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 --- .../blog/articles/af/gnu-breadcrumb.html | 23 + .../blog/articles/af/ph-breadcrumb.html | 131 + .../articles/ar/15-years-of-free-software.html | 15 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/bdk.html | 13 +- .../blog/articles/ar/byte-interview.html | 19 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/ebooks.html | 15 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/free-doc.html | 4 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/free-sw.html | 639 +-- .../blog/articles/ar/freedom-or-power.html | 14 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/gates.html | 13 +- .../blog/articles/ar/gnu-breadcrumb.html | 23 + .../articles/ar/imperfection-isnt-oppression.html | 16 +- .../blog/articles/ar/ph-breadcrumb.html | 131 + talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/pragmatic.html | 20 +- .../blog/articles/ar/shouldbefree.html | 26 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/why-free.html | 19 +- .../blog/articles/bg/enforcing-gpl.html | 12 +- .../blog/articles/bg/essays-and-articles.html | 5 +- .../blog/articles/bg/gnu-breadcrumb.html | 23 + .../blog/articles/bg/ph-breadcrumb.html | 131 + talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/bg/pragmatic.html | 16 +- .../blog/articles/bg/sun-in-night-time.html | 12 +- .../blog/articles/bg/vaccination.html | 67 +- .../articles/br/15-years-of-free-software.html | 32 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/about-gnu.html | 64 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/amazon.html | 54 +- .../articles/br/applying-free-sw-criteria.html | 35 +- .../blog/articles/br/basic-freedoms.html | 54 +- .../br/bug-nobody-allowed-to-understand.html | 33 +- .../blog/articles/br/byte-interview.html | 112 +- .../blog/articles/br/categories.html | 135 +- .../blog/articles/br/compromise.html | 136 +- .../blog/articles/br/contradictory-support.html | 26 +- .../articles/br/copyright-and-globalization.html | 52 +- .../blog/articles/br/devils-advocate.html | 29 +- .../blog/articles/br/drdobbs-letter.html | 47 +- .../blog/articles/br/enforcing-gpl.html | 66 +- .../blog/articles/br/essays-and-articles.html | 1901 ++++++--- .../articles/br/fighting-software-patents.html | 39 +- .../blog/articles/br/floss-and-foss.html | 35 +- .../blog/articles/br/free-digital-society.html | 91 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/free-doc.html | 89 +- .../blog/articles/br/free-hardware-designs.html | 543 +++ .../br/free-software-even-more-important.html | 146 +- .../articles/br/free-software-for-freedom.html | 96 +- .../blog/articles/br/free-software-intro.html | 43 +- .../blog/articles/br/free-software-rocket.html | 221 ++ talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/free-sw.html | 383 +- .../blog/articles/br/freedom-or-power.html | 91 +- .../br/fs-and-sustainable-development.html | 151 + .../blog/articles/br/fs-motives.html | 36 +- .../br/funding-art-vs-funding-software.html | 10 +- .../blog/articles/br/gnu-breadcrumb.html | 23 + .../blog/articles/br/gnu-history.html | 63 +- .../blog/articles/br/gnu-linux-faq.html | 165 +- .../blog/articles/br/gnu-structure.html | 424 ++ .../articles/br/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.html | 49 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/gnu.html | 223 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/gnutella.html | 53 +- .../blog/articles/br/government-free-software.html | 78 +- .../blog/articles/br/gpl-american-way.html | 54 +- .../blog/articles/br/hackathons.html | 16 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/hague.html | 27 +- .../articles/br/imperfection-isnt-oppression.html | 37 +- .../blog/articles/br/incorrect-quotation.html | 24 +- .../blog/articles/br/initial-announcement.html | 96 +- .../blog/articles/br/install-fest-devil.html | 35 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/ipjustice.html | 130 + .../br/is-ever-good-use-nonfree-program.html | 16 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/java-trap.html | 92 +- .../blog/articles/br/javascript-trap.html | 106 +- .../blog/articles/br/judge-internet-usage.html | 266 ++ .../br/keep-control-of-your-computing.html | 32 +- .../blog/articles/br/kind-communication.html | 10 +- .../blog/articles/br/komongistan.html | 10 +- .../blog/articles/br/linux-and-gnu.html | 154 +- .../blog/articles/br/loyal-computers.html | 38 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/manifesto.html | 207 +- .../blog/articles/br/no-word-attachments.html | 88 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/not-ipr.html | 39 +- .../articles/br/open-source-misses-the-point.html | 160 +- .../blog/articles/br/ph-breadcrumb.html | 200 + .../blog/articles/br/philosophy.html | 86 +- .../blog/articles/br/phone-anonymous-payment.html | 10 +- .../blog/articles/br/posting-videos.html | 22 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/practical.html | 10 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/pragmatic.html | 96 +- .../blog/articles/br/pronunciation.html | 40 +- .../blog/articles/br/protecting.html | 10 +- .../blog/articles/br/right-to-read.html | 122 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/rms-lisp.html | 161 +- .../blog/articles/br/rtlinux-patent.html | 47 +- .../blog/articles/br/saying-no-even-once.html | 18 +- .../blog/articles/br/self-interest.html | 216 + .../blog/articles/br/selling-exceptions.html | 227 ++ talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/selling.html | 61 +- .../blog/articles/br/shouldbefree.html | 224 +- .../articles/br/software-literary-patents.html | 44 +- .../blog/articles/br/stallmans-law.html | 23 +- .../blog/articles/br/sun-in-night-time.html | 16 +- .../blog/articles/br/surveillance-testimony.html | 10 +- .../articles/br/surveillance-vs-democracy.html | 170 +- .../blog/articles/br/technological-neutrality.html | 14 +- .../blog/articles/br/the-danger-of-ebooks.html | 75 +- .../blog/articles/br/the-root-of-this-problem.html | 10 +- .../blog/articles/br/thegnuproject.html | 281 +- .../blog/articles/br/ubuntu-spyware.html | 28 +- .../blog/articles/br/university.html | 56 +- .../blog/articles/br/upgrade-windows.html | 24 +- .../blog/articles/br/use-free-software.html | 78 +- .../blog/articles/br/using-gfdl.html | 154 + .../blog/articles/br/vaccination.html | 134 + .../blog/articles/br/whats-wrong-with-youtube.html | 226 ++ .../articles/br/when-free-depends-on-nonfree.html | 53 +- .../br/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html | 145 +- .../blog/articles/br/why-call-it-the-swindle.html | 35 +- .../blog/articles/br/why-copyleft.html | 41 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/why-free.html | 80 +- .../blog/articles/br/why-gnu-linux.html | 59 +- .../articles/br/why-programs-should-be-shared.html | 48 +- .../blog/articles/br/words-to-avoid.html | 343 +- .../blog/articles/br/wwworst-app-store.html | 273 ++ .../blog/articles/br/yes-give-it-away.html | 51 +- .../br/your-freedom-needs-free-software.html | 58 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ca/apsl.html | 23 +- .../blog/articles/ca/basic-freedoms.html | 46 +- .../blog/articles/ca/drdobbs-letter.html | 38 +- .../articles/ca/fighting-software-patents.html | 62 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ca/fire.html | 12 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ca/free-doc.html | 4 +- .../blog/articles/ca/fs-motives.html | 33 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ca/gif.html | 98 +- .../blog/articles/ca/gnu-breadcrumb.html | 23 + .../articles/ca/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.html | 40 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ca/gnutella.html | 46 +- .../blog/articles/ca/gpl-american-dream.html | 22 +- .../blog/articles/ca/gpl-american-way.html | 89 +- .../blog/articles/ca/initial-announcement.html | 14 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ca/manifesto.html | 16 +- .../blog/articles/ca/microsoft-antitrust.html | 35 +- .../blog/articles/ca/microsoft-new-monopoly.html | 67 +- .../blog/articles/ca/microsoft-old.html | 43 +- .../blog/articles/ca/microsoft-verdict.html | 53 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ca/microsoft.html | 84 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ca/motif.html | 53 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ca/my_doom.html | 55 +- .../blog/articles/ca/nonsoftware-copyleft.html | 165 +- .../articles/ca/patent-reform-is-not-enough.html | 41 +- .../blog/articles/ca/ph-breadcrumb.html | 131 + .../blog/articles/ca/philosophy.html | 74 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ca/pragmatic.html | 93 +- .../blog/articles/ca/protecting.html | 35 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ca/selling.html | 47 +- .../blog/articles/ca/shouldbefree.html | 76 +- .../blog/articles/ca/university.html | 73 +- .../blog/articles/ca/use-free-software.html | 32 +- .../blog/articles/ca/using-gfdl.html | 35 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ca/wassenaar.html | 50 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ca/why-free.html | 54 +- .../blog/articles/ca/why-gnu-linux.html | 55 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/cs/about-gnu.html | 14 +- .../blog/articles/cs/categories.html | 96 +- .../articles/cs/copyright-and-globalization.html | 77 +- .../blog/articles/cs/enforcing-gpl.html | 39 +- .../blog/articles/cs/freedom-or-power.html | 4 +- .../blog/articles/cs/fs-motives.html | 31 +- .../blog/articles/cs/gnu-breadcrumb.html | 23 + .../blog/articles/cs/gnu-history.html | 12 +- .../blog/articles/cs/initial-announcement.html | 13 +- .../blog/articles/cs/linux-and-gnu.html | 43 +- .../blog/articles/cs/linux-gnu-freedom.html | 122 +- .../blog/articles/cs/microsoft-antitrust.html | 34 +- .../blog/articles/cs/microsoft-verdict.html | 57 +- .../blog/articles/cs/ph-breadcrumb.html | 131 + .../blog/articles/cs/philosophy.html | 75 +- .../blog/articles/cs/pirate-party.html | 32 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/cs/practical.html | 34 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/cs/selling.html | 33 +- .../blog/articles/cs/thegnuproject.html | 12 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/cs/wassenaar.html | 41 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/cs/why-free.html | 37 +- .../blog/articles/cs/why-gnu-linux.html | 50 +- .../blog/articles/da/gnu-breadcrumb.html | 23 + .../blog/articles/da/ph-breadcrumb.html | 131 + .../articles/de/15-years-of-free-software.html | 24 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/de/about-gnu.html | 9 +- .../blog/articles/de/amazon-nat.html | 94 +- .../blog/articles/de/amazon-rms-tim.html | 104 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/de/amazon.html | 63 +- .../articles/de/android-and-users-freedom.html | 123 +- .../blog/articles/de/anonymous-response.html | 37 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/de/apsl.html | 30 +- .../blog/articles/de/assigning-copyright.html | 110 +- .../blog/articles/de/basic-freedoms.html | 40 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/de/bdk.html | 10 +- .../blog/articles/de/boldrin-levine.html | 34 +- .../de/bug-nobody-allowed-to-understand.html | 25 +- .../blog/articles/de/can-you-trust.html | 52 +- .../blog/articles/de/censoring-emacs.html | 38 +- .../blog/articles/de/compromise.html | 109 +- .../blog/articles/de/computing-progress.html | 50 +- .../blog/articles/de/contradictory-support.html | 4 +- .../articles/de/ebooks-must-increase-freedom.html | 73 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/de/ebooks.html | 73 +- .../blog/articles/de/enforcing-gpl.html | 35 +- .../blog/articles/de/europes-unitary-patent.html | 67 +- .../articles/de/fighting-software-patents.html | 60 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/de/fire.html | 10 +- .../blog/articles/de/floss-and-foss.html | 39 +- .../blog/articles/de/free-digital-society.html | 61 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/de/free-doc.html | 4 +- .../blog/articles/de/free-open-overlap.html | 49 +- .../articles/de/free-software-for-freedom.html | 89 +- .../blog/articles/de/free-software-intro.html | 29 +- .../blog/articles/de/freedom-or-copyright-old.html | 63 +- .../blog/articles/de/freedom-or-power.html | 8 +- .../blog/articles/de/fs-motives.html | 33 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/de/gates.html | 50 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/de/gif.html | 96 +- .../blog/articles/de/gnu-breadcrumb.html | 23 + .../blog/articles/de/gnu-history.html | 10 +- .../articles/de/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.html | 28 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/de/gnutella.html | 47 +- .../blog/articles/de/government-free-software.html | 49 +- .../blog/articles/de/gpl-american-dream.html | 20 +- .../blog/articles/de/gpl-american-way.html | 45 +- .../blog/articles/de/greve-clown.html | 65 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/de/hague.html | 77 +- .../blog/articles/de/historical-apsl.html | 35 +- .../articles/de/imperfection-isnt-oppression.html | 42 +- .../blog/articles/de/initial-announcement.html | 10 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/de/ipjustice.html | 24 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/de/java-trap.html | 76 +- .../blog/articles/de/judge-internet-usage.html | 45 +- .../de/keep-control-of-your-computing.html | 56 +- .../blog/articles/de/kevin-cole-response.html | 59 +- .../blog/articles/de/lessig-fsfs-intro.html | 71 +- .../blog/articles/de/linux-gnu-freedom.html | 64 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/de/manifesto.html | 10 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/de/mcvoy.html | 28 +- .../blog/articles/de/microsoft-old.html | 35 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/de/microsoft.html | 45 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/de/motif.html | 57 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/de/my_doom.html | 47 +- .../blog/articles/de/netscape-npl-old.html | 32 +- .../blog/articles/de/netscape-npl.html | 30 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/de/netscape.html | 34 +- .../blog/articles/de/nonfree-games.html | 41 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/de/not-ipr.html | 10 +- .../blog/articles/de/opposing-drm.html | 53 +- .../blog/articles/de/ough-interview.html | 66 +- .../blog/articles/de/ph-breadcrumb.html | 131 + .../blog/articles/de/philosophy.html | 72 +- .../blog/articles/de/pirate-party.html | 34 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/de/practical.html | 35 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/de/pragmatic.html | 46 +- .../blog/articles/de/privacyaction.html | 33 +- .../blog/articles/de/pronunciation.html | 13 +- .../blog/articles/de/protecting.html | 29 +- .../blog/articles/de/public-domain-manifesto.html | 27 +- .../blog/articles/de/reevaluating-copyright.html | 318 +- .../blog/articles/de/right-to-read.html | 105 +- .../articles/de/rms-comment-longs-article.html | 68 +- .../blog/articles/de/second-sight.html | 63 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/de/selling.html | 29 +- .../blog/articles/de/shouldbefree.html | 72 +- .../blog/articles/de/social-inertia.html | 4 +- .../articles/de/software-literary-patents.html | 61 +- .../blog/articles/de/stallmans-law.html | 21 +- .../blog/articles/de/technological-neutrality.html | 28 +- .../blog/articles/de/thegnuproject.html | 13 +- .../blog/articles/de/third-party-ideas.html | 50 +- .../blog/articles/de/trivial-patent.html | 39 +- .../blog/articles/de/ubuntu-spyware.html | 40 +- .../blog/articles/de/university.html | 59 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/de/uruguay.html | 51 +- .../blog/articles/de/using-gfdl.html | 31 +- .../blog/articles/de/vaccination.html | 54 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/de/wassenaar.html | 35 +- ...en-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.html | 23 +- .../de/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html | 4 +- .../blog/articles/de/why-copyleft.html | 29 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/de/why-free.html | 34 +- .../blog/articles/de/why-gnu-linux.html | 47 +- .../articles/de/why-programs-should-be-shared.html | 10 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/de/x.html | 26 +- .../blog/articles/de/yes-give-it-away.html | 10 +- .../de/your-freedom-needs-free-software.html | 10 +- .../blog/articles/el/anonymous-response.html | 13 +- .../articles/el/fighting-software-patents.html | 13 +- .../blog/articles/el/gnu-breadcrumb.html | 23 + .../blog/articles/el/microsoft-antitrust.html | 14 +- .../blog/articles/el/microsoft-old.html | 15 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/el/netscape.html | 14 +- .../blog/articles/el/ph-breadcrumb.html | 131 + .../blog/articles/el/philosophy.html | 74 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/el/pragmatic.html | 17 +- .../blog/articles/el/shouldbefree.html | 21 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/el/why-free.html | 13 +- .../blog/articles/el/why-gnu-linux.html | 50 +- .../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 +- .../blog/articles/eo/gnu-breadcrumb.html | 23 + .../blog/articles/eo/ph-breadcrumb.html | 131 + .../articles/es/15-years-of-free-software.html | 24 +- .../blog/articles/es/2020-announcement-1.html | 2 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/es/about-gnu.html | 59 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/es/amazon.html | 56 +- .../articles/es/android-and-users-freedom.html | 96 +- .../blog/articles/es/anonymous-response.html | 47 +- .../articles/es/applying-free-sw-criteria.html | 23 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/es/apsl.html | 21 +- .../blog/articles/es/assigning-copyright.html | 117 +- .../blog/articles/es/basic-freedoms.html | 46 +- .../blog/articles/es/boldrin-levine.html | 25 +- .../es/bug-nobody-allowed-to-understand.html | 23 +- .../blog/articles/es/byte-interview.html | 41 +- .../blog/articles/es/can-you-trust.html | 55 +- .../blog/articles/es/categories.html | 93 +- .../blog/articles/es/censoring-emacs.html | 35 +- .../blog/articles/es/compromise.html | 105 +- .../blog/articles/es/computing-progress.html | 229 ++ .../articles/es/copyright-and-globalization.html | 105 +- .../articles/es/copyright-versus-community.html | 100 +- .../articles/es/danger-of-software-patents.html | 37 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/es/dat.html | 64 +- .../articles/es/ebooks-must-increase-freedom.html | 75 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/es/ebooks.html | 70 +- .../blog/articles/es/enforcing-gpl.html | 31 +- .../blog/articles/es/essays-and-articles.html | 1963 ++++++--- .../articles/es/fighting-software-patents.html | 59 +- .../articles/es/first-hackers-conference-1984.html | 196 + .../blog/articles/es/floss-and-foss.html | 37 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/es/free-doc.html | 43 +- .../blog/articles/es/free-hardware-designs.html | 151 +- .../es/free-software-even-more-important.html | 99 +- .../articles/es/free-software-for-freedom.html | 61 +- .../blog/articles/es/free-software-intro.html | 30 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/es/free-sw.html | 320 +- .../blog/articles/es/freedom-or-copyright-old.html | 64 +- .../blog/articles/es/freedom-or-power.html | 83 +- .../blog/articles/es/fs-motives.html | 36 +- .../es/funding-art-vs-funding-software.html | 44 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/es/gates.html | 43 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/es/gif.html | 100 +- .../blog/articles/es/gnu-breadcrumb.html | 32 + .../blog/articles/es/gnu-history.html | 45 +- .../blog/articles/es/gnu-linux-faq.html | 170 +- .../blog/articles/es/gnu-structure.html | 90 +- .../articles/es/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.html | 43 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/es/gnu.html | 225 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/es/gnutella.html | 42 +- .../blog/articles/es/government-free-software.html | 52 +- .../blog/articles/es/gpl-american-dream.html | 20 +- .../blog/articles/es/gpl-american-way.html | 44 +- .../blog/articles/es/guardian-article.html | 54 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/es/hague.html | 88 +- .../blog/articles/es/historical-apsl.html | 32 +- .../articles/es/imperfection-isnt-oppression.html | 41 +- .../blog/articles/es/initial-announcement.html | 215 +- .../blog/articles/es/install-fest-devil.html | 29 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/es/ipjustice.html | 24 +- .../es/is-ever-good-use-nonfree-program.html | 63 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/es/java-trap.html | 76 +- .../blog/articles/es/javascript-trap.html | 93 +- .../blog/articles/es/kind-communication.html | 33 +- .../blog/articles/es/lessig-fsfs-intro.html | 338 +- .../blog/articles/es/lest-codeplex-perplex.html | 82 +- .../blog/articles/es/limit-patent-effect.html | 43 +- .../blog/articles/es/linux-and-gnu.html | 155 +- .../blog/articles/es/linux-gnu-freedom.html | 127 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/es/manifesto.html | 198 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/es/mcvoy.html | 27 +- .../blog/articles/es/microsoft-antitrust.html | 31 +- .../blog/articles/es/microsoft-new-monopoly.html | 36 +- .../blog/articles/es/microsoft-old.html | 32 +- .../blog/articles/es/microsoft-verdict.html | 40 +- .../articles/es/misinterpreting-copyright.html | 65 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/es/motif.html | 56 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/es/my_doom.html | 42 +- .../blog/articles/es/netscape-npl.html | 33 +- .../es/network-services-arent-free-or-nonfree.html | 32 +- .../blog/articles/es/no-ip-ethos.html | 61 +- .../blog/articles/es/no-word-attachments.html | 56 +- .../blog/articles/es/nonfree-games.html | 42 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/es/not-ipr.html | 37 +- .../articles/es/open-source-misses-the-point.html | 175 +- .../articles/es/patent-reform-is-not-enough.html | 41 +- .../blog/articles/es/ph-breadcrumb.html | 200 + .../blog/articles/es/philosophy.html | 81 +- .../blog/articles/es/pirate-party.html | 31 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/es/plan-nine.html | 43 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/es/practical.html | 33 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/es/pragmatic.html | 49 +- .../es/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.html | 52 +- .../blog/articles/es/protecting.html | 30 +- .../blog/articles/es/public-domain-manifesto.html | 57 +- .../blog/articles/es/push-copyright-aside.html | 51 +- .../blog/articles/es/reevaluating-copyright.html | 337 +- .../blog/articles/es/right-to-read.html | 112 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/es/rms-lisp.html | 173 +- .../blog/articles/es/savingeurope.html | 39 +- .../blog/articles/es/saying-no-even-once.html | 27 +- .../blog/articles/es/second-sight.html | 53 +- .../blog/articles/es/selling-exceptions.html | 36 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/es/selling.html | 39 +- .../blog/articles/es/shouldbefree.html | 69 +- .../blog/articles/es/social-inertia.html | 21 +- .../articles/es/software-literary-patents.html | 38 +- .../blog/articles/es/software-patents.html | 156 +- .../blog/articles/es/stallmans-law.html | 25 +- .../blog/articles/es/sun-in-night-time.html | 69 +- .../articles/es/surveillance-vs-democracy.html | 252 +- .../blog/articles/es/technological-neutrality.html | 27 +- .../blog/articles/es/the-danger-of-ebooks.html | 53 +- .../blog/articles/es/thegnuproject.html | 1446 +++---- .../blog/articles/es/trivial-patent.html | 37 +- .../blog/articles/es/ubuntu-spyware.html | 34 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/es/ucita.html | 58 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/es/udi.html | 41 +- .../blog/articles/es/university.html | 44 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/es/uruguay.html | 52 +- .../blog/articles/es/use-free-software.html | 38 +- .../blog/articles/es/using-gfdl.html | 41 +- .../blog/articles/es/w3c-patent.html | 43 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/es/wassenaar.html | 32 +- .../blog/articles/es/whats-wrong-with-youtube.html | 42 +- .../es/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html | 68 +- .../blog/articles/es/why-audio-format-matters.html | 85 +- .../blog/articles/es/why-call-it-the-swindle.html | 23 +- .../blog/articles/es/why-copyleft.html | 86 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/es/why-free.html | 32 +- .../blog/articles/es/why-gnu-linux.html | 63 +- .../articles/es/why-programs-should-be-shared.html | 54 +- .../blog/articles/es/words-to-avoid.html | 202 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/es/wsis.html | 57 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/es/x.html | 42 +- .../blog/articles/es/yes-give-it-away.html | 45 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fa/free-doc.html | 4 +- .../blog/articles/fa/gnu-breadcrumb.html | 23 + .../blog/articles/fa/government-free-software.html | 4 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fa/my_doom.html | 4 +- .../blog/articles/fa/ph-breadcrumb.html | 131 + .../blog/articles/fa/philosophy.html | 20 +- .../blog/articles/fi/gnu-breadcrumb.html | 23 + .../blog/articles/fi/ph-breadcrumb.html | 131 + .../blog/articles/fi/shouldbefree.html | 10 +- .../blog/articles/fi/thegnuproject.html | 10 +- .../articles/fr/15-years-of-free-software.html | 47 +- .../blog/articles/fr/2002-linuxexpo-paris.html | 14 +- .../blog/articles/fr/2020-announcement-1.html | 25 +- .../blog/articles/fr/ICT-for-prosperity.html | 85 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fr/about-gnu.html | 93 +- .../blog/articles/fr/amazon-nat.html | 123 +- .../blog/articles/fr/amazon-rms-tim.html | 138 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fr/amazon.html | 71 +- .../articles/fr/android-and-users-freedom.html | 208 +- .../blog/articles/fr/anonymous-response.html | 83 +- .../articles/fr/applying-free-sw-criteria.html | 46 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fr/apsl.html | 44 +- .../blog/articles/fr/assigning-copyright.html | 201 +- .../blog/articles/fr/basic-freedoms.html | 69 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fr/bdk.html | 109 +- .../fr/bill-gates-and-other-communists.html | 84 +- .../blog/articles/fr/boldrin-levine.html | 74 +- .../fr/bug-nobody-allowed-to-understand.html | 48 +- .../blog/articles/fr/byte-interview.html | 264 +- .../blog/articles/fr/can-you-trust.html | 197 +- .../blog/articles/fr/categories.html | 252 +- .../blog/articles/fr/censoring-emacs.html | 60 +- .../blog/articles/fr/compromise.html | 183 +- .../blog/articles/fr/computing-progress.html | 102 +- .../blog/articles/fr/contradictory-support.html | 45 +- .../articles/fr/copyright-and-globalization.html | 266 +- .../fr/copyright-versus-community-2000.html | 485 +-- .../articles/fr/copyright-versus-community.html | 492 +-- .../articles/fr/correcting-france-mistake.html | 79 +- .../articles/fr/danger-of-software-patents.html | 516 +-- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fr/dat.html | 168 +- .../blog/articles/fr/devils-advocate.html | 79 +- .../articles/fr/digital-inclusion-in-freedom.html | 420 +- .../blog/articles/fr/dmarti-patent.html | 55 +- .../blog/articles/fr/drdobbs-letter.html | 59 +- .../articles/fr/ebooks-must-increase-freedom.html | 140 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fr/ebooks.html | 151 +- .../blog/articles/fr/eldred-amicus.html | 756 ++-- .../blog/articles/fr/enforcing-gpl.html | 137 +- .../blog/articles/fr/essays-and-articles.html | 1954 ++++++--- .../blog/articles/fr/europes-unitary-patent.html | 114 +- .../articles/fr/fighting-software-patents.html | 104 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fr/fire.html | 78 +- .../articles/fr/first-hackers-conference-1984.html | 202 + .../blog/articles/fr/floss-and-foss.html | 100 +- .../blog/articles/fr/free-digital-society.html | 435 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fr/free-doc.html | 94 +- .../blog/articles/fr/free-hardware-designs.html | 266 +- .../blog/articles/fr/free-open-overlap.html | 68 +- .../fr/free-software-even-more-important.html | 195 +- .../articles/fr/free-software-for-freedom.html | 308 +- .../blog/articles/fr/free-software-intro.html | 51 +- .../blog/articles/fr/free-software-rocket.html | 33 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fr/free-sw.html | 610 +-- .../blog/articles/fr/free-world-notes.html | 65 +- .../blog/articles/fr/free-world.html | 69 +- .../blog/articles/fr/freedom-or-copyright-old.html | 136 +- .../blog/articles/fr/freedom-or-copyright.html | 175 +- .../blog/articles/fr/freedom-or-power.html | 150 +- .../fr/fs-and-sustainable-development.html | 71 +- .../blog/articles/fr/fs-motives.html | 55 +- .../fr/funding-art-vs-funding-software.html | 56 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fr/gates.html | 107 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fr/gif.html | 146 +- .../blog/articles/fr/gnu-breadcrumb.html | 32 + .../blog/articles/fr/gnu-history.html | 120 +- .../blog/articles/fr/gnu-linux-faq.html | 1008 ++--- .../blog/articles/fr/gnu-structure.html | 103 +- .../articles/fr/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.html | 84 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fr/gnu.html | 250 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fr/gnutella.html | 101 +- .../blog/articles/fr/google-engineering-talk.html | 897 +++-- .../blog/articles/fr/government-free-software.html | 73 +- .../blog/articles/fr/gpl-american-dream.html | 43 +- .../blog/articles/fr/gpl-american-way.html | 143 +- .../blog/articles/fr/greve-clown.html | 186 +- .../blog/articles/fr/guardian-article.html | 75 +- .../blog/articles/fr/hackathons.html | 35 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fr/hague.html | 161 +- .../blog/articles/fr/historical-apsl.html | 57 +- .../articles/fr/imperfection-isnt-oppression.html | 70 +- .../blog/articles/fr/incorrect-quotation.html | 63 +- .../blog/articles/fr/initial-announcement.html | 157 +- .../blog/articles/fr/install-fest-devil.html | 52 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fr/ipjustice.html | 45 +- .../fr/is-ever-good-use-nonfree-program.html | 133 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fr/java-trap.html | 106 +- .../blog/articles/fr/javascript-trap.html | 177 +- .../blog/articles/fr/judge-internet-usage.html | 108 +- .../fr/keep-control-of-your-computing.html | 66 +- .../blog/articles/fr/kevin-cole-response.html | 81 +- .../blog/articles/fr/kind-communication.html | 80 +- .../blog/articles/fr/komongistan.html | 69 +- .../blog/articles/fr/kragen-software.html | 66 +- .../blog/articles/fr/lessig-fsfs-intro.html | 188 +- .../blog/articles/fr/lest-codeplex-perplex.html | 100 +- .../blog/articles/fr/limit-patent-effect.html | 58 +- .../blog/articles/fr/linux-and-gnu.html | 216 +- .../blog/articles/fr/linux-gnu-freedom.html | 187 +- .../blog/articles/fr/loyal-computers.html | 54 +- .../blog/articles/fr/luispo-rms-interview.html | 170 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fr/manifesto.html | 484 +-- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fr/mcvoy.html | 67 +- .../blog/articles/fr/microsoft-antitrust.html | 65 +- .../blog/articles/fr/microsoft-new-monopoly.html | 57 +- .../blog/articles/fr/microsoft-old.html | 63 +- .../blog/articles/fr/microsoft-verdict.html | 65 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fr/microsoft.html | 102 +- .../articles/fr/misinterpreting-copyright.html | 766 ++-- .../articles/fr/moglen-harvard-speech-2004.html | 553 +-- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fr/motif.html | 75 +- .../blog/articles/fr/ms-doj-tunney.html | 55 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fr/my_doom.html | 95 +- .../blog/articles/fr/netscape-npl.html | 60 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fr/netscape.html | 61 +- .../fr/network-services-arent-free-or-nonfree.html | 58 +- .../blog/articles/fr/new-monopoly.html | 78 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fr/nit-india.html | 177 +- .../blog/articles/fr/no-ip-ethos.html | 117 +- .../blog/articles/fr/no-word-attachments.html | 79 +- .../blog/articles/fr/nonfree-games.html | 92 +- .../blog/articles/fr/nonsoftware-copyleft.html | 167 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fr/not-ipr.html | 156 +- .../articles/fr/open-source-misses-the-point.html | 361 +- .../blog/articles/fr/opposing-drm.html | 75 +- .../blog/articles/fr/ough-interview.html | 271 +- .../blog/articles/fr/patent-practice-panel.html | 212 +- .../articles/fr/patent-reform-is-not-enough.html | 65 +- .../blog/articles/fr/ph-breadcrumb.html | 200 + .../blog/articles/fr/philosophy.html | 130 +- .../blog/articles/fr/phone-anonymous-payment.html | 43 +- .../blog/articles/fr/pirate-party.html | 61 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fr/plan-nine.html | 65 +- .../blog/articles/fr/posting-videos.html | 41 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fr/practical.html | 58 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fr/pragmatic.html | 79 +- .../blog/articles/fr/privacyaction.html | 57 +- .../fr/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.html | 130 +- .../blog/articles/fr/pronunciation.html | 70 +- .../blog/articles/fr/protecting.html | 49 +- .../blog/articles/fr/public-domain-manifesto.html | 77 +- .../blog/articles/fr/push-copyright-aside.html | 136 +- .../blog/articles/fr/reevaluating-copyright.html | 423 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fr/rieti.html | 80 +- .../blog/articles/fr/right-to-read.html | 208 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fr/rms-aj.html | 246 +- .../articles/fr/rms-comment-longs-article.html | 101 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fr/rms-hack.html | 414 +- .../blog/articles/fr/rms-interview-edinburgh.html | 377 +- .../articles/fr/rms-kernel-trap-interview.html | 55 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fr/rms-kol.html | 101 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fr/rms-lisp.html | 311 +- .../blog/articles/fr/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html | 1342 ++++--- .../blog/articles/fr/rms-on-radio-nz.html | 203 +- .../blog/articles/fr/rms-patents.html | 155 +- .../fr/rms-pour-une-societe-numerique-libre.html | 764 ++-- .../blog/articles/fr/rtlinux-patent.html | 58 +- .../blog/articles/fr/savingeurope.html | 104 +- .../blog/articles/fr/saying-no-even-once.html | 35 +- .../blog/articles/fr/second-sight.html | 76 +- .../blog/articles/fr/self-interest.html | 125 +- .../blog/articles/fr/selling-exceptions.html | 59 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fr/selling.html | 56 +- .../blog/articles/fr/shouldbefree.html | 209 +- .../blog/articles/fr/social-inertia.html | 44 +- .../fr/software-libre-commercial-viability.html | 73 +- .../articles/fr/software-literary-patents.html | 61 +- .../blog/articles/fr/software-patents.html | 461 +-- .../blog/articles/fr/speeches-and-interviews.html | 836 ++++ .../blog/articles/fr/stallman-kth.html | 787 ++-- .../blog/articles/fr/stallman-mec-india.html | 2349 +++++------ .../blog/articles/fr/stallmans-law.html | 42 +- .../blog/articles/fr/stophr3028.html | 80 +- .../blog/articles/fr/sun-in-night-time.html | 118 +- .../blog/articles/fr/surveillance-testimony.html | 75 +- .../articles/fr/surveillance-vs-democracy.html | 374 +- .../blog/articles/fr/technological-neutrality.html | 64 +- .../blog/articles/fr/the-danger-of-ebooks.html | 114 +- .../blog/articles/fr/the-law-of-success-2.html | 439 +- .../blog/articles/fr/the-root-of-this-problem.html | 116 +- .../blog/articles/fr/thegnuproject.html | 618 +-- .../blog/articles/fr/third-party-ideas.html | 217 +- .../blog/articles/fr/trivial-patent.html | 60 +- .../blog/articles/fr/ubuntu-spyware.html | 111 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fr/ucita.html | 174 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fr/udi.html | 66 +- .../blog/articles/fr/university.html | 76 +- .../blog/articles/fr/upgrade-windows.html | 43 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fr/uruguay.html | 76 +- .../blog/articles/fr/use-free-software.html | 55 +- .../blog/articles/fr/using-gfdl.html | 69 +- .../blog/articles/fr/vaccination.html | 69 +- .../fr/vers-une-societe-numerique-libre.html | 16 +- .../blog/articles/fr/w3c-patent.html | 78 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fr/wassenaar.html | 55 +- .../blog/articles/fr/whats-wrong-with-youtube.html | 87 +- .../articles/fr/when-free-depends-on-nonfree.html | 57 +- ...en-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.html | 48 +- .../fr/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html | 234 +- .../blog/articles/fr/why-audio-format-matters.html | 109 +- .../blog/articles/fr/why-call-it-the-swindle.html | 117 +- .../blog/articles/fr/why-copyleft.html | 52 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fr/why-free.html | 175 +- .../blog/articles/fr/why-gnu-linux.html | 74 +- .../articles/fr/why-programs-should-be-shared.html | 63 +- .../fr/wipo-PublicAwarenessOfCopyright-2002.html | 113 +- .../blog/articles/fr/words-to-avoid.html | 1119 +++--- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fr/wsis-2003.html | 70 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fr/wsis.html | 82 +- .../blog/articles/fr/wwworst-app-store.html | 275 ++ talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fr/x.html | 47 +- .../blog/articles/fr/yes-give-it-away.html | 63 +- .../fr/your-freedom-needs-free-software.html | 114 +- .../blog/articles/he/gnu-breadcrumb.html | 23 + .../blog/articles/he/ph-breadcrumb.html | 131 + .../articles/hr/15-years-of-free-software.html | 39 +- .../blog/articles/hr/ICT-for-prosperity.html | 39 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/hr/about-gnu.html | 39 +- .../blog/articles/hr/basic-freedoms.html | 57 +- .../blog/articles/hr/byte-interview.html | 46 +- .../blog/articles/hr/compromise.html | 103 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/hr/ebooks.html | 42 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/hr/free-doc.html | 4 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/hr/free-sw.html | 137 +- .../blog/articles/hr/freedom-or-copyright-old.html | 10 +- .../blog/articles/hr/gnu-breadcrumb.html | 23 + .../blog/articles/hr/gnu-history.html | 42 +- .../blog/articles/hr/gnu-linux-faq.html | 293 +- .../articles/hr/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.html | 42 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/hr/gnu.html | 71 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/hr/gnutella.html | 35 +- .../blog/articles/hr/initial-announcement.html | 23 +- .../blog/articles/hr/linux-and-gnu.html | 65 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/hr/manifesto.html | 170 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/hr/microsoft.html | 22 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/hr/not-ipr.html | 18 +- .../articles/hr/open-source-misses-the-point.html | 26 +- .../blog/articles/hr/ph-breadcrumb.html | 131 + .../blog/articles/hr/philosophy.html | 43 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/hr/practical.html | 10 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/hr/pragmatic.html | 20 +- .../blog/articles/hr/pronunciation.html | 39 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/hr/selling.html | 21 +- .../blog/articles/hr/shouldbefree.html | 46 +- .../blog/articles/hr/social-inertia.html | 4 +- .../blog/articles/hr/stallmans-law.html | 14 +- .../blog/articles/hr/the-danger-of-ebooks.html | 18 +- .../blog/articles/hr/thegnuproject.html | 112 +- .../blog/articles/hr/ubuntu-spyware.html | 31 +- .../blog/articles/hr/university.html | 4 +- .../blog/articles/hr/use-free-software.html | 35 +- .../hr/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html | 144 +- .../blog/articles/hr/why-copyleft.html | 31 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/hr/why-free.html | 14 +- .../blog/articles/hr/why-gnu-linux.html | 85 +- .../hr/your-freedom-needs-free-software.html | 35 +- .../blog/articles/id/enforcing-gpl.html | 10 +- .../blog/articles/id/gnu-breadcrumb.html | 23 + .../blog/articles/id/microsoft-antitrust.html | 10 +- .../blog/articles/id/microsoft-verdict.html | 10 +- .../blog/articles/id/ph-breadcrumb.html | 131 + talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/id/plan-nine.html | 10 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/id/udi.html | 10 +- .../blog/articles/id/using-gfdl.html | 10 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/it/about-gnu.html | 97 +- .../blog/articles/it/amazon-rms-tim.html | 120 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/it/amazon.html | 278 +- .../articles/it/android-and-users-freedom.html | 221 +- .../blog/articles/it/anonymous-response.html | 59 +- .../articles/it/applying-free-sw-criteria.html | 93 +- .../blog/articles/it/basic-freedoms.html | 69 +- .../it/bug-nobody-allowed-to-understand.html | 36 +- .../blog/articles/it/byte-interview.html | 103 +- .../blog/articles/it/can-you-trust.html | 262 +- .../blog/articles/it/categories.html | 484 +-- .../blog/articles/it/censoring-emacs.html | 111 +- .../blog/articles/it/compromise.html | 189 +- .../articles/it/copyright-and-globalization.html | 312 +- .../articles/it/ebooks-must-increase-freedom.html | 125 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/it/ebooks.html | 121 +- .../blog/articles/it/enforcing-gpl.html | 399 +- .../articles/it/fighting-software-patents.html | 80 +- .../blog/articles/it/floss-and-foss.html | 102 +- .../blog/articles/it/free-digital-society.html | 448 ++- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/it/free-doc.html | 66 +- .../blog/articles/it/free-open-overlap.html | 58 +- .../articles/it/free-software-for-freedom.html | 311 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/it/free-sw.html | 595 +-- .../blog/articles/it/freedom-or-copyright-old.html | 82 +- .../blog/articles/it/freedom-or-power.html | 112 +- .../blog/articles/it/fs-motives.html | 32 +- .../blog/articles/it/gnu-breadcrumb.html | 23 + .../blog/articles/it/gnu-history.html | 85 +- .../articles/it/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.html | 106 +- .../blog/articles/it/government-free-software.html | 115 +- .../blog/articles/it/gpl-american-dream.html | 137 +- .../blog/articles/it/gpl-american-way.html | 82 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/it/hague.html | 129 +- .../blog/articles/it/initial-announcement.html | 94 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/it/java-trap.html | 112 +- .../blog/articles/it/javascript-trap.html | 299 +- .../blog/articles/it/linux-and-gnu.html | 330 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/it/manifesto.html | 244 +- .../blog/articles/it/microsoft-old.html | 40 +- .../blog/articles/it/microsoft-verdict.html | 64 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/it/microsoft.html | 61 +- .../articles/it/misinterpreting-copyright.html | 429 +- .../blog/articles/it/new-monopoly.html | 146 +- .../blog/articles/it/no-word-attachments.html | 186 +- .../blog/articles/it/nonfree-games.html | 78 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/it/not-ipr.html | 161 +- .../blog/articles/it/opposing-drm.html | 241 +- .../articles/it/patent-reform-is-not-enough.html | 88 +- .../blog/articles/it/ph-breadcrumb.html | 131 + .../blog/articles/it/philosophy.html | 88 +- .../blog/articles/it/pirate-party.html | 65 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/it/practical.html | 35 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/it/pragmatic.html | 99 +- .../blog/articles/it/pronunciation.html | 49 +- .../blog/articles/it/reevaluating-copyright.html | 723 ++-- .../blog/articles/it/right-to-read.html | 185 +- .../blog/articles/it/savingeurope.html | 57 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/it/selling.html | 105 +- .../blog/articles/it/social-inertia.html | 26 +- .../it/software-libre-commercial-viability.html | 108 +- .../blog/articles/it/stallmans-law.html | 24 +- .../articles/it/surveillance-vs-democracy.html | 203 +- .../blog/articles/it/the-danger-of-ebooks.html | 79 +- .../blog/articles/it/thegnuproject.html | 639 +-- .../blog/articles/it/trivial-patent.html | 89 +- .../blog/articles/it/ubuntu-spyware.html | 118 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/it/ucita.html | 264 +- .../blog/articles/it/university.html | 227 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/it/uruguay.html | 63 +- .../blog/articles/it/use-free-software.html | 67 +- .../blog/articles/it/using-gfdl.html | 69 +- .../blog/articles/it/w3c-patent.html | 100 +- ...en-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.html | 117 +- .../it/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html | 4 +- .../blog/articles/it/why-audio-format-matters.html | 89 +- .../blog/articles/it/why-copyleft.html | 56 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/it/why-free.html | 107 +- .../blog/articles/it/why-gnu-linux.html | 91 +- .../articles/ja/15-years-of-free-software.html | 28 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ja/about-gnu.html | 51 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ja/amazon.html | 42 +- .../blog/articles/ja/basic-freedoms.html | 46 +- .../blog/articles/ja/byte-interview.html | 42 +- .../blog/articles/ja/categories.html | 75 +- .../blog/articles/ja/censoring-emacs.html | 37 +- .../blog/articles/ja/compromise.html | 109 +- .../blog/articles/ja/essays-and-articles.html | 1702 ++++++-- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ja/free-doc.html | 47 +- .../blog/articles/ja/free-open-overlap.html | 45 +- .../ja/free-software-even-more-important.html | 63 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ja/free-sw.html | 244 +- .../blog/articles/ja/freedom-or-copyright-old.html | 58 +- .../blog/articles/ja/fs-motives.html | 32 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ja/gif.html | 82 +- .../blog/articles/ja/gnu-breadcrumb.html | 23 + .../blog/articles/ja/gnu-history.html | 45 +- .../blog/articles/ja/gnu-linux-faq.html | 140 +- .../articles/ja/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.html | 41 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ja/gnu.html | 191 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ja/gnutella.html | 46 +- .../blog/articles/ja/government-free-software.html | 56 +- .../blog/articles/ja/initial-announcement.html | 84 +- .../blog/articles/ja/javascript-trap.html | 55 +- .../blog/articles/ja/linux-and-gnu.html | 95 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ja/manifesto.html | 173 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ja/not-ipr.html | 35 +- .../articles/ja/open-source-misses-the-point.html | 94 +- .../blog/articles/ja/ph-breadcrumb.html | 131 + .../blog/articles/ja/philosophy.html | 83 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ja/pragmatic.html | 36 +- .../blog/articles/ja/pronunciation.html | 38 +- .../blog/articles/ja/protecting.html | 35 +- .../blog/articles/ja/right-to-read.html | 109 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ja/rms-lisp.html | 80 +- .../blog/articles/ja/rms-patents.html | 39 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ja/selling.html | 31 +- .../articles/ja/surveillance-vs-democracy.html | 161 +- .../blog/articles/ja/thegnuproject.html | 187 +- .../blog/articles/ja/third-party-ideas.html | 97 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ja/ucita.html | 59 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ja/wassenaar.html | 30 +- .../blog/articles/ja/whats-wrong-with-youtube.html | 40 +- ...en-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.html | 26 +- .../ja/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html | 50 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ja/why-free.html | 36 +- .../blog/articles/ja/why-gnu-linux.html | 47 +- .../articles/ja/why-programs-should-be-shared.html | 33 +- .../blog/articles/ja/words-to-avoid.html | 498 ++- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ja/x.html | 28 +- .../blog/articles/ja/yes-give-it-away.html | 33 +- .../articles/ko/15-years-of-free-software.html | 10 +- .../blog/articles/ko/amazon-nat.html | 10 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ko/amazon.html | 10 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ko/apsl.html | 10 +- .../articles/ko/correcting-france-mistake.html | 10 +- .../blog/articles/ko/enforcing-gpl.html | 10 +- .../blog/articles/ko/freedom-or-power.html | 4 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ko/gif.html | 10 +- .../blog/articles/ko/gnu-breadcrumb.html | 23 + .../blog/articles/ko/microsoft-antitrust.html | 10 +- .../blog/articles/ko/microsoft-verdict.html | 10 +- .../blog/articles/ko/ph-breadcrumb.html | 131 + talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ko/pragmatic.html | 14 +- .../blog/articles/ko/pronunciation.html | 10 +- .../blog/articles/ko/right-to-read.html | 12 +- .../blog/articles/ko/using-gfdl.html | 10 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ko/wassenaar.html | 10 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ko/why-free.html | 10 +- .../blog/articles/ko/why-gnu-linux.html | 45 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ko/x.html | 10 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/lt/free-doc.html | 4 +- .../blog/articles/lt/gnu-breadcrumb.html | 23 + .../blog/articles/lt/ph-breadcrumb.html | 131 + talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/lt/pragmatic.html | 15 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/lt/why-free.html | 15 +- .../articles/ml/15-years-of-free-software.html | 10 +- .../blog/articles/ml/can-you-trust.html | 28 +- .../blog/articles/ml/compromise.html | 108 +- .../articles/ml/fighting-software-patents.html | 10 +- .../blog/articles/ml/free-software-intro.html | 10 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ml/free-sw.html | 674 ++-- .../blog/articles/ml/gnu-breadcrumb.html | 23 + .../blog/articles/ml/gnu-history.html | 93 +- .../blog/articles/ml/microsoft-old.html | 10 +- .../blog/articles/ml/no-ip-ethos.html | 10 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ml/not-ipr.html | 10 +- .../articles/ml/open-source-misses-the-point.html | 54 +- .../blog/articles/ml/ph-breadcrumb.html | 131 + .../blog/articles/ml/pirate-party.html | 10 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ml/pragmatic.html | 4 +- .../blog/articles/ml/social-inertia.html | 4 +- .../articles/ml/surveillance-vs-democracy.html | 88 +- .../blog/articles/ml/thegnuproject.html | 14 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ml/why-free.html | 145 +- .../blog/articles/ms/gnu-breadcrumb.html | 23 + .../blog/articles/ms/ph-breadcrumb.html | 131 + .../blog/articles/ms/stallmans-law.html | 10 +- .../blog/articles/nb/gnu-breadcrumb.html | 23 + .../blog/articles/nb/ph-breadcrumb.html | 131 + .../articles/nl/15-years-of-free-software.html | 32 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/nl/about-gnu.html | 14 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/nl/amazon.html | 59 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/nl/apsl.html | 25 +- .../blog/articles/nl/basic-freedoms.html | 50 +- .../blog/articles/nl/boldrin-levine.html | 36 +- .../blog/articles/nl/can-you-trust.html | 57 +- .../blog/articles/nl/censoring-emacs.html | 42 +- .../blog/articles/nl/compromise.html | 151 +- .../blog/articles/nl/contradictory-support.html | 4 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/nl/dat.html | 76 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/nl/ebooks.html | 77 +- .../blog/articles/nl/enforcing-gpl.html | 37 +- .../articles/nl/fighting-software-patents.html | 69 +- .../blog/articles/nl/floss-and-foss.html | 43 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/nl/free-doc.html | 4 +- .../nl/free-software-even-more-important.html | 74 +- .../blog/articles/nl/free-software-intro.html | 28 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/nl/free-sw.html | 111 +- .../blog/articles/nl/freedom-or-copyright-old.html | 66 +- .../blog/articles/nl/freedom-or-copyright.html | 61 +- .../blog/articles/nl/freedom-or-power.html | 10 +- .../blog/articles/nl/fs-motives.html | 32 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/nl/gates.html | 57 +- .../blog/articles/nl/gnu-breadcrumb.html | 23 + .../blog/articles/nl/gnu-history.html | 14 +- .../articles/nl/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.html | 14 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/nl/gnutella.html | 52 +- .../blog/articles/nl/government-free-software.html | 64 +- .../blog/articles/nl/gpl-american-dream.html | 24 +- .../blog/articles/nl/gpl-american-way.html | 50 +- .../blog/articles/nl/guardian-article.html | 50 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/nl/hague.html | 100 +- .../articles/nl/imperfection-isnt-oppression.html | 45 +- .../blog/articles/nl/initial-announcement.html | 15 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/nl/ipjustice.html | 29 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/nl/java-trap.html | 82 +- .../blog/articles/nl/javascript-trap.html | 118 +- .../blog/articles/nl/komongistan.html | 32 +- .../blog/articles/nl/lessig-fsfs-intro.html | 66 +- .../blog/articles/nl/linux-and-gnu.html | 53 +- .../blog/articles/nl/linux-gnu-freedom.html | 53 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/nl/manifesto.html | 10 +- .../blog/articles/nl/microsoft-antitrust.html | 37 +- .../blog/articles/nl/microsoft-new-monopoly.html | 42 +- .../blog/articles/nl/microsoft-old.html | 38 +- .../blog/articles/nl/microsoft-verdict.html | 48 +- .../articles/nl/misinterpreting-copyright.html | 76 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/nl/motif.html | 55 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/nl/my_doom.html | 50 +- .../blog/articles/nl/netscape-npl.html | 37 +- .../blog/articles/nl/no-ip-ethos.html | 75 +- .../blog/articles/nl/no-word-attachments.html | 4 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/nl/not-ipr.html | 31 +- .../articles/nl/open-source-misses-the-point.html | 123 +- .../articles/nl/patent-reform-is-not-enough.html | 51 +- .../blog/articles/nl/ph-breadcrumb.html | 131 + .../blog/articles/nl/philosophy.html | 78 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/nl/plan-nine.html | 43 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/nl/practical.html | 36 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/nl/pragmatic.html | 57 +- .../blog/articles/nl/privacyaction.html | 39 +- .../blog/articles/nl/protecting.html | 31 +- .../blog/articles/nl/push-copyright-aside.html | 85 +- .../blog/articles/nl/reevaluating-copyright.html | 351 +- .../blog/articles/nl/right-to-read.html | 126 +- .../blog/articles/nl/second-sight.html | 66 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/nl/selling.html | 37 +- .../blog/articles/nl/shouldbefree.html | 71 +- .../blog/articles/nl/social-inertia.html | 4 +- .../blog/articles/nl/stallmans-law.html | 23 +- .../blog/articles/nl/sun-in-night-time.html | 71 +- .../articles/nl/surveillance-vs-democracy.html | 110 +- .../blog/articles/nl/technological-neutrality.html | 29 +- .../blog/articles/nl/thegnuproject.html | 24 +- .../blog/articles/nl/third-party-ideas.html | 61 +- .../blog/articles/nl/trivial-patent.html | 44 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/nl/ucita.html | 57 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/nl/udi.html | 49 +- .../blog/articles/nl/university.html | 52 +- .../blog/articles/nl/using-gfdl.html | 38 +- .../blog/articles/nl/w3c-patent.html | 4 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/nl/wassenaar.html | 36 +- ...en-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.html | 25 +- .../nl/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html | 122 +- .../blog/articles/nl/why-copyleft.html | 47 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/nl/why-free.html | 41 +- .../blog/articles/nl/why-gnu-linux.html | 14 +- .../articles/nl/why-programs-should-be-shared.html | 14 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/nl/wsis.html | 64 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/nl/x.html | 36 +- .../blog/articles/nl/yes-give-it-away.html | 14 +- .../articles/pl/15-years-of-free-software.html | 24 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/pl/about-gnu.html | 10 +- .../blog/articles/pl/amazon-nat.html | 81 +- .../blog/articles/pl/amazon-rms-tim.html | 105 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/pl/amazon.html | 42 +- .../blog/articles/pl/anonymous-response.html | 47 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/pl/apsl.html | 21 +- .../blog/articles/pl/basic-freedoms.html | 49 +- .../blog/articles/pl/boldrin-levine.html | 29 +- .../blog/articles/pl/categories.html | 75 +- .../blog/articles/pl/censoring-emacs.html | 36 +- .../blog/articles/pl/compromise.html | 110 +- .../blog/articles/pl/computing-progress.html | 46 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/pl/dat.html | 65 +- .../blog/articles/pl/drdobbs-letter.html | 36 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/pl/ebooks.html | 70 +- .../blog/articles/pl/enforcing-gpl.html | 32 +- .../blog/articles/pl/europes-unitary-patent.html | 54 +- .../articles/pl/fighting-software-patents.html | 60 +- .../blog/articles/pl/floss-and-foss.html | 37 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/pl/free-doc.html | 43 +- .../articles/pl/free-software-for-freedom.html | 63 +- .../blog/articles/pl/free-software-intro.html | 27 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/pl/free-sw.html | 355 +- .../blog/articles/pl/free-world.html | 58 +- .../blog/articles/pl/freedom-or-copyright-old.html | 59 +- .../blog/articles/pl/freedom-or-copyright.html | 59 +- .../blog/articles/pl/freedom-or-power.html | 10 +- .../blog/articles/pl/fs-motives.html | 31 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/pl/gif.html | 139 +- .../blog/articles/pl/gnu-breadcrumb.html | 23 + .../blog/articles/pl/gnu-history.html | 10 +- .../articles/pl/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.html | 34 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/pl/gnu.html | 31 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/pl/gnutella.html | 44 +- .../blog/articles/pl/gpl-american-dream.html | 20 +- .../blog/articles/pl/gpl-american-way.html | 45 +- .../blog/articles/pl/guardian-article.html | 49 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/pl/hague.html | 95 +- .../blog/articles/pl/historical-apsl.html | 33 +- .../blog/articles/pl/initial-announcement.html | 10 