Who is here for the press conference? -Not a lot of press. Oh, three — OK. Can you afford if we -— if I go on answering everybody's questions for another ten +Not a lot of press. Oh, three… OK. Can you afford if +we… if I go on answering everybody's questions for another ten minutes or so? OK. So, we'll go on answering everybody's questions.

    @@ -2059,10 +2070,11 @@ know. [Laughter] I'm not holding you prisoner here.

    STALLMAN: One final thing. Our website: www.gnu.org

    +
    - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-on-radio-nz.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-on-radio-nz.html index 384dedb..73a5aab 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-on-radio-nz.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-on-radio-nz.html @@ -1,39 +1,53 @@ - + + + + RMS on Radio New Zealand - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + -

    RMS on Radio NZ - October 2009

    - -

    Interview between Kim Hill (presenter) and Richard M Stallman

    -
    - -
    -

    Interesting sections

    -
    - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-patents.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-patents.html index 9fa351a..2d46fa7 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-patents.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-patents.html @@ -1,19 +1,30 @@ - - + + + + Solutions to the Software Patent Problem - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + + +

    Solutions to the Software Patent Problem

    -

    by Richard Stallman

    + -

    Speech given at the Locatelli Center, Santa Clara University, -in November 2012  ( +

    Speech given at the Locatelli Center, Santa Clara University, +in November 2012  (video,  metadata)

    -
    +
    +

    Andrew Chen: Thank you, Eric.

    @@ -39,7 +50,7 @@ time in either the Ogg Theora or WebM formats.

    Dr Stallman.

    -

    [applause]

    +

    [applause]

    Richard Stallman: Can the tech people please confirm that the streaming is off?

    @@ -168,7 +179,7 @@ then the program is all that implements any specific, patented idea.

    So, that's the case I want to get at, and I'm trying to separate it -from a case like that in Diamond vs. Diehr where there +from a case like that in Diamond v. Diehr where there was a patent for a system, a method of curing rubber. The implementation involved a computer, but it also involved special purpose hardware, not a general purpose universal machine, and that @@ -235,13 +246,14 @@ like.

    So, there I go.

    -

    [applause]

    +

    [applause]

    Andrew Chen: Thank you, Dr Stallman.

    + - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-pavia-doctoral-address.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-pavia-doctoral-address.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6ad9f57 --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-pavia-doctoral-address.html @@ -0,0 +1,310 @@ + + + + + +Pavia Doctoral Address: Innovation Is Secondary When Freedom Is +at Stake - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + + + +
    +

    Pavia Doctoral Address: Innovation Is Secondary When Freedom Is at +Stake

    + + + +
    +

    On September 24th, 2007, Richard Stallman received an +honoris causa doctorate in Computer Engineering from the University of Pavia, Italy. Stallman began by +criticizing the overvaluing of innovation as a response to previous +speakers at the same event.

    + +

    Here is the speech that he gave at the ceremony, transcribed by +Alessandro Rubini.

    +
    +
    + +

    Innovation can create riches, and once in a while those riches can +lead to general economic prosperity, especially if you don't have +neo-liberal economics to impede the result.

    + +

    But innovation affects things much more important than riches or even +economic prosperity. Democracy was an innovation, fascism was an +innovation. Today, in Italy, we see the innovation of placing criminal +charges against fishermen for saving people from drowning in the +sea [1]. +Innovations can directly affect our freedom, which is more important than +anything else. Innovation can affect social solidarity, for good or for +ill.

    + +

    So when we consider technical progress in computers or in software, +the most important question to ask is: How does this affect our freedom? +How does this affect our social solidarity? Technically speaking, it's +progress, but is it really progress in social and ethical terms, or is it +the opposite?

    + +

    During my career in programming, as computers developed from something +used by a few specialists and enthusiasts into something that most people +use, there has been tremendous technical progress and it was accompanied by +ghastly social and ethical regression. In fact, nearly everyone who uses +computers began using them under a social system that can only be described +as dictatorship.

    + +

    The developer of the program controls what it does. If you use it, the +developer controls what you can do, and what you can't do. And controls +what it does to you. So that the software that you think is yours is not +there to serve you. It is there to control you. Companies such as +Microsoft and Apple designed their software specifically to restrict you.

    + +

    Windows Vista is primarily an advance in how to restrict the user, which +is why we have the badvista.org campaign. And when this is over, outside +the building I will offer you stickers from that campaign, if you wish to +help teach people why they shouldn't downgrade to Vista.

    + +

    Apple designs software specifically to restrict the users. It's known +as “Digital Restrictions Management,” or DRM. We have helped +protests against Apple just as we helped protests against Microsoft. See +the site defectivebydesign.org for more information and for how to +participate.

    + +

    Google designs software specifically to restrict the user. That's the +nature of the Google Earth client: it is made the way it is specifically to +restrict the people who use it. Obviously, it's not free software, because +free software develops under the democratic control of its users. With the +four freedoms—the freedom to run the program as you wish, to study +the source code and change it so the program does what you wish, the +freedom to distribute exact copies to others (which is the freedom to help +your neighbor), and the freedom to distribute copies of your modified +version (which is the freedom to contribute to your community)—with +these four freedoms the users, individually and collectively, are in +charge.

    + +

    And therefore free software cannot be designed to restrict the users. +To design to restrict the user is only possible when there is a dictator, +when someone has power to control what the program will do and what it +won't do. When the users have the control, when they can control their own +computing, then nobody has the kind of power that would enable him to +impose malicious features to restrict users or spy on users or attack +users. If you use MacOS or Windows Vista, you are completely at the mercy +of that system's developer. Those developers have the power to forcibly +change your software in any way they like, whenever the machine is +connected to the network. The user no longer has even the chance to say +yes or no. The system is one big backdoor.

    + +

    But with free software, you are in charge of what the computer +will do. So it will serve you, instead of subjugating you. The question +of free software is therefore not a technical question, it's an +ethical, social and political question. It's a question of the human +rights that the users of software ought to have.

    + +

    Proprietary software developers say, “No rights, we are in +control, we should be in control, we demand total power over what your +computer does; we will implement certain features and let you use them, but +meanwhile we may spy on you as you use them and we can take them away at +any time.” But free software developers respect your freedom, and +this is the ethical obligation of every software developer: to respect the +freedom of the users of that software. Making proprietary user-subjugating +software sometimes is profitable, but it is never ethical, and it should +never happen.

    + +

    But it will be up to you to make that be true. I, alone, can say these +things, but I, alone, cannot make them reality. We must all work together +to establish freedom and democracy for the users of software. And this +freedom and democracy is now essential to enjoy freedom and democracy in +other aspects of life. Right now, some of the biggest Internet service +providers in the United States are carrying out political censorship of +email. A major organization called truthout, whose website +you may have seen, truthout.org, is being blocked from sending mail to +their subscribers by Yahoo and Hotmail and WebTV. And they have done this +for more than a week, despite the complaints from many of the users of +those companies. Apparently they think they have gone beyond the point +where they have to care what anyone says about them.

    + +

    All the forms of freedom that we hold dear are transformed when we carry +out the relevant activities through computers. We must re-found +these freedoms in such a way that we can depend on them while we use +digital technology. An essential part of this re-foundation is insisting +that the software we use be under our control.

    + +

    Not everyone wants to be a programmer, not everyone will learn +personally how to study the source code and change it. But in a world +where your software is free, you can, if you feel it necessary, hire someone +else to change it for you. You can persuade your cousin programmer to +change it for you if you say it's really important. You can join together +with other users and pool your funds to hire a programmer. And the simple +fact that there are millions of programmers who can study and change the +software will mean that if the software is malicious, almost certainly +somebody else, who has the requisite skills, will find that and correct it, +and you will get the corrected version without any special effort of your +own. So we all benefit, programmers and non-programmers alike, from the +freedoms that free software grants to us. The freedom to cooperate and the +freedom to control our own lives personally. They go together because both +of them are the opposite of being under the power of the dictatorial +software developer that unilaterally make decisions that nobody else can +change.

    + +

    Free software has a special connection with universities—and +indeed all schools of all levels—because free software supports +education, proprietary software forbids education. There is no +compatibility between education and proprietary software, not at the +ethical level.

    + +

    The source code and the methods of free software are part of human +knowledge. The mission of every school is to disseminate human knowledge. +Proprietary software is not part of human knowledge. It's secret, +restricted knowledge which schools are not allowed to disseminate. Schools +that recognize this exclude proprietary software from their grounds. And +this is what every school should do. Not only to save money, which is an +obvious advantage that will appeal immediately to many school +administrators, but for ethical reasons as well. For instance, why do many +proprietary software developers offer discounts, or even gratis copies of +their nonfree software to schools and students?

    + +

    I'm told that Microsoft offered a discount to those who wish to accept +the shiny new chains of Windows Vista to the employees of this university. +Why would they do such a thing? Is it because they wish to contribute to +education? Obviously not. Rather, Microsoft and other similar companies +wish to convert the university into an instrument for imposing the +dependency on the user-subjugating software on society as a whole. They +figured that if they get their software into schools, then students will +learn to use it, and become dependent on it. They will develop a +dependency. And thus after they graduate you can be sure that Microsoft +and these other companies would no longer offer them discounted copies. +And especially, the companies that these former students go to work for +will not be offered discounted copies. So, the software developers push on +the schools, then push on arresting society and push it deep into a pit. +This is not something schools should do. This is the opposite of the +mission of the school, which is to build a strong, capable, independent and +free society. Schools should teach their students to be citizens of a +strong, capable, independent and free society. And this means teaching +them to use free software, not proprietary software. So none of the +classes in this university should teach proprietary software.

    + +

    For those who will be great programmers, there is another reason why +their schools must teach and use free software. Because when they get to +the age of 13 or so, they are fascinated with software and they want to +learn everything about how their computer and their system are functioning. +So they will ask the teacher, “How does this work?,” and if +this is proprietary software, the teacher has to say, “I'm sorry, +it's a secret, you can't find out.” So there is no room for +education. But if it's free software, the teacher can explain the basic +subject and then say, “Here is the source code, read this and you'll +understand everything.” And those programmers will read the whole +source code because they are fascinated, and this way they will learn +something very important: how to write software well. They don't need to +be taught how to program, because for them programming is obvious, but +writing good code is a different story. You have to learn that by reading +lots of code and writing lots of code. Only free software provides that +opportunity.

    + +

    But there is a particular reason, for the sake of education in good +citizenship. You see, schools must teach not just facts, not just skills, +but above all the spirit of good will, the habit of helping your neighbor. +So every class, at every level, should have this rule: “Students, if +you bring software to class, you may not keep it for yourself, you must +share copies with the rest of the class.”

    + +

    However, the school has to practice its own rule; it has to set a good +example. So every school should bring only free software to class, and set +an example with its software of the practice of disseminating human +knowledge while building a strong, capable, independent and free society. +And encouraging the spirit of good will, of helping other people. Every +school must migrate to free software, and I call on you, those of you who +are faculty, or staff, or students of this university, to work together to +bring about the migration of this university to free software, completely +to free software, within a few years. It can be done in a few +years; it requires taking a substantial step each year. Other universities +are doing this or have done it, you can do it too. You only have to reject +social inertia as a valid reason for going deeper and deeper into the +pit.

    + +

    For those of you who are interested, after we leave this hall and this +ceremony, outside I will have various things from the Free Software +Foundation that you might be interested in. And you can support the Free +Software Foundation by going to fsf.org and become an associate member. +For more information about the free software movement and the GNU operating +system, and for where to find the entirely free distributions of the +GNU/Linux operating system please look at gnu.org.

    + +

    Thank you.

    +
    + +

    Footnote

    + +

    [1] +Shortly before Stallman's award ceremony, some Tunisian fishermen who had +rescued shipwrecked migrants at sea were +arrested in Italy on charges of facilitating illegal immigration.

    +
    + + + + + + + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rtlinux-patent.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rtlinux-patent.html index 8c4487a..59e1b82 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rtlinux-patent.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rtlinux-patent.html @@ -1,5 +1,8 @@ - + + + + GPL-compliant version of RTLinux Open Patent License in Works - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    GPL-compliant version of RTLinux Open Patent License in Works

    +

    -Here is our new announcement as of Oct 8 (its actual posting was +Here is our new announcement as of Oct 8, 2001 (its actual posting was delayed).

    +

    The Free Software Foundation and Finite State Machine Labs Inc. (FSMLabs) today announced the release of the Open RTLinux patent @@ -38,12 +47,16 @@ delayed).

    thanks FSMLabs for its continuing contributions to the free software community.

    +
    + +

    Here is the previous announcement, which was the subject of our 18 September press release.

    +

    The Free Software Foundation and Finite State Machine Labs (FSMLAbs) have come to an agreement on a fully GPL-compliant version of FSMLabs RTLinux @@ -59,11 +72,12 @@ availability of FSMLabs patented technology for use in GNU/Linux systems. The FSF thanks FSMLabs for its contribution of this patent license to the free software community, and for its longstanding support and publication of free software under the GPL.

    - +
    +
    - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/savingeurope.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/savingeurope.html index 32e3730..ee377a3 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/savingeurope.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/savingeurope.html @@ -1,12 +1,17 @@ - - + + + + Saving Europe from Software Patents - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation - - + + + +

    Saving Europe from Software Patents

    +

    Imagine that each time you made a software design decision, and @@ -93,13 +98,14 @@ with empirical fact, by developing a broad range of powerful software that respects users' freedom. Giving the public the full spectrum of general-purpose software is within our reach—unless giving software to the public is prohibited.

    -

    +

    Software patents threaten to do that. The time to take action is now. -Please visit www.ffii.org for more +Please visit ffii.org for more information, plus detailed suggestions for action. And please take time to help.

    +
    -

    Footnotes:

    +

    Footnotes

    1. The European Patent Office, used by many European @@ -118,18 +124,12 @@ reply.
    2. As of 2017 the patents on playing MP3 files have reportedly expired.
    - -
    -

    Other Texts to Read

    - +
    - - - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/software-libre-commercial-viability.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/software-libre-commercial-viability.html index b26f198..b61c30c 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/software-libre-commercial-viability.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/software-libre-commercial-viability.html @@ -1,29 +1,34 @@ - + + + + Software Libre and Commercial Viability - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    Software Libre and Commercial Viability

    -
    -

    (Nov 12th 1998, published in February 1999)

    -
    + -

    -by Alessandro Rubini

    +

    Nov 12th 1998, published in February 1999

    Fortunately, Linus' project of world domination is going to come true fairly soon. The trend toward this goal can be verified by checking how the press is behaving towards GNU/Linux solutions, looking at how -several educational entities are going to introduce Free Software in +several educational entities are going to introduce free software in the schools and verifying its usual technical excellence.

    Today in 1998 (yes, it is still 1998 as I write), the most important job remaining, in my opinion, is propagating the social and -commercial implications of Free Software. While I greatly appreciated +commercial implications of free software. While I greatly appreciated Russell Nelson's article “Open Source Software Model” in -the July issue of LJ, I feel the need to expand on the points +the July issue of LJ, I feel the need to expand on the points he briefly touched.

    Please note that I'm not an expert in economics or politics. I'm @@ -31,20 +36,20 @@ just a build-it-yourself kind of technical guy whose discussion is based on his own experience in the battle for survival, in the hopes of helping someone else adapt to new environmental conditions. Some of these ideas have already been discussed with friends or on the Free -Software Business mailing list -(<fsb-subscribe@crynwr.com>), +Software Business mailing list, +<fsb-subscribe@crynwr.com>, which I joined after reading Russell's article.

    Viability for Individual Consultants

    -

    The best feature of any computer system is flexibility — -allowing users to tailor its behaviour to their own needs. This +

    The best feature of any computer system is flexibility—allowing +users to tailor its behaviour to their own needs. This flexibility is often completely unknown to the general computer user, because proprietary software solutions tend to hide functionality behind a rigid external interface which denies any divergence from the expected behaviour—a user's behaviour.

    -

    When adopting Free Software, users are able to discover the real +

    When adopting free software, users are able to discover the real power of computer systems. Today I talked with a commercial consultant who never thought that programs could be adapted to one's needs. He confessed his company has always acted the other way around—they @@ -70,18 +75,18 @@ total of all fees they paid during these years reveals the program to be more expensive in the end than some of the commercial alternatives. This fact is not relevant to my clients, as they have exactly what they want and they know they can have more should the -need arise. The program is obviously Free Software and other centers +need arise. The program is obviously free software and other centers expressed interest in getting a copy.

    -

    As more and more people are choosing Free Software to address their +

    As more and more people are choosing free software to address their needs, I'm sure some software companies will try to demonize GNU/Linux -and both the Free Software and the Open Source movements because they +and both the free software and the Open Source movements because they are losing their own market share. Such companies will probably try to demonstrate that IT employment is decreasing and that humankind is -being damaged by the general adoption of Free Software. This whole +being damaged by the general adoption of free software. This whole argument is bogus; computers exist to be programmed, and the more you allow programming them, the more you build employment opportunities. -If you count the number of people who offer Free Software consulting, +If you count the number of people who offer free software consulting, you will greatly exceed any shrinkage of proprietary companies. Sticking to my previous example, the physiology lab hired my company to write the program, and other centers interested in the product are @@ -90,14 +95,14 @@ enhancing our package. Did I say “enhance”? Isn't the program working? Yes, the program is working well, but there is room for enhancement of the product. The local lab decided to stop development “because we must run our experiment rather than -invent new software features”. As anyone knows, every program +invent new software features.” As anyone knows, every program has a bug and a missing feature, and this is where we build our credibility: bugs can be fixed and features can be implemented. As I suggested before, the more you make things programmable, the more they will be programmed.

    Why should there be more employment opportunities in IT than there -are now? First of all, because Free Software users have more requests +are now? First of all, because free software users have more requests for new features than users of proprietary products do, as explained above. Next, because anyone can build her own professionalism without paying tributes to access the sources of information. I built my own @@ -127,14 +132,14 @@ all knowledge in a few companies (or one of them), open standards leverage technical knowledge to anyone willing to learn. Whereas a proprietary product can be supported only by a limited number of qualified consultants (whose number and quality is centrally managed), -the number of consultants supporting a Free Software solution is +the number of consultants supporting a free software solution is virtually unlimited and the offer can quickly adapt to the request.

    In a world where computers are just tools to accomplish some other goals, easy customization and quick maintenance are basic requirements -of power users. In my opinion, Free Software will quickly gain the +of power users. In my opinion, free software will quickly gain the trust it needs to be a real market phenomenon. As soon as you start to -trust some Free Software products, you learn that they deserve more. +trust some free software products, you learn that they deserve more. GNU/Linux fans must be ready to offer support in order to fulfill the upcoming need for consultants.

    @@ -182,8 +187,8 @@ distributions.

    Viability for Education Centers

    Needless to say, schools and universities have the best interest in -teaching information technologies using Free Software tools. Due to -its technical superiority, Free Software environments have more to +teaching information technologies using free software tools. Due to +its technical superiority, free software environments have more to offer to the students, but also need more technical knowledge to be proficiently administered. I see no money saved here in choosing Free operating systems over proprietary ones, but educational entities @@ -195,7 +200,7 @@ countries are already moving in the right direction—Mexico and France, for example, have announced plans to use GNU/Linux in their public schools.

    -

    One more point leads toward Free Software in education: when +

    One more point leads toward free software in education: when students get jobs, they prefer to use tools they learned at school in order to minimize extra learning efforts. This fact should lead colleges to teach only those tools not owned by anyone—those @@ -212,7 +217,7 @@ another one. Although I mark them as social, they have economic implications as well.

    -While Free Software may not be cheaper than proprietary software if +While free software may not be cheaper than proprietary software if you bill for your own time, some environments use different rates in converting time to money. Most emerging countries have good intellectual resources but little money, and they usually have many @@ -222,14 +227,14 @@ productive. Actually, the “Halloween” document supports my point by underlining that “Linux” is growing very fast in the Far East. Charity organizations usually have this same environment—little money and a good amount of human -resources. This leads straight to the Free Software model for any IT +resources. This leads straight to the free software model for any IT requirement.

    These ideas will probably suggest that free availability of information looks fairly leftist in spirit, as “information to the masses” looks quite similar to the old adage “power to -the masses”. What is usually ignored is the strong rightist -flavour of the Free Software movement. The Free Software arena is +the masses.” What is usually ignored is the strong rightist +flavour of the free software movement. The free software arena is fiercely meritocratic and a perfect environment for free competition, where the laws of the market ensure that only the best ideas and the best players survive. Proprietary standards, on the other hand, tend @@ -239,7 +244,7 @@ previous results.

    Limits of the Free Software Model

    Naturally, I'm aware that not every software package can easily be -turned into Free Software. I'm not talking about office +turned into free software. I'm not talking about office products—I'm confident some good projects will supply this need, sooner or later.

    @@ -267,19 +272,23 @@ I would really like to see free industrial applications because their technological content is usually worth reusing and adapting to new problems.

    +

    -

    Alessandro writes Free Software for a living and advocates Free -Software for a mission. He hopes his upcoming child will keep off +

    [*] +Alessandro writes free software for a living and advocates free +software for a mission. He hopes his upcoming child will keep off computers, recalling the good old times when such beasts where confined to their technical zoos. He reads e-mail -as <rubini@gnu.org> trying +at <rubini@gnu.org>, trying to reply to everyone.

    -

    Reprinted with permission of Linux Journal.

    +

    Reprinted with permission of Linux Journal.

    +
    +
    - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/software-literary-patents.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/software-literary-patents.html index c4993c0..b2999ec 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/software-literary-patents.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/software-literary-patents.html @@ -1,17 +1,20 @@ - + + + + Software Patents and Literary Patents - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    Software Patents and Literary Patents

    -

    by Richard Stallman

    - -

    -The first version of this article was published in -The Guardian, of London, on June 23, 2005. It focused on -the proposed European software patent directive.

    +

    When politicians consider the question of software patents, they are @@ -126,7 +129,7 @@ whose given name matches the last syllable of his family name.

    -through the name “Jean Valjean”, but at least this patent +through the name “Jean Valjean,” but at least this patent would have been easy to avoid.

    @@ -212,15 +215,22 @@ issuing patents on the ideas implemented in programs. Unless this is blocked, the result will be to put all software developers in danger.

    + + + +
    - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/software-patents.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/software-patents.html index 1d54d01..e3836bd 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/software-patents.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/software-patents.html @@ -1,27 +1,32 @@ - + + + + Software Patents - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    Software patents — Obstacles to software development

    -

    by Richard Stallman

    + -

    - -This is the transcription of a talk presented by Richard M. Stallman on +

    +

    This is the transcription of a talk presented by Richard M. Stallman on March 25, 2002, at the University of Cambridge -Computer Laboratory, -organized by the Foundation for Information -Policy Research. Transcript and - -audio recording by Nicholas Hill. HTML editing and links by Markus -Kuhn. The original version is hosted at - -http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/stallman-patents.html. - -

    - +Computer Laboratory, +organized by the Foundation for Information +Policy Research.

    +

    Transcript (original +version) and audio +recording by Nicholas Hill. HTML editing and links by Markus Kuhn.

    +
    +

    You might have been familiar with my work on @@ -47,8 +52,8 @@ dangerous obstacle to all software development.

    You may have heard people using a misleading term -“Intellectual -Property”. This term, as you can see, is biased. It makes +“Intellectual +Property.” This term, as you can see, is biased. It makes an assumption that whatever it is you are talking about, the way to treat it is as a kind of property, which is one among many alternatives. This term “Intellectual Property” @@ -72,7 +77,7 @@ The public policy issues they raise are completely unrelated. So, if you try to think about them by lumping them together, you are guaranteed to come to foolish conclusions. There is literally no sensible intelligent opinion you can have about “Intellectual -Property”. If you want to think clearly, don't lump them +Property.” If you want to think clearly, don't lump them together. Think about copyrights and then think about patents. Learn about copyright law and separately learn about patent law.

    @@ -132,7 +137,7 @@ it from the point of view of somebody who is hoping to get a patent- what it would be like for you to get a patent. What it would be like for you to be walking down the street with a patent in your pocket so that every so often you can pull it out and point it out at somebody -and say “Give Me Your Money!”. There is a reason for this +and say “Give Me Your Money!” There is a reason for this bias, which is that most of the people who will tell you about this patent system have a stake in it, so they want you like it.

    @@ -233,16 +238,16 @@ and recommended abolishing it if not for international pressure. One of the things they cited was that engineers don't try reading patents to learn anything, as it is too hard to understand them. They quoted one engineer saying “I can't recognize my own inventions in -patenteese”. +patenteese.”

    This is not just theoretical. Around 1990, a programmer named -Paul +Paul Heckel sued Apple claiming that Hypercard infringed a couple of his patents. When he first saw Hypercard, he didn't think it had anything to do -with his patent, with his “Inventions”. It didn't look +with his patent, with his “Inventions.” It didn't look similar. When his lawyer told him that you could read the patents as covering part of Hypercard, he decided to attack Apple. When I had a @@ -257,7 +262,7 @@ to say something like this: “If you do something in here, you are sure to lose, If you do something here, there is a substantial chance of losing, and if you really want to be safe, stay out of this area. And, by the way, there is a sizable element of chance in the -outcome of any law suit”. +outcome of any law suit.”

    @@ -365,7 +370,7 @@ by chance, I happened to see a copy of the New York Times. It happened to have the weekly patent column in it. I didn't see a copy of the Times more than once every few months. So I looked at it and it said that somebody had got a patent for “Inventing a new -method of compressing data”. +method of compressing data.” I figured I better take a look at this patent. I got a copy and it turned out to cover the program that we were just a week away from releasing. That program died before it @@ -382,13 +387,13 @@ the job people wanted to do was not to simply compress data but to make an image that people could display with their software, it turned out extremely hard to switch over to a different algorithm. We have not been able to do it in 10 years! Yes, people use the gzip -algorithm to define another +algorithm to define another image format, once people started getting threatened with law suits for using GIF files. When we started saying to people stop using GIF files, switch over to this, people said “We can't -switch. The browsers don't support the new format yet”. The +switch. The browsers don't support the new format yet.” The browser developers said “We're not in a hurry about this. After -all, nobody is using this file format”. +all, nobody is using this file format.”

    @@ -439,7 +444,7 @@ consortium can make a format or protocol the de-facto standard. Then, if that format or protocol is patented, that is a real disaster for you. There are even official standards that are restricted by patents. There was a big political uproar last September when the -World Wide Web +World Wide Web Consortium was proposing to start adopting standards that were covered by patents. The community objected so they reversed themselves. @@ -542,13 +547,13 @@ their patents.

    This phenomenon of cross-licensing refutes a common myth, the myth of the starving genius. The myth that patents “protect” the -“small inventor”. Those terms are propaganda terms. You +“small inventor.” Those terms are propaganda terms. You shouldn't use them. The scenario is like this: Suppose there is a brilliant designer of whatever of whatever. Suppose he has spent years starving in the attic designing a new wonderful kind of whatever and now wants to manufacture it and isn't it a shame the big companies are going to go into competition with him, take away all the business -and he'll “starve”. +and he'll “starve.” I will have to point out that people in high tech fields are not generally working on their own and that ideas don't come in a vacuum, they are based on ideas of others and @@ -568,7 +573,7 @@ one, which parts of your product infringe. If you think you can fight against all of them in court, I will just go back and find some more. So, why don't you cross license with me?” And then this brilliant small inventor says “Well, OK, I'll cross -license”. So he can go back and make these wonderful whatever +license.” So he can go back and make these wonderful whatever it is, but so can IBM. IBM gets access to his patent and gets the right to compete with him, which means that this patent didn't “protect” him at all. The patent system doesn't really do @@ -666,7 +671,7 @@ href="https://web.archive.org/web/20040604051644/http://people.qualcomm.com/karn obvious! Patent bureaucrats have all sorts of excuses to justify ignoring what programmers think. They say “Oh! But you have to consider it in terms of the way things were 10 or 20 years -ago”. Then they discovered that if they talk something to death +ago.” Then they discovered that if they talk something to death then you can eventually lose your bearings. Anything can look unobvious if you tear it apart enough, analyze it enough. You simply lose all standard of obviousness or at least lose the ability to @@ -741,7 +746,7 @@ that can really cause a lot of trouble for you. You might be able to bluff them away by showing them the prior art. It depends upon whether they can get scared off that way or they might think “well, you are just bluffing, we figure you can't really go to -court, you can't afford it so we'll sue you anyway”. +court, you can't afford it so we'll sue you anyway.”

    @@ -759,7 +764,7 @@ patent gets less and less as the program gets bigger.

    Now, people used to say to me, “Well, there are patents in other -fields, why should software be exempt?”. Note the bizarre +fields, why should software be exempt?.” Note the bizarre assumption in there that somehow we are all supposed to suffer through the patent system. It is like saying “Some people get cancer. Why should you be exempt?” As I see it, each person who doesn't @@ -786,7 +791,7 @@ be whoever developed the new product.

    That fits in with the naive idea of the patent system that we have, that if you are designing a new product, you are going to get -“The Patent”. The idea that there is one patent per +“The Patent.” The idea that there is one patent per product and that it covers the idea of that product. In some fields it is closer to being true. In other fields it is further from being true. This is because software packages are usually very big. They @@ -819,7 +824,7 @@ retard progress. You see, the advocates of software patents say “well yes, there may be problems but more important than any problems, the patents must promote innovation and that is so important -it doesn't matter what problems you cause”. Of course, they +it doesn't matter what problems you cause.” Of course, they don't say that out loud because it is ridiculous but implicitly they want you to believe that as long as it promotes progress, that outweighs any possible cost. But actually, there is no reason to @@ -841,30 +846,30 @@ the challenge is to make physical objects that really work.

    -If I wanted to put an ‘If’ statement in a -‘While’ statement, I don't have to worry about whether the -‘If’ statement will oscillate at a certain frequency and -rub against the ‘While’ statement and eventually they will +If I wanted to put an if statement in a +while statement, I don't have to worry about whether the +if statement will oscillate at a certain frequency and +rub against the while statement and eventually they will fracture. I don't have to worry whether it will oscillate at a certain higher frequency and induce a signal in the value of some other variable. I don't have to worry about how much current that -‘If’ statement will draw and whether it can dissipate the -heat there inside that while statement. Whether there will be a -voltage drop across the while statement that will make the -‘If’ statement not function. +if statement will draw and whether it can dissipate the +heat there inside that while statement. Whether there will be a +voltage drop across the while statement that will make the +if statement not function. I don't have to worry that if i run this program in a salt water environment that the salt water -may get in between the ‘If’ statement and the -‘While’ statement and cause corrosion. I don't have to +may get in between the if statement and the +while statement and cause corrosion. I don't have to worry when I refer to the value of a variable whether I am exceeding the fan-out limit by referring to it 20 times. I don't have to worry, when I refer to the variable, how much capacitance it has and whether there has been sufficient time to charge up the value. I don't have to worry when I write the program, about how I am going to physically assemble each copy and whether I can manage to get access to put that -‘If’ statement inside the ‘While’ statement. +if statement inside the while statement. I don't have to worry about how I am going to gain access in case that -‘If’ statement breaks, to remove it and replace it with a +if statement breaks, to remove it and replace it with a new one.

    @@ -899,7 +904,7 @@ people in their spare time. There is another big saving. If you have designed a physical product, the next thing you have to do is design the factory to make it. To build this factory may cost millions or tens of millions whereas to -make copies of the program, you just have to type ‘copy’. +make copies of the program, you just have to type copy. The same copy command will copy any program. You want copies on CD then fine. You burn a master CD and send it off to a CD plant. They will use the same equipment which will copy any contents on a CD. You @@ -945,13 +950,13 @@ any patents is going to be harder than writing a good symphony. When you complain about this, the patent holders would say “Ah Beethoven, you are just bitching because you have no ideas of your -own. All you want to do is rip off our inventions”. Beethoven, +own. All you want to do is rip off our inventions.” Beethoven, as it happens, had a lot of new musical ideas but he had to use a lot of existing musical ideas in order to make recognizable music. In order to make music that listeners could possibly like, that they could recognize as music. Nobody is so brilliant that he can re-invent music and make something that people would want to listen -to. Pierre +to. Pierre Boulez said he would try to do that, but who listens to Pierre Boulez?

    @@ -1066,9 +1071,9 @@ how the field worked before and how the field worked after. I saw no particular speed up in progress after 1990. There was no political debate in the US, but in Europe there has been a big political debate. Several years ago there was a push to amend the -Munich treaty that established the +Munich treaty that established the European Patent Office. It has a - + clause saying that software is not patentable. The push was to amend that to start allowing software patents. But the community took notice of this. It was actually free software developers and free @@ -1144,13 +1149,13 @@ The people in the same ministry are also involved in the copyright issue which really has nothing to do with software patents except that it is being handled by the same people. It is a question of interpreting the recent EU copyright directive, a horrible law like -the Digital Millennium Copyright +the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in the US. But there is some latitude for countries to decide how to implement it. The UK is proposing the most draconian possible way of implementing this directive. You could greatly reduce the harm that it does by implementing it properly. The UK wants to maximize the tyrannical effect of this directive. It seems there is a certain -group, the Department of Trade and +group, the Department of Trade and Industry [archived], who need to be reined in. It is necessary to put a check on their activities. Stop their creating new forms of power.

    @@ -1176,15 +1181,16 @@ out of developers and users, then we should reject it.

    We need to make management aware of what software patents will do to them. Get their support -in fighting against +in fighting against software patents in Europe.

    The battle is not over. It still can be won.

    +
    -

    Footnotes

    +

    Footnotes

    1. There are approximately 300-400 unique parts in an automatic transmission, and a transmission is generally the most @@ -1216,15 +1222,16 @@ The battle is not over. It still can be won. spread.
    -
    -

    This essay is published -in Free +


    +
    +M. Stallman.

    + - - + + + + + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/stallman-kth.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/stallman-kth.html index 8133988..c47190e 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/stallman-kth.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/stallman-kth.html @@ -1,36 +1,46 @@ - -Speech in Sweden +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 --> +<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html --> +<!--#set var="TAGS" value="speeches" --> +<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" --> +<title>RMS lecture at KTH (Sweden), 1986 - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + -

    RMS lecture at KTH (Sweden), 30 October 1986

    - -
    -

    (Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan (Royal Institute of -Technology))
    -Stockholm, Sweden

    -

    -Arranged by the student society
    -“Datorföreningen Stacken”
    -30 October 1986 -

    + + + +
    +

    RMS lecture at KTH (Sweden), 1986

    + +
    +

    Transcript of Richard Stallman's speech at the Kungliga Tekniska +Högskolan (Royal Institute of Technology) in +Stockholm, Sweden, arranged by the student society Datorföreningen +Stacken on 30 October 1986. +

    +
    -

    [Note: This is a slightly edited transcript of the talk. +

    +

    Note: This is a slightly edited transcript of the talk. As such it contains false starts, as well as locutions that are natural in spoken English but look strange in print. It is not clear -how to correct them to written English style without ‘doing -violence to the original speech’.]

    +how to correct them to written English style without doing +violence to the original speech.

    +
    -

    It seems that there are three things that people would like me to +

    Rms: It seems that there are three things that people would like me to talk about. On the one hand I thought that the best thing to talk about here for a club of hackers, was what it was like at the MIT in the old days. What made the Artificial Intelligence Lab such a special place. But people tell me also that since these are totally different people from the ones who were at the conference Monday and -Tuesday that I ought to talk about what's going on in the GNU project +Tuesday that I ought to talk about what's going on in the GNU Project and that I should talk about why software and information can not be owned, which means three talks in all, and since two of those subjects each took an hour it means we're in for a rather long time. So I had @@ -38,11 +48,19 @@ the idea that perhaps I could split it in to three parts, and people could go outside for the parts they are not interested in, and that then when I come to the end of a part I can say it's the end and people can go out and I can send Jan Rynning out to bring in the other -people. (Someone else says: “Janne, han trenger ingen -mike” (translation: “Janne, he doesn't need a -mike”)). Jan, are you prepared to go running out to fetch the -other people? Jmr: I am looking for a microphone, and someone tells -me it is inside this locked box. Rms: Now in the old days at the AI +people.

    + +

    [Someone else says: “Janne, han trenger ingen +mike.” (Translation: “Janne, he doesn't need a +mike.”)]

    + +

    Jan, are you prepared to go running out to fetch the +other people?

    + +

    Jmr: I am looking for a microphone, and someone tells +me it is inside this locked box.

    + +

    Rms: Now in the old days at the AI lab we would have taken a sledgehammer and cracked it open, and the broken door would be a lesson to whoever had dared to lock up something that people needed to use. Luckily however I used to study @@ -50,8 +68,8 @@ Bulgarian singing, so I have no trouble managing without a microphone.

    Anyway, should I set up this system to notify you about the parts -of the talk, or do you just like to sit through all of it? (Answer: -Yeaaah)

    +of the talk, or do you just like to sit through all of it? [Answer: +Yeaaah]

    When I started programming, it was 1969, and I did it in an IBM laboratory in New York. After that I went to a school with a computer @@ -86,7 +104,7 @@ be locked, they were able to find a compromise solution: some other place to put the things they were worried about, a desk they could lock, another little room. But the point is that people usually don't bother to think about that. They have the idea: “This room is -Mine, I can lock it, to hell with everyone else”, and that is +Mine, I can lock it, to hell with everyone else,” and that is exactly the spirit that we must teach them not to have.

    But this spirit of unlocking doors wasn't an isolated thing, it was @@ -179,7 +197,7 @@ to do those things would just go and fix it quickly, and since they were ten times as competent as any field service person, they could do a much better job. And then they would have the ruined boards, they would just leave them there and tell the field service person -“take these back and bring us some new ones”.

    +“take these back and bring us some new ones.”

    In the real old days our hackers used to modify the machines that came from Digital also. For example, they built paging-boxes to put @@ -254,8 +272,8 @@ change, because the professors and the students who didn't really love the machine were just as numerous as before, so they were now the dominant party, and they were very scared. Without hackers to maintain the system, they said, “we're going to have a disaster, -we must have commercial software”, and they said “we can -expect the company to maintain it”. It proved that they were +we must have commercial software,” and they said “we can +expect the company to maintain it.” It proved that they were utterly wrong, but that's what they did.

    That was exactly when a new KL-10 system was supposed to arrive, @@ -281,7 +299,7 @@ message “so-and-so must be reading your mail, can it be that mail files aren't properly protected on your system?” “Of course, no file is protected on our system. What's the problem? You got your answer sooner; why are you unhappy? Of course we read each -other's mail so we can find people like you and help them”. +other's mail so we can find people like you and help them.” Some people just don't know when they're well off.

    But of course Twenex not only has security, and by default turns on @@ -316,7 +334,7 @@ turn off password checking and then I turned back on a whole bunch of people's wheel bits and posted a system message. I have to explain that the name of this machine was OZ, so I posted a system message saying: “There was another attempt to seize power. So far the -aristocratic forces have been defeated—Radio Free OZ”. +aristocratic forces have been defeated—Radio Free OZ.” Later I discovered that “Radio Free OZ” is one of the things used by Firesign Theater. I didn't know that at the time.

    @@ -331,13 +349,13 @@ password that is as obvious as possible and I should tell everyone what it is. Because I don't believe that it's really desirable to have security on a computer, I shouldn't be willing to help uphold the security regime. On the systems that permit it I use the “empty -password”, and on systems where that isn't allowed, or where +password,” and on systems where that isn't allowed, or where that means you can't log in at all from other places, things like that, I use my login name as my password. It's about as obvious as you can get. And when people point out that this way people might be -able to log in as me, i say “yes that's the idea, somebody might +able to log in as me, I say “yes that's the idea, somebody might have a need to get some data from this machine. I want to make sure -that they aren't screwed by security”.

    +that they aren't screwed by security.”

    And an other thing that I always do is I always turn of all protection on my directory and files, because from time to time I have @@ -345,7 +363,7 @@ useful programs stored there and if there's a bug I want people to be able to fix it.

    But that machine wasn't designed also to support the phenomenon -called “tourism”. Now “tourism” is a very old +called “tourism.” Now “tourism” is a very old tradition at the AI lab, that went along with our other forms of anarchy, and that was that we'd let outsiders come and use the machine. Now in the days where anybody could walk up to the machine @@ -398,8 +416,8 @@ knew, tourists always logging in as me two or three at a time, so they started flushing my account. And by that time I was mostly working on other machines anyway, so eventually I gave up and stopped ever turning it on again. And that was that. I haven't logged in on that -machine as myself … [At this point RMS is interrupted by -tremendous applause] … for.

    +machine as myself … [At this point RMS is interrupted by +tremendous applause.] … for.

    But when they first got this Twenex system they had several changes in mind that they wanted to make. Changes in the way security worked. @@ -474,24 +492,24 @@ and I should make it compatible with Unix. Finally when I realized that I could use the most amusing word in the English language as a name for this system, it was clear which choice I had to make. And that word is of course GNU, which stands for “Gnu's Not -Unix”. The recursive acronym is a very old tradition among the +Unix.” The recursive acronym is a very old tradition among the hacker community around MIT. It started, I believe, with an editor -called TINT, which means: “Tint Is Not Teco”, and later on +called TINT, which means: “Tint Is Not Teco,” and later on it went through names such as “SINE” for “SINE Is -Not Emacs”, and FINE for “Fine Is Not Emacs”, and -EINE for “Eine Is Not Emacs”, and ZWEI for “Zwei Was -Eine Initially”, and ultimately now arrives at GNU.

    +Not Emacs,” and FINE for “Fine Is Not Emacs,” and +EINE for “Eine Is Not Emacs,” and ZWEI for “Zwei Was +Eine Initially,” and ultimately now arrives at GNU.

    I would say that since the time about two and a half years ago when I actually started working on GNU, I've done more than half of the work. When I was getting ready to start working on the project, I first started looking around for what I could find already available free. I found out about an interesting portable compiler system which -was called “the free university compiler kit”, and I +was called “the free university compiler kit,” and I thought, with a name like that, perhaps I could have it. So, I sent a message to the person who had developed it asking if he would give it -to the GNU project, and he said “No, the university might be -free, but the software they develop isn't”, but he then said +to the GNU Project, and he said “No, the university might be +free, but the software they develop isn't,” but he then said that he wanted to have a Unix compatible system too, and he wanted to write a sort of kernel for it, so why didn't I then write the utilities, and they could both be distributed with his proprietary @@ -502,16 +520,16 @@ be a compiler.

    I didn't really know much about optimizing compilers at the time, because I'd never worked on one. But I got my hands on a compiler, that I was told at the time was free. It was a compiler called PASTEL, -which the authors say means “off-color PASCAL”.

    +which the authors say means “off-color PASCAL.”

    Pastel was a very complicated language including features such as parametrized types and explicit type parameters and many complicated things. The compiler was of course written in this language, and had many complicated features to optimize the use of these things. For example: the type “string” in that language was a -parameterized type; you could say “string(n)” if you +parameterized type; you could say string(n) if you wanted a string of a particular length; you could also just say -“string”, and the parameter would be determined from the +string, and the parameter would be determined from the context. Now, strings are very important, and it is necessary for a lot of constructs that use them to run fast, and this means that they had to have a lot of features to detect such things as: when the @@ -522,13 +540,13 @@ But I did get to see in this compiler how to do automatic register allocation, and some ideas about how to handle different sorts of machines.

    -

    Well, since this compiler already compiled PASTEL, what i needed to +

    Well, since this compiler already compiled PASTEL, what I needed to do was add a front-end for C, which I did, and add a back-end for the 68000 which I expected to be my first target machine. But I ran into a serious problem. Because the PASTEL language was defined not to require you to declare something before you used it, the declarations and uses could be in any order, in other words: Pascal's -“forward” declaration was obsolete, because of this it was +forward declaration was obsolete, because of this it was necessary to read in an entire program, and keep it in core, and then process it all at once. The result was that the intermediate storage used in the compiler, the size of the memory needed, was proportional @@ -542,7 +560,7 @@ something like that. And of course to generate its conflict matrix to see which temporary values conflicted, or was alive at the same time as which others, it needed a quadratic matrix of bits, and that for large functions that would get it to hundreds of thousands of bytes. -So i managed to debug the first pass of the ten or so passes of the +So I managed to debug the first pass of the ten or so passes of the compiler, cross compiled on to that machine, and then found that the second one could never run.

    @@ -671,14 +689,15 @@ certain address, you just say: “Give me the object of type FLOAT or DOUBLE at this address” and then assign that. Another thing you can do is to examine all the values that have been examined in the past. Every value examined gets put on the “value -history”. You can refer to any element in the history by its +history.” You can refer to any element in the history by its numerical position, or you can easily refer to the last element with just dollar-sign. And this makes it much easier to trace list structure. If you have any kind of C structure that contains a -pointer to another one, you can do something like “PRINT -*$.next”, which says: “Get the next field out of the last +pointer to another one, you can do something like +PRINT *$.next, which says: “Get +the next field out of the last thing you showed me, and then display the structure that points -at”. And you can repeat that command, and each time you'll see +at.” And you can repeat that command, and each time you'll see then next structure in the list. Whereas in every other C debugger that I've seen the only way to do that is to type a longer command each time. And when this is combined with the feature that just @@ -696,28 +715,28 @@ than remember its number in the history you might give it a name. You might also find use for them when you set conditional breakpoints. Conditional breakpoints are a feature in many symbolic debuggers, you say “stop when you get to this point in the program, but only if -a certain expression is true”. The variables in the debugger +a certain expression is true.” The variables in the debugger allow you to compare a variable in the program with a previous value of that variable that you saved in a debugger variable. Another thing that they can be used for is for counting, because after all, assignments are expressions in C, therefore you can do -“$foo+=5” to increment the value of “$foo” by -five, or just “$foo++” you can do. You can even do this +$foo+=5 to increment the value of $foo by +five, or just $foo++ you can do. You can even do this in a conditional breakpoint, so that's a cheap way of having it break the tenth time the breakpoint is hit, you can do -“$foo--==0”. Does everyone follow that? Decrement foo -and if it's zero now, break. And then you set $foo to the number of +$foo--==0. Does everyone follow that? Decrement foo +and if it's zero now, break. And then you set $foo to the number of times you want it to skip, and you let it go. You can also use that to examine elements of an array. Suppose you have an array of pointers, you can then do:

    -
    PRINT X[$foo++]
    +
    PRINT X[$foo++]

    But first you do

    -
    SET $foo=0
    +
    SET $foo=0
    -

    Okay, when you do that [points at the “Print” +

    Okay, when you do that [points at the PRINT expression], you get the zeroth element of X, and then you do it again and it gets the first element, and suppose these are pointers to structures, then you probably put an asterisk there [before the X in @@ -725,16 +744,16 @@ the PRINT expression] and each time it prints the next structure pointed to by the element of the array. And of course you can repeat this command by typing carriage-return. If a single thing to repeat is not enough, you can create a user-defined-command. You can say -“Define Mumble”, and then you give some lines of commands -and then you say “end”. And now there is defined a -“Mumble” command which will execute those lines. And it's +Define Mumble, and then you give some lines of commands +and then you say end. And now there is defined a +Mumble command which will execute those lines. And it's very useful to put these definitions in a command file. You can have a command file in each directory, that will be loaded automatically when you start the debugger with that as your working directory. So for each program you can define a set of user defined commands to access the data structures of that program in a useful way. You can even provide documentation for your user-defined commands, so that -they get handled by the “help” features just like the +they get handled by the help features just like the built-in commands.

    One other unusual thing in this debugger, is the ability to discard @@ -748,12 +767,12 @@ change the data areas in you program flexibly, but also being able to change the flow of control. In this debugger you can change the flow of control very directly by saying:

    -
    SET $PC=<some number>
    +
    SET $PC=<some number>

    So you can set the program counter. You can also set the stack pointer, or you can say

    -
    SET $SP+=<something>
    +
    SET $SP+=<something>

    If you want to increment the stack pointer a certain amount. But in addition you can also tell it to start at a particular line in the @@ -762,8 +781,8 @@ But what if you find that you called a function by mistake and you didn't really want to call that function at all? Say, that function is so screwed up that what you really want to do is get back out of it and do by hand what that function should have done. For that you can -use the “RETURN” command. You select a stack frame and you -say “RETURN”, and it causes that stack-frame, and all the +use the RETURN command. You select a stack frame and you +say RETURN, and it causes that stack-frame, and all the ones within it, to be discarded as if that function were returning right now, and you can also specify the value it should return. This does not continue execution; it pretends that return happened and then @@ -810,7 +829,7 @@ represent the instructions in algebraic notation. For example, an ADD instruction might be represented like this:

    -  r[3]=r[2]+4
    +  r[3]=r[2]+4
     

    This would be a representation inside their compiler for @@ -825,7 +844,7 @@ instruction.

    Sometimes depending on whether the result of the first instruction had any further use, it might be necessary to make a combined instruction with two assignment operators. One for this value -[pointing at ???]and another one with this value [pointing at ???] +[pointing at ???] and another one with this value [pointing at ???] substituted in it with what came from the second instruction. But if this value was only used that once, you could eliminate it after substituting for it; there'd be no need to compute it any more. So @@ -852,17 +871,17 @@ wanted, so I have rewritten it to use list structure representations for all these expressions. Things like this:

    -     (set (reg 2)
    -          (+ (reg 2)
    -             (int 4)))
    +     (set (reg 2)
    +          (+ (reg 2)
    +             (int 4)))
     

    This looks like Lisp, but the semantics of these are not quite LISP, because each symbol here is one recognized specially. There's a particular fixed set of these symbols that is defined, all the ones you need. And each one has a particular pattern of types of -arguments, for example: “reg” always has an integer, -because registers are numbered, but “+” takes two +arguments, for example: reg always has an integer, +because registers are numbered, but + takes two subexpressions, and so on. And with each of these expressions is also a data type which says essentially whether it's fixed or floating and how many bytes long it is. It could be extended to handle other @@ -909,7 +928,7 @@ implementing all the hair needed to make really fully efficient.

    into effectively a syntax tree annotated with C datatype information. Then another pass which looks at that tree and generates code like this [LISP like code]. Then several optimization passes. One to -handle things like jumps across jumps, jumps to jumps, jumps to .+1, +handle things like jumps across jumps, jumps to jumps, jumps to .+1, all of which can be immediately simplified. Then a common subexpression recognizer, then finding basic blocks, and performing dataflow-analysis, so that it can tell for each instruction which @@ -961,7 +980,7 @@ has to copy things to registers and really it isn't going to have to, so it may free up too many things and thus not use all the registers that it could.

    -

    (Question: Do you have a code generator for 32000?) Not yet, but +

    [Question: Do you have a code generator for 32000?] Not yet, but again, it's not a code generator it's just a machine description that you need. A list of all the machine instructions described in this [LISP like] form. So in fact aside from the work of implementing the @@ -983,7 +1002,7 @@ yet, although it has compiled itself correctly. I expect this will just take a few months, and then I will release the compiler.

    The other sizable part of the system that exist, is the kernel. -(Question: A pause?) Ah, yeah I guess we've forgotten about breaks. +[Question: A pause?] Ah, yeah I guess we've forgotten about breaks. Why don't I finish talking about the kernel, which should only take about five minutes, and then we can take a break.

    @@ -1018,7 +1037,7 @@ necessary.

    undeletion, information on when and how and where the file was backed up on tape, atomic superseding of files. I believe that it is good that in Unix when a file is being written, you can already look at -what's going there, so for example, you can use “tail” to +what's going there, so for example, you can use tail to see how far the thing got, that's very nice. And if the program dies, having partly written the file, you can see what it produced. These things are all good, but, that partly written output should not ever @@ -1038,15 +1057,15 @@ specify a file name leaving the version number implicit, if you just specify the name in the ordinary way. But if you wish to specify a name exactly, either because you want to state explicitly what version to use, or because you don't want versions at all, you put a point at -the end of it. Thus if you give the filename “FOO” it +the end of it. Thus if you give the filename FOO it means “Search the versions that exists for FOO and take the -latest one”. But if you say “FOO.” it means -“use exactly the name FOO and none other”. If you say -“FOO.3.” it says “use exactly the name FOO.3 ” +latest one.” But if you say FOO. it means +“use exactly the name FOO and none other.” If you say +FOO.3. it says “use exactly the name FOO.3” which of course is version three of FOO and none other. On output, if -you just say “FOO”, it will eventually create a new -version of “FOO”, but if you say “FOO.” it -will write a file named exactly “FOO”.

    +you just say FOO, it will eventually create a new +version of FOO, but if you say FOO. it +will write a file named exactly FOO.

    Now there's some challenges involved in working out all the details in this, and seeing whether there are any lingering problems, whether @@ -1062,35 +1081,35 @@ if you close it explicitly. If it gets closed because the job dies, or because the system crashes or anything like that, it should be under a different name.

    -

    And this idea can be connected up to “star matching”, +

    And this idea can be connected up to “star matching,” by saying that a name that doesn't end in a point is matched against all the names without their version numbers, so if a certain directory has files like this:

    -  foo.1 foo.2 bar.8
    +  foo.1 foo.2 bar.8
     
    -

    If I say “*”, that's equivalent to

    +

    If I say *, that's equivalent to

    -  foo bar
    +  foo bar
     

    because it takes all the names and gets rid of their versions, and -takes all the distinct ones. But if I say “*.” then it +takes all the distinct ones. But if I say *. then it takes all the exact names, puts a point after each one, and matches against them. So this gives me all the names for all the individual versions that exist. And similar, you can see the difference between -“*.c” and “*.c.” this [the first] would give -you essentially versionless references to all the “.c” +*.c and *.c. this [the first] would give +you essentially versionless references to all the .c files, whereas this [the second] will give you all the versions … well this actually wouldn't, you'd have to say -“*.c.*.”. I haven't worked out the details here.

    +*.c.*.; I haven't worked out the details here.

    Another thing, that isn't a user visible feature and is certainly compatible to put in, is failsafeness in the file system. Namely, by writing all the information on disk in the proper order, arranging -that you can press “halt” at any time without ever +that you can press “halt” at any time without ever corrupting thereby the file system on disk. It is so well known how to do this, I can't imagine why anyone would neglect it. Another idea is further redundant information. I'm not sure whether I'll do this @@ -1196,7 +1215,7 @@ extremely impressed by the sharing spirit that we had. We were doing something that we hoped was useful and were happy if people could use it. So when I developed the first EMACS, and people wanted to start use it outside of MIT, I said that it belongs to the EMACS -“Commune”, that in order to use EMACS you had to be a +“Commune,” that in order to use EMACS you had to be a member of the commune, and that meant that you had the responsibility to contribute all the improvements that you made. All the improvements to the original EMACS had to be sent back to me so that I @@ -1259,11 +1278,11 @@ tries to pressure other people into helping. Whenever a user signs a nondisclosure agreement he has essentially sold out his fellow users. Instead of following the golden rule and saying, “I like this program, my neighbor would like the program, I want us both to have -it”, instead he said, “Yeah, give it to me. To hell with +it,” instead he said, “Yeah, give it to me. To hell with my neighbor! I'll help you keep it away from my neighbor, just give -it to me!”, and that spirit is what does the spiritual harm. +it to me!” and that spirit is what does the spiritual harm. That attitude of saying, “To hell with my neighbors, give ME a -copy”.

    +copy.”

    After I ran into people saying they wouldn't let me have copies of something, because they had signed some secrecy agreement, then when @@ -1304,12 +1323,12 @@ other things that were what we wanted. We then got a much nicer graphic printer, one of the first laser printers, but then the software was supplied by Xerox, and we couldn't change it. They wouldn't put in these features, and we couldn't, so we had to make do -with things that “half worked”. And it was very +with things that “half worked.” And it was very frustrating to know that we were ready, willing and able to fix it, but weren't permitted. We were sabotaged.

    And then there are all the people who use computers and say that -the computers are a mystery to them, they don't know they work. Well +the computers are a mystery to them, they don't know [how] they work. Well how can they possibly know? They can't read the programs they're using. The only way people learn how programs should be written, or how programs do what they do, is by reading the source code.

    @@ -1329,7 +1348,7 @@ really under the control of others. And a person who sees this becomes in a certain way demoralized: “It's no use trying to change those things, they're always going to be bad. No point even hassling it. I'll just put in my time and … when it's over -I'll go away and try not to think about it any more”. That kind +I'll go away and try not to think about it any more.” That kind of spirit, that unenthusiasm is what results from not being permitted to make things better when you have feelings of public spirit.

    @@ -1406,7 +1425,7 @@ happen, because someone believed he should own it.

    put forward two lines of argument for this. The first one is “I wrote it, it is a child of my spirit, my heart, my soul is in this. How can anyone take it away from me? Wherever it goes it's mine, -mine, MINE!!”. Well, it's sort of strange that most of them +mine, MINE!!” Well, it's sort of strange that most of them signs agreements saying it belongs to the company they work for.

    So I believe this is one of the things you can easily talk yourself @@ -1415,12 +1434,12 @@ yourself it doesn't matter at all.

    Usually, these people use this argument to demand the right to control even how people can change a program. They say: “Nobody -should be able to mess up my work of art”. Well, imagine that +should be able to mess up my work of art.” Well, imagine that the person who invented a dish that you plan to cook had the right to control how you can cook it, because it's his work of art. You want to leave out the salt, but he says “Oh, no. I designed this dish, and it has to have this much salt!” “But my doctor -says it's not safe for me to eat salt. What can I do?”.

    +says it's not safe for me to eat salt. What can I do?”

    Clearly, the person who is using the program is much closer to the event. The use of the program affects him very directly, whereas it @@ -1439,11 +1458,11 @@ fashion” on the one hand, and to say “We need to have the current system, you need to get rich by programming” on the other hand. There's a big difference between just making a living wage and making the kind of money programmers, at least in the US make -nowadays. They always say: “How will I eat?”, but the -problem is not really how “Will he eat?”, but “How -will he eat sushi?”. “How will I have a roof over my -head?”, but the real problem is “How can he afford a -condo?”.

    +nowadays. They always say: “How will I eat?” but the +problem is not really how “Will he eat?” but “How +will he eat sushi?” “How will I have a roof over my +head?” but the real problem is “How can he afford a +condo?”

    The current system were chosen by the people who invest in software development, because it gives them the possibility of making the most @@ -1490,7 +1509,7 @@ less. It is barely enough to live on, it's difficult. But there are lots of them trying to do that. And then, somehow when it gets generally possible to get very well paid to do something, all those people disappear, and people start saying “nobody will do it -unless they get paid that well”.

    +unless they get paid that well.”

    And I saw this happen in the field of programming. The very same people who used to work at the AI lab and get payed very little and @@ -1532,21 +1551,21 @@ course. They would go up and say: “A lot of places around here have been burning down lately. You wouldn't want your place to burn down, would you? Well we can protect you from fires, you just have to pay us a thousand dollars a month, and we'll make sure you don't have -a fire here”. And this was called “the protection -racket”. Now we have something where a person says “You +a fire here.” And this was called “the protection +racket.” Now we have something where a person says “You got a nice computer there, and you've got some programs there that you're using. Well, if you don't want those programs to disappear, if you don't want the police to come after you, you better pay me a thousand dollars, and I'll give you a copy of this program with a -license”, and this is called “the software protection -racket”.

    +license,” and this is called “the software protection +racket.”

    Really all they're doing is interfering with everybody else doing what needs to be done, but they're pretending as much to them selves as to the rest of us, that they are providing a useful function. Well, what I hope is that when that software Mafia guy comes up and says, “You want those programs to disappear on your -computer?”, the user can say “I'm not afraid of you any +computer?” the user can say “I'm not afraid of you any more. I have this free GNU software, and there's nothing you can do to me now.”

    @@ -1586,11 +1605,11 @@ do the right thing, which is to make free software.

    [After this RMS answered questions for about an hour. I have only included a very few of the questions and answers in this version. The tape was bad, and I didn't have the time to do a proper -job on all of it] +job on all of it.]

    -
    Q: Has anyone tried to make problems for you?
    +
    Q: Has anyone tried to make problems for you?

    A: The only time anyone has tried to make a problem for me was those owners, so called, self-styled owners of Gosling Emacs. @@ -1601,8 +1620,8 @@ certain thoughts and not think of others. Much of the terminology current in the field was chosen by the self-styled software owners to try to encourage you to try to make you see software as similar to material objects that are property, and overlook the differences. The -most flagrant example of this is the term “pirate”. -Please refuse to use to use the term “pirate” to describe +most flagrant example of this is the term “pirate.” +Please refuse to use the term “pirate” to describe somebody who wishes to share software with his neighbor like a good citizen.

    @@ -1629,7 +1648,7 @@ invented, and made sense morally because of a technological change. Now the reverse change is happening. Individual copying of information is becoming better and better, and we can see that the ultimate progress of technology is to make it possible to copy any -kind of information. [break due to turning of tape]

    +kind of information. [break due to turning of tape]

    Thus we are back in the same situation as in the ancient world where copyright did not make sense.

    @@ -1652,20 +1671,20 @@ object, you can come and take away this chair, but you couldn't come and copy it. And if you took away the chair, it wouldn't be producing anything, so there's no excuse. I somebody says: “I did the work to make this one chair, and only one person can have this chair, it -might as well be me”, we might as well say: “Yeah, that makes -sense”. When a person says: “I carved the bits on this +might as well be me,” we might as well say: “Yeah, that makes +sense.” When a person says: “I carved the bits on this disk, only one person can have this disk, so don't you dare take it -away from me”, well that also make sense. If only one person is +away from me,” well that also make sense. If only one person is going to have the disk, it might as well be the guy who owns that disk.

    But when somebody else comes up and says: “I'm not going to hurt your disk, I'm just gonna magically make another one just like it and then I'll take it away and then you can go on using this disk just -the same as before”, well, it's the same as if somebody said: +the same as before,” well, it's the same as if somebody said: “I've got a magic chair copier. You can keep on enjoying your chair, sitting in it, having it always there when you want it, but -I'll have a chair too”. That's good.

    +I'll have a chair too.” That's good.

    If people don't have to build, they can just snap their fingers and duplicate them, that's wonderful. But this change in technology @@ -1689,12 +1708,12 @@ benefit of the change in technology, to universal machines, but they don't want the public to get that benefit.

    Essentially they are trying to preserve the “material object -age”, but it's gone, and we should get our ideas of right and +age,” but it's gone, and we should get our ideas of right and wrong in sync with the actual facts of the world we live in.

    -
    Q: So it boils down to ownership of information. Do you -think there are any instances where, your opinion, it's right to own +
    Q: So it boils down to ownership of information. Do you +think there are any instances where, [in] your opinion, it's right to own information?

    A: With information that's not generally useful, or is of a @@ -1710,10 +1729,11 @@ use or enjoy, and that will be used and enjoyed more the more people who have it, always we should encourage the copying.

    +
    - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/stallman-mec-india.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/stallman-mec-india.html index 5572bc5..99cbeb9 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/stallman-mec-india.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/stallman-mec-india.html @@ -1,2108 +1,2117 @@ - + + + + +Stallman's Speech at Model Engineering College About Software Patent +Dangers - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + + + + +
    +

    The Danger of Software Patents (2001)

    -Stallman's Speech at Model Engineering College About Software Patent -Dangers - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + - - - -

    The Danger of Software Patents (2001)

    - -

    Richard Stallman

    -

    Speech given at Model Engineering College, Government of Kerala, -India, 2001 -(audio -recording)

    -
    - -

    Summary

    - -

    Introduction of the speaker

    - -

    Stallman's speech

    - - - -

    Questions from the audience

    +
    +

    Speech given at Model Engineering College, Government of Kerala, +India, 2001 +(audio +recording)

    +
    + - -

    Introduction of the speaker

    - -

    Prof. Jyothi John, Head of Computer Engineering Department -introduces Stallman:

    - -

    It's my privilege and duty to welcome the most distinguished guest -ever we had in this college.

    - -

    Mr. Richard Mathew Stallman launched the development of the GNU -operating system in 1984, the goal being to create a completely free -Unix-like operating system. The organization that was founded in 1985 -to further this purpose is the Free Software Foundation.

    - -

    Stallman is a visionary of computing in our times, and is the -genius behind programs such as Emacs, GCC, the GNU debugger and more. -Most importantly, he's the author of the GNU General Public License, the -license under which more than half of all free software is distributed -and developed. The combination of GNU with Linux, the kernel, called -the GNU/Linux operating system, now has an estimated twenty million -users worldwide.

    - -

    Stallman's concept of free software talks about freedom, rather -than about price. His ideas go a long way into ensuring development of -software for the welfare of society, collectively developed by programmers -who do not “lock up” their work, but rather release it for -others to study, modify and redistribute.

    - -

    Stallman received the Grace Hopper award from the Association for -Computing Machinery for 1991, in 1990 he was awarded MacArthur Foundation -Fellowship — other recipients of this prestigious award include Noam -Chomsky and Tim Berners-Lee. In 1996, an honorary doctorate of Technology -from the Royal Institute, Sweden was awarded to him. In 1998, he received -the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Pioneer award, along with Linus -Torvalds. In 1999 he received the Yuri Rubinski Memorial award.

    - -

    Today, Stallman will be talking about the danger of software patents. -In fact this is one of the most important aspect of the freedom of -programming because the aspect of software patents may make all programmers -potential lawbreakers because unknowingly they may be violating some of the -patents registered by some other company.

    - -

    Stallman's speech

    - -

    After that introduction, I am sure many of you want to know about free -software. But unfortunately that's not what I am supposed to speak about. -In fact, this topic, software patents, is not very closely related -to the issue of free software. Software patents are a danger that affect -all programmers and all computer users. I found out about them, of course, -in working on free software because they are a danger to my project as well -as to every other software project in the world.

    - -

    There are two things wrong with the phrase -“intellectual property.”

    - -

    There is a very unfortunate phrase that you may have heard. It is the -phrase “intellectual property.” Now, there are two things -wrong with this phrase.

    - -

    One — it prejudges the most important policy question about how -to treat some kind of ideas or practices or works, or whatever. It assumes -that they are going to be treated as some kind of property. Now, this is a -public policy decision and you should be able to consider various -alternatives to choose the best one. Which means you shouldn't name the -whole field, name the question with a term that prejudges what kind of -answer you use.

    - -

    But second and even more fundamental, that term is actually a -catchall for totally different areas of law, including copyrights, -patents, trademarks, trade secrets and various other things as well. Now -these areas of the law in fact have almost nothing in common. What the -laws say is totally different from one to the next. Their origins are -completely independent and the public policy issues they raise are -completely different. So, the only intelligent way to think about them is -to pick one of them and think about it; think about them separately.

    - -

    So the intelligent way to talk about them is never to generalize about -them but to talk about a specific one, you know, talk about copyrights, or -talk about patents, or talk about trademarks, but never lump them all -together as intellectual property because that's a recipe for simplistic -conclusions. It's almost impossible to think intelligently about -“intellectual property” and so I refuse to do that. I just tell -people why the term is a mistake, and then if you ask me for my opinion on -copyrights or my opinion on patents, it will take me an hour to tell you -it. But they are two different opinions, and my opinion about trademarks -is something completely different as well.

    - -

    Copyrights and patents have nothing to do with each other.

    - -

    So the most important thing for you to start with is never mix -copyrights and patents as topics. They have nothing to do with each -other. Let me tell you some of the basic differences between copyrights -and patents:

    - -
      -
    • A copyright deals with a particular work, usually a written work, - and it has to do with the details of that work. Ideas are completely - excluded. Patents, by contrast — well, a patent covers an idea. - It's that simple, and any idea that you can describe, that's what a +
    + +

    Introduction of the speaker

    + +

    Prof. Jyothi John, Head of Computer Engineering Department +introduces Stallman:

    + +

    It's my privilege and duty to welcome the most distinguished guest +ever we had in this college.

    + +

    Mr. Richard Mathew Stallman launched the development of the GNU +operating system in 1984, the goal being to create a completely free +Unix-like operating system. The organization that was founded in 1985 +to further this purpose is the Free Software Foundation.

    + +

    Stallman is a visionary of computing in our times, and is the +genius behind programs such as Emacs, GCC, the GNU debugger and more. +Most importantly, he's the author of the GNU General Public License, the +license under which more than half of all free software is distributed +and developed. The combination of GNU with Linux, the kernel, called +the GNU/Linux operating system, now has an estimated twenty million +users worldwide.

    + +

    Stallman's concept of free software talks about freedom, rather +than about price. His ideas go a long way into ensuring development of +software for the welfare of society, collectively developed by programmers +who do not “lock up” their work, but rather release it for +others to study, modify and redistribute.

    + +

    Stallman received the Grace Hopper award from the Association for +Computing Machinery for 1991, in 1990 he was awarded MacArthur Foundation +Fellowship—other recipients of this prestigious award include Noam +Chomsky and Tim Berners-Lee. In 1996, an honorary doctorate of Technology +from the Royal Institute, Sweden was awarded to him. In 1998, he received +the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Pioneer award, along with Linus +Torvalds. In 1999 he received the Yuri Rubinski Memorial award.