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/pl/ipjustice.html | 22 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/pl/java-trap.html | 4 +- .../blog/articles/pl/judge-internet-usage.html | 41 +- .../pl/keep-control-of-your-computing.html | 40 +- .../blog/articles/pl/kevin-cole-response.html | 57 +- .../blog/articles/pl/lessig-fsfs-intro.html | 10 +- .../blog/articles/pl/lest-codeplex-perplex.html | 51 +- .../blog/articles/pl/linux-and-gnu.html | 10 +- .../blog/articles/pl/linux-gnu-freedom.html | 46 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/pl/manifesto.html | 10 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/pl/mcvoy.html | 28 +- .../blog/articles/pl/microsoft-antitrust.html | 32 +- .../blog/articles/pl/microsoft-new-monopoly.html | 4 +- .../blog/articles/pl/microsoft-old.html | 33 +- .../blog/articles/pl/microsoft-verdict.html | 41 +- .../articles/pl/misinterpreting-copyright.html | 70 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/pl/motif.html | 51 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/pl/my_doom.html | 43 +- .../blog/articles/pl/netscape-npl.html | 34 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/pl/netscape.html | 36 +- .../blog/articles/pl/no-ip-ethos.html | 59 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/pl/not-ipr.html | 47 +- .../articles/pl/open-source-misses-the-point.html | 221 +- .../articles/pl/patent-reform-is-not-enough.html | 39 +- .../blog/articles/pl/ph-breadcrumb.html | 131 + .../blog/articles/pl/philosophy.html | 72 +- .../blog/articles/pl/pirate-party.html | 32 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/pl/plan-nine.html | 41 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/pl/practical.html | 34 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/pl/pragmatic.html | 53 +- .../blog/articles/pl/privacyaction.html | 32 +- .../blog/articles/pl/protecting.html | 27 +- .../blog/articles/pl/public-domain-manifesto.html | 52 +- .../blog/articles/pl/push-copyright-aside.html | 10 +- .../blog/articles/pl/reevaluating-copyright.html | 351 +- .../blog/articles/pl/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html | 417 +- .../blog/articles/pl/second-sight.html | 53 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/pl/selling.html | 34 +- .../blog/articles/pl/shouldbefree.html | 70 +- .../blog/articles/pl/social-inertia.html | 4 +- .../articles/pl/software-literary-patents.html | 40 +- .../blog/articles/pl/sun-in-night-time.html | 86 +- .../blog/articles/pl/thegnuproject.html | 276 +- .../blog/articles/pl/trivial-patent.html | 37 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/pl/udi.html | 42 +- .../blog/articles/pl/university.html | 44 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/pl/uruguay.html | 52 +- .../blog/articles/pl/use-free-software.html | 32 +- .../blog/articles/pl/using-gfdl.html | 33 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/pl/wassenaar.html | 33 +- .../pl/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html | 210 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/pl/why-free.html | 32 +- .../blog/articles/pl/why-gnu-linux.html | 10 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/pl/wsis-2003.html | 38 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/pl/wsis.html | 58 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/pl/x.html | 24 +- .../pl/your-freedom-needs-free-software.html | 10 +- .../blog/articles/ro/amazon-nat.html | 16 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ro/fire.html | 12 +- .../blog/articles/ro/fs-motives.html | 4 +- .../blog/articles/ro/gnu-breadcrumb.html | 23 + talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ro/java-trap.html | 4 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ro/manifesto.html | 29 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ro/not-ipr.html | 12 +- .../blog/articles/ro/ph-breadcrumb.html | 131 + talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ro/pragmatic.html | 16 +- .../blog/articles/ro/sun-in-night-time.html | 16 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ro/why-free.html | 14 +- .../articles/ru/15-years-of-free-software.html | 26 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ru/about-gnu.html | 60 +- .../blog/articles/ru/amazon-nat.html | 78 +- .../blog/articles/ru/amazon-rms-tim.html | 97 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ru/amazon.html | 44 +- .../articles/ru/android-and-users-freedom.html | 153 +- .../blog/articles/ru/anonymous-response.html | 41 +- .../articles/ru/applying-free-sw-criteria.html | 25 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ru/apsl.html | 21 +- .../blog/articles/ru/assigning-copyright.html | 88 +- .../blog/articles/ru/basic-freedoms.html | 42 +- .../ru/bill-gates-and-other-communists.html | 39 +- .../blog/articles/ru/boldrin-levine.html | 25 +- .../ru/bug-nobody-allowed-to-understand.html | 23 +- .../blog/articles/ru/byte-interview.html | 43 +- .../blog/articles/ru/can-you-trust.html | 55 +- .../blog/articles/ru/categories.html | 77 +- .../blog/articles/ru/censoring-emacs.html | 37 +- .../blog/articles/ru/compromise.html | 111 +- .../blog/articles/ru/computing-progress.html | 47 +- .../blog/articles/ru/contradictory-support.html | 23 +- .../articles/ru/copyright-and-globalization.html | 515 +-- .../ru/copyright-versus-community-2000.html | 24 +- .../articles/ru/copyright-versus-community.html | 86 +- .../articles/ru/correcting-france-mistake.html | 34 +- .../articles/ru/danger-of-software-patents.html | 40 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ru/dat.html | 62 +- .../blog/articles/ru/devils-advocate.html | 29 +- .../articles/ru/digital-inclusion-in-freedom.html | 186 +- .../blog/articles/ru/drdobbs-letter.html | 37 +- .../articles/ru/ebooks-must-increase-freedom.html | 67 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ru/ebooks.html | 72 +- .../blog/articles/ru/eldred-amicus.html | 246 +- .../blog/articles/ru/enforcing-gpl.html | 34 +- .../blog/articles/ru/essays-and-articles.html | 1906 ++++++--- .../blog/articles/ru/europes-unitary-patent.html | 46 +- .../articles/ru/fighting-software-patents.html | 62 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ru/fire.html | 41 +- .../blog/articles/ru/floss-and-foss.html | 40 +- .../blog/articles/ru/free-digital-society.html | 47 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ru/free-doc.html | 44 +- .../blog/articles/ru/free-hardware-designs.html | 119 +- .../blog/articles/ru/free-open-overlap.html | 43 +- .../ru/free-software-even-more-important.html | 70 +- .../articles/ru/free-software-for-freedom.html | 74 +- .../blog/articles/ru/free-software-intro.html | 26 +- .../blog/articles/ru/free-software-rocket.html | 18 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ru/free-sw.html | 317 +- .../blog/articles/ru/free-world-notes.html | 45 +- .../blog/articles/ru/free-world.html | 48 +- .../blog/articles/ru/freedom-or-copyright-old.html | 60 +- .../blog/articles/ru/freedom-or-copyright.html | 52 +- .../blog/articles/ru/freedom-or-power.html | 89 +- .../ru/fs-and-sustainable-development.html | 34 +- .../blog/articles/ru/fs-motives.html | 30 +- .../ru/funding-art-vs-funding-software.html | 33 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ru/gates.html | 46 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ru/gif.html | 96 +- .../blog/articles/ru/gnu-breadcrumb.html | 32 + .../blog/articles/ru/gnu-history.html | 36 +- .../blog/articles/ru/gnu-linux-faq.html | 153 +- .../blog/articles/ru/gnu-structure.html | 90 +- .../articles/ru/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.html | 43 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ru/gnu.html | 195 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ru/gnutella.html | 44 +- .../blog/articles/ru/google-engineering-talk.html | 453 ++- .../blog/articles/ru/government-free-software.html | 52 +- .../blog/articles/ru/gpl-american-dream.html | 24 +- .../blog/articles/ru/gpl-american-way.html | 48 +- .../blog/articles/ru/greve-clown.html | 68 +- .../blog/articles/ru/guardian-article.html | 47 +- .../blog/articles/ru/hackathons.html | 21 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ru/hague.html | 79 +- .../blog/articles/ru/historical-apsl.html | 32 +- .../articles/ru/imperfection-isnt-oppression.html | 41 +- .../blog/articles/ru/incorrect-quotation.html | 20 +- .../blog/articles/ru/initial-announcement.html | 112 +- .../blog/articles/ru/install-fest-devil.html | 31 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ru/ipjustice.html | 24 +- .../ru/is-ever-good-use-nonfree-program.html | 67 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ru/java-trap.html | 79 +- .../blog/articles/ru/javascript-trap.html | 83 +- .../blog/articles/ru/judge-internet-usage.html | 35 +- .../ru/keep-control-of-your-computing.html | 41 +- .../blog/articles/ru/kevin-cole-response.html | 60 +- .../blog/articles/ru/kind-communication.html | 33 +- .../blog/articles/ru/komongistan.html | 29 +- .../blog/articles/ru/kragen-software.html | 39 +- .../blog/articles/ru/lessig-fsfs-intro.html | 64 +- .../blog/articles/ru/lest-codeplex-perplex.html | 58 +- .../blog/articles/ru/limit-patent-effect.html | 35 +- .../blog/articles/ru/linux-and-gnu.html | 149 +- .../blog/articles/ru/linux-gnu-freedom.html | 53 +- .../blog/articles/ru/loyal-computers.html | 29 +- .../blog/articles/ru/luispo-rms-interview.html | 50 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ru/manifesto.html | 202 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ru/mcvoy.html | 29 +- .../blog/articles/ru/microsoft-antitrust.html | 32 +- .../blog/articles/ru/microsoft-new-monopoly.html | 36 +- .../blog/articles/ru/microsoft-old.html | 32 +- .../blog/articles/ru/microsoft-verdict.html | 40 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ru/microsoft.html | 39 +- .../articles/ru/misinterpreting-copyright.html | 59 +- .../articles/ru/moglen-harvard-speech-2004.html | 104 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ru/motif.html | 51 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ru/my_doom.html | 42 +- .../blog/articles/ru/netscape-npl-old.html | 36 +- .../blog/articles/ru/netscape-npl.html | 31 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ru/netscape.html | 37 +- .../ru/network-services-arent-free-or-nonfree.html | 26 +- .../blog/articles/ru/new-monopoly.html | 65 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ru/nit-india.html | 41 +- .../blog/articles/ru/no-ip-ethos.html | 53 +- .../blog/articles/ru/no-word-attachments.html | 51 +- .../blog/articles/ru/nonfree-games.html | 37 +- .../blog/articles/ru/nonsoftware-copyleft.html | 106 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ru/not-ipr.html | 30 +- .../articles/ru/open-source-misses-the-point.html | 199 +- .../blog/articles/ru/opposing-drm.html | 53 +- .../blog/articles/ru/ough-interview.html | 43 +- .../blog/articles/ru/patent-practice-panel.html | 38 +- .../articles/ru/patent-reform-is-not-enough.html | 41 +- .../blog/articles/ru/ph-breadcrumb.html | 200 + .../blog/articles/ru/philosophy.html | 77 +- .../blog/articles/ru/phone-anonymous-payment.html | 20 +- .../blog/articles/ru/pirate-party.html | 33 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ru/plan-nine.html | 45 +- .../blog/articles/ru/posting-videos.html | 20 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ru/practical.html | 37 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ru/pragmatic.html | 38 +- .../ru/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.html | 70 +- .../blog/articles/ru/pronunciation.html | 30 +- .../blog/articles/ru/protecting.html | 27 +- .../blog/articles/ru/public-domain-manifesto.html | 60 +- .../blog/articles/ru/push-copyright-aside.html | 57 +- .../blog/articles/ru/reevaluating-copyright.html | 287 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ru/rieti.html | 42 +- .../blog/articles/ru/right-to-read.html | 112 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ru/rms-aj.html | 49 +- .../articles/ru/rms-comment-longs-article.html | 58 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ru/rms-hack.html | 52 +- .../blog/articles/ru/rms-interview-edinburgh.html | 184 +- .../articles/ru/rms-kernel-trap-interview.html | 153 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ru/rms-kol.html | 36 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ru/rms-lisp.html | 102 +- .../blog/articles/ru/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html | 43 +- .../blog/articles/ru/rms-on-radio-nz.html | 103 +- .../blog/articles/ru/rms-patents.html | 37 +- .../blog/articles/ru/rtlinux-patent.html | 37 +- .../blog/articles/ru/savingeurope.html | 38 +- .../blog/articles/ru/saying-no-even-once.html | 180 + .../blog/articles/ru/second-sight.html | 55 +- .../blog/articles/ru/self-interest.html | 49 +- .../blog/articles/ru/selling-exceptions.html | 38 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ru/selling.html | 29 +- .../blog/articles/ru/shouldbefree.html | 64 +- .../blog/articles/ru/social-inertia.html | 23 +- .../ru/software-libre-commercial-viability.html | 69 +- .../articles/ru/software-literary-patents.html | 40 +- .../blog/articles/ru/software-patents.html | 126 +- .../blog/articles/ru/speeches-and-interviews.html | 839 ++++ .../blog/articles/ru/stallman-kth.html | 285 +- .../blog/articles/ru/stallman-mec-india.html | 1607 ++++---- .../blog/articles/ru/stallmans-law.html | 19 +- .../blog/articles/ru/surveillance-testimony.html | 26 +- .../articles/ru/surveillance-vs-democracy.html | 203 +- .../blog/articles/ru/technological-neutrality.html | 27 +- .../blog/articles/ru/the-danger-of-ebooks.html | 56 +- .../blog/articles/ru/the-root-of-this-problem.html | 84 +- .../blog/articles/ru/thegnuproject.html | 263 +- .../blog/articles/ru/third-party-ideas.html | 119 +- .../blog/articles/ru/trivial-patent.html | 39 +- .../blog/articles/ru/ubuntu-spyware.html | 37 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ru/ucita.html | 49 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ru/udi.html | 43 +- .../blog/articles/ru/university.html | 46 +- .../blog/articles/ru/upgrade-windows.html | 20 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ru/uruguay.html | 50 +- .../blog/articles/ru/use-free-software.html | 34 +- .../blog/articles/ru/using-gfdl.html | 40 +- .../blog/articles/ru/vaccination.html | 56 +- .../blog/articles/ru/w3c-patent.html | 45 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ru/wassenaar.html | 32 +- .../blog/articles/ru/whats-wrong-with-youtube.html | 44 +- .../articles/ru/when-free-depends-on-nonfree.html | 43 +- ...en-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.html | 29 +- .../ru/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html | 66 +- .../blog/articles/ru/why-audio-format-matters.html | 88 +- .../blog/articles/ru/why-call-it-the-swindle.html | 25 +- .../blog/articles/ru/why-copyleft.html | 31 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ru/why-free.html | 34 +- .../blog/articles/ru/why-gnu-linux.html | 65 +- .../articles/ru/why-programs-should-be-shared.html | 36 +- .../ru/wipo-PublicAwarenessOfCopyright-2002.html | 29 +- .../blog/articles/ru/words-to-avoid.html | 358 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ru/wsis-2003.html | 31 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ru/wsis.html | 59 +- .../blog/articles/ru/wwworst-app-store.html | 275 ++ talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ru/x.html | 26 +- .../blog/articles/ru/yes-give-it-away.html | 36 +- .../ru/your-freedom-needs-free-software.html | 65 +- .../blog/articles/sk/gnu-breadcrumb.html | 23 + .../blog/articles/sk/ph-breadcrumb.html | 131 + .../articles/sq/15-years-of-free-software.html | 24 +- .../blog/articles/sq/2020-announcement-1.html | 117 + talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/sq/about-gnu.html | 80 +- .../blog/articles/sq/amazon-nat.html | 83 +- .../blog/articles/sq/amazon-rms-tim.html | 123 +- .../articles/sq/android-and-users-freedom.html | 368 ++ .../blog/articles/sq/anonymous-response.html | 178 + talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/sq/apsl.html | 150 + .../blog/articles/sq/assigning-copyright.html | 226 ++ .../blog/articles/sq/basic-freedoms.html | 44 +- .../blog/articles/sq/byte-interview.html | 55 +- .../blog/articles/sq/compromise.html | 296 ++ talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/sq/fire.html | 64 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/sq/free-doc.html | 246 ++ .../sq/free-software-even-more-important.html | 160 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/sq/free-sw.html | 417 +- .../blog/articles/sq/freedom-or-power.html | 90 +- .../blog/articles/sq/gnu-breadcrumb.html | 23 + .../blog/articles/sq/gnu-history.html | 94 +- .../blog/articles/sq/gnu-linux-faq.html | 395 +- .../blog/articles/sq/gnu-structure.html | 420 ++ .../articles/sq/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.html | 76 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/sq/gnu.html | 214 +- .../blog/articles/sq/incorrect-quotation.html | 152 + .../blog/articles/sq/initial-announcement.html | 128 +- .../blog/articles/sq/javascript-trap.html | 339 ++ .../blog/articles/sq/linux-and-gnu.html | 238 +- .../blog/articles/sq/loyal-computers.html | 32 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/sq/manifesto.html | 613 +-- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/sq/not-ipr.html | 359 ++ .../articles/sq/open-source-misses-the-point.html | 593 +-- .../blog/articles/sq/ph-breadcrumb.html | 131 + .../blog/articles/sq/philosophy.html | 89 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/sq/pragmatic.html | 255 ++ .../blog/articles/sq/pronunciation.html | 135 + .../blog/articles/sq/right-to-read.html | 126 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/sq/rms-lisp.html | 440 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/sq/selling.html | 279 ++ .../articles/sq/surveillance-vs-democracy.html | 284 +- .../blog/articles/sq/thegnuproject.html | 543 +-- .../sq/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html | 215 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/sq/why-free.html | 409 ++ .../blog/articles/sq/why-gnu-linux.html | 123 +- .../articles/sq/why-programs-should-be-shared.html | 158 + .../blog/articles/sq/words-to-avoid.html | 1374 ++++--- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/sq/x.html | 252 ++ .../blog/articles/sq/yes-give-it-away.html | 150 + .../blog/articles/sr/essays-and-articles.html | 5 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/sr/free-doc.html | 4 +- .../blog/articles/sr/gnu-breadcrumb.html | 23 + .../blog/articles/sr/linux-gnu-freedom.html | 20 +- .../blog/articles/sr/ph-breadcrumb.html | 131 + .../blog/articles/sr/shouldbefree.html | 18 +- .../blog/articles/sv/gnu-breadcrumb.html | 23 + .../blog/articles/sv/initial-announcement.html | 4 +- .../blog/articles/sv/ph-breadcrumb.html | 131 + .../articles/ta/fighting-software-patents.html | 4 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ta/fire.html | 4 +- .../blog/articles/ta/gnu-breadcrumb.html | 23 + .../blog/articles/ta/ph-breadcrumb.html | 131 + .../blog/articles/te/gnu-breadcrumb.html | 23 + .../blog/articles/te/ph-breadcrumb.html | 131 + .../articles/tr/15-years-of-free-software.html | 24 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/tr/about-gnu.html | 55 +- .../articles/tr/android-and-users-freedom.html | 110 +- .../blog/articles/tr/basic-freedoms.html | 43 +- .../tr/bill-gates-and-other-communists.html | 43 +- .../blog/articles/tr/byte-interview.html | 41 +- .../blog/articles/tr/can-you-trust.html | 57 +- .../blog/articles/tr/categories.html | 104 +- .../blog/articles/tr/compromise.html | 121 +- .../articles/tr/copyright-and-globalization.html | 135 +- .../blog/articles/tr/drdobbs-letter.html | 36 +- .../blog/articles/tr/floss-and-foss.html | 37 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/tr/free-doc.html | 47 +- .../tr/free-software-even-more-important.html | 84 +- .../blog/articles/tr/free-software-intro.html | 33 +- .../blog/articles/tr/free-software-rocket.html | 16 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/tr/free-sw.html | 340 +- .../blog/articles/tr/fs-motives.html | 30 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/tr/gates.html | 44 +- .../blog/articles/tr/gnu-breadcrumb.html | 23 + .../blog/articles/tr/gnu-history.html | 42 +- .../blog/articles/tr/gnu-linux-faq.html | 229 +- .../blog/articles/tr/gnu-structure.html | 75 +- .../articles/tr/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.html | 39 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/tr/gnu.html | 212 +- .../blog/articles/tr/government-free-software.html | 53 +- .../blog/articles/tr/initial-announcement.html | 99 +- .../blog/articles/tr/javascript-trap.html | 122 +- .../blog/articles/tr/lessig-fsfs-intro.html | 236 +- .../blog/articles/tr/linux-and-gnu.html | 140 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/tr/manifesto.html | 211 +- .../articles/tr/misinterpreting-copyright.html | 55 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/tr/not-ipr.html | 42 +- .../articles/tr/open-source-misses-the-point.html | 149 +- .../blog/articles/tr/ph-breadcrumb.html | 131 + .../blog/articles/tr/philosophy.html | 90 +- .../blog/articles/tr/phone-anonymous-payment.html | 20 +- .../blog/articles/tr/posting-videos.html | 18 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/tr/pragmatic.html | 50 +- .../blog/articles/tr/pronunciation.html | 38 +- .../blog/articles/tr/push-copyright-aside.html | 99 +- .../blog/articles/tr/right-to-read.html | 124 +- .../blog/articles/tr/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html | 1329 ++++--- .../blog/articles/tr/saying-no-even-once.html | 20 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/tr/selling.html | 52 +- .../blog/articles/tr/shouldbefree.html | 189 +- .../articles/tr/surveillance-vs-democracy.html | 205 +- .../blog/articles/tr/thegnuproject.html | 609 +-- .../blog/articles/tr/university.html | 44 +- .../blog/articles/tr/upgrade-windows.html | 20 +- .../blog/articles/tr/whats-wrong-with-youtube.html | 40 +- ...en-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.html | 42 +- .../tr/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html | 75 +- .../blog/articles/tr/why-audio-format-matters.html | 86 +- .../blog/articles/tr/why-copyleft.html | 36 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/tr/why-free.html | 43 +- .../blog/articles/tr/why-gnu-linux.html | 59 +- .../articles/tr/why-programs-should-be-shared.html | 45 +- .../blog/articles/tr/words-to-avoid.html | 656 +-- .../tr/your-freedom-needs-free-software.html | 63 +- .../articles/uk/15-years-of-free-software.html | 16 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/uk/about-gnu.html | 29 +- .../blog/articles/uk/amazon-nat.html | 14 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/uk/amazon.html | 13 +- .../articles/uk/android-and-users-freedom.html | 346 ++ .../blog/articles/uk/basic-freedoms.html | 17 +- .../uk/bug-nobody-allowed-to-understand.html | 13 +- .../blog/articles/uk/byte-interview.html | 14 +- .../blog/articles/uk/compromise.html | 4 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/uk/fire.html | 31 +- .../blog/articles/uk/floss-and-foss.html | 16 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/uk/free-doc.html | 176 +- .../blog/articles/uk/free-open-overlap.html | 85 +- .../uk/free-software-even-more-important.html | 270 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/uk/free-sw.html | 404 +- .../blog/articles/uk/gnu-breadcrumb.html | 23 + .../blog/articles/uk/gnu-history.html | 17 +- .../articles/uk/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.html | 14 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/uk/gnutella.html | 18 +- .../blog/articles/uk/government-free-software.html | 319 ++ .../blog/articles/uk/initial-announcement.html | 12 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/uk/ipjustice.html | 14 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/uk/manifesto.html | 13 +- .../blog/articles/uk/microsoft-verdict.html | 14 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/uk/not-ipr.html | 18 +- .../articles/uk/open-source-misses-the-point.html | 179 +- .../blog/articles/uk/ph-breadcrumb.html | 131 + talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/uk/pragmatic.html | 20 +- .../blog/articles/uk/pronunciation.html | 14 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/uk/rms-lisp.html | 554 +-- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/uk/selling.html | 17 +- .../blog/articles/uk/stallmans-law.html | 17 +- .../articles/uk/surveillance-vs-democracy.html | 489 +-- .../blog/articles/uk/thegnuproject.html | 16 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/uk/uruguay.html | 13 +- .../blog/articles/uk/vaccination.html | 61 +- .../blog/articles/uk/whats-wrong-with-youtube.html | 224 ++ .../blog/articles/uk/why-copyleft.html | 18 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/uk/why-free.html | 22 +- .../blog/articles/uk/why-gnu-linux.html | 17 +- .../articles/uk/why-programs-should-be-shared.html | 17 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/uk/x.html | 243 ++ .../blog/articles/uk/yes-give-it-away.html | 17 +- .../articles/zh/15-years-of-free-software.html | 30 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/about-gnu.html | 106 +- .../blog/articles/zh/amazon-nat.html | 65 +- .../blog/articles/zh/amazon-rms-tim.html | 84 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/amazon.html | 41 +- .../articles/zh/android-and-users-freedom.html | 175 +- .../blog/articles/zh/anonymous-response.html | 40 +- .../articles/zh/applying-free-sw-criteria.html | 29 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/apsl.html | 25 +- .../blog/articles/zh/assigning-copyright.html | 59 +- .../blog/articles/zh/basic-freedoms.html | 47 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/bdk.html | 50 +- .../zh/bill-gates-and-other-communists.html | 39 +- .../blog/articles/zh/boldrin-levine.html | 27 +- .../zh/bug-nobody-allowed-to-understand.html | 27 +- .../blog/articles/zh/byte-interview.html | 50 +- .../blog/articles/zh/can-you-trust.html | 681 +++- .../blog/articles/zh/categories.html | 308 +- .../blog/articles/zh/censoring-emacs.html | 39 +- .../blog/articles/zh/compromise.html | 124 +- .../blog/articles/zh/computing-progress.html | 53 +- .../blog/articles/zh/contradictory-support.html | 26 +- .../articles/zh/copyright-and-globalization.html | 83 +- .../zh/copyright-versus-community-2000.html | 465 +++ .../articles/zh/copyright-versus-community.html | 525 +++ .../articles/zh/correcting-france-mistake.html | 119 + .../articles/zh/danger-of-software-patents.html | 666 ++++ talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/dat.html | 821 +++- .../blog/articles/zh/devils-advocate.html | 130 + .../articles/zh/digital-inclusion-in-freedom.html | 646 +++ .../blog/articles/zh/dmarti-patent.html | 252 ++ .../blog/articles/zh/drdobbs-letter.html | 97 +- .../articles/zh/ebooks-must-increase-freedom.html | 129 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/ebooks.html | 71 +- .../articles/zh/fighting-software-patents.html | 122 + talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/fire.html | 87 + .../articles/zh/first-hackers-conference-1984.html | 141 + .../blog/articles/zh/floss-and-foss.html | 129 + talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/free-doc.html | 117 +- .../blog/articles/zh/free-open-overlap.html | 135 + .../zh/free-software-even-more-important.html | 88 +- .../articles/zh/free-software-for-freedom.html | 352 +- .../blog/articles/zh/free-software-intro.html | 133 + .../blog/articles/zh/free-software-rocket.html | 152 + talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/free-sw.html | 413 +- .../blog/articles/zh/free-world.html | 282 +- .../blog/articles/zh/freedom-or-power.html | 4 +- .../zh/fs-and-sustainable-development.html | 120 + .../blog/articles/zh/fs-motives.html | 37 +- .../blog/articles/zh/gnu-breadcrumb.html | 23 + .../blog/articles/zh/gnu-history.html | 127 +- .../blog/articles/zh/gnu-linux-faq.html | 192 +- .../blog/articles/zh/gnu-structure.html | 60 +- .../articles/zh/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.html | 50 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/gnu.html | 122 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/gnutella.html | 226 +- .../blog/articles/zh/government-free-software.html | 4 +- .../blog/articles/zh/gpl-american-dream.html | 110 + .../articles/zh/imperfection-isnt-oppression.html | 10 +- .../blog/articles/zh/incorrect-quotation.html | 26 +- .../blog/articles/zh/initial-announcement.html | 92 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/ipjustice.html | 115 + .../zh/is-ever-good-use-nonfree-program.html | 51 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/java-trap.html | 72 +- .../blog/articles/zh/javascript-trap.html | 73 +- .../blog/articles/zh/kevin-cole-response.html | 108 + .../blog/articles/zh/kragen-software.html | 143 +- .../blog/articles/zh/lessig-fsfs-intro.html | 68 +- .../blog/articles/zh/linux-and-gnu.html | 147 +- .../blog/articles/zh/linux-gnu-freedom.html | 361 +- .../blog/articles/zh/luispo-rms-interview.html | 245 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/manifesto.html | 172 +- .../blog/articles/zh/microsoft-old.html | 125 + .../blog/articles/zh/microsoft-verdict.html | 117 + .../articles/zh/misinterpreting-copyright.html | 56 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/motif.html | 139 + talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/my_doom.html | 132 + talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/netscape.html | 114 + .../blog/articles/zh/nonfree-games.html | 10 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/not-ipr.html | 44 +- .../articles/zh/open-source-misses-the-point.html | 97 +- .../articles/zh/patent-reform-is-not-enough.html | 152 + .../blog/articles/zh/ph-breadcrumb.html | 131 + .../blog/articles/zh/philosophy.html | 157 +- .../blog/articles/zh/phone-anonymous-payment.html | 111 + .../blog/articles/zh/posting-videos.html | 123 + talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/practical.html | 42 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/pragmatic.html | 42 +- .../blog/articles/zh/privacyaction.html | 139 + .../zh/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.html | 10 +- .../blog/articles/zh/pronunciation.html | 40 +- .../blog/articles/zh/protecting.html | 220 +- .../blog/articles/zh/public-domain-manifesto.html | 135 + .../blog/articles/zh/push-copyright-aside.html | 95 +- .../blog/articles/zh/right-to-read.html | 254 +- .../articles/zh/rms-comment-longs-article.html | 120 + talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/rms-lisp.html | 110 +- .../blog/articles/zh/rtlinux-patent.html | 134 + .../blog/articles/zh/saying-no-even-once.html | 18 +- .../blog/articles/zh/second-sight.html | 148 + .../blog/articles/zh/self-interest.html | 102 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/selling.html | 131 +- .../blog/articles/zh/shouldbefree.html | 1249 ++++-- .../blog/articles/zh/social-inertia.html | 4 +- .../blog/articles/zh/software-patents.html | 616 +++ .../blog/articles/zh/stallmans-law.html | 10 +- .../articles/zh/surveillance-vs-democracy.html | 174 +- .../blog/articles/zh/the-danger-of-ebooks.html | 10 +- .../blog/articles/zh/thegnuproject.html | 618 +-- .../blog/articles/zh/ubuntu-spyware.html | 181 + talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/ucita.html | 473 ++- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/udi.html | 151 + .../blog/articles/zh/university.html | 4 +- .../blog/articles/zh/use-free-software.html | 150 + .../blog/articles/zh/using-gfdl.html | 87 +- .../blog/articles/zh/whats-wrong-with-youtube.html | 178 + ...en-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.html | 30 +- .../zh/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html | 55 +- .../blog/articles/zh/why-call-it-the-swindle.html | 10 +- .../blog/articles/zh/why-copyleft.html | 10 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/why-free.html | 186 +- .../blog/articles/zh/why-gnu-linux.html | 165 +- .../articles/zh/why-programs-should-be-shared.html | 39 +- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/wsis-2003.html | 89 +- .../blog/articles/zh/wwworst-app-store.html | 238 ++ talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/x.html | 171 + .../blog/articles/zh/yes-give-it-away.html | 38 +- .../zh/your-freedom-needs-free-software.html | 141 + 1799 files changed, 124050 insertions(+), 67906 deletions(-) create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/af/gnu-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/af/ph-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/gnu-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/ph-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/bg/gnu-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/bg/ph-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/free-hardware-designs.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/free-software-rocket.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/fs-and-sustainable-development.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/gnu-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/gnu-structure.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/ipjustice.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/judge-internet-usage.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/ph-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/self-interest.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/selling-exceptions.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/using-gfdl.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/vaccination.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/whats-wrong-with-youtube.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/wwworst-app-store.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ca/gnu-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ca/ph-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/cs/gnu-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/cs/ph-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/da/gnu-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/da/ph-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/de/gnu-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/de/ph-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/el/gnu-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/el/ph-breadcrumb.html 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 create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/eo/gnu-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/eo/ph-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/es/computing-progress.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/es/first-hackers-conference-1984.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/es/gnu-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/es/ph-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fa/gnu-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fa/ph-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fi/gnu-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fi/ph-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fr/first-hackers-conference-1984.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fr/gnu-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fr/ph-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fr/speeches-and-interviews.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/fr/wwworst-app-store.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/he/gnu-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/he/ph-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/hr/gnu-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/hr/ph-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/id/gnu-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/id/ph-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/it/gnu-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/it/ph-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ja/gnu-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ja/ph-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ko/gnu-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ko/ph-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/lt/gnu-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/lt/ph-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ml/gnu-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ml/ph-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ms/gnu-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ms/ph-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/nb/gnu-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/nb/ph-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/nl/gnu-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/nl/ph-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/pl/gnu-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/pl/ph-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ro/gnu-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ro/ph-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ru/gnu-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ru/ph-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ru/saying-no-even-once.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ru/speeches-and-interviews.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ru/wwworst-app-store.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/sk/gnu-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/sk/ph-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/sq/2020-announcement-1.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/sq/android-and-users-freedom.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/sq/anonymous-response.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/sq/apsl.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/sq/assigning-copyright.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/sq/compromise.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/sq/free-doc.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/sq/gnu-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/sq/gnu-structure.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/sq/incorrect-quotation.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/sq/javascript-trap.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/sq/not-ipr.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/sq/ph-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/sq/pragmatic.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/sq/pronunciation.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/sq/selling.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/sq/why-free.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/sq/why-programs-should-be-shared.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/sq/x.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/sq/yes-give-it-away.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/sr/gnu-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/sr/ph-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/sv/gnu-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/sv/ph-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ta/gnu-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ta/ph-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/te/gnu-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/te/ph-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/tr/gnu-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/tr/ph-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/uk/android-and-users-freedom.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/uk/gnu-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/uk/government-free-software.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/uk/ph-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/uk/whats-wrong-with-youtube.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/uk/x.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/copyright-versus-community-2000.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/copyright-versus-community.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/correcting-france-mistake.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/danger-of-software-patents.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/devils-advocate.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/digital-inclusion-in-freedom.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/dmarti-patent.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/fighting-software-patents.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/fire.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/first-hackers-conference-1984.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/floss-and-foss.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/free-open-overlap.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/free-software-intro.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/free-software-rocket.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/fs-and-sustainable-development.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/gnu-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/gpl-american-dream.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/ipjustice.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/kevin-cole-response.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/microsoft-old.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/microsoft-verdict.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/motif.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/my_doom.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/netscape.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/patent-reform-is-not-enough.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/ph-breadcrumb.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/phone-anonymous-payment.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/posting-videos.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/privacyaction.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/public-domain-manifesto.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/rms-comment-longs-article.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/rtlinux-patent.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/second-sight.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/software-patents.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/ubuntu-spyware.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/udi.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/use-free-software.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/whats-wrong-with-youtube.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/wwworst-app-store.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/x.html create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/zh/your-freedom-needs-free-software.html (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles') diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/af/gnu-breadcrumb.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/af/gnu-breadcrumb.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..18a355d --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/af/gnu-breadcrumb.html @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/af/ph-breadcrumb.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/af/ph-breadcrumb.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6ac4a04 --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/af/ph-breadcrumb.html @@ -0,0 +1,131 @@ + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/15-years-of-free-software.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/15-years-of-free-software.html index 88b4ce0..239443d 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/15-years-of-free-software.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/15-years-of-free-software.html @@ -1,4 +1,9 @@ - + @@ -13,6 +18,7 @@ +