    + +

    Today, Stallman will be talking about the danger of software patents. +In fact this is one of the most important aspect of the freedom of +programming because the aspect of software patents may make all programmers +potential lawbreakers because unknowingly they may be violating some of the +patents registered by some other company.

    + +

    Stallman's speech

    + +

    After that introduction, I am sure many of you want to know about free +software. But unfortunately that's not what I am supposed to speak about. +In fact, this topic, software patents, is not very closely related +to the issue of free software. Software patents are a danger that affect +all programmers and all computer users. I found out about them, of course, +in working on free software because they are a danger to my project as well +as to every other software project in the world.

    + +

    There are two things wrong with the phrase +“intellectual property.”

    + +

    There is a very unfortunate phrase that you may have heard. It is the +phrase “intellectual property.” Now, there are two things +wrong with this phrase.

    + +

    One—it prejudges the most important policy question about how +to treat some kind of ideas or practices or works, or whatever. It assumes +that they are going to be treated as some kind of property. Now, this is a +public policy decision and you should be able to consider various +alternatives to choose the best one. Which means you shouldn't name the +whole field, name the question with a term that prejudges what kind of +answer you use.

    + +

    But second and even more fundamental, that term is actually a +catchall for totally different areas of law, including copyrights, +patents, trademarks, trade secrets and various other things as well. Now +these areas of the law in fact have almost nothing in common. What the +laws say is totally different from one to the next. Their origins are +completely independent and the public policy issues they raise are +completely different. So, the only intelligent way to think about them is +to pick one of them and think about it; think about them separately.

    + +

    So the intelligent way to talk about them is never to generalize about +them but to talk about a specific one, you know, talk about copyrights, or +talk about patents, or talk about trademarks, but never lump them all +together as intellectual property because that's a recipe for simplistic +conclusions. It's almost impossible to think intelligently about +“intellectual property” and so I refuse to do that. I just tell +people why the term is a mistake, and then if you ask me for my opinion on +copyrights or my opinion on patents, it will take me an hour to tell you +it. But they are two different opinions, and my opinion about trademarks +is something completely different as well.

    + +

    Copyrights and patents have nothing to do with each other.

    + +

    So the most important thing for you to start with is never mix +copyrights and patents as topics. They have nothing to do with each +other. Let me tell you some of the basic differences between copyrights +and patents:

    + +
      +
    • A copyright deals with a particular work, usually a written work, + and it has to do with the details of that work. Ideas are completely + excluded. Patents, by contrast—well, a patent covers an idea. + It's that simple, and any idea that you can describe, that's what a patent might restrict you from doing.
    • -
    • Copyrights have to do with copying. If you wrote something - that was word for word the same as some famous novel, and you could prove - that you did this while you were locked up in a room and you have never - seen that novel, this would not be copyright violation because it's not - copying. But a patent is an absolute monopoly on using a particular idea. - And even if you could show that you thought of it on your own, that +
    • Copyrights have to do with copying. If you wrote something + that was word for word the same as some famous novel, and you could prove + that you did this while you were locked up in a room and you have never + seen that novel, this would not be copyright violation because it's not + copying. But a patent is an absolute monopoly on using a particular idea. + And even if you could show that you thought of it on your own, that would be considered totally irrelevant. It doesn't help you.
    • -
    • Copyrights exist automatically. Whenever anything is written, - it's copyrighted. Patents are issued through an expensive - application process. There is an expensive fee and even more expense - in paying lawyers, which of course tends to be good for big companies. - And the patent office says that it only issues patents for things - that are unobvious. However, practically speaking, in many patent - offices the criterion is unobvious to somebody with an IQ of fifty. - And they have all sorts of excuses to ignore the fact that whenever any - programmer looks at it, his first statement is “this is absurd, - it's obvious.” They say “well, this is hindsight.” So - they just have an excuse to completely ignore the judgment of everybody +
    • Copyrights exist automatically. Whenever anything is written, + it's copyrighted. Patents are issued through an expensive + application process. There is an expensive fee and even more expense + in paying lawyers, which of course tends to be good for big companies. + And the patent office says that it only issues patents for things + that are unobvious. However, practically speaking, in many patent + offices the criterion is unobvious to somebody with an IQ of fifty. + And they have all sorts of excuses to ignore the fact that whenever any + programmer looks at it, his first statement is “this is absurd, + it's obvious.” They say “well, this is hindsight.” So + they just have an excuse to completely ignore the judgment of everybody who really is a programmer.
    • -
    • Copyrights last an extremely long time. In the US today it's - possible for copyrights to last for 150 years, which is absurd. Patents - don't last that long; they merely last for a long time — 20 years, +
    • Copyrights last an extremely long time. In the US today it's + possible for copyrights to last for 150 years, which is absurd. Patents + don't last that long; they merely last for a long time—20 years, which in the field of software, as you can imagine, is a long time.
    • -
    - -

    There are many other differences as well. In fact every detail is -different. So the worst thing you should ever do is learn something about -copyrights and suppose that the same is true of patents. No, more likely -it's not true of patents. If it's true of copyrights, it's not true for -patents. That would be a better guideline if you have to guess.

    - -

    How the patent system works.

    - -

    Now most of the time when people describe how the patent system works, -they are people with a vested interest in the system. And so they describe -the patent system from the point of view of somebody who wants to get a -patent and then point it at programmers and say -“hand me your money.” This is natural, you know; when they -sell lottery tickets, they talk about people who win, not people who lose. -Of course most of the people lose, but they don't want you to think about -that, so they talk about the ones who win. It's the same with patents. -The patent system is a very expensive lottery for its participants. But of -course, the people who run the system want you to think about the small -chance you might win.

    - -

    So to redress this imbalance, I am going to explain what the patent -system looks like from the point of view of somebody who might be the -victim of a patent; that is, somebody who wants to develop software. - Suppose that you want to develop a program and you are in a country that -has software patents. How do you have to deal with the patent system?

    - -

    Well, the first thing is you have to find out about the patents -that might potentially affect your area. This is impossible, because -patents that are in the pipeline, being considered by the patent office, -are secret. Well, in some countries they are published after 18 months -but that still gives plenty of time for them to be secret. So you might -develop a program this year, which is perfectly legal and safe this year. -And then next year, a patent could be issued and all of a sudden you -could be sued. It happens. Or your users could get sued.

    - -

    For instance, in 1984 the Compress program was developed and, since it -was free software, it was distributed by many companies along with Unix -systems. Well, in 1985, a US patent was issued on the LZW compression -algorithm used by Compress, and after a few years Unisys began squeezing -money out of various companies.

    - -

    Well, since we in the GNU project needed a data compression program -and since we could not use Compress, we began looking for some other -compression program. We found out about… Somebody came forward -and said: “I have been working on this algorithm for a year and -now I have decided I am going to contribute it to you, and here is -the code.” We were a week away from releasing this program when I -just happened to see a copy of the New York Times, which doesn't happen -very often, and it just happened to have the weekly patents column and -I noted it and so I read it. It said that somebody had got a patent -for inventing a new method, a better method of data compression. Well, + + +

    There are many other differences as well. In fact every detail is +different. So the worst thing you should ever do is learn something about +copyrights and suppose that the same is true of patents. No, more likely +it's not true of patents. If it's true of copyrights, it's not true for +patents. That would be a better guideline if you have to guess.

    + +

    How the patent system works.

    + +

    Now most of the time when people describe how the patent system works, +they are people with a vested interest in the system. And so they describe +the patent system from the point of view of somebody who wants to get a +patent and then point it at programmers and say +“hand me your money.” This is natural, you know; when they +sell lottery tickets, they talk about people who win, not people who lose. +Of course most of the people lose, but they don't want you to think about +that, so they talk about the ones who win. It's the same with patents. +The patent system is a very expensive lottery for its participants. But of +course, the people who run the system want you to think about the small +chance you might win.

    + +

    So to redress this imbalance, I am going to explain what the patent +system looks like from the point of view of somebody who might be the +victim of a patent; that is, somebody who wants to develop software. + Suppose that you want to develop a program and you are in a country that +has software patents. How do you have to deal with the patent system?

    + +

    Well, the first thing is you have to find out about the patents +that might potentially affect your area. This is impossible, because +patents that are in the pipeline, being considered by the patent office, +are secret. Well, in some countries they are published after 18 months +but that still gives plenty of time for them to be secret. So you might +develop a program this year, which is perfectly legal and safe this year. +And then next year, a patent could be issued and all of a sudden you +could be sued. It happens. Or your users could get sued.

    + +

    For instance, in 1984 the Compress program was developed and, since it +was free software, it was distributed by many companies along with Unix +systems. Well, in 1985, a US patent was issued on the LZW compression +algorithm used by Compress, and after a few years Unisys began squeezing +money out of various companies.

    + +

    Well, since we in the GNU project needed a data compression program +and since we could not use Compress, we began looking for some other +compression program. We found out about… Somebody came forward +and said: “I have been working on this algorithm for a year and +now I have decided I am going to contribute it to you, and here is +the code.” We were a week away from releasing this program when I +just happened to see a copy of the New York Times, which doesn't happen +very often, and it just happened to have the weekly patents column and +I noted it and so I read it. It said that somebody had got a patent +for inventing a new method, a better method of data compression. Well, that was not in fact true. -When I saw this, I thought we'd better get a -copy of this patent and see if it's a problem, and it turned out to cover -exactly the algorithm that we were about to release. So this program -was killed one week before it was released. And in fact that person, -that patent holder, had not invented a better method, because in fact -it wasn't new. But that doesn't matter, he had a monopoly.

    - -

    Eventually we found another compression algorithm which is used in the -program that's known as GZIP. But this illustrates the danger that you -face: even if you had unlimited resources, you couldn't find out about -all the patents that might endanger your project. But you can find out -about the issued patents because they are published by the patent office. -So in principle, you could read them all, and see what they restrict, -what they prohibit you from doing. Practically speaking though, once -there are software patents there are so many of them that you can't +When I saw this, I thought we'd better get a +copy of this patent and see if it's a problem, and it turned out to cover +exactly the algorithm that we were about to release. So this program +was killed one week before it was released. And in fact that person, +that patent holder, had not invented a better method, because in fact +it wasn't new. But that doesn't matter, he had a monopoly.

    + +

    Eventually we found another compression algorithm which is used in the +program that's known as GZIP. But this illustrates the danger that you +face: even if you had unlimited resources, you couldn't find out about +all the patents that might endanger your project. But you can find out +about the issued patents because they are published by the patent office. +So in principle, you could read them all, and see what they restrict, +what they prohibit you from doing. Practically speaking though, once +there are software patents there are so many of them that you can't keep up with them. -In the US there are over a hundred thousand of -them; maybe two hundred thousand by now. This is just an estimate. -I know that 10 years ago they were issuing 10,000 a year and I believe -that it has accelerated since then. So it's too much for you to keep -track of them unless that's your full-time job. Now you can try to -search for the ones that are relevant to what you are doing, and this -works some of the time. If you search for certain keywords or follow -links, you'll find some patents that are relevant to what you're doing. -You won't find them all.

    - -

    A few years ago somebody had a US patent — maybe it's -expired by now — on natural order recalculation in spreadsheets. -Now, what does this mean? It means the original spreadsheets did the -recalculation always from top to bottom. Which meant that if a cell -ever depended on a lower cell, then it wouldn't get recalculated the -first time; you'd have to do another recalculation to get that one. -Clearly it's better to do the recalculation in the order, you know. -If A depends on B, then do B first and then do A. This way a single -recalculation will make everything consistent. Well, that's what the -patent covered.

    - -

    Now, if you searched for the term spreadsheet, you would not have -found that patent because that term did not appear in it. The phrase -“natural order recalculation” didn't appear either. This -algorithm — and it was indeed the algorithm that they covered, -basically every imaginable way of coding this algorithm — the -algorithm is called topological sorting, and that term did not appear -in the patent either. It presented itself as a patent on a technique -for compilation. So, reasonable searching would not have found this -patent but it would still have been a basis to sue you.

    - -

    In fact you can't tell what a software patent covers even roughly, -except by studying it carefully. This is different from patents in other -areas, because in other areas there is some physical thing happening, -and the details of that physical thing usually give you a sort of anchor -so that you can tell whether it relates or not. But in software there -is no such thing, and so it's easy for two totally different ways of -saying something to cover, in fact, the same computation, and it takes -careful study to see that they cover the same one. Because of this, -even the patent office can't keep track. So, there is not one, but -two patents covering LZW data compression. The first one was issued in -1985 and I think the second one in 1989. But that one I think had been -applied for even earlier. One of these patents belongs to Unisys and -the other belongs to IBM.

    - -

    Now, this kind of mistake is not in fact that rare. It's not the -only one. You see, patent examiners don't have a lot of time to spend -on one patent. In the US they have an average of 17 hours per patent. -Now that's not enough to carefully study all the other patents in the -area to see if they are really the same thing. So they are going to -make this kind of mistake over and over.

    - -

    You have to work with a lawyer.

    - -

    So you won't find all the patents that might threaten you but you'll -find some of them. Then what do you do? You have to try to figure out -precisely what these patents prohibit. That is very hard, because patents -are written in tortuous legal language which is very hard for an engineer -to understand. You are going to have to work with a lawyer to do it.

    - -

    In the 1980's the Australian government commissioned a study of -the patent system — the patent system in general, not software patents. -This study concluded that Australia would be better off abolishing the -patent system because it did very little good for society and caused a lot -of trouble. The only reason they didn't recommend that was international -pressure. So one of the things they cited was that patents, which were -supposed to disclose information so that it would no longer be secret, -were in fact useless for that purpose. Engineers never looked at -patents to try to learn anything, because it's too hard to read them. -In fact they quoted an engineer saying “I can't recognize my own -inventions in patent deeds.” Now this is not just theoretical.

    - -

    A few years ago, an engineer in the US named Paul Heckel was -suing Apple. He got a couple of software patents in the late 80's for -a software package, and then when he saw Hypercard he looked at it and -said “ this is nothing like my program,” and didn't think -anymore of it. But then later on, his lawyer explained to him that if -you read his patents carefully, Hypercard fell into the prohibited area. -So he sued Apple, figuring this was an opportunity to get some money. -Well, once when I gave a speech like this, he was in the audience, and he -said “oh no that's not true, I just wasn't aware of the scope of my -protection.” And I said “yeah, that's what I said.”

    - -

    So you are going to have to spend a lot of time working with a -lawyer and explaining to the lawyer what project you are working on, so -the lawyer can explain to you what the patents imply. This is going to -be expensive, and when you're done the lawyer will tell you something -like this: “If you do something in this area, you are almost -sure to lose a lawsuit. If you do something in this area, you are in -a substantial danger, and if you really want to be safe you'd better -stay out of this area, and, of course there is a substantial element -of chance in the outcome of any lawsuit.” So now that you have -a predictable terrain for doing business, what are you going to do?

    - -

    Well, you have three options to consider:

    +In the US there are over a hundred thousand of +them; maybe two hundred thousand by now. This is just an estimate. +I know that 10 years ago they were issuing 10,000 a year and I believe +that it has accelerated since then. So it's too much for you to keep +track of them unless that's your full-time job. Now you can try to +search for the ones that are relevant to what you are doing, and this +works some of the time. If you search for certain keywords or follow +links, you'll find some patents that are relevant to what you're doing. +You won't find them all.

    + +

    A few years ago somebody had a US patent—maybe it's +expired by now—on natural order recalculation in spreadsheets. +Now, what does this mean? It means the original spreadsheets did the +recalculation always from top to bottom. Which meant that if a cell +ever depended on a lower cell, then it wouldn't get recalculated the +first time; you'd have to do another recalculation to get that one. +Clearly it's better to do the recalculation in the order, you know. +If A depends on B, then do B first and then do A. This way a single +recalculation will make everything consistent. Well, that's what the +patent covered.

    + +

    Now, if you searched for the term spreadsheet, you would not have +found that patent because that term did not appear in it. The phrase +“natural order recalculation” didn't appear either. This +algorithm—and it was indeed the algorithm that they covered, +basically every imaginable way of coding this algorithm—the +algorithm is called topological sorting, and that term did not appear +in the patent either. It presented itself as a patent on a technique +for compilation. So, reasonable searching would not have found this +patent but it would still have been a basis to sue you.

    + +

    In fact you can't tell what a software patent covers even roughly, +except by studying it carefully. This is different from patents in other +areas, because in other areas there is some physical thing happening, +and the details of that physical thing usually give you a sort of anchor +so that you can tell whether it relates or not. But in software there +is no such thing, and so it's easy for two totally different ways of +saying something to cover, in fact, the same computation, and it takes +careful study to see that they cover the same one. Because of this, +even the patent office can't keep track. So, there is not one, but +two patents covering LZW data compression. The first one was issued in +1985 and I think the second one in 1989. But that one I think had been +applied for even earlier. One of these patents belongs to Unisys and +the other belongs to IBM.

    + +

    Now, this kind of mistake is not in fact that rare. It's not the +only one. You see, patent examiners don't have a lot of time to spend +on one patent. In the US they have an average of 17 hours per patent. +Now that's not enough to carefully study all the other patents in the +area to see if they are really the same thing. So they are going to +make this kind of mistake over and over.

    + +

    You have to work with a lawyer.

    + +

    So you won't find all the patents that might threaten you but you'll +find some of them. Then what do you do? You have to try to figure out +precisely what these patents prohibit. That is very hard, because patents +are written in tortuous legal language which is very hard for an engineer +to understand. You are going to have to work with a lawyer to do it.

    + +

    In the 1980's the Australian government commissioned a study of +the patent system—the patent system in general, not software patents. +This study concluded that Australia would be better off abolishing the +patent system because it did very little good for society and caused a lot +of trouble. The only reason they didn't recommend that was international +pressure. So one of the things they cited was that patents, which were +supposed to disclose information so that it would no longer be secret, +were in fact useless for that purpose. Engineers never looked at +patents to try to learn anything, because it's too hard to read them. +In fact they quoted an engineer saying “I can't recognize my own +inventions in patent deeds.” Now this is not just theoretical.

    + +

    A few years ago, an engineer in the US named Paul Heckel was +suing Apple. He got a couple of software patents in the late 80's for +a software package, and then when he saw Hypercard he looked at it and +said “ this is nothing like my program,” and didn't think +anymore of it. But then later on, his lawyer explained to him that if +you read his patents carefully, Hypercard fell into the prohibited area. +So he sued Apple, figuring this was an opportunity to get some money. +Well, once when I gave a speech like this, he was in the audience, and he +said “oh no that's not true, I just wasn't aware of the scope of my +protection.” And I said “yeah, that's what I said.”

    + +

    So you are going to have to spend a lot of time working with a +lawyer and explaining to the lawyer what project you are working on, so +the lawyer can explain to you what the patents imply. This is going to +be expensive, and when you're done the lawyer will tell you something +like this: “If you do something in this area, you are almost +sure to lose a lawsuit. If you do something in this area, you are in +a substantial danger, and if you really want to be safe you'd better +stay out of this area, and, of course there is a substantial element +of chance in the outcome of any lawsuit.” So now that you have +a predictable terrain for doing business, what are you going to do?

    + +

    Well, you have three options to consider:

    - -

    Any one of these three is sometimes a viable alternative, and sometimes -not.

    - -

    Avoid the patent.

    - -

    First, let's consider avoiding the patent. Well, in some cases that's -easy. You know, Unisys was threatening people using the patent on LZW -compression; we just had to find another data compression algorithm and -we could avoid that patent. Well, that was somewhat difficult because -there were many other patents covering lots of other data compression -algorithms. But eventually we found one that was not in the area that -those others' patents cover; eventually we did. So that program was -implemented. It actually gave better compression results and so we now -have GZIP, and a lot of people use GZIP. So, in that one case it was -considerable work but we were able to do it, to avoid that patent.

    - -

    But in the 80's, CompuServe defined an image format called GIF and -used LZW compression in defining it. Well, of course once the uproar -about these patents became known, people defined another image format -using a different compression algorithm. They used the GZIP algorithm, -and that format is called PNG format, which I suppose means -“PNG is Not GIF.”

    - -

    But there was a problem: lots of people had already started using -GIF format, and there were many programs that could display GIF format -and produce GIF format and they couldn't display PNG format. So the -result was people felt it was too hard to switch. You see, when you -are dealing with a data compression program used by somebody who says -“I want to compress some data,” well, you can give him a -different data compression program; if he can get sued for using this -one and you give him another one, he'll switch; but if what he wants -to do is make images that can be displayed by Netscape, then he can't -switch, unless Netscape handles the other format… and it didn't. - -It took years, I think, before Netscape started to handle PNG format. -So people essentially said “I can't switch, I just have… -” And so the result was, society had invested so much in this one -format, that the inertia was too great for a switch, even though there -was another superior format available.

    - -

    Even when a patent is rather narrow, avoiding it can be very hard. -The PostScript specification includes LZW compression, which we in our -implementation of postScript cannot implement. We support another kind -of compression in some sense that is not correct, even though it does the -useful job. So, even a narrow patent is not always feasible to avoid.

    - -

    Now, sometimes a feature gets patented. In that case, you can -avoid the patent by taking out that feature. In the late 80's the users -of the word processor XyWrite got a downgrade in the mail. That word -processor had a feature where you could define a short word or sequence -as an abbreviation. Whenever you typed in that short sequence and then -a space, it would turn into a longer expansion. You could define these -any way you liked. Then somebody patented this, and XyWrite decided to -deal with the patent by removing the feature. They contacted me because -in fact I had put a feature like that into the original Emacs editor back -in the 70's, many years before this patent. So there was a chance that -I could provide evidence that would enable them to fight the patent.

    - -

    Well, this showed me that I had at least one patentable idea in -my life. I know because someone else patented it. Now, of course, -you can respond to these patented features by taking the features out. -But once your program starts being missing several features that users -want, it might be useless as a program.

    - -

    Now you may have heard of Adobe Photoshop. We have a program called -the GIMP which is more powerful and general than Photoshop. But there -is one important feature that it doesn't have which is Pantone color -matching, which is very important for people who want to actually print -the images on paper and get reliable results. This feature is omitted -because it's patented. And as a result, the program for one substantial -class of users is crippled.

    - -

    If you look at programs today, you'll see that they often provide -many features, and the users demand these features. If any important -feature is missing, well, it's easy to leave it out, but the results -may be very bad.

    - -

    Of course, sometimes a patent is so broad that it's impossible to -avoid it. Public key encryption is essential for computer users to have -privacy. The whole field was patented. That patent expired just four years -ago; there could be no free software in the US for public key encryption, -until then: many programs, both free and nonfree, were wiped out by the -patent holders. And in fact that whole area of computing was held back -for more than a decade despite strong interest.

    - -

    License the patent.

    - -

    So, that is the possibility of avoiding the patent. Another -possibility that is sometimes available is to license the patent. Now, -the patent holder is not required to offer you a license that's his whim. -The patent holder can say “I'm not licensing this, you're just -out of business, period!”

    - -

    In the League for Programming Freedom, we heard in the early 90's -from somebody whose family business was making casino games — -computerized of course — and he had been threatened by somebody -who had a patent on a very broad category of computerized casino games. -The patent covered a network where there is more than one machine, and -each machine supports more than one kind of game and can display more -than one game in progress at a time.

    - -

    Now, one thing you should realize is the patent office thinks that -it's really brilliant. If you see that other people implemented doing -one thing and you decide to support doing two or more — you know, -if they made a system that plays one game and if you make it able to -play more than one game — that's an invention. If it can display -one game and you decide to set it up so that it can display two games at -once, that's an invention. If he did it with one computer and you do it -with a network having multiple computers, that's an invention for them. -They think that these steps are really brilliant.

    - -

    Of course, we in computer science know that this is just a rule, -you can generalize anything from one to more than one. It's the most -obvious principle there is. Every time you write a subroutine, that's -what you're doing. So this is one of the systematic reasons why the -patent system produces, and then upholds patents that we would all say are -ridiculously obvious. You can't assume, just because it's ridiculously -obvious, that they wouldn't be upheld by a court. They may be legally -valid despite the fact that are utterly stupid.

    - -

    So he was faced with this patent and the patent holder was not even -offering him the chance to get a license. “Shutdown!” -is what the patent holder said, and that's what he eventually did. -He couldn't afford to fight it.

    - -

    However, many patent holders will offer you a chance of a license. -But it will cost you dearly. The owners of the natural order -recalculation patent were demanding five percent of the gross sales of -every spreadsheet. And that, I was told, was the cheap pre-lawsuit price. -If you insisted on fighting over the matter, they were going to charge -more. Now you could, I suppose, sign a license like that for one patent, -you could do it for two, you could do it for three. But what if there are -twenty different patents in your program, and each patent holder wants -five percent of the gross sales? What if there are twenty one of them? -Then you are pretty badly screwed. But actually business people tell -me that two or three such patents would be such a big burden that they -would make the company fail in practice, even if in theory it might have -a chance.

    - -

    So, a license for a patent is not necessarily a feasible thing to do, -and for us, free software developers, we're in an even worse position -because we can't even count the copies, and most licenses demand a fee per -copy, so it's absolutely impossible for us to use one of those licenses. -You know, if a license charged one millionth part of a rupee for each -copy, we would be unable to comply because we can't count the copies. -The total amount of money, I might have in my pocket, but I can't count -it so I can't pay it. So we suffer some special burdens occasionally.

    - -

    But there is one kind of organization for which licensing patents -works very well, and that is the large multinational corporations; -the reason is that they own many patents themselves and they use them -to force cross-licensing. What does this mean? Well, essentially the -only defense against patents is deterrence: you have to have patents of -your own, then you hope that if somebody points a patent at you, you will -be able point a patent back and say “don't sue me, because I'll -sue you.”

    - -

    However, deterrence doesn't work as well for patents as it does -with nuclear weapons, and the reason is that each patent is pointed in -a fixed direction. It prohibits certain specified activities. So the -result is that most of the companies that are trying to get some patents -to defend themselves with, they have no chance of making this a success. -They might get a few patents, you know. So they might get a patent -that points there, and they might get a patent that points there. OK, -and then, if somebody over here threatens this company, what are they -going to do? They don't have a patent pointing over there, so they have -no defense.

    - -

    Meanwhile, sooner or later, somebody else will wander over there -and the executive of the company will think “gee, we're not as -profitable as I would like, why don't I go just squeeze some money out -of them.” So they say first “we're getting this patent for -defensive purposes,” but they often change their minds later when -a tempting victim walks by.

    - -

    And this, by the way, is the fallacy in the myth that the patent -system “protects” the “small inventor.” Let me -tell you this myth, it's the myth of the starving genius. It's somebody -who has been working in isolation for years, and starving, and has -a brilliant new idea for how to do something or other. And so, now, -he's starting a company and he is afraid some big company like IBM will -compete with him, and so he gets a patent and this patent is going to -“protect him.”

    - -

    Well, of course, this is not the way things work in our field. -People don't make this kind of progress in isolation this way. They are -working with other people and talking with the other people and they -are developing software usually. And so the whole scenario doesn't -make sense, and besides, if he was such a good computer scientist, -there was no need for him to starve. He could have got a job at any -time if he wanted.

    - -

    But let's suppose that this happened, and suppose that he has his -patent, and he says “IBM, you can't compete with me 'cause I've got -this patent.” But here is what IBM says: “Well, gee, let's -look at your product, hmm, I have this patent, and this patent and this -patent and this patent and this patent that your product is violating. -So how about if we cross-license?” And the starving genius says -“hmm, I haven't got enough food in my belly to fight these things, -so I'd better give in.” And so they sign a cross-license, and -now guess what — IBM can compete with him. He wasn't protected -at all!

    - -

    Now, IBM can do this because they have a lot of patents. They have -patents pointing here, here, here, everywhere. So, anybody from almost -anywhere that attacks IBM is facing a stand-off. A small company can't -do it but a big company can.

    - -

    So IBM wrote an article. It was in Think magazine, I believe, issue -number five, 1990 — that's IBM's own magazine — an article -about IBM's patent portfolio. IBM said that it got two kinds of benefit -from its 9000 active US patents. One benefit was collecting royalties -from licenses. But the other benefit, the bigger benefit, was access -to things patented by others. Permission to not be attacked by others -with their patents, through cross-licensing. And the article said that -the second benefit was an order of magnitude greater than the first. -In other words, the benefit to IBM of being able to make things freely, -not being sued, was ten times the benefit of collecting money for all -their patents.

    - -

    Now the patent system is a lot like a lottery, in that what happens -with any given patent is largely random and most of them don't bring any -benefits to their owners. But IBM is so big that these things average -out over the scale of IBM. So you could take IBM as measuring what the -average is like. What we see is — and this is a little bit subtle -— the benefit to IBM of being able to make use of ideas that were -patented by others is equal to the harm that the patent system would have -done to IBM if there were no cross-licensing — if IBM really were -prohibited from using all those ideas that were patented by others.

    - -

    So what it says is: the harm that the patent system would do is -ten times the benefit, on the average. Now, for IBM though, this -harm doesn't happen, because IBM does have 9000 patents and does force -most of them to cross-license, and avoids the problem. But if you are -small, then you can't avoid the problem that way, and you will really -be facing ten times as much trouble as benefit. Anyway, this is why -the big multinational corporations are in favor of software patents, and -they are lobbying governments around the world to adopt software patents -and saying naive things like “this is a new kind of monopoly for -software developers, it has to be good for them, right?”

    - -

    Well, today, after you have heard my speech I hope you understand -why that isn't true. You have to look carefully at how patents affect -software developers to see whether they are good or bad, and explaining -that is my overall purpose.

    - -

    Challenge the validity of the patent.

    - -

    So, that is the possibility of licensing a patent. The third possible -option is to go to court and challenge the validity of the patent.

    - -

    Now the outcome of this case will depend largely on technicalities, -which means essentially on randomness, you know. The dice were rolled -a few years ago, and you can investigate and find out what the dice -came up saying, and then you'll find out whether you've got a chance. -So it's mainly historical accident that determines whether the patent -is valid — the historical accident of whether, or precisely which -things, people happen to publish, and when.

    - -

    So, sometimes, there is a possibility of invalidating. So even if -a patent is ridiculously trivial, sometimes there is a good chance of -invalidating it and sometimes there is none.

    - -

    You can't expect the courts to recognize that it is trivial, because -their standards are generally much lower than we would think are sensible. -In fact, in the United States, this has been a persistent tendency. -I saw a Supreme Court decision from something like 1954, which had a -long list of patents that were invalidated by the Supreme Court starting -in the 1800's. And they were utterly ridiculous, like making a certain -shape of doorknob out of rubber, when previously they'd been made out -of wood. And this decision rebuked the patent system for going far, -far away from the proper standards. And they just keep on doing it.

    - -

    So you can't expect sensible results from that, but there are -situations where, when you look at the past record, you see that there is -a chance to invalidate a certain patent. It's worth the try, at least -to investigate. But the actual court cases happen to be extremely -expensive.

    - -

    A few years ago, one defendant lost and had to pay 13 million -dollars, of which most went to the lawyers on the two sides. I think -only 5 million dollars was actually taken away by the patent holder, -and so there were 8 million to the lawyers.

    - -

    Nobody can reinvent the entire field of software.

    - -

    Now, these are your possible options. At this point, of course, you -have to write the program. And there, the problem is that you face this -situation not just once but over and over and over, because programs today + + +

    Any one of these three is sometimes a viable alternative, and sometimes +not.

    + +

    Avoid the patent.

    + +

    First, let's consider avoiding the patent. Well, in some cases that's +easy. You know, Unisys was threatening people using the patent on LZW +compression; we just had to find another data compression algorithm and +we could avoid that patent. Well, that was somewhat difficult because +there were many other patents covering lots of other data compression +algorithms. But eventually we found one that was not in the area that +those others' patents cover; eventually we did. So that program was +implemented. It actually gave better compression results and so we now +have GZIP, and a lot of people use GZIP. So, in that one case it was +considerable work but we were able to do it, to avoid that patent.

    + +

    But in the 80's, CompuServe defined an image format called GIF and +used LZW compression in defining it. Well, of course once the uproar +about these patents became known, people defined another image format +using a different compression algorithm. They used the GZIP algorithm, +and that format is called PNG format, which I suppose means +“PNG is Not GIF.”

    + +

    But there was a problem: lots of people had already started using +GIF format, and there were many programs that could display GIF format +and produce GIF format and they couldn't display PNG format. So the +result was people felt it was too hard to switch. You see, when you +are dealing with a data compression program used by somebody who says +“I want to compress some data,” well, you can give him a +different data compression program; if he can get sued for using this +one and you give him another one, he'll switch; but if what he wants +to do is make images that can be displayed by Netscape, then he can't +switch, unless Netscape handles the other format… and it didn't. +It took years, I think, before Netscape started to handle PNG format. +So people essentially said “I can't switch, I just have… +” And so the result was, society had invested so much in this one +format, that the inertia was too great for a switch, even though there +was another superior format available.

    + +

    Even when a patent is rather narrow, avoiding it can be very hard. +The PostScript specification includes LZW compression, which we in our +implementation of postScript cannot implement. We support another kind +of compression in some sense that is not correct, even though it does the +useful job. So, even a narrow patent is not always feasible to avoid.

    + +

    Now, sometimes a feature gets patented. In that case, you can +avoid the patent by taking out that feature. In the late 80's the users +of the word processor XyWrite got a downgrade in the mail. That word +processor had a feature where you could define a short word or sequence +as an abbreviation. Whenever you typed in that short sequence and then +a space, it would turn into a longer expansion. You could define these +any way you liked. Then somebody patented this, and XyWrite decided to +deal with the patent by removing the feature. They contacted me because +in fact I had put a feature like that into the original Emacs editor back +in the 70's, many years before this patent. So there was a chance that +I could provide evidence that would enable them to fight the patent.

    + +

    Well, this showed me that I had at least one patentable idea in +my life. I know because someone else patented it. Now, of course, +you can respond to these patented features by taking the features out. +But once your program starts being missing several features that users +want, it might be useless as a program.

    + +

    Now you may have heard of Adobe Photoshop. We have a program called +the GIMP which is more powerful and general than Photoshop. But there +is one important feature that it doesn't have which is Pantone color +matching, which is very important for people who want to actually print +the images on paper and get reliable results. This feature is omitted +because it's patented. And as a result, the program for one substantial +class of users is crippled.

    + +

    If you look at programs today, you'll see that they often provide +many features, and the users demand these features. If any important +feature is missing, well, it's easy to leave it out, but the results +may be very bad.

    + +

    Of course, sometimes a patent is so broad that it's impossible to +avoid it. Public key encryption is essential for computer users to have +privacy. The whole field was patented. That patent expired just four years +ago; there could be no free software in the US for public key encryption, +until then: many programs, both free and nonfree, were wiped out by the +patent holders. And in fact that whole area of computing was held back +for more than a decade despite strong interest.

    + +

    License the patent.

    + +

    So, that is the possibility of avoiding the patent. Another +possibility that is sometimes available is to license the patent. Now, +the patent holder is not required to offer you a license that's his whim. +The patent holder can say “I'm not licensing this, you're just +out of business, period!”

    + +

    In the League for Programming Freedom, we heard in the early 90's +from somebody whose family business was making casino games— +computerized of course—and he had been threatened by somebody +who had a patent on a very broad category of computerized casino games. +The patent covered a network where there is more than one machine, and +each machine supports more than one kind of game and can display more +than one game in progress at a time.

    + +

    Now, one thing you should realize is the patent office thinks that +it's really brilliant. If you see that other people implemented doing +one thing and you decide to support doing two or more—you know, +if they made a system that plays one game and if you make it able to +play more than one game—that's an invention. If it can display +one game and you decide to set it up so that it can display two games at +once, that's an invention. If he did it with one computer and you do it +with a network having multiple computers, that's an invention for them. +They think that these steps are really brilliant.

    + +

    Of course, we in computer science know that this is just a rule, +you can generalize anything from one to more than one. It's the most +obvious principle there is. Every time you write a subroutine, that's +what you're doing. So this is one of the systematic reasons why the +patent system produces, and then upholds patents that we would all say are +ridiculously obvious. You can't assume, just because it's ridiculously +obvious, that they wouldn't be upheld by a court. They may be legally +valid despite the fact that are utterly stupid.

    + +

    So he was faced with this patent and the patent holder was not even +offering him the chance to get a license. “Shutdown!” +is what the patent holder said, and that's what he eventually did. +He couldn't afford to fight it.

    + +

    However, many patent holders will offer you a chance of a license. +But it will cost you dearly. The owners of the natural order +recalculation patent were demanding five percent of the gross sales of +every spreadsheet. And that, I was told, was the cheap pre-lawsuit price. +If you insisted on fighting over the matter, they were going to charge +more. Now you could, I suppose, sign a license like that for one patent, +you could do it for two, you could do it for three. But what if there are +twenty different patents in your program, and each patent holder wants +five percent of the gross sales? What if there are twenty one of them? +Then you are pretty badly screwed. But actually business people tell +me that two or three such patents would be such a big burden that they +would make the company fail in practice, even if in theory it might have +a chance.

    + +

    So, a license for a patent is not necessarily a feasible thing to do, +and for us, free software developers, we're in an even worse position +because we can't even count the copies, and most licenses demand a fee per +copy, so it's absolutely impossible for us to use one of those licenses. +You know, if a license charged one millionth part of a rupee for each +copy, we would be unable to comply because we can't count the copies. +The total amount of money, I might have in my pocket, but I can't count +it so I can't pay it. So we suffer some special burdens occasionally.

    + +

    But there is one kind of organization for which licensing patents +works very well, and that is the large multinational corporations; +the reason is that they own many patents themselves and they use them +to force cross-licensing. What does this mean? Well, essentially the +only defense against patents is deterrence: you have to have patents of +your own, then you hope that if somebody points a patent at you, you will +be able point a patent back and say “don't sue me, because I'll +sue you.”

    + +

    However, deterrence doesn't work as well for patents as it does +with nuclear weapons, and the reason is that each patent is pointed in +a fixed direction. It prohibits certain specified activities. So the +result is that most of the companies that are trying to get some patents +to defend themselves with, they have no chance of making this a success. +They might get a few patents, you know. So they might get a patent +that points there, and they might get a patent that points there. OK, +and then, if somebody over here threatens this company, what are they +going to do? They don't have a patent pointing over there, so they have +no defense.

    + +

    Meanwhile, sooner or later, somebody else will wander over there +and the executive of the company will think “gee, we're not as +profitable as I would like, why don't I go just squeeze some money out +of them.” So they say first “we're getting this patent for +defensive purposes,” but they often change their minds later when +a tempting victim walks by.

    + +

    And this, by the way, is the fallacy in the myth that the patent +system “protects” the “small inventor.” Let me +tell you this myth, it's the myth of the starving genius. It's somebody +who has been working in isolation for years, and starving, and has +a brilliant new idea for how to do something or other. And so, now, +he's starting a company and he is afraid some big company like IBM will +compete with him, and so he gets a patent and this patent is going to +“protect him.”

    + +

    Well, of course, this is not the way things work in our field. +People don't make this kind of progress in isolation this way. They are +working with other people and talking with the other people and they +are developing software usually. And so the whole scenario doesn't +make sense, and besides, if he was such a good computer scientist, +there was no need for him to starve. He could have got a job at any +time if he wanted.

    + +

    But let's suppose that this happened, and suppose that he has his +patent, and he says “IBM, you can't compete with me 'cause I've got +this patent.” But here is what IBM says: “Well, gee, let's +look at your product, hmm, I have this patent, and this patent and this +patent and this patent and this patent that your product is violating. +So how about if we cross-license?” And the starving genius says +“hmm, I haven't got enough food in my belly to fight these things, +so I'd better give in.” And so they sign a cross-license, and +now guess what—IBM can compete with him. He wasn't protected +at all!

    + +

    Now, IBM can do this because they have a lot of patents. They have +patents pointing here, here, here, everywhere. So, anybody from almost +anywhere that attacks IBM is facing a stand-off. A small company can't +do it but a big company can.

    + +

    So IBM wrote an article. It was in Think magazine, I believe, issue +number five, 1990—that's IBM's own magazine—an article +about IBM's patent portfolio. IBM said that it got two kinds of benefit +from its 9000 active US patents. One benefit was collecting royalties +from licenses. But the other benefit, the bigger benefit, was access +to things patented by others. Permission to not be attacked by others +with their patents, through cross-licensing. And the article said that +the second benefit was an order of magnitude greater than the first. +In other words, the benefit to IBM of being able to make things freely, +not being sued, was ten times the benefit of collecting money for all +their patents.

    + +

    Now the patent system is a lot like a lottery, in that what happens +with any given patent is largely random and most of them don't bring any +benefits to their owners. But IBM is so big that these things average +out over the scale of IBM. So you could take IBM as measuring what the +average is like. What we see is—and this is a little bit +subtle—the benefit to IBM of being able to make use of ideas that were +patented by others is equal to the harm that the patent system would have +done to IBM if there were no cross-licensing—if IBM really were +prohibited from using all those ideas that were patented by others.

    + +

    So what it says is: the harm that the patent system would do is +ten times the benefit, on the average. Now, for IBM though, this +harm doesn't happen, because IBM does have 9000 patents and does force +most of them to cross-license, and avoids the problem. But if you are +small, then you can't avoid the problem that way, and you will really +be facing ten times as much trouble as benefit. Anyway, this is why +the big multinational corporations are in favor of software patents, and +they are lobbying governments around the world to adopt software patents +and saying naive things like “this is a new kind of monopoly for +software developers, it has to be good for them, right?”

    + +

    Well, today, after you have heard my speech I hope you understand +why that isn't true. You have to look carefully at how patents affect +software developers to see whether they are good or bad, and explaining +that is my overall purpose.

    + +

    Challenge the validity of the patent.

    + +

    So, that is the possibility of licensing a patent. The third possible +option is to go to court and challenge the validity of the patent.

    + +

    Now the outcome of this case will depend largely on technicalities, +which means essentially on randomness, you know. The dice were rolled +a few years ago, and you can investigate and find out what the dice +came up saying, and then you'll find out whether you've got a chance. +So it's mainly historical accident that determines whether the patent +is valid—the historical accident of whether, or precisely which +things, people happen to publish, and when.

    + +

    So, sometimes, there is a possibility of invalidating. So even if +a patent is ridiculously trivial, sometimes there is a good chance of +invalidating it and sometimes there is none.

    + +

    You can't expect the courts to recognize that it is trivial, because +their standards are generally much lower than we would think are sensible. +In fact, in the United States, this has been a persistent tendency. +I saw a Supreme Court decision from something like 1954, which had a +long list of patents that were invalidated by the Supreme Court starting +in the 1800's. And they were utterly ridiculous, like making a certain +shape of doorknob out of rubber, when previously they'd been made out +of wood. And this decision rebuked the patent system for going far, +far away from the proper standards. And they just keep on doing it.

    + +

    So you can't expect sensible results from that, but there are +situations where, when you look at the past record, you see that there is +a chance to invalidate a certain patent. It's worth the try, at least +to investigate. But the actual court cases happen to be extremely +expensive.

    + +

    A few years ago, one defendant lost and had to pay 13 million +dollars, of which most went to the lawyers on the two sides. I think +only 5 million dollars was actually taken away by the patent holder, +and so there were 8 million to the lawyers.

    + +

    Nobody can reinvent the entire field of software.

    + +

    Now, these are your possible options. At this point, of course, you +have to write the program. And there, the problem is that you face this +situation not just once but over and over and over, because programs today are complicated. Look at a word processor; you'll see a lot of features, -many different things, each of which could be patented by somebody, or a -combination of two of them could be patented by somebody. British Telecom -has a patent in the US on the combination of following hypertext links -and letting the user dial up through a phone line. Now these are two -basically separate things, but the combination of the two is patented.

    - -

    So, that means if there are 100 things in your program, there are -potentially some five thousand pairs of two that might be patented by -somebody already, and there is no law against patenting a combination of -three of them either. That's just the features, you know. There's going -to be many techniques that you use in writing a program, many algorithms, -they could be patented too. So there are lots and lots of things that -could be patented. The result is that developing a program becomes -like crossing a field of land mines. Sure, each step probably will not -step on a patent, each design decision. Chances are it will be safe. -But crossing the whole field becomes dangerous.

    - -

    The best way for a nonprogrammer to understand what this is like is -to compare the writing of these large programs with another area in which -people write something very large: symphonies. Imagine if the governments -of Europe in the 1700's had wanted to promote progress in symphonic music -by adopting a system of music patents, so that any idea that could be -described in words could be patented if it seemed to be new and original. -So you'd be able to patent, say, a three-note melodic motif which is -be too short to be copyrightable, but it would have been patentable. -And maybe they could have patented a certain chord progression, and maybe -patented using a certain combination of instruments playing at the same -time, or any other idea that somebody could describe.

    - -

    Well, by 1800 there would have been thousands of these music -idea patents. And then imagine that you are Beethoven and you want -to write a symphony. To write a whole symphony, you are going to have -to do lots of different things, and at any point you could be using an -idea that somebody else has patented. Of course, if you do that he'll -say: “Oh! You are just a thief, why can't you write something -original?” Well, Beethoven had more than his share of new musical -ideas, but he used a lot of existing musical ideas. He had to, because -that's the only way to make it recognizable. If you don't do that, -people won't listen at all. Pierre Boulez thought he was going to totally -reinvent the language of music, and he tried, and nobody listens to it, -because it doesn't use all the ideas that they're familiar with.

    - -

    So you have to use the old ideas that other people have thought of. -Nobody is such a genius that he can reinvent the entire field of software -and do useful things without learning anything from anybody else. -So in effect, those people, the patent holders and their lawyers, they -are accusing us of being cheaters because we don't totally reinvent the -field from scratch. We have to build on previous work to make progress, -and that is exactly what the patent system prohibits us from doing. -And we have to provide features that the users are accustomed to and -can recognize, or they'll find our software just too difficult to use -no matter how good it is.

    - -

    The relationship between patents and products varies -between the fields.

    - -

    Now, people sometimes ask me: why is software different from other -fields? Sometimes, of course they ask this in a rather nasty fashion, -they say: “the other fields can deal with patents, why should -software be an exception?” Now that's a nasty way of putting it -because it's making the assumption that it's wrong to want to escape -from a problem. I could imagine I am saying: “well, other people -could get cancer, why shouldn't you?” Clearly, if it's a problem, -enabling any field to escape is good. But it is a good and serious -question: are these fields the same issue? Do patents affect all these -fields the same way? Is the right policy for software the same as -the right policy for automobile engines or pharmaceuticals or chemical -processes, you know, this is a serious question which is worth looking -at.

    - -

    When you look at it, what you see is that the relationship between -patents and products varies between the fields. At one extreme you have -pharmaceuticals where typically a whole chemical formula is patented. So -if you come up with a new drug, then it's not patented by somebody else. -At the other extreme is software where, when you write a new program, -you are combining dozens or hundreds of ideas, and we can't expect them -all to be new. Even an innovative program, which has a few new ideas, -has to use lots and lots of old ideas too. And in between you find the -other fields. Even in other fields, you can get patent deadlock.

    - -

    When the United States entered World War I, nobody in the US could -make a modern airplane. And the reason was that modern airplanes use -several different techniques that were patented by different companies, -and the owners hated each other. So nobody could get a license to -use all these patents. Well, the US government decided that this was -an unacceptable state of affairs, and essentially paid those patent -holders a lump sum and said “we have nationalized these patents; -now, everybody, go make airplanes for us!”

    - -

    But the amount to which this happens, the frequency and the -seriousness of it varies according to how many different ideas go in one -product. It varies according to how many points of patent vulnerability -there are in one product. And in that question, software is at the -extreme.

    - -

    It's not unusual for a few people working for a couple of years to -write a program that could have a million parts in it, different parts, -which is maybe, say, 300,000 lines of code. To design a physical system -that has a million different parts, that's a mega-project, that's very -rare. Now you'll find many times people make a physical object with a -million parts, but typically it's many copies of the same subunit and -that's much easier to design — that's not a million different -parts in the design.

    - -

    So, why is this? The reason is that, in other fields, people have -to deal with the perversity of matter. You are designing circuits -or cars or chemicals, you have to face the fact that these physical -substances will do what they do, not what they are supposed to do. We in -software don't have that problem, and that makes it tremendously easier. -We are designing a collection of idealized mathematical parts which -have definitions. They do exactly what they are defined to do.

    - -

    And so there are many problems we don't have. For instance, if we -put an if statement inside of a while statement, we don't have to worry -about whether the if statement can get enough power to run at the speed -it's going to run. We don't have to worry about whether it will run at -a speed that generates radio frequency interference and induces wrong -values in some other parts of the data. We don't have to worry about -whether it will loop at a speed that causes a resonance and eventually -the if statement will vibrate against the while statement and one of them +many different things, each of which could be patented by somebody, or a +combination of two of them could be patented by somebody. British Telecom +has a patent in the US on the combination of following hypertext links +and letting the user dial up through a phone line. Now these are two +basically separate things, but the combination of the two is patented.

    + +

    So, that means if there are 100 things in your program, there are +potentially some five thousand pairs of two that might be patented by +somebody already, and there is no law against patenting a combination of +three of them either. That's just the features, you know. There's going +to be many techniques that you use in writing a program, many algorithms, +they could be patented too. So there are lots and lots of things that +could be patented. The result is that developing a program becomes +like crossing a field of land mines. Sure, each step probably will not +step on a patent, each design decision. Chances are it will be safe. +But crossing the whole field becomes dangerous.

    + +

    The best way for a nonprogrammer to understand what this is like is +to compare the writing of these large programs with another area in which +people write something very large: symphonies. Imagine if the governments +of Europe in the 1700's had wanted to promote progress in symphonic music +by adopting a system of music patents, so that any idea that could be +described in words could be patented if it seemed to be new and original. +So you'd be able to patent, say, a three-note melodic motif which is +be too short to be copyrightable, but it would have been patentable. +And maybe they could have patented a certain chord progression, and maybe +patented using a certain combination of instruments playing at the same +time, or any other idea that somebody could describe.

    + +

    Well, by 1800 there would have been thousands of these music +idea patents. And then imagine that you are Beethoven and you want +to write a symphony. To write a whole symphony, you are going to have +to do lots of different things, and at any point you could be using an +idea that somebody else has patented. Of course, if you do that he'll +say: “Oh! You are just a thief, why can't you write something +original?” Well, Beethoven had more than his share of new musical +ideas, but he used a lot of existing musical ideas. He had to, because +that's the only way to make it recognizable. If you don't do that, +people won't listen at all. Pierre Boulez thought he was going to totally +reinvent the language of music, and he tried, and nobody listens to it, +because it doesn't use all the ideas that they're familiar with.

    + +

    So you have to use the old ideas that other people have thought of. +Nobody is such a genius that he can reinvent the entire field of software +and do useful things without learning anything from anybody else. +So in effect, those people, the patent holders and their lawyers, they +are accusing us of being cheaters because we don't totally reinvent the +field from scratch. We have to build on previous work to make progress, +and that is exactly what the patent system prohibits us from doing. +And we have to provide features that the users are accustomed to and +can recognize, or they'll find our software just too difficult to use +no matter how good it is.

    + +

    The relationship between patents and products varies +between the fields.

    + +

    Now, people sometimes ask me: why is software different from other +fields? Sometimes, of course they ask this in a rather nasty fashion, +they say: “the other fields can deal with patents, why should +software be an exception?” Now that's a nasty way of putting it +because it's making the assumption that it's wrong to want to escape +from a problem. I could imagine I am saying: “well, other people +could get cancer, why shouldn't you?” Clearly, if it's a problem, +enabling any field to escape is good. But it is a good and serious +question: are these fields the same issue? Do patents affect all these +fields the same way? Is the right policy for software the same as +the right policy for automobile engines or pharmaceuticals or chemical +processes, you know, this is a serious question which is worth looking +at.

    + +

    When you look at it, what you see is that the relationship between +patents and products varies between the fields. At one extreme you have +pharmaceuticals where typically a whole chemical formula is patented. So +if you come up with a new drug, then it's not patented by somebody else. +At the other extreme is software where, when you write a new program, +you are combining dozens or hundreds of ideas, and we can't expect them +all to be new. Even an innovative program, which has a few new ideas, +has to use lots and lots of old ideas too. And in between you find the +other fields. Even in other fields, you can get patent deadlock.

    + +

    When the United States entered World War I, nobody in the US could +make a modern airplane. And the reason was that modern airplanes use +several different techniques that were patented by different companies, +and the owners hated each other. So nobody could get a license to +use all these patents. Well, the US government decided that this was +an unacceptable state of affairs, and essentially paid those patent +holders a lump sum and said “we have nationalized these patents; +now, everybody, go make airplanes for us!”

    + +

    But the amount to which this happens, the frequency and the +seriousness of it varies according to how many different ideas go in one +product. It varies according to how many points of patent vulnerability +there are in one product. And in that question, software is at the +extreme.

    + +

    It's not unusual for a few people working for a couple of years to +write a program that could have a million parts in it, different parts, +which is maybe, say, 300,000 lines of code. To design a physical system +that has a million different parts, that's a mega-project, that's very +rare. Now you'll find many times people make a physical object with a +million parts, but typically it's many copies of the same subunit and +that's much easier to design—that's not a million different +parts in the design.

    + +

    So, why is this? The reason is that, in other fields, people have +to deal with the perversity of matter. You are designing circuits +or cars or chemicals, you have to face the fact that these physical +substances will do what they do, not what they are supposed to do. We in +software don't have that problem, and that makes it tremendously easier. +We are designing a collection of idealized mathematical parts which +have definitions. They do exactly what they are defined to do.

    + +

    And so there are many problems we don't have. For instance, if we +put an if statement inside of a while statement, we don't have to worry +about whether the if statement can get enough power to run at the speed +it's going to run. We don't have to worry about whether it will run at +a speed that generates radio frequency interference and induces wrong +values in some other parts of the data. We don't have to worry about +whether it will loop at a speed that causes a resonance and eventually +the if statement will vibrate against the while statement and one of them will crack. -We don't have to worry that chemicals in the environment -will get into the boundary between the if statement and the while -statement and corrode them, and cause a bad connection. We don't have -to worry that other chemicals will get on them and cause a short-circuit. -We don't have to worry about whether the heat can be dissipated from this -if statement through the surrounding while statement. We don't have -to worry about whether the while statement would cause so much voltage -drop that the if statement won't function correctly. When you look at -the value of a variable you don't have to worry about whether you've -referenced that variable so many times that you exceed the fan-out limit. -You don't have to worry about how much capacitance there is in a certain -variable and how much time it will take to store the value in it.

    - -

    All these things are defined a way, the system is defined to function -in a certain way, and it always does. The physical computer might -malfunction, but that's not the program's fault. So, because of all these -problems we don't have to deal with, our field is tremendously easier.

    - -

    If we assume that the intelligence of programmers is the same as -the intelligence of mechanical engineers, and electrical engineers and -chemical engineers and so on, what's going to happen? Those of us with -the easiest field, fundamentally, are going to push it further. We make -bigger and bigger things and eventually it becomes hard again. That's why -we can develop much bigger systems than the people in the other fields. -They just have these hard problems to deal with all the time. In the -other fields, it may be necessary to develop an idea. You may have the -idea, but then you may have to try out lots of different ways to get -it to work at all. In software it's not like that, you have the idea -and what you go and do is you write a program which uses this idea, -and then the users may like it or not. And if they don't like it, -probably you can just fix some details and get it to work.

    - -

    There is another problem that we don't have to worry about: -manufacturing of copies. When we put this if statement inside the -while statement, we don't have to worry about how the if statement is -going to be inserted into the while statement as a copy is being built. -We don't have to worry either about making sure we have access to remove -and replace this if statement if it should burn out. So all we have to do -is type “copy” and it's an all-purpose copy-anything facility. -People making physical equipment and physical products, they can't do -that, these things have to be built piece by piece each time.

    - -

    The result is that for them, the cost of designing a system of a -certain complexity may be (gesturing) this much and the factory may -take this much to set up. So they have to deal with this much from the -patent system. It's a level of overhead they can live with. For us, -designing it may cost (gesturing) this much and manufacturing it may cost -this much, so this much overhead from the patent system is crushing.

    - -

    Another way to look at it is that because we can — a few of -us can — make a much bigger system, there are many more points -of vulnerability where somebody might have patented something already. -We have to walk a long distance through the mine field, whereas they -they only have to walk a few feet through the minefield. So it's much -more of a dangerous system for us.

    - -

    Program development is hampered by software patents.

    - -

    Now, you have to realize that the ostensible purpose of the patent -system is to promote progress. This is something that is often forgotten -because the companies that benefit from patents like to distract you -from it. They like to give you the idea that patents exist because they -deserve special treatment. But this is not what the patent system says. -The patent system says: the goal is to promote progress for society, -by encouraging certain behavior like publishing new ideas; and after a -certain — originally that was fairly short — time, everyone -could use them.

    - -

    Of course there is a certain price that society pays as well, and so -we have to ask the question: which is bigger, the benefit or the price? -Well, in other fields, I am not sure. I am not an expert on other -fields of engineering, I've never done them and I don't know whether -having patents is good for progress in those fields.

    - -

    I have been in software since before software patents existed, and -I know that software patents do a lot of harm and essentially no good. -In the old days, ideas came along. Either people in a university had -an idea, or somebody had an idea while he was working on developing -software. And either way, these ideas got published, and then everyone -could use them. Now why did the software publishers publish these ideas? -Because they knew that the big job was writing the program.

    - -

    They knew that publishing the ideas would get them credit from the -community, and meanwhile anybody else who wanted to compete with them -would still have to write a program, which is the big job. So they -typically kept the details of the program secret — of course some -of us think that's wrong, but that's a different issue. They kept the -details of the program secret and they published the ideas, and meanwhile -the software development — because software development was going -on — That provided the field with a steady stream of ideas, so -ideas were not the limiting factor. The limiting factor was the job of -writing programs that would work and that people would like using.

    - -

    So, in effect, applying the patent system to software focuses on -facilitating a thing which is not the limiting factor, while causing -trouble for the thing which is the limiting factor. You see the software -patents encourage somebody to have an idea, but at the same time they -encourage people to restrict its use, so in fact we are actually worse -off now in terms of having ideas we could use, because in the past people -had the ideas and published them and we could use them, and now they -have the ideas and patent them and we can't use them for twenty years. -In the mean time, the real limiting factor — which is developing -the programs — this is hampered by software patents because of -other dangers that I explained to you in the first half of this talk.

    - -

    So the result is that, while the system is supposed to be promoting -progress in software, actually it is so screwed up it's just obstructing -progress.

    - -

    Today we have some economic research showing mathematically how this -can happen. You can find it in www.researchoninnovation.org. -I am not completely sure of the name of the paper, but it's one -that shows that in a field where incremental innovation is typical, -having a patent system can result in slower progress. In other words the -system produces counter-intuitive results that are the opposite of what it -was intended to do. This backs up the intuitive conclusion of every -programmer who sees that software patents are absurd.

    - -

    What can a country do to avoid this problem?

    - -

    So, what can a country do to avoid this problem? Well, there are -two approaches: one is to address the problem at the issue of granting -patents, and the other is to approach it at the point where patents are -being enforced.

    - -

    Doing this at the stage of granting patents is not quite as easy -as you might think. Now, I have been talking about software patents -but strictly speaking you can't classify patents into hardware patents -and software patents, because one patent might cover both hardware and -software. So in fact my definition of a software patent is: a patent -that can restrict software development.

    - -

    And if you look at many software patents you often find that the -system they describe has a large part of the computer itself as part of -the description of what's going on. That's a great way of making the -whole thing seem complicated when it is really trivial. So it's a way -they can get the patent office to decide it's unobvious.

    - -

    But there is a different criterion that can be used, a slightly -different place to draw the line that still does a reasonable job, and -that is between processes that transform matter in a specific way, and -processes where the result is just calculation and display of information, -or a combination of data processing and display steps — or others -have put it as: mental steps being carried out by equipment. There are -various ways of formulating this, which are more or less equivalent.

    - -

    Now this is not exactly the same as prohibiting software patents, -because in some cases computers are used as part of specific physical -equipment to make it do a specific thing. And software patents might be -allowed if they are part of a specific physical activity. But that's not -really a disaster. After all, once people are involved in a specific -physical activity or a specific physical product, they are bringing -into their whole business all those complexities of dealing with matter. -So it's more like those other fields of engineering. Maybe it's okay to -have patents on that narrow kind of software. As long as we can keep the -core areas of software, the purely software activities safe from patents, -we have solved the bulk of the problem.

    - -

    So that is a feasible approach and that's what people are working -towards in Europe. However, that is not going to be any use in the -United States because the United States already has tens of thousands, -probably hundreds of thousands of software patents. Any change in the -criteria for issuing patents does not help at all with the patents that -already exist.

    - -

    So what I propose to the United States is to change the criteria -for applying patents, to say that purely software systems running -on general purpose computing hardware are immune from patents. -They by definition cannot infringe a patent. And this way the patents -can still be granted exactly the way they are now, and they can still, -in a formal sense, cover both hardware implementations and software -implementations as they do now. But software will be safe.

    - -

    Preventing India from having software patents will be -up to the citizens of India.

    - -

    That's the solution I propose to the US, but it could be used in -other countries as well.

    - -

    Now, one of the tremendous dangers facing most countries today -is the World Trade Organization, which sets up a system of corporate -regulated trade — not free trade as its proponents like to call -it, but corporate regulated trade. It replaces the regulation of trade -by governments, that are somewhat democratic and might listen to the -interest of their citizens, with regulation of trade by businesses, -which don't pretend to listen to the citizens. So it's fundamentally -antidemocratic and ought to be abolished.

    - -

    But it's crucial to note that the part of the GATT agreement which -deals with patents does not require software patents. Many experts who -have studied this, for instance in Europe, make this claim. And the -reason is that they interpret technical effect as: there is a specific -physical consequence or physical system going on. And so the software -that doesn't do that doesn't have to be in the domain that patents -can cover.

    - -

    So, at least you don't have to worry about the Word Trade Organization -causing problems here, despite the tremendous problems they cause in -other areas of life.

    - -

    Preventing India from having software patents will be up to you -— to the citizens of India. I am a foreigner, I have no influence -except when I can convince other people through the logic of what I say. -There is a chance that you can do this. When the US started to have -software patents, the public policy question was not considered at all. -Nobody even asked whether it was a good idea to have software patents. -The Supreme Court made a decision which was then twisted around by an -appeals court, and ever since then, there were software patents.

    - -

    But when Europe started to consider officially authorizing software -patents a few years ago, public opposition started to rise and became -so strong that the politicians and the parties began paying attention -to it, and started saying they were against it. In fact two attempts -to authorize software patents have been blocked already in Europe. -The French Minister of Industry says that software patents would be a -disaster and under no circumstances should they be allowed in France. -All of the German political parties have taken a stand against software -patents.

    - -

    The battle is not yet over, you know. We have not conclusively -blocked software patents in Europe, because the multinational companies -and their servant, the United States government, is lobbying very hard, -and they have ignorance on their side. It's so easy for somebody with -a naive neo-liberal view to be persuaded that a new kind of monopoly -has to be good!

    - -

    You have to look at the details of how software patents affect -software development to see that they cause a problem. You have to -study that economic research in its mathematics in order to see why you -shouldn't assume that patents always promote progress. So, it's easy -for IBM to send a lobbyist to someone and say: “You should really -adopt software patents, they are great for programming. And look, the US -is ahead and the US has software patents. If you have software patents -too, you might catch up.” Well, you can't get more dominant than -that, and the US was ahead in computers before it had software patents, -it can't be because of software patents.

    - -

    It's important to understand that each country has its own patent -system and its own patent laws and what you do in a certain country is -under the jurisdiction of that country's patent law. So the result is, -that if the US has software patents, the US becomes a sort of battleground -where anybody using computers might get sued. If India avoids software -patents, then India is not a battleground, and computer users in India -do not face this danger of getting sued.

    - -

    It turns out that each country will issue patents to foreigners, -just as to its own citizens. So in fact, in a place which has this -scourge of software patents, foreigners can own those patents. There are -lots of non-US companies that own US software patents, so they are all -welcome to get involved in the fighting in the US. Of course it's we -Americans who become the victims of this. Meanwhile, in India, if there -are no software patents, that means both Indian companies and foreign -companies are prevented from coming into India and attacking people with -software patents.

    - -

    So, yes it is important that each country has its own patent law. -That makes a big difference, but you've got to understand what difference -it makes. Having software patents in a certain country is not an -advantage for the developers in that country. It's a problem for anybody -distributing and using software in that country.

    - -

    Now, if you in India are developing a program for use in the US, -you may face the problem — or at least your client will face the -problem — of US software patents. At least probably you can't -get sued here. The client who commissioned the program and tries to use -it might get sued in the US, and indeed you will have to deal with the -problem — the US's problems — when you try doing business -in the US. But at least you'll be safe here. You know, at least it is -a big difference between your client got sued because your client told -you to make a product and that product is patented, versus you get sued -for making that product.

    - -

    If there are software patents in India, then you will get sued. -Whereas in the current situation, at least you can say to the client: -“You told us to make this and we made it. So, I'm sorry this -happened to you but it's not our fault.” Whereas if there are -software patents in India, you'll get sued yourself and there is nothing -you can say about that.

    - -

    Businesses should demand opposition to software -patents.

    - -

    So the ultimate conclusion is that software patents tie all software -developers, all computer users and essentially all businesses in a -new kind of bureaucracy, which serves no beneficial social purpose. -So it's a bad policy and it should be avoided.

    - -

    Businesses don't like bureaucracy. If businesses knew that they were -threatened with a new kind of bureaucracy, they would oppose software -patents very strongly. But most of them aren't aware of this.

    - -

    In the US, software patents have led directly to business method -patents. What does this mean? A business method is basically how -you make decisions about what to do in the business. And in the past, -these decisions were made by humans but now sometimes they are made by -computers, and that means they are carried out by software, and that means -the decision policies can be patented. Software patents imply business -method patents and business procedure patents. The result is that any -business could find itself, you know, once they decide “we're -going to automate the way we carry out our procedures,” now they -get sued with a software patent.

    - -

    So if businesses only knew, they would be organizing through things -like the chamber of commerce to demand opposition to software patents. -But mostly they don't know, and therefore it's going to be your job -to inform them. Make sure they understand the danger that they are -facing.

    - -

    It's important for countries to work together against -this.

    - -

    And then India may be able, with the help of other countries like -France and Germany, to reject software patents. It is important for -people in the Indian government to make contact with officials in European -countries, so that this battle against software patents doesn't have to be -fought one country at a time, so that countries can work together to adopt -an intelligent policy. Maybe there should be a no software patents -treaty that various countries can sign and promise each other aid, -when they are threatened by economic pressure from the United States, -as part of its economic imperialism.

    - -

    Because the United States likes to do that, you know. One of -the provisions in the GATT agreement is that countries have the right -to make compulsory licenses for making medicine, to address a public -health crisis. And the South-African government proposed to do this for -medicine against AIDS. Now, South-Africa has a very bad problem with -AIDS; the figures I've heard was that a quarter of the adult population -is infected. And of course, most of them can't afford to buy these -medicines at the prices charged by the US companies.

    - -

    So the South-African government was going to issue compulsory licenses -which, even under GATT, it's allowed to do. But the US government -threatened economic sanctions. Vice-President Gore was directly involved -with this. And then, about a year before the presidential election, -he realized that this was going to look bad, so he dropped out of the -effort.

    - -

    But this kind of thing is what the US government does all the time -in regard to patents and copyrights. They don't even mind if people get -patented to death.

    - -

    So it's important for countries to work together against this.

    - -

    For more information about the problem of software patents, -see www.progfree.org [archived] and www.ffii.org. And there is also a petition -to sign, www.noepatents.org [1] -

    - -

    Please talk with all executives of businesses — any kind -of businesses — about this issue. Make sure they understand -the extent of the problems they face, and that they think of going to -business organizations to have them lobby against software patents.

    - -

    Questions from the audience

    - -

    Now I'll answer questions.

    - -

    Oh, by the way to any journalists who are here, I recommend writing -articles about software patents separately from articles about free -software. If you cover them in one article together, people may get the -idea that software patents are only bad for free software developers -and they are okay for other software developers. This is not true. -If you think back of what I have said, hardly any of it relates to the -question of whether the programs are free or not; the dangers are the -same for all software developers. So please don't take the risk, the -people will get confused. Write separate articles.

    - -

    Questions about software patents

    - -
    -
    Q: Sir, you said that companies like IBM are harmed -about 10 times as much as they benefit?
    - -
    A: No. What I said is the harm that would have happened to - them is 10 times the benefit, but this harm is purely theoretical, - it doesn't occur. You see, they avoid it through cross-licensing. - So in fact, the harm does not happen.
    - -
    Q: But it is only neutralized, they don't really benefit?
    - -
    A: Well, they do you see, because the bad aspect, they avoid - through cross-licensing, and meanwhile they do collect money from some - other licenses. So they are benefiting in total. There is the small - benefit which happens and the big potential harm which does not happen. - So you have zero plus something for the benefit.
    - -
    Q: But for that something will oppose this movement against -patents?
    - -
    A: Right, IBM favors software patents. I had with trouble - one, I couldn't hear all the words in your sentence. I don't know - whether there was a ‘not’ in it. I couldn't tell, there are - two diametrically opposite meanings for what you just said, so what you - can do is make sure that the situation is clear. IBM favors software - patents, IBM thinks it stands to gain a lot from software patents. So - what it stands to gain is that the IBM and the other very big companies - would basically control software development, because it will be very - hard to do independent software development. - -

    To develop nontrivial programs you're going to have to infringe - patents of IBM's. Now if you are big and often lucky enough, you might - have some patents of your own and make IBM cross-license with you. - Otherwise you are completely at their mercy and you have to hope that - they just let you pay the money.

    - -

    Is someone else asking?

    - -
    Q: Sir, what was the reason for the development of the -software patent?
    - -
    A: Well, in the US, there was no reason. Somebody tried to - get a patent that was a software patent, and, I think, the patent office - said no, so he took it to court and eventually went to the Supreme Court - and they, they didn't judge it as a public policy question, they judged - it in terms of what does the law say.
    - -
    Q: So was it not the realization that …
    - -
    A: Sorry, I can't … could you try to pronounce your - consonants more clearly, I'm having trouble understanding the words.
    - -
    Q: So was it not the realization that copyright is notoriously -weak for protecting software?
    - -
    A: Copyright is not only what?
    - -
    Q: Notoriously weak…
    - -
    A: Well, I think the whole sentence is nonsensical. I don't - understand this term “protecting software,” and I don't - agree with you. - -

    Most programmers don't agree with you.

    - -
    Q: So when you are saying that you are not favoring protection -of software and you yourself is giving General Public License, where do -you get that power to issue General Public License?
    - -
    A: OK, you are asking questions about copyright and free - software which is not the topic now, I will accept questions about that - later on, but I gave a speech about software patents and I want to answer - questions about software patents.
    - -
    Q: Sir I have a question about software patents, the thing is -that how can one protect where there is a functional element …
    - -
    A: Protect what?
    - -
    Q: Functional element…
    - -
    A: What's going to happen to them?
    - -
    Q: Sir, how can we get a protection when there is a…
    - -
    A: Protection from what? Somebody's gonna come with a - gun?
    - -
    Q: No Sir …
    - -
    A: Basically the protection you need is the protection against - being sued for the program you wrote. Programmers need protection from - software patents.
    - -
    Q: No, it's not the programmers themselves sir, there are -companies who have invested in something.
    - -
    A: And do you want the company to get sued because in your - large program there are five different things that somebody, that five - different people already patented? Now it's clear to see the myth that - you are operating on, it's the naive idea that, when you develop - a program, you will have the patent. Well, the idea, that very - statement contains a mistake because there is no such thing as the - patent. When you develop a program with many different things in it, - there are many things, each of which might be patented by somebody else - already, and you find out about them one by one when they come to you, - saying: “either pay us a lot of money, or else shut down.” - And when you dealt with five of them, you never know when number six is - going to come along. It's much safer to be in the software field if you - know you are not going to get sued as long as you wrote the program - yourself. - -

    That's the way it was before software patents. If you wrote the - program yourself there was nothing to sue you about. Today you can - write the program yourself, it may even be a useful and innovative - program, but because you didn't reinvent the whole field, you use some - ideas that were already known, other people sue you. Now, of course, - those people who wanna go around suing you, they are going to pretend - that this extortion is protection for them. Protection from what? - Protection from having competitors, I guess. They don't believe in - competition, they want monopolies.

    - -

    Well, to hell with them. It's not good for the public that they - should get what they want. This is a question of public policy. We have +We don't have to worry that chemicals in the environment +will get into the boundary between the if statement and the while +statement and corrode them, and cause a bad connection. We don't have +to worry that other chemicals will get on them and cause a short-circuit. +We don't have to worry about whether the heat can be dissipated from this +if statement through the surrounding while statement. We don't have +to worry about whether the while statement would cause so much voltage +drop that the if statement won't function correctly. When you look at +the value of a variable you don't have to worry about whether you've +referenced that variable so many times that you exceed the fan-out limit. +You don't have to worry about how much capacitance there is in a certain +variable and how much time it will take to store the value in it.

    + +

    All these things are defined a way, the system is defined to function +in a certain way, and it always does. The physical computer might +malfunction, but that's not the program's fault. So, because of all these +problems we don't have to deal with, our field is tremendously easier.

    + +

    If we assume that the intelligence of programmers is the same as +the intelligence of mechanical engineers, and electrical engineers and +chemical engineers and so on, what's going to happen? Those of us with +the easiest field, fundamentally, are going to push it further. We make +bigger and bigger things and eventually it becomes hard again. That's why +we can develop much bigger systems than the people in the other fields. +They just have these hard problems to deal with all the time. In the +other fields, it may be necessary to develop an idea. You may have the +idea, but then you may have to try out lots of different ways to get +it to work at all. In software it's not like that, you have the idea +and what you go and do is you write a program which uses this idea, +and then the users may like it or not. And if they don't like it, +probably you can just fix some details and get it to work.

    + +

    There is another problem that we don't have to worry about: +manufacturing of copies. When we put this if statement inside the +while statement, we don't have to worry about how the if statement is +going to be inserted into the while statement as a copy is being built. +We don't have to worry either about making sure we have access to remove +and replace this if statement if it should burn out. So all we have to do +is type copy and it's an all-purpose copy-anything facility. +People making physical equipment and physical products, they can't do +that, these things have to be built piece by piece each time.

    + +

    The result is that for them, the cost of designing a system of a +certain complexity may be [gesturing] this much and the factory may +take this much to set up. So they have to deal with this much from the +patent system. It's a level of overhead they can live with. For us, +designing it may cost [gesturing] this much and manufacturing it may cost +this much, so this much overhead from the patent system is crushing.

    + +

    Another way to look at it is that because we can—a few of +us can—make a much bigger system, there are many more points +of vulnerability where somebody might have patented something already. +We have to walk a long distance through the mine field, whereas they +they only have to walk a few feet through the minefield. So it's much +more of a dangerous system for us.

    + +

    Program development is hampered by software patents.

    + +

    Now, you have to realize that the ostensible purpose of the patent +system is to promote progress. This is something that is often forgotten +because the companies that benefit from patents like to distract you +from it. They like to give you the idea that patents exist because they +deserve special treatment. But this is not what the patent system says. +The patent system says: the goal is to promote progress for society, +by encouraging certain behavior like publishing new ideas; and after a +certain—originally that was fairly short—time, everyone +could use them.

    + +

    Of course there is a certain price that society pays as well, and so +we have to ask the question: which is bigger, the benefit or the price? +Well, in other fields, I am not sure. I am not an expert on other +fields of engineering, I've never done them and I don't know whether +having patents is good for progress in those fields.

    + +

    I have been in software since before software patents existed, and +I know that software patents do a lot of harm and essentially no good. +In the old days, ideas came along. Either people in a university had +an idea, or somebody had an idea while he was working on developing +software. And either way, these ideas got published, and then everyone +could use them. Now why did the software publishers publish these ideas? +Because they knew that the big job was writing the program.

    + +

    They knew that publishing the ideas would get them credit from the +community, and meanwhile anybody else who wanted to compete with them +would still have to write a program, which is the big job. So they +typically kept the details of the program secret—of course some +of us think that's wrong, but that's a different issue. They kept the +details of the program secret and they published the ideas, and meanwhile +the software development—because software development was going +on—That provided the field with a steady stream of ideas, so +ideas were not the limiting factor. The limiting factor was the job of +writing programs that would work and that people would like using.

    + +

    So, in effect, applying the patent system to software focuses on +facilitating a thing which is not the limiting factor, while causing +trouble for the thing which is the limiting factor. You see the software +patents encourage somebody to have an idea, but at the same time they +encourage people to restrict its use, so in fact we are actually worse +off now in terms of having ideas we could use, because in the past people +had the ideas and published them and we could use them, and now they +have the ideas and patent them and we can't use them for twenty years. +In the mean time, the real limiting factor—which is developing +the programs—this is hampered by software patents because of +other dangers that I explained to you in the first half of this talk.

    + +

    So the result is that, while the system is supposed to be promoting +progress in software, actually it is so screwed up it's just obstructing +progress.

    + +

    Today we have some economic research showing mathematically how this +can happen. You can find it in www.researchoninnovation.org. +I am not completely sure of the name of the paper, but it's one +that shows that in a field where incremental innovation is typical, +having a patent system can result in slower progress. In other words the +system produces counter-intuitive results that are the opposite of what it +was intended to do. This backs up the intuitive conclusion of every +programmer who sees that software patents are absurd.

    + +

    What can a country do to avoid this problem?

    + +

    So, what can a country do to avoid this problem? Well, there are +two approaches: one is to address the problem at the issue of granting +patents, and the other is to approach it at the point where patents are +being enforced.

    + +

    Doing this at the stage of granting patents is not quite as easy +as you might think. Now, I have been talking about software patents +but strictly speaking you can't classify patents into hardware patents +and software patents, because one patent might cover both hardware and +software. So in fact my definition of a software patent is: a patent +that can restrict software development.

    + +

    And if you look at many software patents you often find that the +system they describe has a large part of the computer itself as part of +the description of what's going on. That's a great way of making the +whole thing seem complicated when it is really trivial. So it's a way +they can get the patent office to decide it's unobvious.

    + +

    But there is a different criterion that can be used, a slightly +different place to draw the line that still does a reasonable job, and +that is between processes that transform matter in a specific way, and +processes where the result is just calculation and display of information, +or a combination of data processing and display steps—or others +have put it as: mental steps being carried out by equipment. There are +various ways of formulating this, which are more or less equivalent.

    + +

    Now this is not exactly the same as prohibiting software patents, +because in some cases computers are used as part of specific physical +equipment to make it do a specific thing. And software patents might be +allowed if they are part of a specific physical activity. But that's not +really a disaster. After all, once people are involved in a specific +physical activity or a specific physical product, they are bringing +into their whole business all those complexities of dealing with matter. +So it's more like those other fields of engineering. Maybe it's okay to +have patents on that narrow kind of software. As long as we can keep the +core areas of software, the purely software activities safe from patents, +we have solved the bulk of the problem.

    + +

    So that is a feasible approach and that's what people are working +towards in Europe. However, that is not going to be any use in the +United States because the United States already has tens of thousands, +probably hundreds of thousands of software patents. Any change in the +criteria for issuing patents does not help at all with the patents that +already exist.

    + +

    So what I propose to the United States is to change the criteria +for applying patents, to say that purely software systems running +on general purpose computing hardware are immune from patents. +They by definition cannot infringe a patent. And this way the patents +can still be granted exactly the way they are now, and they can still, +in a formal sense, cover both hardware implementations and software +implementations as they do now. But software will be safe.

    + +

    Preventing India from having software patents will be +up to the citizens of India.

    + +

    That's the solution I propose to the US, but it could be used in +other countries as well.

    + +

    Now, one of the tremendous dangers facing most countries today +is the World Trade Organization, which sets up a system of corporate +regulated trade—not free trade as its proponents like to call +it, but corporate regulated trade. It replaces the regulation of trade +by governments, that are somewhat democratic and might listen to the +interest of their citizens, with regulation of trade by businesses, +which don't pretend to listen to the citizens. So it's fundamentally +antidemocratic and ought to be abolished.

    + +

    But it's crucial to note that the part of the GATT agreement which +deals with patents does not require software patents. Many experts who +have studied this, for instance in Europe, make this claim. And the +reason is that they interpret technical effect as: there is a specific +physical consequence or physical system going on. And so the software +that doesn't do that doesn't have to be in the domain that patents +can cover.

    + +

    So, at least you don't have to worry about the Word Trade Organization +causing problems here, despite the tremendous problems they cause in +other areas of life.

    + +

    Preventing India from having software patents will be up to you—to +the citizens of India. I am a foreigner, I have no influence +except when I can convince other people through the logic of what I say. +There is a chance that you can do this. When the US started to have +software patents, the public policy question was not considered at all. +Nobody even asked whether it was a good idea to have software patents. +The Supreme Court made a decision which was then twisted around by an +appeals court, and ever since then, there were software patents.

    + +

    But when Europe started to consider officially authorizing software +patents a few years ago, public opposition started to rise and became +so strong that the politicians and the parties began paying attention +to it, and started saying they were against it. In fact two attempts +to authorize software patents have been blocked already in Europe. +The French Minister of Industry says that software patents would be a +disaster and under no circumstances should they be allowed in France. +All of the German political parties have taken a stand against software +patents.

    + +

    The battle is not yet over, you know. We have not conclusively +blocked software patents in Europe, because the multinational companies +and their servant, the United States government, is lobbying very hard, +and they have ignorance on their side. It's so easy for somebody with +a naive neo-liberal view to be persuaded that a new kind of monopoly +has to be good!

    + +

    You have to look at the details of how software patents affect +software development to see that they cause a problem. You have to +study that economic research in its mathematics in order to see why you +shouldn't assume that patents always promote progress. So, it's easy +for IBM to send a lobbyist to someone and say: “You should really +adopt software patents, they are great for programming. And look, the US +is ahead and the US has software patents. If you have software patents +too, you might catch up.” Well, you can't get more dominant than +that, and the US was ahead in computers before it had software patents, +it can't be because of software patents.

    + +

    It's important to understand that each country has its own patent +system and its own patent laws and what you do in a certain country is +under the jurisdiction of that country's patent law. So the result is, +that if the US has software patents, the US becomes a sort of battleground +where anybody using computers might get sued. If India avoids software +patents, then India is not a battleground, and computer users in India +do not face this danger of getting sued.

    + +

    It turns out that each country will issue patents to foreigners, +just as to its own citizens. So in fact, in a place which has this +scourge of software patents, foreigners can own those patents. There are +lots of non-US companies that own US software patents, so they are all +welcome to get involved in the fighting in the US. Of course it's we +Americans who become the victims of this. Meanwhile, in India, if there +are no software patents, that means both Indian companies and foreign +companies are prevented from coming into India and attacking people with +software patents.

    + +

    So, yes it is important that each country has its own patent law. +That makes a big difference, but you've got to understand what difference +it makes. Having software patents in a certain country is not an +advantage for the developers in that country. It's a problem for anybody +distributing and using software in that country.

    + +

    Now, if you in India are developing a program for use in the US, +you may face the problem—or at least your client will face the +problem—of US software patents. At least probably you can't +get sued here. The client who commissioned the program and tries to use +it might get sued in the US, and indeed you will have to deal with the +problem—the US's problems—when you try doing business +in the US. But at least you'll be safe here. You know, at least it is +a big difference between your client got sued because your client told +you to make a product and that product is patented, versus you get sued +for making that product.

    + +

    If there are software patents in India, then you will get sued. +Whereas in the current situation, at least you can say to the client: +“You told us to make this and we made it. So, I'm sorry this +happened to you but it's not our fault.” Whereas if there are +software patents in India, you'll get sued yourself and there is nothing +you can say about that.

    + +

    Businesses should demand opposition to software +patents.

    + +

    So the ultimate conclusion is that software patents tie all software +developers, all computer users and essentially all businesses in a +new kind of bureaucracy, which serves no beneficial social purpose. +So it's a bad policy and it should be avoided.

    + +

    Businesses don't like bureaucracy. If businesses knew that they were +threatened with a new kind of bureaucracy, they would oppose software +patents very strongly. But most of them aren't aware of this.

    + +

    In the US, software patents have led directly to business method +patents. What does this mean? A business method is basically how +you make decisions about what to do in the business. And in the past, +these decisions were made by humans but now sometimes they are made by +computers, and that means they are carried out by software, and that means +the decision policies can be patented. Software patents imply business +method patents and business procedure patents. The result is that any +business could find itself, you know, once they decide “we're +going to automate the way we carry out our procedures,” now they +get sued with a software patent.

    + +

    So if businesses only knew, they would be organizing through things +like the chamber of commerce to demand opposition to software patents. +But mostly they don't know, and therefore it's going to be your job +to inform them. Make sure they understand the danger that they are +facing.

    + +

    It's important for countries to work together against +this.

    + +

    And then India may be able, with the help of other countries like +France and Germany, to reject software patents. It is important for +people in the Indian government to make contact with officials in European +countries, so that this battle against software patents doesn't have to be +fought one country at a time, so that countries can work together to adopt +an intelligent policy. Maybe there should be a no software patents +treaty that various countries can sign and promise each other aid, +when they are threatened by economic pressure from the United States, +as part of its economic imperialism.

    + +

    Because the United States likes to do that, you know. One of +the provisions in the GATT agreement is that countries have the right +to make compulsory licenses for making medicine, to address a public +health crisis. And the South-African government proposed to do this for +medicine against AIDS. Now, South-Africa has a very bad problem with +AIDS; the figures I've heard was that a quarter of the adult population +is infected. And of course, most of them can't afford to buy these +medicines at the prices charged by the US companies.

    + +

    So the South-African government was going to issue compulsory licenses +which, even under GATT, it's allowed to do. But the US government +threatened economic sanctions. Vice-President Gore was directly involved +with this. And then, about a year before the presidential election, +he realized that this was going to look bad, so he dropped out of the +effort.

    + +

    But this kind of thing is what the US government does all the time +in regard to patents and copyrights. They don't even mind if people get +patented to death.

    + +

    So it's important for countries to work together against this.

    + +

    For more information about the problem of software patents, +see www.progfree.org [archived] and www.ffii.org. And there is also a petition +to sign, www.noepatents.org [1] +

    + +

    Please talk with all executives of businesses—any kind +of businesses—about this issue. Make sure they understand +the extent of the problems they face, and that they think of going to +business organizations to have them lobby against software patents.

    + +

    Questions from the audience

    + +

    Now I'll answer questions.

    + +

    Oh, by the way to any journalists who are here, I recommend writing +articles about software patents separately from articles about free +software. If you cover them in one article together, people may get the +idea that software patents are only bad for free software developers +and they are okay for other software developers. This is not true. +If you think back of what I have said, hardly any of it relates to the +question of whether the programs are free or not; the dangers are the +same for all software developers. So please don't take the risk, the +people will get confused. Write separate articles.

    + +

    Questions about software patents

    + +
    +
    Q: Sir, you said that companies like IBM are harmed +about 10 times as much as they benefit?
    + +
    A: No. What I said is the harm that would have happened to + them is 10 times the benefit, but this harm is purely theoretical, + it doesn't occur. You see, they avoid it through cross-licensing. + So in fact, the harm does not happen.
    + +
    Q: But it is only neutralized, they don't really benefit?
    + +
    A: Well, they do you see, because the bad aspect, they avoid + through cross-licensing, and meanwhile they do collect money from some + other licenses. So they are benefiting in total. There is the small + benefit which happens and the big potential harm which does not happen. + So you have zero plus something for the benefit.
    + +
    Q: But for that something will oppose this movement against +patents?
    + +
    A: Right, IBM favors software patents. I had with trouble + one, I couldn't hear all the words in your sentence. I don't know + whether there was a “not” in it. I couldn't tell, there are + two diametrically opposite meanings for what you just said, so what you + can do is make sure that the situation is clear. IBM favors software + patents, IBM thinks it stands to gain a lot from software patents. So + what it stands to gain is that the IBM and the other very big companies + would basically control software development, because it will be very + hard to do independent software development. + +

    To develop nontrivial programs you're going to have to infringe + patents of IBM's. Now if you are big and often lucky enough, you might + have some patents of your own and make IBM cross-license with you. + Otherwise you are completely at their mercy and you have to hope that + they just let you pay the money.

    + +

    Is someone else asking?

    + +
    Q: Sir, what was the reason for the development of the +software patent?
    + +
    A: Well, in the US, there was no reason. Somebody tried to + get a patent that was a software patent, and, I think, the patent office + said no, so he took it to court and eventually went to the Supreme Court + and they, they didn't judge it as a public policy question, they judged + it in terms of what does the law say.
    + +
    Q: So was it not the realization that…
    + +
    A: Sorry, I can't … could you try to pronounce your + consonants more clearly, I'm having trouble understanding the words.
    + +
    Q: So was it not the realization that copyright is notoriously +weak for protecting software?
    + +
    A: Copyright is not only what?
    + +
    Q: Notoriously weak…
    + +
    A: Well, I think the whole sentence is nonsensical. I don't + understand this term “protecting software,” and I don't + agree with you. + +

    Most programmers don't agree with you.

    + +
    Q: So when you are saying that you are not favoring protection +of software and you yourself is giving General Public License, where do +you get that power to issue General Public License?
    + +
    A: OK, you are asking questions about copyright and free + software which is not the topic now, I will accept questions about that + later on, but I gave a speech about software patents and I want to answer + questions about software patents.
    + +
    Q: Sir I have a question about software patents, the thing is +that how can one protect where there is a functional element…
    + +
    A: Protect what?
    + +
    Q: Functional element…
    + +
    A: What's going to happen to them?
    + +
    Q: Sir, how can we get a protection when there is a…
    + +
    A: Protection from what? Somebody's gonna come with a + gun?
    + +
    Q: No Sir…
    + +
    A: Basically the protection you need is the protection against + being sued for the program you wrote. Programmers need protection from + software patents.
    + +
    Q: No, it's not the programmers themselves sir, there are +companies who have invested in something.
    + +
    A: And do you want the company to get sued because in your + large program there are five different things that somebody, that five + different people already patented? Now it's clear to see the myth that + you are operating on, it's the naive idea that, when you develop + a program, you will have the patent. Well, the idea, that very + statement contains a mistake because there is no such thing as the + patent. When you develop a program with many different things in it, + there are many things, each of which might be patented by somebody else + already, and you find out about them one by one when they come to you, + saying: “either pay us a lot of money, or else shut down.” + And when you dealt with five of them, you never know when number six is + going to come along. It's much safer to be in the software field if you + know you are not going to get sued as long as you wrote the program + yourself. + +

    That's the way it was before software patents. If you wrote the + program yourself there was nothing to sue you about. Today you can + write the program yourself, it may even be a useful and innovative + program, but because you didn't reinvent the whole field, you use some + ideas that were already known, other people sue you. Now, of course, + those people who wanna go around suing you, they are going to pretend + that this extortion is protection for them. Protection from what? + Protection from having competitors, I guess. They don't believe in + competition, they want monopolies.

    + +

    Well, to hell with them. It's not good for the public that they + should get what they want. This is a question of public policy. We have to decide what is good for the citizens generally.

    - -

    Audience: [applause]

    - -

    Not have somebody saying “I wanna have a monopoly - because I think I am so important I should have one, so protect me from - anybody else being allowed to develop software.”

    - -
    Q: You are suggesting that we should avoid making a -battleground for patents, don't we still have to deal with the problem -that there are a lot of American products being sold here and…
    - -
    A: Well…
    - -
    Q: … and we are still going to be mistaken…?
    - -
    A: No! No, you misunderstood. US developers may be in - trouble because of the patent system, and what effect will that have? - It means that there are certain products that won't be coming from the - US, and therefore they won't be sold in the US, or here. You see, - if a developer is in the US and there is a US software patent, that - software developer is going to get sued there, whether or not he tries - to deal with anybody in India, he is going to get sued. But the fact - that he is distributing the program in India is not going to cause him - an additional problem, because that's under the jurisdiction of India. - That's the one thing he will not get sued for. So, basically, - what it means is, whatever exists can be distributed in India, safely, - and the developers who are lucky enough to be in India will be safe - from this kind of gang warfare, and those who are unlucky enough to be - in the US will not be safe.
    - -
    Q: Sir, are you basically against the very concept of -intellectual property rights?
    - -
    A: As I said at the beginning, it is foolish to even - think about that topic. That topic is an overgeneralization. It lumps - together totally different things like copyrights and patents, and so any - opinion about “intellectual property” is a foolish one. I - don't have an opinion about intellectual property, I have opinions about - copyrights, and I have completely different opinions about patents, and - even in the area of patents, you know, I have different opinions in - different fields. Even that area is a big area. And then there are - trademarks which are also “intellectual property”; I think - trademarks are basically a good idea. The US has taken trademarks all - little too far but, basically it is reasonable to have labels that you - can rely on. - -

    So you shouldn't try to have an opinion about intellectual property. - If you are thinking about intellectual property, you are thinking at a - simplistic level. And any conclusions you reach will be simplistic. So, - do as I do, you know, pick one topic at a time and focus on it, and find - out the details about that one area, then you can think intelligently - about that area, and later on you can think intelligently about the - other areas too.

    - -
    Q: So there is an argument that if particular intellectual -property right is not protected…
    - -
    A: I'm sorry, what you are saying makes no sense at all and - is at this foolish general level…
    - -
    Q: Let me complete sir, if that particular intellectual -property right is not protected, it may impede the investment, and this -impediment…
    - -
    A: This generalistic thinking is so simplistic, it's totally - stupid. It makes no sense at all. There is no principle of intellectual - property. Copyrights and patents and trademarks originated completely - separately, they have nothing in common, except later somebody else - made up this term “intellectual property” to call them all - by it.
    - -
    Q: Sir, will you extend this concept to the physical -property?
    - -
    A: No, I'm sorry, none of these things has anything to do with - physical property rights, they are totally different. What do you say - extend “this concept”? Which is “this concept”? - The idea that the term “intellectual property” is a - generalization that leads you into simplistic thinking, should we apply - that to physical property? No, they are totally different. They have - nothing in common.
    - -
    Q: So the basis under which this intellectual property -is protected is “protect the labor,” “intellectual -labor”?
    - -
    A: No! No, you are totally wrong, you are totally wrong. - The purpose of… You have been brainwashed, you have been listening to - the propaganda of the companies that want to have these monopolies. - If you ask what legal scholars say is the basis of these systems, - they say that they are attempts — for copyrights and for patents - — they are attempts to manipulate the behavior of people to get - benefit for the public. Trademarks are a different issue, I think the - issues for trademark are completely different. So you are making an - overgeneralization also.
    - -
    Q: So why can't we extend the very same principle…
    - -
    A: But in any case, your principle is wrong, and if - you take a look at that economic research on www.researchoninnovation.org, - you will see that you are making naive statements, naive blanket - statements that are simply not true. You got the silly idea that creating - a monopoly over some aspect of life always, invariably - makes that aspect of life thrive. Well, this is dumb. Occasionally it - might work, and occasionally it causes a lot of trouble.
    - -
    Q: Don't you think that the same kind of monopoly is created -in favor of a party when he owns a physical property?
    - -
    A: I'm sorry, I can't hear you.
    - -
    Q: Sir, don't you think that the same kind of monopoly rights -are created if a particular physical property is allowed to be owned by -a person, just like an intellectual property?
    - -
    A: Physical property can only be in one place at a time. - You know, only one person can sit in a chair at a time in the normal way. - [Applause] You know these are totally different issues. You know, - trying to generalize to the utmost is a foolish thing to do. We're - dealing with complicated laws that have many, many, many complicated - details and you are asking us to ignore all these details. We're dealing - with laws that have complicated effects in various fields and you are - asking us to ignore the details of their effects. Don't bother - judging… I think that if we are talking about a public policy - issue, we've got to look at the actual results of the policy, not some - myth as to what results a certain ideology would predict. I'm telling - you the real results, I'm telling you what I have seen and what other - programmers have seen.
    - -
    Q: Sir, what about the LZW patent? Is it…
    - -
    A: What about the what?
    - -
    Q: LZW patent?
    - -
    A: The LZW patent?
    - -
    Q: Yeah. Is it still in effect?
    - -
    A: Yes, it is. Well, there are actually two LZW patents as - I explained to you, and they are both still in effect.
    - -
    Q: Sir, so it's for 20 years?
    - -
    A: Yeah, it's not 20 years yet.
    - -
    Q: Sir, can you reduce the scope of the problem by reducing -the period of the patent?
    - -
    A: Definitely, you could. If there were software patents, - but they only lasted for, say, 5 years or three years, that would mostly - solve the problem. Yes it's a pain to have to wait 3 or 5 years, but - it's much, much less of a pain. But, but there is a difficulty there. - The GATT agreement says that patents must last 20 years. So, the only - way you could have something like software patents which lasted for 3 - or 5 years is as follows. - -

    First, make it clear that ordinary patents do not apply, and second, - if you wish, you could create a different system of five-year software - idea monopolies. Well, it's not clear that there is any particular - benefit in these five-year software monopolies but it would be much - better than the current situation. So if you found the government - prepared to make this deal, well, I would say, we should take it. But, - but we have to realize, though, that the first step is to abolish - software patents strictly speaking, and that has to be part of this - deal.

    - -
    Q: So and patent has also now become victim of…
    - -
    A: I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you at all, could you speak - louder?
    - -
    Q: Sir, patent has now become a way of making money by -businesses rather than promoting inventions?
    - -
    A: Yes, a lot of them use it that way.
    - -
    Q: So, sir, can we reduce this problem further by assigning -the patent to the actual inventor rather than a business?
    - -
    A: Not really. What you'll find is that, that aspect of the - relationship between the employee and the business is something that gets - negotiated; and the business has more clout, so they are always going to - end up arranging to have the employee hand the patent to the company. - The other thing is that it doesn't make a big difference who owns the - patent. The point is that you are prohibited from developing a program - using that idea, and it may make some difference precisely who has the - power to sue you. But what you really want is not to be sued at all. - So why look for a half-measure like this? It's much better just to say - that software shouldn't have patents. - -

    Okay, if you gonna pass a note, you'd better read it out loud. - Any other questions?

    - -
    Q: People who are being to Malaysia say that, if we buy a PC -there, the amount of money we would pay for all the standard software -is about a tenth of what we should pay in this country. In Malaysia -they are little more relaxed about patents and copyrights?
    - -
    A: Well, are you not sure what you are talking about? - Because you seem to mixing together copyrights and patents. I'm not - sure if what you are talking about has anything to do with the issue of - software patents.
    - -
    Q: Precisely what I want to know is about: this has something -to do with patents?
    - -
    A: Probably not.
    - -
    Q: Different countries depending on how much, whether they -are part of WTO or not part of WTO…
    - -
    A: No, no.
    - -
    Q: …I think matter…
    - -
    A: You see, I don't know for certain because I don't know - what's going on there. I've never been there. But I suspect that it's - a matter of copyright and has nothing to do with patents, because if you - are talking about the same programs… Remember, software patents - are primarily a restriction on software developers. So if it's the - same program and it was developed, say, in the US, the patent problems - they have are independent of, you know… the patent problems they - have are biggest in the US, not in either India or Malaysia. So, that - probably has to do with copyright, not patents, and that's a totally - different issue. We mustn't lump these issues together.
    - -
    Q: Sir earlier you've told that…
    - -
    A: I'm sorry I can't hear you.
    - -
    Q: Earlier in your speech you've told that software that -should be brought under the purvey of patents is what you defined that -as what can be run on a general purpose machine.
    - -
    A: I'm afraid I can't… Can anyone understand what - he's saying? I cannot understand your words. If you make an effort to - enunciate more clearly, I may be able to understand.
    - -
    Q: You had spoken earlier that software that should be patented -is, you defined that as, software that can be run on a general purpose -machine…
    - -
    A: I'm sorry I didn't say that software should be - patented, so I just can't make out these words. Maybe if you tell that - to someone else, the other person could say it and I could understand.
    - -
    Q: Software patents, like whatever you call software patents, -like those are what can be run on a general purpose machine. So if some -algorithm or some piece of software is capable of being executed on a -general purpose machine, it should not be patented.
    - -
    A: Yes. Now I can hear you, yes. One of the things I - proposed was that patent should not apply to software for general - purpose machines or the use of it on those general purpose machines. - So that if you develop that program or if you are using that program, - you couldn't be sued.
    - -
    Q: We've an increasing number of software not being run on -general purpose machines.
    - -
    A: Well, then that would be covered still by software patents, - so it wouldn't be a total a solution, but at least it would be a partial - solution.
    - -
    Q: So if the defining line is general purpose machines, don't -you see there's a possibility that people could find loopholes in it, -like, to find workarounds for…
    - -
    A: I'm sorry. Do I see a possibility that people would - do what?
    - -
    Q: … of finding loopholes or workarounds of converting -what you would call software patents and to get it actually patented.
    - -
    A: I'm sorry, I do not understand. Loopholes to do… - I'm sorry. What people would do, what software developers would do in - that situation is use general purpose machines more.
    - -
    Q: Some algorithm can be run on a general purpose machine -— what I'd say that, that algorithm, I'm using it for some embedded -device and go ahead and patent it.
    - -
    A: Why you could try it, you misunderstood. The point is - that, you misunderstood what the solution is. The solution is that - if I am developing and using the software on general purpose machines, - then nobody can sue me for patent infringement. So yes, somebody could - get a patent, and maybe he could sue others who are doing specialized - things which involve particular hardware. But they couldn't sue me.
    - -
    Q: Excuse me sir, may I ask you a question.
    - -
    A: Yes.
    - -
    Q: Sir, you spoke of general purpose machines. In the sense, -how would you define these machines, because these days you have a lot -of custom made handheld devices etc. Now some way…
    - -
    A: No, handheld computers are general purpose when they are - not designed to carry out a specific computation or a specific physical - process. They're general purpose computers. They have general purpose - computer chips in them.
    - -
    Q: Then the idea would be contestable in a court of law as -to whether it's a general purpose or not…
    - -
    A: I guess, it will have to be, yeah. The precise details - of drawing those lines, one ends up having to leave to judges.
    - -
    Q: Thank you sir.
    - -
    Q: Germany and France, the only countries who has said no to -patents in Europe…
    - -
    A: Well, I don't know the full situation. Those are the just - the ones I know of. The last time there was a vote, there were going - to be a majority of no votes, and so they dropped the issue. - And I don't remember the other countries.
    - -
    Q: There's no European community decision on this…
    - -
    A: Not yet. In fact, the European Commission itself is - divided. One of the agencies — the one which unfortunately is the - lead agency on this issue — has been won over by the multinationals - and is in favor of software patents, and then the agency that tries to - encourage software development is against them, and so they're trying to - work against it. So if there is somebody who wants to get in touch with - the official in charge of the agency that is opposed to software patents, - I can put them in touch.
    - -
    Q: Is there any country that said ‘no’ to software -patents?
    - -
    A: Well, there are countries which don't have them, but it's - not clear that there's any country which has affirmed this recently.
    - -
    Q: Sir, could you please elaborate on the benefits the software -development community got in European countries from this policy?
    - -
    A: Well, the benefit is that you don't have to be afraid - someone will sue you, because of one of the ideas or a combination of - ideas that you used in a program that you wrote. Basically software - patents mean that if you write a program, somebody else might sue you - and say “you're not allowed to write that program.” The - benefit of not having software patents is you're safe from that. - -

    Now in India you have probably taken for granted that you are safe - from that. But that will only last as long as there are no software - patents in India.

    - -
    Q: Are there any threats to India not acceding to the software -regime?
    - -
    A: Well there's no software regime. The GATT agreement - doesn't require software patents. There is no treaty requiring software - patents.
    - -
    Q: Most people, if they had a chance to get a patent and make -a lot of money out of it, they wouldn't pass it up…
    - -
    A: Well, many people if they had a chance to get a gun and - make a lot of money from, they wouldn't pass it up. - -

    The point is, therefore, let we try not to hand them that opportunity. - For instance, we don't have a government agency handing out guns to - people on the street, and we should not have a government agency handing - out software patents to people on the street either.

    - -
    Q: Being an advocate of this non-patency, have you ever -faced any…
    - -
    A: I'm having trouble hearing you. Please try to make an - effort to pronounce every sound clearly that I might understand.
    - -
    Q: You being an advocate of this non-patency, have you faced -any problems with these multinationals or something?
    - -
    A: Have I faced any problems…
    - -
    Q: … so far in your life?
    - -
    A: I'm sorry. What did he say?
    - -
    Q: Have you faced any problems with multinationals in your -life?
    - -
    A: Well, there are many. In the community where I develop - software, there are many examples of programs that had their features - taken out, programs that didn't have the feature put in the first place, - programs that were not even written for many years, because of this. - There are many examples of jobs we can't do, because we're not allowed - to do them. - -

    Now we collected examples of this, and we are looking for people to - write them up — you know, to look at each example and investigate - it fully and write down a clear description of what happened and what - the harm was and so on. We have had trouble finding people to do this. - We're looking for more. So someone who is really good at writing clear - English might want to volunteer for this.

    - -
    Q: I think he asked whether you had any threat to you by any -multinational companies…
    - -
    A: Well they never threatened my life!
    - -
    Q: Yeah that's the question!
    - -
    A: No, but they do threaten our work. You know, they do + +

    Audience: [applause]

    + +

    Not have somebody saying “I wanna have a monopoly + because I think I am so important I should have one, so protect me from + anybody else being allowed to develop software.”

    + +
    Q: You are suggesting that we should avoid making a +battleground for patents, don't we still have to deal with the problem +that there are a lot of American products being sold here and…
    + +
    A: Well…
    + +
    Q: … and we are still going to be mistaken…?
    + +
    A: No! No, you misunderstood. US developers may be in + trouble because of the patent system, and what effect will that have? + It means that there are certain products that won't be coming from the + US, and therefore they won't be sold in the US, or here. You see, + if a developer is in the US and there is a US software patent, that + software developer is going to get sued there, whether or not he tries + to deal with anybody in India, he is going to get sued. But the fact + that he is distributing the program in India is not going to cause him + an additional problem, because that's under the jurisdiction of India. + That's the one thing he will not get sued for. So, basically, + what it means is, whatever exists can be distributed in India, safely, + and the developers who are lucky enough to be in India will be safe + from this kind of gang warfare, and those who are unlucky enough to be + in the US will not be safe.
    + +
    Q: Sir, are you basically against the very concept of +intellectual property rights?
    + +
    A: As I said at the beginning, it is foolish to even + think about that topic. That topic is an overgeneralization. It lumps + together totally different things like copyrights and patents, and so any + opinion about “intellectual property” is a foolish one. I + don't have an opinion about intellectual property, I have opinions about + copyrights, and I have completely different opinions about patents, and + even in the area of patents, you know, I have different opinions in + different fields. Even that area is a big area. And then there are + trademarks which are also “intellectual property”; I think + trademarks are basically a good idea. The US has taken trademarks all + little too far but, basically it is reasonable to have labels that you + can rely on. + +

    So you shouldn't try to have an opinion about intellectual property. + If you are thinking about intellectual property, you are thinking at a + simplistic level. And any conclusions you reach will be simplistic. So, + do as I do, you know, pick one topic at a time and focus on it, and find + out the details about that one area, then you can think intelligently + about that area, and later on you can think intelligently about the + other areas too.

    + +
    Q: So there is an argument that if particular intellectual +property right is not protected…
    + +
    A: I'm sorry, what you are saying makes no sense at all and + is at this foolish general level…
    + +
    Q: Let me complete sir, if that particular intellectual +property right is not protected, it may impede the investment, and this +impediment…
    + +
    A: This generalistic thinking is so simplistic, it's totally + stupid. It makes no sense at all. There is no principle of intellectual + property. Copyrights and patents and trademarks originated completely + separately, they have nothing in common, except later somebody else + made up this term “intellectual property” to call them all + by it.
    + +
    Q: Sir, will you extend this concept to the physical +property?
    + +
    A: No, I'm sorry, none of these things has anything to do with + physical property rights, they are totally different. What do you say + extend “this concept”? Which is “this concept”? + The idea that the term “intellectual property” is a + generalization that leads you into simplistic thinking, should we apply + that to physical property? No, they are totally different. They have + nothing in common.
    + +
    Q: So the basis under which this intellectual property +is protected is “protect the labor,” “intellectual +labor”?
    + +
    A: No! No, you are totally wrong, you are totally wrong. + The purpose of… You have been brainwashed, you have been listening to + the propaganda of the companies that want to have these monopolies. + If you ask what legal scholars say is the basis of these systems, + they say that they are attempts—for copyrights and for + patents—they are attempts to manipulate the behavior of people to get + benefit for the public. Trademarks are a different issue, I think the + issues for trademark are completely different. So you are making an + overgeneralization also.
    + +
    Q: So why can't we extend the very same principle…
    + +
    A: But in any case, your principle is wrong, and if + you take a look at that economic research on www.researchoninnovation.org, + you will see that you are making naive statements, naive blanket + statements that are simply not true. You got the silly idea that creating + a monopoly over some aspect of life always, invariably + makes that aspect of life thrive. Well, this is dumb. Occasionally it + might work, and occasionally it causes a lot of trouble.
    + +
    Q: Don't you think that the same kind of monopoly is created +in favor of a party when he owns a physical property?
    + +
    A: I'm sorry, I can't hear you.
    + +
    Q: Sir, don't you think that the same kind of monopoly rights +are created if a particular physical property is allowed to be owned by +a person, just like an intellectual property?
    + +
    A: Physical property can only be in one place at a time. + You know, only one person can sit in a chair at a time in the normal way. + [Applause] You know these are totally different issues. You know, + trying to generalize to the utmost is a foolish thing to do. We're + dealing with complicated laws that have many, many, many complicated + details and you are asking us to ignore all these details. We're dealing + with laws that have complicated effects in various fields and you are + asking us to ignore the details of their effects. Don't bother + judging… I think that if we are talking about a public policy + issue, we've got to look at the actual results of the policy, not some + myth as to what results a certain ideology would predict. I'm telling + you the real results, I'm telling you what I have seen and what other + programmers have seen.
    + +
    Q: Sir, what about the LZW patent? Is it…
    + +
    A: What about the what?
    + +
    Q: LZW patent?
    + +
    A: The LZW patent?
    + +
    Q: Yeah. Is it still in effect?
    + +
    A: Yes, it is. Well, there are actually two LZW patents as + I explained to you, and they are both still in effect.
    + +
    Q: Sir, so it's for 20 years?
    + +
    A: Yeah, it's not 20 years yet.
    + +
    Q: Sir, can you reduce the scope of the problem by reducing +the period of the patent?
    + +
    A: Definitely, you could. If there were software patents, + but they only lasted for, say, 5 years or three years, that would mostly + solve the problem. Yes it's a pain to have to wait 3 or 5 years, but + it's much, much less of a pain. But, but there is a difficulty there. + The GATT agreement says that patents must last 20 years. So, the only + way you could have something like software patents which lasted for 3 + or 5 years is as follows. + +

    First, make it clear that ordinary patents do not apply, and second, + if you wish, you could create a different system of five-year software + idea monopolies. Well, it's not clear that there is any particular + benefit in these five-year software monopolies but it would be much + better than the current situation. So if you found the government + prepared to make this deal, well, I would say, we should take it. But, + but we have to realize, though, that the first step is to abolish + software patents strictly speaking, and that has to be part of this + deal.

    + +
    Q: So and patent has also now become victim of…
    + +
    A: I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you at all, could you speak + louder?
    + +
    Q: Sir, patent has now become a way of making money by +businesses rather than promoting inventions?
    + +
    A: Yes, a lot of them use it that way.
    + +
    Q: So, sir, can we reduce this problem further by assigning +the patent to the actual inventor rather than a business?
    + +
    A: Not really. What you'll find is that, that aspect of the + relationship between the employee and the business is something that gets + negotiated; and the business has more clout, so they are always going to + end up arranging to have the employee hand the patent to the company. + The other thing is that it doesn't make a big difference who owns the + patent. The point is that you are prohibited from developing a program + using that idea, and it may make some difference precisely who has the + power to sue you. But what you really want is not to be sued at all. + So why look for a half-measure like this? It's much better just to say + that software shouldn't have patents. + +

    Okay, if you gonna pass a note, you'd better read it out loud. + Any other questions?

    + +
    Q: People who are being to Malaysia say that, if we buy a PC +there, the amount of money we would pay for all the standard software +is about a tenth of what we should pay in this country. In Malaysia +they are little more relaxed about patents and copyrights?
    + +
    A: Well, are you not sure what you are talking about? + Because you seem to mixing together copyrights and patents. I'm not + sure if what you are talking about has anything to do with the issue of + software patents.
    + +
    Q: Precisely what I want to know is about: this has something +to do with patents?
    + +
    A: Probably not.
    + +
    Q: Different countries depending on how much, whether they +are part of WTO or not part of WTO…
    + +
    A: No, no.
    + +
    Q: …I think matter…
    + +
    A: You see, I don't know for certain because I don't know + what's going on there. I've never been there. But I suspect that it's + a matter of copyright and has nothing to do with patents, because if you + are talking about the same programs… Remember, software patents + are primarily a restriction on software developers. So if it's the + same program and it was developed, say, in the US, the patent problems + they have are independent of, you know… the patent problems they + have are biggest in the US, not in either India or Malaysia. So, that + probably has to do with copyright, not patents, and that's a totally + different issue. We mustn't lump these issues together.
    + +
    Q: Sir earlier you've told that…
    + +
    A: I'm sorry I can't hear you.
    + +
    Q: Earlier in your speech you've told that software that +should be brought under the purvey of patents is what you defined that +as what can be run on a general purpose machine.
    + +
    A: I'm afraid I can't… Can anyone understand what + he's saying? I cannot understand your words. If you make an effort to + enunciate more clearly, I may be able to understand.
    + +
    Q: You had spoken earlier that software that should be patented +is, you defined that as, software that can be run on a general purpose +machine…
    + +
    A: I'm sorry I didn't say that software should be + patented, so I just can't make out these words. Maybe if you tell that + to someone else, the other person could say it and I could understand.
    + +
    Q: Software patents, like whatever you call software patents, +like those are what can be run on a general purpose machine. So if some +algorithm or some piece of software is capable of being executed on a +general purpose machine, it should not be patented.
    + +
    A: Yes. Now I can hear you, yes. One of the things I + proposed was that patent should not apply to software for general + purpose machines or the use of it on those general purpose machines. + So that if you develop that program or if you are using that program, + you couldn't be sued.
    + +
    Q: We've an increasing number of software not being run on +general purpose machines.
    + +
    A: Well, then that would be covered still by software patents, + so it wouldn't be a total a solution, but at least it would be a partial + solution.
    + +
    Q: So if the defining line is general purpose machines, don't +you see there's a possibility that people could find loopholes in it, +like, to find workarounds for…
    + +
    A: I'm sorry. Do I see a possibility that people would + do what?
    + +
    Q: … of finding loopholes or workarounds of converting +what you would call software patents and to get it actually patented.
    + +
    A: I'm sorry, I do not understand. Loopholes to do… + I'm sorry. What people would do, what software developers would do in + that situation is use general purpose machines more.
    + +
    Q: Some algorithm can be run on a general purpose machine—what +I'd say that, that algorithm, I'm using it for some embedded +device and go ahead and patent it.
    + +
    A: Why you could try it, you misunderstood. The point is + that, you misunderstood what the solution is. The solution is that + if I am developing and using the software on general purpose machines, + then nobody can sue me for patent infringement. So yes, somebody could + get a patent, and maybe he could sue others who are doing specialized + things which involve particular hardware. But they couldn't sue me.
    + +
    Q: Excuse me sir, may I ask you a question.
    + +
    A: Yes.
    + +
    Q: Sir, you spoke of general purpose machines. In the sense, +how would you define these machines, because these days you have a lot +of custom made handheld devices etc. Now some way…
    + +
    A: No, handheld computers are general purpose when they are + not designed to carry out a specific computation or a specific physical + process. They're general purpose computers. They have general purpose + computer chips in them.
    + +
    Q: Then the idea would be contestable in a court of law as +to whether it's a general purpose or not…
    + +
    A: I guess, it will have to be, yeah. The precise details + of drawing those lines, one ends up having to leave to judges.
    + +
    Q: Thank you sir.
    + +
    Q: Germany and France, the only countries who has said no to +patents in Europe…
    + +
    A: Well, I don't know the full situation. Those are the just + the ones I know of. The last time there was a vote, there were going + to be a majority of no votes, and so they dropped the issue. + And I don't remember the other countries.
    + +
    Q: There's no European community decision on this…
    + +
    A: Not yet. In fact, the European Commission itself is + divided. One of the agencies—the one which unfortunately is the + lead agency on this issue—has been won over by the multinationals + and is in favor of software patents, and then the agency that tries to + encourage software development is against them, and so they're trying to + work against it. So if there is somebody who wants to get in touch with + the official in charge of the agency that is opposed to software patents, + I can put them in touch.
    + +
    Q: Is there any country that said no to software +patents?
    + +
    A: Well, there are countries which don't have them, but it's + not clear that there's any country which has affirmed this recently.
    + +
    Q: Sir, could you please elaborate on the benefits the software +development community got in European countries from this policy?
    + +
    A: Well, the benefit is that you don't have to be afraid + someone will sue you, because of one of the ideas or a combination of + ideas that you used in a program that you wrote. Basically software + patents mean that if you write a program, somebody else might sue you + and say “you're not allowed to write that program.” The + benefit of not having software patents is you're safe from that. + +

    Now in India you have probably taken for granted that you are safe + from that. But that will only last as long as there are no software + patents in India.

    + +
    Q: Are there any threats to India not acceding to the software +regime?
    + +
    A: Well there's no software regime. The GATT agreement + doesn't require software patents. There is no treaty requiring software + patents.
    + +
    Q: Most people, if they had a chance to get a patent and make +a lot of money out of it, they wouldn't pass it up…
    + +
    A: Well, many people if they had a chance to get a gun and + make a lot of money from, they wouldn't pass it up. + +

    The point is, therefore, let we try not to hand them that opportunity. + For instance, we don't have a government agency handing out guns to + people on the street, and we should not have a government agency handing + out software patents to people on the street either.

    + +
    Q: Being an advocate of this non-patency, have you ever +faced any…
    + +
    A: I'm having trouble hearing you. Please try to make an + effort to pronounce every sound clearly that I might understand.
    + +
    Q: You being an advocate of this non-patency, have you faced +any problems with these multinationals or something?
    + +
    A: Have I faced any problems…
    + +
    Q: … so far in your life?
    + +
    A: I'm sorry. What did he say?
    + +
    Q: Have you faced any problems with multinationals in your +life?
    + +
    A: Well, there are many. In the community where I develop + software, there are many examples of programs that had their features + taken out, programs that didn't have the feature put in the first place, + programs that were not even written for many years, because of this. + There are many examples of jobs we can't do, because we're not allowed + to do them. + +

    Now we collected examples of this, and we are looking for people to + write them up—you know, to look at each example and investigate + it fully and write down a clear description of what happened and what + the harm was and so on. We have had trouble finding people to do this. + We're looking for more. So someone who is really good at writing clear + English might want to volunteer for this.

    + +
    Q: I think he asked whether you had any threat to you by any +multinational companies…
    + +
    A: Well they never threatened my life!
    + +
    Q: Yeah that's the question!
    + +
    A: No, but they do threaten our work. You know, they do threaten to sue us.
    -
    - -

    Questions about free software

    - -
    Volunteer: There's a question from a gentleman at the -back: “If the multinational companies that produce hardware, like -Intel, coming to a contract with big software companies to restrict free -software by changing the microprocessor patents, how will you overcome -such a hazard?”
    - -
    A: I see very little danger of that. Intel recently - developed a new computer architecture, and far from trying to stop us - from supporting it, they hired people to implement it. - -

    So it looks like we have now moved to free software questions. - I'd like to remind people that, until this last answer, I was not - speaking for the Free Software movement. I was speaking about something - of vital interest to every programmer which is: to be free to write - programs and not get sued for having written them, as long as you wrote - it yourself. And that is a freedom that you've taken for granted until - now, and it's a freedom you will lose if you have software patents.

    - -

    Now however we're moving to the topic of free software, which is - what I spent most of my time working on, and the individual, the actual - software development project that I've lead, which is developing the GNU - operating system, which is a free software, Unix-like operating system - used by some twenty million people estimated today. So I am now going - to start answering questions about free software and GNU.

    - -
    Q: In the absence of a concrete revenue model for free -software, will this also go bust like the dotcom?
    - -
    A: I can't predict the future but I want to remind you - that the dotcoms were businesses. And free software is not primarily - a business. There are some free software businesses. Whether they - will succeed or ultimately fail, I don't know. But those businesses, - while they contribute to our community, they are not what our community - is all about. What our community is all about is having the freedom to - redistribute and study and change software. A lot of free software is - developed by volunteers, and the amount is increasing. No matter what - happens with the companies, that's not going away.
    - -
    Q: I understand that companies like IBM are also investing -considerably in making their systems and software compatible with free -source code like Linux…
    - -
    A: You mean GNU?
    - -
    Q: All right…
    - -
    A: Yes, they call it Linux. Actually the system is mainly - GNU and Linux is one of the pieces.
    - -
    [From audience] The kernel is hardly eighteen percent.
    - -
    A: Well, really, that much? What I saw is three percent.
    - -
    [From audience] You can see through a needle. Very -insignificant.
    - -
    Q: But, I also understand that they've invested around a -billion dollars in doing so. Now my question is…
    - -
    A: Well that's not true.
    - -
    Q: My question is: for a service that has no revenue model, -will this be sustainable in the future, and if I change my business -into…
    - -
    A: I'm sorry, I can't predict the future. No one can.
    - -
    Q: How can I…
    - -
    A: There are some God men who claim they can predict the - future. I'm not. I'm a rationalist. - -

    I can't tell you what's going to happen. What I can tell you is - that when IBM claims to have put a billion dollars into the GNU plus - Linux operating system, that is not entirely true. You have to look - carefully at what they're spending this money on, and you'll find they - are spending this money on various different things, some contribute - and some don't.

    - -

    For instance, they are funding some work on developing the GNU/Linux - system. That's good, that contributes. They do develop some other free - software packages that they've contributed to the community. That's a - real contribution.

    - -

    They are also developing many nonfree programs to make them run - with the GNU/Linux system and that is not a contribution. And they - are publicizing the system, well, it's not a primary contribution but - it does help, you know. Having more users is not our primary goal. - But it's nice, if more people would try our software, so that does help, - but then they're mistakenly calling this Linux which is not quite right, - and they're lobbying for software patents in Europe, which is bad. So, - you know, IBM is doing many different things. Some are good and some - are bad, and if you want to have a thoughtful view, it's important to - look at the individual actions. Do not try to add it up because that - just means you're missing the important aspects of the situation.

    - -

    Are there any more questions?

    - -
    Q: [...]
    - -
    A: I can't hear you at all, I'm sorry [...] whispering. - I'm a little bit hard of hearing, and when you combine that with the - noise of the fans, and with the unusual accent, all three of those things +
    + +

    Questions about free software

    + +
    Volunteer: There's a question from a gentleman at the +back: “If the multinational companies that produce hardware, like +Intel, coming to a contract with big software companies to restrict free +software by changing the microprocessor patents, how will you overcome +such a hazard?”
    + +
    A: I see very little danger of that. Intel recently + developed a new computer architecture, and far from trying to stop us + from supporting it, they hired people to implement it. + +

    So it looks like we have now moved to free software questions. + I'd like to remind people that, until this last answer, I was not + speaking for the Free Software movement. I was speaking about something + of vital interest to every programmer which is: to be free to write + programs and not get sued for having written them, as long as you wrote + it yourself. And that is a freedom that you've taken for granted until + now, and it's a freedom you will lose if you have software patents.

    + +

    Now however we're moving to the topic of free software, which is + what I spent most of my time working on, and the individual, the actual + software development project that I've lead, which is developing the GNU + operating system, which is a free software, Unix-like operating system + used by some twenty million people estimated today. So I am now going + to start answering questions about free software and GNU.

    + +
    Q: In the absence of a concrete revenue model for free +software, will this also go bust like the dotcom?
    + +
    A: I can't predict the future but I want to remind you + that the dotcoms were businesses. And free software is not primarily + a business. There are some free software businesses. Whether they + will succeed or ultimately fail, I don't know. But those businesses, + while they contribute to our community, they are not what our community + is all about. What our community is all about is having the freedom to + redistribute and study and change software. A lot of free software is + developed by volunteers, and the amount is increasing. No matter what + happens with the companies, that's not going away.
    + +
    Q: I understand that companies like IBM are also investing +considerably in making their systems and software compatible with free +source code like Linux…
    + +
    A: You mean GNU?
    + +
    Q: All right…
    + +
    A: Yes, they call it Linux. Actually the system is mainly + GNU and Linux is one of the pieces.
    + +
    [From audience] The kernel is hardly eighteen percent.
    + +
    A: Well, really, that much? What I saw is three percent.
    + +
    [From audience] You can see through a needle. Very +insignificant.
    + +
    Q: But, I also understand that they've invested around a +billion dollars in doing so. Now my question is…
    + +
    A: Well that's not true.
    + +
    Q: My question is: for a service that has no revenue model, +will this be sustainable in the future, and if I change my business +into…
    + +
    A: I'm sorry, I can't predict the future. No one can.
    + +
    Q: How can I…
    + +
    A: There are some God men who claim they can predict the + future. I'm not. I'm a rationalist. + +

    I can't tell you what's going to happen. What I can tell you is + that when IBM claims to have put a billion dollars into the GNU plus + Linux operating system, that is not entirely true. You have to look + carefully at what they're spending this money on, and you'll find they + are spending this money on various different things, some contribute + and some don't.

    + +

    For instance, they are funding some work on developing the GNU/Linux + system. That's good, that contributes. They do develop some other free + software packages that they've contributed to the community. That's a + real contribution.

    + +

    They are also developing many nonfree programs to make them run + with the GNU/Linux system and that is not a contribution. And they + are publicizing the system, well, it's not a primary contribution but + it does help, you know. Having more users is not our primary goal. + But it's nice, if more people would try our software, so that does help, + but then they're mistakenly calling this Linux which is not quite right, + and they're lobbying for software patents in Europe, which is bad. So, + you know, IBM is doing many different things. Some are good and some + are bad, and if you want to have a thoughtful view, it's important to + look at the individual actions. Do not try to add it up because that + just means you're missing the important aspects of the situation.

    + +

    Are there any more questions?

    + +
    Q: […]
    + +
    A: I can't hear you at all, I'm sorry […] whispering. + I'm a little bit hard of hearing, and when you combine that with the + noise of the fans, and with the unusual accent, all three of those things together make very hard for me to make out the words.
    - -
    Q: This question is not about patent or copyright or anything -like that. But this is one example what you said about — if -statement and while statement — that you said something about the -differences in the field of computer science and differences with other -sciences, that is other engineering sciences. You said that if I change -something in the if loop that's if statement, there won't be any effect, -that you said…
    - -
    A: No I didn't say that.
    - -
    Q: You said that! You said that there isn't any heating -effect. I remember that…
    - -
    A: I'm sorry, I know what I said. I said something that's - partly similar to that…
    - -
    Q: I'll tell the exact statement: you said there won't any -heating effect.
    - -
    A: Any whating effect?
    - -
    Q: Heating effect. Heating…
    - -
    A: Oh yes we don't have to worry about how much heat the - if statement…
    - -
    Q: Yeah, yeah, exactly. Then what is it that cascading effect -is? If I change the structure of the loop, there will be an effect.
    - -
    A: Oh sure. The program will behave differently when you - change it, but I'm not saying that writing every program is easy, or that - we never make mistakes. I listed a lot of specific kinds of problems, - that would plague a mechanical or electrical engineer at every little - detail. Even each one detail gets to be very hard for them. Whereas for - us, the problems are because we do so much, we're doing it so fast, - we don't think carefully about each one thing. So we make mistakes.
    - -
    Q: So you admit that there's an effect.
    - -
    A: Of course. I never said otherwise, I'm sorry if you - thought so. Sure if you change your program it's going to do different - things.
    - -
    Q: Sir, can you comment on the commercial distributions?
    - -
    A: Well, you asked me to comment on the commercial - distribution of GNU/Linux systems? Well, I think that's fine. That's one - of the freedoms that free software gives you — the freedom to use - it in business, the freedom to distribute it as part of a business, the - freedom to sell copies in exchange for money. These are all legitimate. - -

    Now, one thing I am unhappy about is when the companies that do this - add some nonfree software to it.

    - -
    Q: That's the installation program?
    - -
    A: Yeah, any nonfree software. Because the goal was: you - should be able to get a completely free operating system. Well, if - they have a thing in a store which says I'm the GNU/Linux system — - of course it says Linux — but inside of it there are some nonfree - programs, now you're not getting something that is entirely free anymore. - It doesn't entirely respect your freedom. So the real goal for which - we wrote the system is being lost. - -

    So that's a major problem that our community faces now, the tendency - to put free software together with nonfree software and make these - nonfree overall systems. And then, you know, it might seem that our - software is a success because there are many people using it. But if - you look at our real goal, our real goal is not popularity. Our real - goal is to spread a community of freedom, and we're not succeeding in - doing that if the people are using nonfree software still.

    - -

    Unfortunately, I couldn't give both speeches. I can give a - speech about software patents, or I can give a speech about free - software. They're very different and each one of them is a long speech. - So unfortunately what that means is that I can't fully explain about free - software and the GNU project here. Am I giving another speech in Kochi? - Am I giving the free software speech in Kochi?

    - -
    Q: No.
    - -
    A: Oh well. I gave that speech in Trivandrum. - -

    So I'll answer five more questions and then I'll have to call it - quits because it gets to be quite draining to answer so many.

    - -
    Q: Excuse me sir, question from me again. Sir, this is a -personal question. Me, as such, I love programming. I spend a lot -of time in front of my system. And I was listening to some of your -earlier speeches where you said that back in the 70's, the community of -programmers had a sense of goodwill among them. They used to share code, -they used to develop on it.
    - -
    A: Well, a specific community of programmers which I belonged - to. This was not all programmers. It was one specific community. - Continue.
    - -
    Q: Yes sir. In that context, I feel particularly, me as such, -I feel very hurt when I see the so-called interaction among programmers -today. Because many of us are very good programmers, but we look at -each other in different colors depending upon the tools we use — -“hey, he's a windows guy,” “hey, he's a GNU/Linux -guy,” “hey, he's into Solaris systems,” “he's a -network programmer.” And unfortunately most of this prejudice comes -from a lot of misinterpretation out of things like this. None of these -people promote free software as such, and it hurts me as a programmer -and many of my colleagues, and I work in an environment…
    - -
    A: Could you speak a bit more slowly, I am hearing most - of it, but there was one point that I miss, so if you speak slowly I - will…
    - -
    Q: Yeah, here we work with in an environment where you -are judged according to the tools you use rather than the quality of -work.
    - -
    A: To me that, well, in one sense there is a situation where - in a limited way that is rational. If there is a tool which is normally - used for doing fairly easy jobs and there are lot of people who now had - to do it, then I would imagine now, I wouldn't want, I might not pay as - much to them as somebody who does very hard jobs with a different tool - that's used for hard jobs. But it's true if you're talking about hard - jobs, it makes no sense that you'd be prejudiced about what tools people - are using. The good programmers can use any tools.
    - -
    Q: That was not the focus here. The focus was that here it is -a question of goodwill. Goodwill amongst programmers these days seems -to be, you know, melted out into these little boxes of this system and -that system, and that hurts.
    - -
    A: I agree we should encourage people to learn about more - different things and we should never be prejudiced against people because - of some detail, you know the fact that this person likes Perl and this - person likes C, why should they hate each other…
    - -
    Q: It's not even that distinct. It's like this person works -on GNU/Linux and this person works on Windows, which are the two major -operating systems today in India at least.
    - -
    A: Well, in that case, though, it's not just a prejudice, - you see. Windows is a system, a social system, that keeps people - helpless and divided [applause], whereas GNU/Linux is an alternative - that was created specifically to liberate people and to encourage them - to cooperate. So to some extent, this is not like: “where you - born in this country or that country?” No, this is like your - choice of politics. And it does make sense to criticize people for - their choices about important issues. - -

    So, I would say, a person who's using Windows, well, either he is - actively supporting this power structure, or at least maybe he's trapped - in it and doesn't have the courage to get out. In that case you can - forgive him, I guess, and encourage him. You know, there are different - situations of people; in any place there are people… different. - Some people are making more or less effort to try to improve things. - I believe in judging people as individuals, not as lumping them together - by their groups.

    - -

    But this is, in this one case it is, somewhat of a political choice - with political consequences for society, and that's exactly where it - makes sense to criticize people.

    - -
    Q: Sorry to continue again on this, but I'm a little persistent -about this. It's…
    - -
    A: This is your last chance.
    - -
    Q: Yes sir, thank you. Generally when statements like these -are made, people who are not so much, you know, in connection with -these things tend to assume that cooperative communities and sharing -of source code and sharing of ideas and things like that don't exist in -other environments, but they do, and that's very unfortunate that they -think so.
    - -
    A: I'm sorry… What don't exist in other - environments? I don't know which other environments you're talking about. - I don't understand.
    - -
    Q: Other programming environments, other operating -systems.
    - -
    A: Well maybe there are some users developing some free - software that runs on Windows, in fact I'm sure there are… - -

    Note: At this point, there was a short blackout, and both the -recording and the transcript is incomplete here.

    - -
    A: Well, maybe there, are there anymore questions? Could you - speak louder? I can't hear you at all.
    - -
    Q: Sir may I ask you a question?
    - -
    A: Okay you can, sure.
    - -
    Q: In free software system we will be distributing the source -code also together with the software. So a person is entitled to change -whatever he can in the source code. So don't you think there will be -too many software versions of a particular software and this will in turn -cause problems for a layman to find out which will suit him the most.
    - -
    A: Practical experience is that this is not a problem. - And occasionally it happens, but not very often. Now, you see, the - reason is that the users want interoperability and with free software the - users are ultimately in control, and what they want they tend to get. The - free software developers realize that they had better — if they are - going to make incompatible changes they are likely to make users unhappy - and their versions are not going to be used. So they generally draw the - obvious conclusion and pay a lot of attention to interoperability.
    - -
    Q: What I feel is that like I'll be just loading a software -into my computer and the next morning I'll find a better version then -again I'll have to change it. The next morning again something has -been done to the source code and that's a better version, so don't -you…
    - -
    A: In general you are not going be finding a better version - every day and the reason is that typically for any given program, there - is usually only one version that is widely used. Maybe there will be - two, once in a while there will be three — when there is no good - maintainer that might happen. So you are just not going to keep finding - out about more versions that are good every day; there aren't so many. - There won't be that many popular versions. There is one situation - where you can get a new version every day. That is when there is one - team doing a lot of work on development then every day you can get their - latest version. That you can do. But that's only one version at any - given time.
    - -
    Q: Sir, don't you think we will have to implement an -organization which will take into consideration all these updations and -it will just provide a single software which will have all the updations -right?
    - -
    A: I'm sorry, I didn't hear that. Shouldn't we have an - organization that would do something with all these versions, but I - don't know what.
    - -
    Q: Like, say I have developed a version of…
    - -
    A: Did anyone else hear what she said? Could anyone else - tell me what she said?
    - -
    Q: The thing is that…
    - -
    A: It's a very valuable skill to learn to speak slowly and - clearly. If you ever want to give a speech, which as part of your career - you will, it's very helpful to learn to enunciate clearly and slowly.
    - -
    Q: Thank you, Sir. Sir, the thing is that, don't you feel that -we require an organization which will just perform a number of updations -together and make available a software which will club all the updations -up to that date?
    - -
    A: You are saying, take various different applications and - put them together?
    - -
    Q: Yes Sir.
    - -
    A: I will tell you. A lot of organizations are doing that; - in fact every one of the GNU/Linux distributions is exactly that. - Debian does that, Red Hat does that… We to some extent do that - also for the GNU packages. We work on making sure they work together.
    - -
    Q: Excuse me Sir. We have talked lot against patents. In US -conditions have you ever been forced to put forward any applications -for patents?
    - -
    A: No. But no one can force me to make a patent application.
    - -
    Q: Also do you own any patents?
    - -
    A: I do not own any patents. Now, I have considered the - possibility of applying for patents to use them as part of a mutual - strategic defense alliance.
    - -
    Q: Do you mean to say that if I have twenty patents with me, -I donate it to the FSF and you maintain it for me?
    - -
    A: Well, not the FSF. It would be a separate specialized - organization that would exist specifically, so that we would all - contribute our patents and the organization would use all of these - patents to shelter anyone who wishes shelter. So anyone can join the - organization, even somebody who has no patents. And that person gets the - shelter of this organization. But then we all do try to get patents so - as to make the organization stronger so it can protect us all better. - That's the idea, but so far no one has been able to get this started. - It's not an easy thing to do, and part of the reason is that applying - for a patent is very expensive — and a lot of work as well. - -

    So this will be the last question.

    - -
    Q: Why can't the Free Software Foundation start its own -distribution?
    - -
    A: Oh well, the reason is that Debian is almost what we want, - and it seems better to be friends with Debian and try to convince them - to change it a little, rather than say “well, we are not going to - use it; we are going to make our own thing.” And also it seems - likely to be more successful too because, after all, there are a lot - of people working on Debian already. Why try to make an alternative to - that large community. Much better to work with them and convince them - to support our goals better — if it works, of course, and we have - our ways to go on that.
    -
    - -

    So that was the last question, I can't stay all day answering -questions, I'm sorry. So at this point I am going to have to call a halt -and get going, and go have lunch. So thank you for listening.

    - -

    [Applause].

    - - -

    Footnote

    - -

    [1] + +

    Q: This question is not about patent or copyright or anything +like that. But this is one example what you said about—if +statement and while statement—that you said something about the +differences in the field of computer science and differences with other +sciences, that is other engineering sciences. You said that if I change +something in the if loop that's if statement, there won't be any effect, +that you said…
    + +
    A: No I didn't say that.
    + +
    Q: You said that! You said that there isn't any heating +effect. I remember that…
    + +
    A: I'm sorry, I know what I said. I said something that's + partly similar to that…
    + +
    Q: I'll tell the exact statement: you said there won't any +heating effect.
    + +
    A: Any whating effect?
    + +
    Q: Heating effect. Heating…
    + +
    A: Oh yes we don't have to worry about how much heat the + if statement…
    + +
    Q: Yeah, yeah, exactly. Then what is it that cascading effect +is? If I change the structure of the loop, there will be an effect.
    + +
    A: Oh sure. The program will behave differently when you + change it, but I'm not saying that writing every program is easy, or that + we never make mistakes. I listed a lot of specific kinds of problems, + that would plague a mechanical or electrical engineer at every little + detail. Even each one detail gets to be very hard for them. Whereas for + us, the problems are because we do so much, we're doing it so fast, + we don't think carefully about each one thing. So we make mistakes.
    + +
    Q: So you admit that there's an effect.
    + +
    A: Of course. I never said otherwise, I'm sorry if you + thought so. Sure if you change your program it's going to do different + things.
    + +
    Q: Sir, can you comment on the commercial distributions?
    + +
    A: Well, you asked me to comment on the commercial + distribution of GNU/Linux systems? Well, I think that's fine. That's one + of the freedoms that free software gives you—the freedom to use + it in business, the freedom to distribute it as part of a business, the + freedom to sell copies in exchange for money. These are all legitimate. + +

    Now, one thing I am unhappy about is when the companies that do this + add some nonfree software to it.

    + +
    Q: That's the installation program?
    + +
    A: Yeah, any nonfree software. Because the goal was: you + should be able to get a completely free operating system. Well, if + they have a thing in a store which says I'm the GNU/Linux system— + of course it says Linux—but inside of it there are some nonfree + programs, now you're not getting something that is entirely free anymore. + It doesn't entirely respect your freedom. So the real goal for which + we wrote the system is being lost. + +

    So that's a major problem that our community faces now, the tendency + to put free software together with nonfree software and make these + nonfree overall systems. And then, you know, it might seem that our + software is a success because there are many people using it. But if + you look at our real goal, our real goal is not popularity. Our real + goal is to spread a community of freedom, and we're not succeeding in + doing that if the people are using nonfree software still.

    + +

    Unfortunately, I couldn't give both speeches. I can give a + speech about software patents, or I can give a speech about free + software. They're very different and each one of them is a long speech. + So unfortunately what that means is that I can't fully explain about free + software and the GNU project here. Am I giving another speech in Kochi? + Am I giving the free software speech in Kochi?

    + +
    Q: No.
    + +
    A: Oh well. I gave that speech in Trivandrum. + +

    So I'll answer five more questions and then I'll have to call it + quits because it gets to be quite draining to answer so many.

    + +
    Q: Excuse me sir, question from me again. Sir, this is a +personal question. Me, as such, I love programming. I spend a lot +of time in front of my system. And I was listening to some of your +earlier speeches where you said that back in the 70's, the community of +programmers had a sense of goodwill among them. They used to share code, +they used to develop on it.
    + +
    A: Well, a specific community of programmers which I belonged + to. This was not all programmers. It was one specific community. + Continue.
    + +
    Q: Yes sir. In that context, I feel particularly, me as such, +I feel very hurt when I see the so-called interaction among programmers +today. Because many of us are very good programmers, but we look at +each other in different colors depending upon the tools we use— +“hey, he's a windows guy,” “hey, he's a GNU/Linux +guy,” “hey, he's into Solaris systems,” “he's a +network programmer.” And unfortunately most of this prejudice comes +from a lot of misinterpretation out of things like this. None of these +people promote free software as such, and it hurts me as a programmer +and many of my colleagues, and I work in an environment…
    + +
    A: Could you speak a bit more slowly, I am hearing most + of it, but there was one point that I miss, so if you speak slowly I + will…
    + +
    Q: Yeah, here we work with in an environment where you +are judged according to the tools you use rather than the quality of +work.
    + +
    A: To me that, well, in one sense there is a situation where + in a limited way that is rational. If there is a tool which is normally + used for doing fairly easy jobs and there are lot of people who now had + to do it, then I would imagine now, I wouldn't want, I might not pay as + much to them as somebody who does very hard jobs with a different tool + that's used for hard jobs. But it's true if you're talking about hard + jobs, it makes no sense that you'd be prejudiced about what tools people + are using. The good programmers can use any tools.
    + +
    Q: That was not the focus here. The focus was that here it is +a question of goodwill. Goodwill amongst programmers these days seems +to be, you know, melted out into these little boxes of this system and +that system, and that hurts.
    + +
    A: I agree we should encourage people to learn about more + different things and we should never be prejudiced against people because + of some detail, you know the fact that this person likes Perl and this + person likes C, why should they hate each other…
    + +
    Q: It's not even that distinct. It's like this person works +on GNU/Linux and this person works on Windows, which are the two major +operating systems today in India at least.
    + +
    A: Well, in that case, though, it's not just a prejudice, + you see. Windows is a system, a social system, that keeps people + helpless and divided [applause], whereas GNU/Linux is an alternative + that was created specifically to liberate people and to encourage them + to cooperate. So to some extent, this is not like: “where you + born in this country or that country?” No, this is like your + choice of politics. And it does make sense to criticize people for + their choices about important issues. + +

    So, I would say, a person who's using Windows, well, either he is + actively supporting this power structure, or at least maybe he's trapped + in it and doesn't have the courage to get out. In that case you can + forgive him, I guess, and encourage him. You know, there are different + situations of people; in any place there are people… different. + Some people are making more or less effort to try to improve things. + I believe in judging people as individuals, not as lumping them together + by their groups.

    + +

    But this is, in this one case it is, somewhat of a political choice + with political consequences for society, and that's exactly where it + makes sense to criticize people.

    + +
    Q: Sorry to continue again on this, but I'm a little persistent +about this. It's…
    + +
    A: This is your last chance.
    + +
    Q: Yes sir, thank you. Generally when statements like these +are made, people who are not so much, you know, in connection with +these things tend to assume that cooperative communities and sharing +of source code and sharing of ideas and things like that don't exist in +other environments, but they do, and that's very unfortunate that they +think so.
    + +
    A: I'm sorry… What don't exist in other + environments? I don't know which other environments you're talking about. + I don't understand.
    + +
    Q: Other programming environments, other operating +systems.
    + +
    A: Well maybe there are some users developing some free + software that runs on Windows, in fact I'm sure there are… + +

    Note: At this point, there was a short blackout, and both the +recording and the transcript is incomplete here.

    + +
    A: Well, maybe there, are there anymore questions? Could you + speak louder? I can't hear you at all.
    + +
    Q: Sir may I ask you a question?
    + +
    A: Okay you can, sure.
    + +
    Q: In free software system we will be distributing the source +code also together with the software. So a person is entitled to change +whatever he can in the source code. So don't you think there will be +too many software versions of a particular software and this will in turn +cause problems for a layman to find out which will suit him the most.
    + +
    A: Practical experience is that this is not a problem. + And occasionally it happens, but not very often. Now, you see, the + reason is that the users want interoperability and with free software the + users are ultimately in control, and what they want they tend to get. The + free software developers realize that they had better—if they are + going to make incompatible changes they are likely to make users unhappy + and their versions are not going to be used. So they generally draw the + obvious conclusion and pay a lot of attention to interoperability.
    + +
    Q: What I feel is that like I'll be just loading a software +into my computer and the next morning I'll find a better version then +again I'll have to change it. The next morning again something has +been done to the source code and that's a better version, so don't +you…
    + +
    A: In general you are not going be finding a better version + every day and the reason is that typically for any given program, there + is usually only one version that is widely used. Maybe there will be + two, once in a while there will be three—when there is no good + maintainer that might happen. So you are just not going to keep finding + out about more versions that are good every day; there aren't so many. + There won't be that many popular versions. There is one situation + where you can get a new version every day. That is when there is one + team doing a lot of work on development then every day you can get their + latest version. That you can do. But that's only one version at any + given time.
    + +
    Q: Sir, don't you think we will have to implement an +organization which will take into consideration all these updations and +it will just provide a single software which will have all the updations +right?
    + +
    A: I'm sorry, I didn't hear that. Shouldn't we have an + organization that would do something with all these versions, but I + don't know what.
    + +
    Q: Like, say I have developed a version of…
    + +
    A: Did anyone else hear what she said? Could anyone else + tell me what she said?
    + +
    Q: The thing is that…
    + +
    A: It's a very valuable skill to learn to speak slowly and + clearly. If you ever want to give a speech, which as part of your career + you will, it's very helpful to learn to enunciate clearly and slowly.
    + +
    Q: Thank you, Sir. Sir, the thing is that, don't you feel that +we require an organization which will just perform a number of updations +together and make available a software which will club all the updations +up to that date?
    + +
    A: You are saying, take various different applications and + put them together?
    + +
    Q: Yes Sir.
    + +
    A: I will tell you. A lot of organizations are doing that; + in fact every one of the GNU/Linux distributions is exactly that. + Debian does that, Red Hat does that… We to some extent do that + also for the GNU packages. We work on making sure they work together.
    + +
    Q: Excuse me Sir. We have talked lot against patents. In US +conditions have you ever been forced to put forward any applications +for patents?
    + +
    A: No. But no one can force me to make a patent application.
    + +
    Q: Also do you own any patents?
    + +
    A: I do not own any patents. Now, I have considered the + possibility of applying for patents to use them as part of a mutual + strategic defense alliance.
    + +
    Q: Do you mean to say that if I have twenty patents with me, +I donate it to the FSF and you maintain it for me?
    + +
    A: Well, not the FSF. It would be a separate specialized + organization that would exist specifically, so that we would all + contribute our patents and the organization would use all of these + patents to shelter anyone who wishes shelter. So anyone can join the + organization, even somebody who has no patents. And that person gets the + shelter of this organization. But then we all do try to get patents so + as to make the organization stronger so it can protect us all better. + That's the idea, but so far no one has been able to get this started. + It's not an easy thing to do, and part of the reason is that applying + for a patent is very expensive—and a lot of work as well. + +

    So this will be the last question.

    + +
    Q: Why can't the Free Software Foundation start its own +distribution?
    + +
    A: Oh well, the reason is that Debian is almost what we want, + and it seems better to be friends with Debian and try to convince them + to change it a little, rather than say “well, we are not going to + use it; we are going to make our own thing.” And also it seems + likely to be more successful too because, after all, there are a lot + of people working on Debian already. Why try to make an alternative to + that large community. Much better to work with them and convince them + to support our goals better—if it works, of course, and we have + our ways to go on that.
    +
    + +

    So that was the last question, I can't stay all day answering +questions, I'm sorry. So at this point I am going to have to call a halt +and get going, and go have lunch. So thank you for listening.

    + +

    [Applause]

    +
    + +

    Footnote

    + +

    [1] In 2014, this petition against software patents is archived. -

    -

    For more information about the problem of software patents, -see also our End Software Patents +

    +

    For more information about the problem of software patents, +see also our End Software Patents campaign.

    -
    +
    - - + + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/stallmans-law.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/stallmans-law.html index e248b7c..edb621a 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/stallmans-law.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/stallmans-law.html @@ -1,17 +1,25 @@ - + + + + Stallman's Law - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    Stallman's Law

    Now that corporations dominate society and write the laws, each advance or change in technology is an opening for them to further restrict or mistreat its users.

    +
    - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/stophr3028.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/stophr3028.html index d24d53c..1500659 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/stophr3028.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/stophr3028.html @@ -1,28 +1,40 @@ - + + + + Stop H.R. 3028 - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + + +

    Stop H.R. 3028 - Protect the Net - Stop the Trademark Monopolists

    -

    -This is posted on behalf of Marc Rotenberg -<rotenberg@epic.org>. -More information is available by following the links at the end of -this page.

    + +

    - This bill fits a pattern: every time Congress wants to create a new monopoly covering some activity formerly open to all, or extend and increase an old monopoly, they apply the term “piracy” to the free activity that the monopoly will stamp out. So whenever you see anything described as “piracy” aside from the - capturing of ships, watch out for your liberties! -- Richard - Stallman - + capturing of ships, watch out for your liberties!

    +

    Richard Stallman

    +
    + +

    More information is available by following the links at the end of +this page.

    Urgent

    @@ -71,7 +83,7 @@ this page.

    “Hello, I'm a registered voter in the district of Congressman <name>. I'm calling because I hope he/she - will vote against H.R. 3028, ‘The Cyberpiracy Act’. + will vote against H.R. 3028, ‘The Cyberpiracy Act.’ I don't like cyberpirates, but I believe this bill will hurt ALL domain name holders on the Internet, including small businesses, noncommercial organizations and individuals. Will @@ -96,7 +108,7 @@ this page.

  • If you like, you can also send an email to your Representative - with a new service offered at the House web site — check + with a new service offered at the House web site—check here [archived].
  • If you're still energized to do something, ask a friend or @@ -116,17 +128,18 @@ this page.

    Relevant Information

    +
  • - - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/surveillance-testimony.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/surveillance-testimony.html index 11fe655..6f946aa 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/surveillance-testimony.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/surveillance-testimony.html @@ -1,12 +1,21 @@ - + + + + Surveillance Testimony - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    Surveillance Testimony

    -

    Richard Stallman's statement to the Cambridge City Council, Jan 22, 2018, -about the proposed Cambridge surveillance ordinance.

    +
    +

    Richard Stallman's statement to the Cambridge City Council, Jan 22, 2018, +about the proposed Cambridge surveillance ordinance.

    +

    Mayor McGovern: Thank you. Richard Stallman followed by Elaine DeRosa.

    @@ -22,7 +31,7 @@ should include communications.

    likely to raise concerns,” any recording of what is observed should be assumed to raise civil liberties concerns.

    -

    There's also a definition of “surveillance technology”, which I think is +

    There's also a definition of “surveillance technology,” which I think is far too limited.

    I suggest that any physical device or system including computers running @@ -50,16 +59,17 @@ order [to do a search].

    And I think that same requirement should apply to any kind of surveillance that hasn't gone through the regular process.

    -

    [Item] number 9 talks about “persons injured in violation of the Ordinance”, +

    [Item] number 9 talks about “persons injured in violation of the Ordinance,” but I don't think there's a definition of what it means to be injured.

    I'd like to suggest that to be surveilled is to be injured.

    Thank you.

    +
    - - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/the-law-of-success-2.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/the-law-of-success-2.html index 471e946..1a10d65 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/the-law-of-success-2.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/the-law-of-success-2.html @@ -1,29 +1,39 @@ - + + + + The Law of Success 2.0: An Interview with Richard Stallman - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + + +

    The Law of Success 2.0: An Interview with Richard Stallman

    -

    [ This is an interview between Haegwan Kim and Richard -M. Stallman. ] -

    +
    +

    This interview was conducted by Haegwan Kim in November 2010.

    +
    -

    + [Photo of Richard Stallman] 

    - -

    Haegwan Kim

    +width="259" height="194" /> +
    -

    First, you mentioned that discussing success is not useful for you +

    Haegwan Kim:  First, you mentioned that discussing success is +not useful for you and that's really interesting to me. In this interview mainly I want to talk about freedom and related issue. But before that, could you tell me the reason that talking about success is not useful to you?

    -

    Richard Stallman

    - -

    Because some activities are good for society and some are harmful for +

    Richard Stallman:  Because some activities are good for society +and some are harmful for society. Of course, many are neutral. If person A knows how to aim for success, that may be good or bad for the rest of us. And I didn't set out to be a success. I didn't set out to make a lot of money or become @@ -37,14 +47,10 @@ community of people who use and contribute to free software, so in that sense it's a success. But when I look at it I don't ask, am I a success? I ask, do users have freedom?

    -

    HK

    - -

    Great to hear that. Can you tell me why you are so in favour of the +

    HK:  Great to hear that. Can you tell me why you are so in favour of the freedom?

    -

    RMS

    - -

    Partly it's because I resent being pushed around. I resent anyone +

    RMS:  Partly it's because I resent being pushed around. I resent anyone giving me orders. Partly because I grew up in the US, where people were taught to think about freedom—or at least were. I don't know if any of the children are taught any of these things any more. Partly @@ -62,33 +68,21 @@ group I was part of.

    So working, improving that system meant taking advantage of freedom all the time, so I came to appreciate freedom.

    -

    HK

    +

    HK:  Okay, I see.

    -

    Okay, I see.

    +

    RMS:  But that's not quite the end.

    -

    RMS

    +

    HK:  Okay.

    -

    But that's not quite the end.

    - -

    HK

    - -

    Okay.

    - -

    RMS

    - -

    Because the community fell apart in the early 80s and it was no +

    RMS:  Because the community fell apart in the early 80s and it was no longer possible to have the freedom. So I saw the contrast -between living in freedom and losing freedom, and I found non-freedom +between living in freedom and losing freedom, and I found nonfreedom disgusting. So I decided to do something to bring freedom back.

    -

    HK

    - -

    Can you tell me how…? You are now trying to bring freedom +

    HK:  Can you tell me how…? You are now trying to bring freedom back, which conversely means there's no freedom at the moment.

    -

    RMS

    - -

    Yes. With regard to software. First of all, this is a big question. +

    RMS:  Yes. With regard to software. First of all, this is a big question. In regard to software, proprietary software does not respect users' freedom because the program controls the users. If the users aren't free to change a program and do so either individually or in groups @@ -153,13 +147,9 @@ problem. It would have to be fixed over and over and over.

    Also with the freedom to distribute your modified version, the people who don't know how to program can benefit.

    -

    HK

    - -

    I understand a bit about freedom for software now.

    +

    HK:  I understand a bit about freedom for software now.

    -

    RMS

    - -

    So if I'm using the free program and I make a change in it, which I +

    RMS:  So if I'm using the free program and I make a change in it, which I know how to do, then I could publish my modified version and then you. Perhaps you're not a programmer; you would still be able to get the benefit of the change I make. Not only that, you could pay somebody to @@ -180,30 +170,18 @@ individually and collectively, control the program. If the users don't control the program then the program controls the users. That's proprietary software and that is what makes it evil.

    -

    HK

    - -

    Sounds similar to Creative Commons—verifying the types of +

    HK:  Sounds similar to Creative Commons—verifying the types of copyrights.

    -

    RMS

    - -

    Yes. Creative commons publishes various licences.

    - -

    HK

    - -

    Yes. Do you agree with all those kind of activities on freedom?

    - -

    RMS

    - -

    They don't have a position on that.

    +

    RMS:  Yes. Creative commons publishes various licences.

    -

    HK

    +

    HK:  Yes. Do you agree with all those kind of activities on freedom?

    -

    Position?

    +

    RMS:  They don't have a position on that.

    -

    RMS

    +

    HK:  Position?

    -

    Creative commons licences grant the users varying amounts of freedom. +

    RMS:  Creative commons licences grant the users varying amounts of freedom. Two of their licences qualify as free by our criteria. Those are the creative commons attribution licence and the attribution share-alike licence, those. And I think maybe there's also the CC zero licence, @@ -217,13 +195,9 @@ you use to do practical jobs. So that means software, recipes for cooking—and recipes for cooking are a good examples because, as I'm sure you know, cooks frequently share and modify recipes.

    -

    HK

    +

    HK:  Sure, yes.

    -

    Sure, yes.

    - -

    RMS

    - -

    And it would be a tremendous outrage to stop them. So in effect, +

    RMS:  And it would be a tremendous outrage to stop them. So in effect, cooks treat recipes as free. But let's look at some more works that are used for practical jobs. Educational works are used for practical jobs; to teach yourself or teach others. Reference works are used for @@ -242,55 +216,35 @@ crucial conclusion for those other works is the freedom to non-commercially redistribute exact copies, in other words the freedom to share.

    -

    HK

    - -

    I'm interested in what you're doing. You're travelling around the +

    HK:  I'm interested in what you're doing. You're travelling around the world, like me, and you're contributing to others, not for yourself. And I love that way you live and I respect it so much. So I was just wondering, how you describe yourself?

    -

    RMS

    - -

    I describe myself as a free software activist.

    - -

    HK

    - -

    Activist?

    +

    RMS:  I describe myself as a free software activist.

    -

    RMS

    +

    HK:  Activist?

    -

    Yes.

    +

    RMS:  Yes.

    -

    HK

    +

    HK:  Activists means the ones who change the world?

    -

    Activists means the ones who change the world?

    - -

    RMS

    - -

    First of all, we haven't changed the whole world, not even in this +

    RMS:  First of all, we haven't changed the whole world, not even in this regard, we've only changed a part of it.

    -

    HK

    - -

    Ok.

    - -

    RMS

    +

    HK:  Ok.

    -

    As you can see, most computer users are still running proprietary +

    RMS:  As you can see, most computer users are still running proprietary systems such as Windows and Macintosh. And then if they have smartphones, those smartphones are running proprietary software and it typically has malicious features too. We have a long way to go to achieve victory. And the other thing is that what we have achieved, I did not achieve by myself. But I did start this movement.

    -

    HK

    - -

    Your activities have lasted for a long time, what would be your +

    HK:  Your activities have lasted for a long time, what would be your advice for being an activist?

    -

    RMS

    - -

    I was rather lucky, in a sense. I was in a position to do something +

    RMS:  I was rather lucky, in a sense. I was in a position to do something that would forward my cause just working by myself. As other people showed up who were interested they could join. So it's generally good to look for a way to do things that way, in other words don't set out at @@ -299,13 +253,9 @@ Start doing things such that you alone, or a small group of people who support you, can achieve something, and by achieving something you can attract the attention of others who might want to join.

    -

    HK

    - -

    Great idea.

    +

    HK:  Great idea.

    -

    RMS

    - -

    In fact, I've read that advice in a book. I don't remember where, +

    RMS:  In fact, I've read that advice in a book. I don't remember where, because that was a long time ago, but it fit what I had alreasy done. I can't say I thought of this as a general principle, but it did work well in my case.

    @@ -321,53 +271,37 @@ start doing anything about your cause.

    soon and that way you'll spend your time getting a certain amount done for your cause, which is better than nothing.

    -

    HK

    - -

    Fair enough.

    +

    HK:  Fair enough.

    -

    RMS

    - -

    And of the ones who follow the raise-money-first path, those few that +

    RMS:  And of the ones who follow the raise-money-first path, those few that succeed in raising the money will find that their years of focusing on making that money have changed their goals. By the time they have that money they will be used to trying to do everything to get money. Few people have the ability to turn around and start directing their efforts toward something other than getting and keeping a lot of money.

    -

    HK

    - -

    Indeed. Can you tell me how did you gather great people when you +

    HK:  Indeed. Can you tell me how did you gather great people when you launched the Free Software Foundation?

    -

    RMS

    - -

    I don't know if I always gathered great people. Some who came to us +

    RMS:  I don't know if I always gathered great people. Some who came to us were good and some were not but I couldn't tell very well in advance, I didn't know how to judge that. But enough of them were good that they've managed to achieve a lot.

    -

    HK

    - -

    So did you gather people or did people automatically come to your +

    HK:  So did you gather people or did people automatically come to your place?

    -

    RMS

    - -

    Mostly people had seen what we had already done and found it +

    RMS:  Mostly people had seen what we had already done and found it interesting, and they would either help or, in some cases, come back when the FSF was hiring and we would say we were looking for someone to hire. Maybe we knew them already—who was a good programmer—by their contributing as a volunteer, so we knew if we hired them, they would be good.

    -

    HK

    - -

    I see. Thank you so much for your time. As a final question, I want +

    HK:  I see. Thank you so much for your time. As a final question, I want to ask you about what we should do to spread the freedom.

    -

    RMS

    - -

    The big enemy of freedom is governments taking too much power over +

    RMS:  The big enemy of freedom is governments taking too much power over society. They do that with two excuses: the excuse is terrorists or child pornographers. But we have to realise that anti-freedom is a bigger danger than either of those. For instance, censoring the @@ -390,21 +324,13 @@ and I was told 30,000 prisoners who are without trial. This is a monster that the US created. Governments around the world keep looking for more power. The problem is, they have too much already.

    -

    HK

    - -

    That's true. How can we get the power back from the governments?

    - -

    RMS

    +

    HK:  That's true. How can we get the power back from the governments?

    -

    I wish I knew.

    +

    RMS:  I wish I knew.

    -

    HK

    +

    HK:  [Laughter]

    -

    (Laughter)

    - -

    RMS

    - -

    I do know something about how we can teach people the need for this. +

    RMS:  I do know something about how we can teach people the need for this. Governments get their power by focusing people's attention on some secondary problem.

    @@ -430,14 +356,11 @@ under 3,000 people, and they were used as the excuse for the conquest of Iraq, in which 4500 or so Americans were killed. So even if we only consider who's more dangerous to Americans, the answer is Bush.

    -

    HK

    - -

    (Laughter) People can't judge what's right or wrong when the +

    HK:  [Laughter] People can't +judge what's right or wrong when the condition is getting complex and excited too much…

    -

    RMS

    - -

    And that ignored the million or so Iraqis that Bush killed and that +

    RMS:  And that ignored the million or so Iraqis that Bush killed and that Bush prevented us from counting. But by preventing them from being accurately counted, Bush made it possible for low estimates such as that of Iraq Body Count to seem plausible.

    @@ -449,26 +372,20 @@ hoping to cover up the effects so as to get it out of people's minds. And whether they're doing that for BP or for Obama or both, it's offensive to try to stop the public from knowing.

    -

    HK

    - -

    Do you believe that the internet has the possibility to change this +

    HK:  Do you believe that the internet has the possibility to change this phenomenon?

    -

    RMS

    - -

    That's a different question. The internet is useful for various +

    RMS:  That's a different question. The internet is useful for various things like sharing valuable information. But it's also useful for surveillance. So the internet can be used for good things and bad things. So how do we make sure that we are free to share? How do we limit the surveillance? It's a matter of stopping the Government from doing things that are unjust.

    - -

    Richard Stallman is a software freedom activist and the president -of the Free Software Foundation.

    + - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/the-root-of-this-problem.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/the-root-of-this-problem.html index 7bf8ddf..dae78c5 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/the-root-of-this-problem.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/the-root-of-this-problem.html @@ -1,9 +1,16 @@ - + + + + The Problem Is Software Controlled By Its Developer - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    The Problem Is Software Controlled By Its Developer

    @@ -33,7 +40,7 @@ devices be locked.

    It is true that a general computer lets you run programs designed to -spy on you, restrict you, or +spy on you, restrict you, or even let the developer attack you. Such programs include KaZaA, RealPlayer, Adobe Flash Player, Windows Media Player, Microsoft Windows, and MacOS. Windows Vista does all three of those things; it @@ -55,7 +62,7 @@ are designed to stop you from sharing and lending your books. Features that artificially obstruct use of your data are known as Digital Restrictions Management (DRM); our protest campaign against DRM is hosted -at http://defectivebydesign.org. (Our +at defectivebydesign.org. (Our adversaries call DRM “Digital Rights Management” based on their idea that restricting you is their right. When you choose a term, you choose your side.)

    @@ -137,9 +144,9 @@ If we are concerned about the spread of restricted computers, we should tackle the issue of the price deception that sells them. If we are concerned about malware, we should insist on free software that gives the users control.

    -
    -

    Postnote

    + +

    Postnote

    Zittrain's suggestion to reduce the statute of limitations on software @@ -159,21 +166,22 @@ The complete, simple solution is to eliminate patents from the field of software. Since the patent system is created by statute, eliminating patents from software will be easy given sufficient political -will. (See http://www.endsoftpatents.org.)

    - -

    Footnote

    +will. (See End Software Patents.)

    -

    1. Windows Vista initially had a “kill switch” with +

    Footnote

    +
      +
    1. Windows Vista initially had a “kill switch” with which Microsoft could remotely command the computer to stop functioning. Microsoft -subsequently removed +subsequently removed this, ceding to public pressure, but reserved the -“right” to put it back in. -

      +“right” to put it back in.
    2. +
    +
    - - - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/ubuntu-spyware.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/ubuntu-spyware.html index 2885bf3..e4916df 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/ubuntu-spyware.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/ubuntu-spyware.html @@ -1,17 +1,23 @@ - + + + + Ubuntu Spyware: What to Do? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    Ubuntu Spyware: What to Do?

    -
    +Richard Stallman -
    -

    Since Ubuntu +

    +

    Since Ubuntu version 16.04, the spyware search facility is now disabled by default. It appears that the campaign of pressure launched by this article has been partly successful. Nonetheless, offering the spyware @@ -25,8 +31,7 @@ probably forget). page has partly changed, the page is still important. This example should teach our community not to do such things again, but in order for that to happen, we must continue to talk about it.

    -
    -
    +

    One of the major advantages of free software is that the community protects users from malicious software. Now @@ -81,7 +86,7 @@ for that to happen, we must continue to talk about it.

    Ubuntu uses the information about searches to show the user ads to buy various things from Amazon. - Amazon commits many + Amazon commits many wrongs; by promoting Amazon, Canonical contributes to them. However, the ads are not the core of the problem. The main issue is the spying. Canonical says it does not tell Amazon who searched for @@ -161,16 +166,17 @@ for that to happen, we must continue to talk about it.

    the other form of negative influence that Ubuntu exerts in the free software community: legitimizing nonfree software.

    -
    +

    The presence of nonfree software in Ubuntu is a separate ethical issue. For Ubuntu to be ethical, that too must be fixed.

    -
    + + - - - - - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/university.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/university.html index b93e5df..155cd42 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/university.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/university.html @@ -1,10 +1,18 @@ - + + + + Releasing Free Software If You Work at a University - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    Releasing Free Software If You Work at a University

    +

    In the free software movement, we believe computer users should have @@ -124,15 +132,16 @@ software negates it.

    Nothing strengthens your resolve like knowing that the community's freedom depends, in one instance, on you.

    -
    -

    This essay is published -in Free +


    +
    +M. Stallman.

    + - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/upgrade-windows.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/upgrade-windows.html index d15d390..2d3fd0a 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/upgrade-windows.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/upgrade-windows.html @@ -1,12 +1,19 @@ - + + + + What Is the Right Way to Upgrade an Installation of Windows? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    What Is the Right Way to Upgrade an Installation of Windows?

    -

    by Richard Stallman

    +

    It is commonplace in the computing field to urge users to “upgrade” to newer versions of Windows (and other nonfree programs) so as to get @@ -41,10 +48,11 @@ to maintain that support, because we may as well cooperate when it is not difficult. We have no responsibility to continue doing so, but as long as it is feasible and not holding us back, we have no reason to stop.

    +
    - - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/use-free-software.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/use-free-software.html index 9665005..45b481d 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/use-free-software.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/use-free-software.html @@ -1,19 +1,28 @@ - + + + + The Free Software Community After 20 Years - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation -

    The Free Software Community After 20 Years:
    -With great but incomplete success, what now?

    - -

    by Richard -Stallman

    + + + +
    +

    +The Free Software Community After 20 Years:

    +

    +With great but incomplete success, what now?

    + +

    It was 5 Jan 1984, twenty years ago today, that I quit my job at MIT to begin developing a free software operating system, -GNU. While we have never +GNU. While we have never released a complete GNU system suitable for production use, a variant of the GNU system is now used by tens of millions of people who mostly are not aware it is such. Free software does not mean @@ -29,7 +38,7 @@ software imposes on its users, and I was determined to escape and give others a way to escape.

    -Non-free software carries with it an antisocial system that prohibits +Nonfree software carries with it an antisocial system that prohibits cooperation and community. You are typically unable to see the source code; you cannot tell what nasty tricks, or what foolish bugs, it might contain. If you don't like it, you are helpless to change it. @@ -40,7 +49,7 @@ prohibit sharing software is to cut the bonds of society.

    Today we have a large community of users who run GNU, Linux and other free software. Thousands of people would like to extend this, and have adopted the goal of convincing more computer users to “use -free software”. But what does it mean to “use free +free software.” But what does it mean to “use free software”? Does that mean escaping from proprietary software, or merely installing free programs alongside it? Are we aiming to lead people to freedom, or just introduce them to our code? In other @@ -79,7 +88,7 @@ But if our goal is freedom, that changes everything. Users cannot be free while using a nonfree program. To free the citizens of cyberspace, we have to replace those nonfree programs, not accept them. They are not contributions to our community, they are -temptations to settle for continuing non-freedom.

    +temptations to settle for continuing nonfreedom.

    There are two common motivations to develop a free program. One is @@ -107,12 +116,15 @@ people to recognize the moral unacceptability of nonfree software. People who value freedom are, in the long term, its best and essential defense.

    + +
    - - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/vaccination.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/vaccination.html index 8e1ced2..d082c61 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/vaccination.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/vaccination.html @@ -1,10 +1,18 @@ + + + + Viral Code and Vaccination - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    Viral Code and Vaccination

    -

    by Robert J. Chassell

    +

    When others hurt me, I try to defend myself. But some tell me that this makes them sick. They tell me that I should permit people to rob @@ -19,9 +27,9 @@ They want me to give up my right to benefit from a derivative of my own work, a right I possess under current copyright law.

    Of course, the language is a little less feverish than this. -Usually, I myself am not called “infectious”. Rather, the -legal defense that I use is called “infectious”. The -license I choose is called “viral”.

    +Usually, I myself am not called “infectious.” Rather, the +legal defense that I use is called “infectious.” The +license I choose is called “viral.”

    In every day language, words such as “infect” and “virus” describe disease. The rhetoric is metaphorical. @@ -51,30 +59,39 @@ some situations: if you license your work under a modified BSD license, or a similar license, then others may legally take your work, make fixes or improvements to it, and forbid you from using that code. I personally dislike this arrangement, but it exists.

    -
    - - + + - - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/w3c-patent.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/w3c-patent.html index 0edae8c..d8bac1f 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/w3c-patent.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/w3c-patent.html @@ -1,18 +1,22 @@ - - + + + + FSF's Position on W3 Consortium “Royalty-Free” Patent Policy - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation - - + + + +

    FSF's Position on W3 Consortium “Royalty-Free” Patent Policy

    -

    +

    Rewritten 1 June 2003

    @@ -34,7 +38,7 @@ The problem comes from the “field of use” restrictions that patent holders are allowed to put in their royalty-free patent licenses. Such restrictions say that you are allowed to practice the patented idea, but only for implementing the standard precisely as -specified — not in any other way. Thus, if you change the code +specified—not in any other way. Thus, if you change the code to depart from the spec even slightly, the patent license no longer protects you from against being sued for infringing the patent.

    @@ -73,7 +77,7 @@ freedom has been taken away by restrictions not stated there.

    Freedom to modify software can always be limited by third-party patents in ways that the software copyright license doesn't disclose. -This is why software patents are so +This is why software patents are so dangerous to software freedom.

    The FSF plans to continue to participate in the implementation @@ -81,11 +85,12 @@ process. We will try to convince patent-holders not to impose “field of use” restrictions, and we encourage all those who care about the right of Free Software developers to implement all future web standards to do the same.

    +
    - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/wassenaar.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/wassenaar.html index f2872c1..fff7fc8 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/wassenaar.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/wassenaar.html @@ -1,10 +1,18 @@ - + + + + The Wassenaar Arrangement - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    The Wassenaar Arrangement

    +

    Our first information about the new Wassenaar Arrangement came in the @@ -18,7 +26,7 @@ of free software for encryption.

    Subsequently the actual text of the new version of Wassenaar Arrangement was published. Then we saw that it continues to have an exception that seems to cover free software. (They use the term “public -domain”, but they seem to mean something like free software by +domain,” but they seem to mean something like free software by that.) So the problem seems to have been a false alarm.

    @@ -34,7 +42,7 @@ lawyer.

    According to the General Software Notes, entry 2, the agreement does -not cover software which is in “the public domain”. This +not cover software which is in “the public domain.” This is defined in the definitions as technology or software which has been made available without restrictions upon its further dissemination. There is also a statement that copyright by itself does not deny a @@ -46,9 +54,9 @@ logical that the definition of “public domain” is something that will be clarified at future meetings.

    -Finnish officials have stated that “nothing will change as -far as the “public domain” software and the Dec 3 -Wassenaar Arrangement are concerned.”

    +Finnish officials have stated that “nothing will change as +far as the ‘public domain’ software and the Dec 3 +Wassenaar Arrangement are concerned.”

    In Denmark, we are told, there has been an incident where the Ministry @@ -60,10 +68,11 @@ Recent news indicate that the Australian government has prohibited the export of free software for encryption by modifying the Wassenaar list that related to the definition of software “in the public domain.”

    +
    - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/whats-wrong-with-youtube.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/whats-wrong-with-youtube.html index f05fda3..8d2d56d 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/whats-wrong-with-youtube.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/whats-wrong-with-youtube.html @@ -1,11 +1,16 @@ - - + + + + What's Wrong with YouTube - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation -
    + + + +

    What's Wrong with YouTube

    @@ -91,9 +96,9 @@ privately mediating ownership of [publications] without involving the law.&r

    One thing about YouTube that is not a moral strike against -it is nonfree software on YouTube servers — if there is any. We +it is nonfree software on YouTube servers—if there is any. We as possible users of YouTube can't tell whether the servers run any -nonfree software, because that has no effect on us — therefore +nonfree software, because that has no effect on us—therefore it doesn't do any wrong to us.

    If there are any nonfree programs running on YouTube servers, they @@ -115,15 +120,15 @@ If you are concerned there will be a lot of download traffic, you can seed a torrent and suggest people download through that.

    Another way to publish videos on the web using free software is -GNU MediaGoblin. Ideally +GNU MediaGoblin. Ideally you will set up -your own server, or run +your own server, or run one for your family and friends, but you can also post on - + public servers.

    Please - + contribute to GNU MediaGoblin if you can.

    @@ -157,7 +162,24 @@ README for information on coordinating and contributing translations of this article.

    -

    Copyright © 2015-2021 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

    + + +

    Copyright © 2014-2017, 2019, 2020, 2022 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

    This page is licensed under a Creative @@ -167,7 +189,7 @@ Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

    Updated: -$Date: 2021/03/27 12:56:20 $ +$Date: 2022/04/16 20:30:00 $

    diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/when-free-depends-on-nonfree.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/when-free-depends-on-nonfree.html index 3d472a9..a963412 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/when-free-depends-on-nonfree.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/when-free-depends-on-nonfree.html @@ -1,16 +1,23 @@ - + + + + When Free Software Depends on Nonfree - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    When Free Software Depends on Nonfree

    -

    by Richard Stallman

    +

    When a program is free software (free as in freedom), that means it -gives users the four freedoms (gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html) +gives users the four freedoms, so that they control what the program does. In most cases, that is sufficient for the program's distribution to be ethical; but not always. There are additional problems that can arise in specific @@ -84,7 +91,7 @@ medical data) to OpenERP's server for reformatting. This is SaaSS: it requires the user of GNU Health (a clinic) to entrust its own computing and its data to the company developer of OpenERP. Rather than bow down, Falcón rewrote GNU Health -to use Tryton instead.

    +to use Tryton instead.

    Using SaaSS is inherently equivalent to running a proprietary program with snooping functionality and a universal back door. The service @@ -93,9 +100,9 @@ can trust the company that runs the service never to intentionally show any form of the data to anyone, we can't be sure that it won't be accessed by the intelligence agencies of various countries or security-breaking -crackers (please don't call -them “hackers”).

    +crackers (please don't call +them “hackers”).

    When a program is diachronically trapped, releasing it from the trap requires more than a one-time job of programming. Rather, the job has @@ -111,10 +118,11 @@ without nonfree software, but if you're going to do more than dabble, you must steer clear of really using it. Both businesses and individuals will find fine free alternatives that don't have such a problem; all it takes to avoid the trap is to recognize it.

    +
    - - + - diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html index 5dd5077..bae461e 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html @@ -1,22 +1,25 @@ - + + + + Who Does That Server Really Serve? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation - - + + + +

    Who does that server really serve?

    -

    by Richard Stallman

    - -

    (The first version was published -in -Boston Review.)

    + -

    On the Internet, proprietary software isn't the only way to +

    +

    On the Internet, proprietary software isn't the only way to lose your computing freedom. Service as a Software Substitute, or SaaSS, is -another way to give someone else power over your computing.

    +another way to give someone else power over your computing.

    +

    The basic point is, you can have control over a program someone else wrote (if it's free), but you can never have control over a @@ -28,7 +31,7 @@ running a program would do.

    substitute for running your copy of a program. The term is ours; articles and ads won't use it, and they won't tell you whether a service is SaaSS. Instead they will probably use the vague and -distracting term “cloud”, which lumps SaaSS together with +distracting term “cloud,” which lumps SaaSS together with various other practices, some abusive and some ok. With the explanation and examples in this page, you can tell whether a service is SaaSS.

    @@ -41,7 +44,7 @@ from proprietary software: software that the users cannot control because the owner (a company such as Apple or Microsoft) controls it. The owner often takes advantage of this unjust power by inserting malicious features such as spyware, back doors, and Digital Restrictions Management +href="https://www.defectivebydesign.org">Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) (referred to as “Digital Rights Management” in their propaganda).

    @@ -76,7 +79,7 @@ to you or else acts directly on your behalf.

    What does it mean to say that a given computing activity is your own? It means that no one else is inherently involved in it. To clarify the meaning of “inherently -involved”, we present a thought experiment. Suppose that any +involved,” we present a thought experiment. Suppose that any free software you might need for the job is available to you, and whatever data you might need, as well as computers of whatever speed, functionality and capacity might be required. Could you do this @@ -125,9 +128,8 @@ server operator gets the data—with no special effort, by the nature of SaaSS. Amy Webb, who intended never to post any photos of her daughter, made the mistake of using SaaSS (Instagram) to edit photos of her. Eventually - they -leaked from there. -

    + +they leaked from there.

    Theoretically, homomorphic encryption might some day advance to the point where future SaaSS services might be constructed to be unable to @@ -158,8 +160,8 @@ resist.

    SaaSS and SaaS

    Originally we referred to this problematical practice as -“SaaS”, which stands for “Software as a -Service”. It's a commonly used term for setting up software on a +“SaaS,” which stands for “Software as a +Service.” It's a commonly used term for setting up software on a server rather than offering copies of it to users, and we thought it described precisely the cases where this problem occurs.

    @@ -167,7 +169,7 @@ described precisely the cases where this problem occurs.

    communication services—activities for which this issue is not applicable. In addition, the term “Software as a Service” doesn't explain why the practice is bad. So we coined the term -“Service as a Software Substitute”, which defines the bad +“Service as a Software Substitute,” which defines the bad practice more clearly and says what is bad about it.

    Untangling the SaaSS Issue from the Proprietary Software Issue

    @@ -216,7 +218,7 @@ remedy is, Don't use SaaSS! Don't use someone else's server to do your own computing on data provided by you.

    This issue demonstrates the depth of the difference between -“open” and “free”. Source code that is open +“open” and “free.” Source code that is open source is, nearly always, free. However, the idea of an “open @@ -266,12 +268,10 @@ publication, not SaaSS. However, a service whose main facility is social networking can have features or extensions which are SaaSS.

    If a service is not SaaSS, that does not mean it is OK. There are -other ethical issues about services. For instance, Facebook -distributes video in Flash, which pressures users to run nonfree -software; it requires running nonfree JavaScript code; and it gives -users a misleading impression of privacy while luring them into baring -their lives to Facebook. Those are important issues, different from -the SaaSS issue. +other ethical issues about services. For instance, Facebook requires +running nonfree JavaScript code, and it gives users a misleading +impression of privacy while luring them into baring their lives to +Facebook. Those are important issues, different from the SaaSS issue.

    Services such as search engines collect data from around the web @@ -406,7 +406,7 @@ you a basis for trust beyond a mere commercial relationship.

    using servers. For instance, we can create a peer-to-peer program through which collaborators can share data encrypted. The free software community should develop distributed peer-to-peer -replacements for important “web applications”. It may be +replacements for important “web applications.” It may be wise to release them under the
    GNU Affero GPL, since they are likely candidates for being converted into server-based @@ -416,19 +416,30 @@ free software projects to consider this issue in their design.

    In the meantime, if a company invites you to use its server to do your own computing tasks, don't yield; don't use SaaSS. Don't buy or -install “thin clients”, which are simply computers so weak +install “thin clients,” which are simply computers so weak they make you do the real work on a server, unless you're going to use them with your server. Use a real computer and keep your data there. Do your own computing with your own copy of a free program, for your freedom's sake.

    -

    See also:

    -

    The +

    + + +
    - - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/why-call-it-the-swindle.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/why-call-it-the-swindle.html index 23524ab..ad2e3ae 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/why-call-it-the-swindle.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/why-call-it-the-swindle.html @@ -1,14 +1,20 @@ - + + + + Why call it the Swindle - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation - + + + +

    Why Call It The Swindle?

    -

    by Richard -Stallman

    +

    I go out of my way to call nasty things by names that criticize them. I call Apple's user-subjugating computers the @@ -103,8 +109,9 @@ mockery. Take care this does not lead you to skimp; don't let the pressure against such “digression” push you into insufficiently criticizing the nasty things you mention, because that would have the effect of legitimizing them.

    +
    -

    Footnotes

    +

    Footnotes

    1. Take action against these products: @@ -115,10 +122,11 @@ would have the effect of legitimizing them.

    2. u.fsf.org/drm
    +
    - - - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/why-gnu-linux.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/why-gnu-linux.html index fcd55fe..cdef21a 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/why-gnu-linux.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/why-gnu-linux.html @@ -1,42 +1,43 @@ - + + + + Why GNU/Linux? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation -

    What's in a Name?

    + + + +
    +

    What's in a Name?

    - -
    -
    -
    -

    To learn more about this issue, you can read -our GNU/Linux FAQ, our page on -Linux and the GNU Project, which gives a history of the GNU/Linux system as it relates to this issue of naming, -and our page on GNU -Users Who Have Never Heard of GNU.

    -
    - -

    This essay is published in - -Free Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard -M. Stallman.

    -
    - -

    Names convey meanings; our choice of names determines the meaning of what we say. An inappropriate name gives people the wrong idea. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet—but if you call it a pen, people will be rather disappointed when they try to write with it. -And if you call pens “roses”, people may not realize what +And if you call pens “roses,” people may not realize what they are good for. If you call our operating system Linux, that conveys a mistaken idea of the system's origin, history, and purpose. If you call it GNU/Linux, that conveys (though not in detail) an accurate idea.

    + + +

    Does this really matter for our community? Is it important whether people know the system's origin, history, and purpose? Yes—because people @@ -86,7 +87,7 @@ distribution developers do this; none limits itself to free software. Most of them do not clearly identify the nonfree packages in their distributions. Many even develop nonfree software and add it to the system. Some outrageously advertise -“Linux” systems that are “licensed per seat”, +“Linux” systems that are “licensed per seat,” which give the user as much freedom as Microsoft Windows.

    @@ -98,7 +99,7 @@ that the move toward open source software should be fueled by technical, rather than political, decisions.” And Caldera's CEO openly urged users -to drop +to drop the goal of freedom and work instead for the “popularity of Linux”.

    @@ -176,16 +177,16 @@ People who know they are using a system that came out of the GNU Project can see a direct relationship between themselves and GNU. They won't automatically agree with our philosophy, but at least they will see a reason to think seriously about it. In contrast, people -who consider themselves “Linux users”, and believe that +who consider themselves “Linux users,” and believe that the GNU Project “developed tools which proved to be useful in -Linux”, typically perceive only an indirect relationship between +Linux,” typically perceive only an indirect relationship between GNU and themselves. They may just ignore the GNU philosophy when they come across it.

    The GNU Project is idealistic, and anyone encouraging idealism today faces a great obstacle: the prevailing ideology encourages people to -dismiss idealism as “impractical”. Our idealism has been +dismiss idealism as “impractical.” Our idealism has been extremely practical: it is the reason we have a free GNU/Linux operating system. People who love this system ought to know that it is our idealism made @@ -198,7 +199,12 @@ But we are not in that position. To inspire people to do the work that needs to be done, we need to be recognized for what we have already done. Please help us, by calling the operating system GNU/Linux.

    -
    + +
    +
    @@ -248,7 +254,7 @@ of this article.

    There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --> -

    Copyright © 2000, 2006, 2007, 2014-2016, 2020, 2021 Richard Stallman

    +

    Copyright © 2000, 2007, 2021 Richard Stallman

    This page is licensed under a Creative @@ -258,10 +264,10 @@ Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

    Updated: -$Date: 2021/04/07 17:55:37 $ +$Date: 2021/11/02 12:34:35 $

    - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/why-programs-should-be-shared.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/why-programs-should-be-shared.html index 3991476..6d754bd 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/why-programs-should-be-shared.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/why-programs-should-be-shared.html @@ -1,24 +1,33 @@ - + + + + Why Programs Should be Shared - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    Why Programs Should be Shared

    -

    by Richard Stallman

    + -
    -

    Richard Stallman wrote this text, which was found in a file dated May +

    +

    Editor's note: This text was found in a file dated May 1983, though it is not clear whether it was written then or earlier. - In May 1983 he was privately considering plans to develop a + In May 1983 Richard Stallman was privately considering plans to develop a free operating system, but he may not yet have decided to make it a Unix-like system rather than something like the MIT Lisp Machine.

    He had not yet conceptually distinguished the two meanings of - “free;” this message is formulated in terms of gratis + “free”; this message is formulated in terms of gratis copies, but take for granted that this means users also have freedom.

    -
    +
    +

    Five years ago one could take for granted that any useful program written at SAIL, MIT, CMU, etc. would be shared. Since then, these @@ -59,10 +68,11 @@ the university wouldn't dare to do this. And if you start sharing, other people might start sharing with you.

    So let's start sharing again.

    + - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/wipo-PublicAwarenessOfCopyright-2002.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/wipo-PublicAwarenessOfCopyright-2002.html index 9a6b778..a6492dc 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/wipo-PublicAwarenessOfCopyright-2002.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/wipo-PublicAwarenessOfCopyright-2002.html @@ -1,15 +1,21 @@ - + + + + Public Awareness of Copyright, WIPO - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation - - + + + +

    Public Awareness of Copyright, WIPO, June 2002

    -

    by Richard Stallman

    +

    Geofrey Yu, Assistant Director General in charge of Copyright at WIPO, said this in a paper “Public Awareness of @@ -85,10 +91,11 @@ factories were “money-centred and legalistic”?

    starting to backfire on WIPO, this does not mean we should use that term ourselves. If we did, we would be spreading WIPO-style hypocrisy, whether we intended to or not.

    +
    - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/words-to-avoid.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/words-to-avoid.html index d33584a..9aa3079 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/words-to-avoid.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/words-to-avoid.html @@ -1,10 +1,22 @@ - + + + + Words to Avoid (or Use with Care) Because They Are Loaded or Confusing - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + + +

    Words to Avoid (or Use with Care) Because They Are Loaded or Confusing

    +

    There are a number of words and phrases that we recommend avoiding, or @@ -12,13 +24,7 @@ avoiding in certain contexts and usages. Some are ambiguous or misleading; others presuppose a viewpoint that we disagree with, and we hope you disagree with it too.

    - - +

    Ad-blocker” |

    href="#FOSS">FOSS” |Freely available” +|Freemium” +|Free-to-play” |Freeware” |

    |
    Vendor

    +
    + +
    + +
    @@ -224,9 +244,9 @@ job as an alternative.

    “Assets”

    -To refer to published works as “assets”, or “digital -assets”, is even worse than calling -them “content” — it presumes +To refer to published works as “assets,” or “digital +assets,” is even worse than calling +them “content”—it presumes they have no value to society except commercial value.

    @@ -266,7 +286,7 @@ with them. For instance, we avoid describing nonfree software as

    The term “cloud computing” (or -just “cloud”, in the context of +just “cloud,” in the context of computing) is a marketing buzzword with no coherent meaning. It is used for a range of different activities whose only common characteristic is that they use the Internet for something beyond @@ -287,7 +307,7 @@ about it becomes possible. One of the many meanings of “cloud computing” is storing your data in online services. In most scenarios, that is foolish because it exposes you to -surveillance. +surveillance.

    @@ -309,10 +329,10 @@ That raises no particular ethical issues.

    The -NIST definition of "cloud computing" mentions three scenarios that +NIST definition of “cloud computing” mentions three scenarios that raise different ethical issues: Software as a Service, Platform as a Service, and Infrastructure as a Service. However, that definition -does not match the common use of “cloud computing”, since +does not match the common use of “cloud computing,” since it does not include storing data in online services. Software as a Service as defined by NIST overlaps considerably with Service as a Software Substitute, which mistreats the user, but the two concepts @@ -329,7 +349,7 @@ it by a specific term.

    Curiously, Larry Ellison, a proprietary software developer, -also +also noted the vacuity of the term “cloud computing.” He decided to use the term anyway because, as a proprietary software developer, he isn't motivated by the same ideals as we are. @@ -414,17 +434,19 @@ last week.

    What does it mean to think of works of authorship as a commodity, with the assumption that there is nothing special about any one story, article, program, or song? That is the twisted viewpoint of the owner -or the accountant of a publishing company. It is no surprise that -proprietary software would like you to think of the use of software as -a commodity. Their twisted viewpoint comes through clearly -in this +or the accountant of a publishing company, someone who doesn't appreciate +the published works as such. +It is no surprise that proprietary software developers would like +you to think of the use of software as a commodity. Their twisted +viewpoint comes through clearly +in this article, which also refers to publications as “content.”

    The narrow thinking associated with the idea that we “consume content” paves the way for laws such as the DMCA that forbid -users to break the Digital +users to break the Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) facilities in digital devices. If users think what they do with these devices is “consume,” they may see such restrictions as natural.

    @@ -491,7 +513,7 @@ suggest terms such as “individuals” and “citizens,” rather than “consumers.”

    This problem with the word “consumer” has -been noted before. +been noted before.

    @@ -512,8 +534,12 @@ Those who use the term “content” are often the publishers that push for increased copyright power in the name of the authors (“creators,” as they say) of the works. The term “content” reveals their real attitude towards these works -and their authors. This was also recognized by Tom Chatfield -in the Guardian:

    +and their authors.

    + +

    We first condemned this usage of “content” in 2002. +Since then, Tom Chatfield recognized the same point +in The Guardian:

    Content itself is beside the point—as the very use of words like @@ -525,11 +551,41 @@ mill.

    In other words, “content” reduces publications and -writings to a sort of pap fit to be piped through the +writings to a sort of pap fit to be metered and piped through the “tubes” of the internet.

    -

    See also Courtney +

    Later, +Peter Bradshaw noticed it too.

    + +

    +This is what happens when studios treat movies as pure, +undifferentiated corporate “content,” a Gazprom pipeline of superhero +mush which can be turned off when the accountants say that it makes +sense to do so. +

    + +

    + +Martin Scorsese condemned the attitude of “content” in +regard to films.

    + +

    +The attitude implied by “content” is illustrated pointedly +in this critical description of + +the development path of platforms run by +people who base their thinking on that concept.

    + +

    +The article uses this word over and over, along with +“consume” and “creators.” Perhaps that is +meant to illustrate the way those people like to think. +

    + +

    See +also Courtney Love's open letter to Steve Case and search for “content provider” in that page. Alas, Ms. Love is unaware that the term “intellectual property” is @@ -557,7 +613,7 @@ system” (WRS).

    Copyright is an artificial privilege, handed out by the state to -achieve a public interest and lasting a period of time — not a +achieve a public interest and lasting a period of time—not a natural right like owning a house or a shirt. Lawyers used to recognize this by referring to the recipient of that privilege as a “copyright holder.”

    @@ -633,7 +689,7 @@ Locks are not necessarily oppressive or bad. You probably own several locks, and their keys or codes as well; you may find them useful or troublesome, but they don't oppress you, because you can open and close them. Likewise, we -find encryption +find encryption invaluable for protecting our digital files. That too is a kind of digital lock that you have control over.

    @@ -665,7 +721,7 @@ whom these restrictions are imposed.

    Good alternatives include “Digital Restrictions Management,” and “digital handcuffs.”

    -Please sign up to support our +Please sign up to support our campaign to abolish DRM.

    @@ -756,6 +812,35 @@ software” is defined in terms of the freedom of users that have a copy of it. These are answers to different questions.

    + + +

    “Freemium”

    + +

    +The confusing term “freemium” is used in marketing to +describe nonfree software whose standard version is gratis, +with paid nonfree add-ons available.

    +

    +Using this term works against the free software movement, because it +leads people to think of “free” as meaning “zero +price.”

    + + + +

    “Free-to-play”

    + +

    +The confusing term “free-to-play” (acronym +“F2P”) is used in marketing to describe nonfree +games which don't require a payment before a user starts to play. In +many of these games, doing well in the game requires paying later, so +the term “gratis-to-start” is a more accurate +description.

    +

    +Using this term works against the free software movement, because it +leads people to think of “free” as meaning +“zero price.”

    +

    “Freeware”

    @@ -803,7 +888,7 @@ Please avoid using the term “google” as a verb, meaning to search for something on the internet. “Google” is just the name of one particular search engine among others. We suggest to use the term “search the web” or (in some contexts) just -“search”. Try to use a search engine that respects your +“search.” Try to use a search engine that respects your privacy; for instance, DuckDuckGo claims not to track its users. (There is no way for outsiders to verify claims of that kind.)

    @@ -814,7 +899,7 @@ verify claims of that kind.)

    A hacker is someone -who enjoys +who enjoys playful cleverness—not necessarily with computers. The programmers in the old MIT free @@ -871,7 +956,7 @@ sound very nice. So they came up with a cute, appealing name: the

    Experience shows that these products often do +href="https://www.locusmag.com/Perspectives/2015/09/cory-doctorow-what-if-people-were-sensors-not-things-to-be-sensed/"> spy on their users. They are also tailor-made for giving people biased advice. In addition, the manufacturer can

    The term “modern” makes sense from a descriptive -perspective — for instance, solely to distinguish newer periods +perspective—for instance, solely to distinguish newer periods and ways from older ones.

    It becomes a problem when it carries the presumption that older @@ -953,7 +1038,7 @@ something as currency.” For instance, human societies have monetized gold, silver, copper, printed paper, special kinds of seashells, and large rocks. However, we now see a tendency to use the word in another way, meaning “to use something as a basis for -profit”.

    +profit.”

    That usage casts the profit as primary, and the thing used to get the profit as secondary. That attitude applied to a software project is @@ -1045,7 +1130,7 @@ Please avoid using the term “photoshop” as a verb, meaning any kind of photo manipulation or image editing in general. Photoshop is just the name of one particular image editing program, which should be avoided since it is proprietary. There are plenty of free programs -for editing images, such as the GIMP.

    +for editing images, such as the GIMP.

    @@ -1072,8 +1157,8 @@ such as “sharing information with your neighbor.”

    A US judge, presiding over a trial for copyright infringement, recognized that -“piracy” -and “theft” are smear words.

    +“piracy” +and “theft” are smear words.

    @@ -1133,7 +1218,7 @@ that interferes with copying. From the user's point of view, this is obstruction. So we could call that malicious feature “copy obstruction.” More often it is called Digital Restrictions Management (DRM)—see the - Defective by Design + Defective by Design campaign.

    @@ -1218,6 +1303,8 @@ to noncommercial cooperation, including noncommercial redistribution of exact copies of published works, and we say this is good. Please don't apply that word to a practice which is harmful and dangerous.

    +

    When one company redistributes collected personal data to another company, +that is even less deserving of the term “sharing.”

    “Sharing economy”

    @@ -1232,7 +1319,7 @@ exact copies of published works. Stretching the word meaning, so we don't use it in this context.

    A more suitable term for businesses like Uber is the -“piecework service economy.”

    +“piecework service economy” or “gig economy.”

    @@ -1280,9 +1367,9 @@ Wikipedia uses the term “source model” in a confused and ambiguous way. Ostensibly it refers to how a program's source is distributed, but the text confuses this with the development methodology. It distinguishes “open source” and -”shared source” as answers, but they overlap — -Microsoft uses the latter as a marketing term to cover a range of -practices, some of which are “open source”. Thus, this +”shared source” as answers, but they overlap—Microsoft +uses the latter as a marketing term to cover a range of +practices, some of which are “open source.” Thus, this term really conveys no coherent information, but it provides an opportunity to say “open source” in pages describing free software programs.

    @@ -1315,13 +1402,13 @@ it for objective truth.

    Under the US legal system, copyright infringement is not theft. -Laws about theft are not applicable to copyright infringement. +href="https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/473/207.html"> +Laws about theft are not applicable to copyright infringement. The supporters of repressive copyright are making an appeal to authority—and misrepresenting what authority says.

    To refute them, you can point to this - + real case which shows what can properly be described as “copyright theft.”

    @@ -1335,8 +1422,8 @@ change.

    A US judge, presiding over a trial for copyright infringement, recognized that -“piracy” -and “theft” are smear-words.

    +“piracy” +and “theft” are smear-words.

    @@ -1366,15 +1453,16 @@ vendors. We recommend the general term “supplier” instead.

    -
    -

    This essay is published -in Free +


    +
    +M. Stallman.

    + - - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/wsis.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/wsis.html index a273f89..9c75b0e 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/wsis.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/wsis.html @@ -1,22 +1,24 @@ - - + + + + World Summit on the Information Society - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation - - + + + +

    World Summit on the Information Society

    -

    by Richard Stallman

    - -

    (Originally published on Newsforge.)

    + -
    +

    At WSIS, -in a climate of suppression of dissent, the score is 0-0
    --- Richard Stallman

    -
    +in a climate of suppression of dissent, the score is 0-0.

    +

    The World Summit on the Information Society is supposed to formulate plans to end the “digital divide” and make the @@ -38,14 +40,14 @@ with the internet, it responds to demands made by various governments to impose restrictions on citizens of cyberspace.

    Part of the digital divide comes from artificial obstacles to the -sharing of information. This includes the licenses of non-free +sharing of information. This includes the licenses of nonfree software, and harmfully restrictive copyright laws. The Brazilian declaration sought measures to promote free software, but the US delegation was firmly against it (remember that the Bush campaign got money from Microsoft). The outcome was a sort of draw, with the final declaration presenting free software, open source, and proprietary software as equally legitimate. The US also insisted on praising -so-called “intellectual property rights”. (That biased +so-called “intellectual property rights.” (That biased term promotes simplistic over-generalization; for the sake of clear thinking about the issues of copyright law, and about the very @@ -91,7 +93,7 @@ spoke.

    Suppression was also visible in the exclusion of certain NGOs from the summit because their focus on human rights might embarrass the governments that trample them. For instance, the -summit +summit refused to accredit Human Rights In China, a group that criticizes the Chinese government for (among other things) censorship of the internet.

    @@ -114,10 +116,15 @@ Microsoft to speak alongside, and before, most of the various participating governments—as if to accord that criminal corporation the standing of a state.

    - + + + - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/wwworst-app-store.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/wwworst-app-store.html index c07a491..ea055af 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/wwworst-app-store.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/wwworst-app-store.html @@ -1,15 +1,22 @@ - + + + The WWWorst App Store - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + -
    + + + +

    The WWWorst App Store

    -

    Picture the most abusive app store.

    @@ -166,7 +173,7 @@ textContent can't have links; you need innerHTML for that.

    - diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/x.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/x.html index 13db816..e21c2f7 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/x.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/x.html @@ -1,20 +1,24 @@ - + + + + The X Window System Trap - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation - -
    + + + +

    The X Window System Trap

    -
    -
    +

    To copyleft or not to copyleft? That is one of the major controversies in the free software community. The idea of copyleft is @@ -154,10 +158,10 @@ equipped with more resources than scruples. With copyleft, we can defend freedom, not just for ourselves, but for our whole community.

    -
    +
    - +
    diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/yes-give-it-away.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/yes-give-it-away.html index 824500f..8300190 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/yes-give-it-away.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/yes-give-it-away.html @@ -1,24 +1,33 @@ - + + + + Yes, Give It Away - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    Yes, Give It Away

    -

    by Richard Stallman

    + -
    -

    Richard Stallman wrote this text, which was found in a file dated May +

    +

    Editor's note: This text was found in a file dated May 1983, though it is not clear whether it was written then or earlier. - In May 1983 he was privately considering plans to develop a + In May 1983 Richard Stallman was privately considering plans to develop a free operating system, but he may not yet have decided to make it a Unix-like system rather than something like the MIT Lisp Machine.

    He had not yet conceptually distinguished the two meanings of - “free;” this message is formulated in terms of gratis + “free”; this message is formulated in terms of gratis copies, but take for granted that this means users also have freedom.

    -
    +
    +

    One of the important reasons for giving software away free is to enable the users to change it. This allows them to make better use of @@ -54,10 +63,11 @@ restrictions are being imposed to trick their neuroses or because they are assumed in advance to be incompetent, they feel justifiable resentment. They also tend to become incompetent and neurotic as a result.

    + - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/your-freedom-needs-free-software.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/your-freedom-needs-free-software.html index ae20140..b2d6a29 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/your-freedom-needs-free-software.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/your-freedom-needs-free-software.html @@ -1,20 +1,31 @@ - + + + + Your Freedom Needs Free Software - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    Your Freedom Needs Free Software

    + + +

    Many of us know that governments can threaten the human rights of software users through censorship and surveillance of the Internet. Many do not realize that the software they run on their home or work computers can be an even worse threat. Thinking of software as -‘just a tool’, they suppose that it obeys them, when in +“just a tool,” they suppose that it obeys them, when in fact it often obeys others instead.

    +

    The software running in most computers is non-free, +href="/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware">nonfree, proprietary software: controlled by software companies, not by its users. Users can't check what these programs do, nor prevent them from doing what they don't want. Most people accept @@ -26,42 +37,44 @@ misdeeds. If a computer talks to a network, and you don't control the software in it, it can easily spy on you. Microsoft Windows spies on users; for instance, it reports what words a user searches for in her own files, and what other programs are installed. RealPlayer spies -too; it reports what the user plays. Cell phones are full of non-free +too; it reports what the user plays. Cell phones are full of nonfree software, which spies. Cell phones send out localizing signals even -when ‘off’, many can send out your precise GPS location +when “off,” many can send out your precise GPS location whether you wish or not, and some models can be switched on remotely as listening devices. Users can't fix these malicious features because they don't have control.

    -

    Some proprietary software is designed to restrict and attack its -users. Windows Vista is a big -advance in this field; the reason it requires replacement of old -hardware is that the new models are designed to support unbreakable -restrictions. Microsoft thus requires users to pay for shiny new -shackles. It is also designed to permit forced updating by corporate -authority. Hence the BadVista.org -campaign, which urges Windows users not to ‘upgrade’ to -Vista. (For the equally malicious Windows 7 and Windows 8, we now have -Windows7Sins.org and -UpgradeFromWindows8.org.) -Mac OS also contains features designed to restrict its users.

    +

    Some proprietary software is +designed to restrict and attack its users. +Windows Vista was a big +advance in this field; the reason it required replacement of old +hardware is that the new models were designed to support unbreakable +restrictions. Microsoft thus required users to pay for shiny new +shackles. Vista was also designed to permit forced updating by corporate +authority. Hence the Bad Vista +campaign, which urged Windows users not to “upgrade” to +Vista. For later Windows versions, which are even more malicious, we +now have Upgrade from Windows. +Mac OS also contains features designed to restrict its users.

    Microsoft has installed back doors for the US government's use in the past (reported on +href="https://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/5/5263/1.html">reported on heise.de). We cannot check whether they have successors today. Other proprietary programs may or may not have back doors, but since we cannot check them, we cannot trust them.

    The only way to assure that your software is working for you is to -insist on Free/Libre software. This means users get the source code, +insist on free/libre software. This means users get the source code, are free to study and change it, and are free to redistribute it with or without changes. The GNU/Linux system, developed specifically for users' freedom, includes office applications, multimedia, games, and everything you really need to run a computer. -See gNewSense.org for -a totally Free/Libre version of GNU/Linux.

    +See our list of totally free/libre +versions of GNU/Linux.

    A special problem occurs when activists for social change use proprietary software, because its developers, who control it, may be @@ -81,11 +94,12 @@ getting his data back.

    The US is not the only state that doesn't respect human rights, so keep your data on your own computer, and your backups under your own -custody—and run your computer with Free/Libre software.

    +custody—and run your computer with free/libre software.

    +
    - + -- cgit v1.2.3