15 عامًا من البرمجيات الحرّة

@@ -129,7 +135,8 @@ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">دليل الترجمة. -

Copyright © 1999, 2014, 2020 Richard M. Stallman

+

حقوق النشر:

+Copyright © 1999, 2014, 2020 Richard M. Stallman

هذا المÙصنَّ٠مرخص بموجب رخصة المشاع @@ -143,9 +150,9 @@ href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/deed.ar">رخصة المشا حمّانة.
تعديل وتصحيح: Ùيصل علمي حسني.

-تحديث: +Ø­Ùدّثت: -$Date: 2020/07/05 14:01:36 $ +$Date: 2021/09/14 17:07:10 $

diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/bdk.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/bdk.html index ef4f66f..87d4cae 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/bdk.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/bdk.html @@ -1,4 +1,9 @@ - + @@ -8,6 +13,7 @@ +

قصيدة دينيس كارجالا

@@ -129,7 +135,8 @@ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">دليل الترجمة. -

Copyright © 2000, 2014 Ù„:تيموثي ر.Ùيليبس

+

حقوق النشر:

+Copyright © 2000, 2014 Timothy R. Phillips (Ù„:تيموثي ر.Ùيليبس)

المؤل٠يشكر بيتر جاسزي، ماري باندت جنسن، Ùˆ دينيس كارجالا لسماحهم له بتصويرهم ÙÙŠ صورة خيالية.ÙŠÙسمح باعادة طبع هذه القصيدة مادام ان الكلمات لم تÙغير Ùˆ تم @@ -144,7 +151,7 @@ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">دليل الترجمة. Ø­Ùدّثت: -$Date: 2014/11/08 22:00:10 $ +$Date: 2022/03/24 11:00:43 $

diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/byte-interview.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/byte-interview.html index 39939d4..e7bfc37 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/byte-interview.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/byte-interview.html @@ -1,4 +1,9 @@ - + @@ -8,6 +13,7 @@ +

مقابلة BYTE مع ريتشارد ستالمن

أجريت هذه المقابلة من طر٠داÙيد بيتز وجون إدواردز

@@ -461,12 +467,13 @@ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">دليل الترجمة. -

Copyright © 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2007, 2013, 2014, 2020 مؤسسة -البرمجيات الحرة، المحدودة.

+

حقوق النشر:

+Copyright © 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2007, 2013, 2014, 2020 Free +Software Foundation, Inc. (مؤسسة البرمجيات الحرة)

هذا المÙصنَّ٠مرخص بموجب رخصة المشاع -الإبداعي نَسب المÙصنّ٠- منع الاشتقاق 4.0 دولي.

+الإبداعي نسب المصن٠- منع الاشتقاق 4.0 دولي.

@@ -476,9 +483,9 @@ href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/deed.ar">رخصة المشا href="https://savannah.gnu.org/projects/www-ar/"><www-ar>

-تحديث: +Ø­Ùدّثت: -$Date: 2020/07/04 09:00:35 $ +$Date: 2022/01/01 11:36:22 $

diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/ebooks.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/ebooks.html index 111ec3b..b3a41e2 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/ebooks.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/ebooks.html @@ -1,4 +1,9 @@ - + @@ -8,6 +13,7 @@ +

الكتب الإلكترونية: الحرية أو حقوق النشر

بقلم ريتشارد ستالمن

@@ -136,7 +142,8 @@ href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org>. هناك أيضاً طرق أ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">دليل الترجمة.

-

Copyright © 2000, 2016 Richard Stallman

+

حقوق النشر:

+Copyright © 2000, 2016 Richard Stallman (ريتشارد ستولمن)

هذا المÙصنَّ٠مرخص بموجب رخصة المشاع @@ -150,9 +157,9 @@ href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/deed.ar">رخصة المشا وتصحيح: Ùيصل علمي حسني.

-Ø­Ùدثت: +Ø­Ùدّثت: -$Date: 2016/11/18 07:32:43 $ +$Date: 2021/11/01 17:29:56 $

diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/free-doc.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/free-doc.html index 8aacb8a..927019e 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/free-doc.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/free-doc.html @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/free-doc.ar.po' --> + --> @@ -203,7 +203,7 @@ href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/deed.ar">رخصة المشا

Ø­Ùدثت: -$Date: 2020/02/25 23:00:03 $ +$Date: 2021/05/28 19:00:49 $

diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/free-sw.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/free-sw.html index e98570b..9e2159e 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/free-sw.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/free-sw.html @@ -3,85 +3,138 @@ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/free-sw.ar.po' --> + --> - + + + + ما هي البرمجيات الحرة؟ - مشروع غنو - مؤسسة البرمجيات الحرة - +نظام تشغيل, نواة غنو, هيرد، غنو هيرد HURD, GNU HURD, Hurd, GNU, Free +Software Foundation, Linux, Emacs, Unix, Free Software, Operating System, +GNU Kernel" /> + + + + +

ما هي البرمجيات الحرة؟

+
-
-

تعري٠البرمجيات الحرة

- -

-هل لديك أي أسئلة عن ترخيص البرمجيات الحرة ولم تتوصل لإجابة لها؟ لا تتردد ÙÙŠ -الاطلاع على موارد الترخيص اﻷخرى -أو للضرورة يمكنك الاتصال بمختبر الامتثال التابع لمؤسسة البرمجيات الحرة على -العنوان licensing@fsf.org.

-
- -
+

-يقدم تعري٠البرمجيات الحرة المعايير التي يجب أن يحققها برنامج معين حتى يتم -اعتباره برنامجًا حرًا. نحن نراجع هذا التعري٠من وقت لآخر لنوضّحه أو للإجابة -عن أسئلة متعلقة بمشاكل غامضة. انظر قسم التاريخ أدناه -للحصول على قائمة بالتغييرات التي أثّرت على تعري٠البرمجيات الحرة. +”البرمجيات الحرة Free software“ هي البرمجيات التي تحترم حرية +المستخدمين ومجتمعهم. بصورة مختصرة، يملك مستخدمو البرمجيات الحرة الحرية +ÙÙŠ تشغيل ونسخ وتوزيع ودراسة وتعديل وتحسين هذه البرمجيات. بالتالي، يدل +مصطلح ”Free software“ ÙÙŠ اللغة الإنجليزية على الحرية، وليس +السعر. لاستيعاب هذا المÙهوم، اعتبر كلمة ”free“ كما لو كانت ÙÙŠ +عبارة ”free speech“ وليس ”free beer.“ أحياناً نستخدم +المÙردة ”libre“ المأخوذة من الÙرنسية أو الإسبانية بدلاً من +”free“ للدلالة على أننا لا نقصد أن البرنامج مجاني.

-“المصدر المÙتوح Open Source” هي حركة أخرى مختلÙØ© عن البرمجيات -الحرة، ولها ÙلسÙØ© أخرى مبنية على قيم أخرى. التعري٠العملي للمصدر المÙتوح -مختل٠كذلك عن البرامج الحرة، ومع ذلك Ùأغلب البرامج ذات المصدر المÙتوح هي -ÙÙŠ -الحقيقة- حرة كذلك. لقد وضحنا الÙرق ÙÙŠ هذه المقالة: لم حركة المصدر المÙتوح -قد ابتعدت عن Ùكرة البرمجيات الحرة. +لربما دÙعتَ بعض المال من أجل الحصول على برنامج حر، أو ربما حصلتَ عليه بشكل +مجاني. بغض النظر عن الآلية التي حصلت من خلالها على هذا البرنامج، تبقى لك +الحرية دائمًا ÙÙŠ نسخ وتعديل البرنامج، وحتى ÙÙŠ بيع نسخ منه.

-”البرمجيات الحرة Free Software“ هي البرمجيات التي تحترم حرية -المستخدمين والمجتمع. بصورة تقريبية، يملك المستخدمون الحرية ÙÙŠ تشغيل ونسخ -وتوزيع ودراسة وتعديل وتحسين البرمجيات. بالتالي، ”Free -software“ ÙÙŠ اللغة الإنجليزية، تدل على الحرية، وليس السعر. Ù„Ùهم الÙكرة -باللغة الإنجليزية، اعتبر ”free“ كما لو كانت ÙÙŠ ”free -speech“ وليس ”free beer“. أحياناً نستعمل المصطلح -”libre“ المأخوذ من الÙرنسية أو الإسبانية بدلاً من الكلمة -”free“ للدلالة على أننا لا نعني أن البرنامج مجاني. +نحن نناصر هذه الحريات لأن الجميع يستحقها. مع هذه الحريات، يتحكم المستخدمون +(بشكل Ùردي وجماعي) بالبرنامج وبما ÙŠÙعله لهم. عندما ï»» يتحكم المستخدمون +بالبرنامج، ندعوه (أي البرنامج) بـ“غير الحر” أو +“الاحتكاري”. يتحكم البرنامج غير الحر بمستخدميه، وبدوره يتحكم +مطور البرنامج بهذا البرنامج؛ مما يجعل البرنامج وسيلة غير عادلة +للسيطرة.

-نحن نناصر هذه الحريات لأن الجميع يستحقها. مع هذه الحريات، يتحكم المستخدمون -(سواء اﻷÙراد أو المجموعات) بما ÙŠÙعله البرنامج لهم. عندما ï»» يتحكم المستخدمون -بالبرنامج، يتحكم البرنامج بمستخدميه. يتحكم المطور بالبرنامج، ويتحكم بدوره -بالمستخدمين من خلال هذا البرنامج. بالتالي، يصبح هذا البرنامج غير الحر أو -”الاحتكاري “ أداة تعطي المطور -سلطة غير عادلة. +“المصدر المÙتوح Open source” هي حركة مختلÙØ© تمامًا: وله ÙلسÙØ© +أخرى مبنية على قيم أخرى. التعري٠العملي للمصدر المÙتوح مختل٠كذلك عن +البرامج الحرة، ومع ذلك Ùأغلب البرامج ذات المصدر المÙتوح هي -ÙÙŠ الحقيقة- حرة +كذلك. لقد وضحنا الاختلا٠ÙÙŠ هذه المقالة: لمَ ابتعدت حركة المصدر +المÙتوح عن Ùكرة البرمجيات الحرة.

-

الحريات الأربع الأساسية

+
+
+

جدول المحتويات

+ +
+ + + + +

تعري٠البرمجيات الحرة

-يكون البرنامج حرًا عندما يتمتع مستخدموه بالحريات اﻷربع الأساسية: +يقدم تعري٠البرمجيات الحرة المعايير التي يجب أن يحققها برنامج معين حتى يتم +اعتباره برنامجًا حرًا. نحن نراجع هذا التعري٠من وقت لآخر لنوضّحه أو للإجابة +عن مسائل لم نلاحظها ÙÙŠ البداية. انظر قسم التاريخ +أدناه للوصول إلى قائمة بالتغييرات التي أثّرت على تعري٠البرمجيات الحرة. +

+ +

الحريات الأربع الأساسية

+

+يكون البرنامج حرًا عندما يتمتع مستخدموه بالحريات اﻷربع الأساسية: [1]

    @@ -98,32 +151,60 @@ href="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html">أداة تعطي ال

-يكون البرنامج حراً عندما يعطي مستخدميه جميع هذه الحريات. وإلا Ùإنه ليس -برنامجاً حراً. يمكننا أن نقارن بين أساليب التوزيع للبرامج غير الحرة وكم هذه -الأساليب هي على قرب أو بعد من أن تكون حرة، إلا أننا نعتبر جميعها غير أخلاقي -على حد سواء.

+يكون البرنامج حرًا عندما يعطي مستخدميه جميع هذه الحريات. وإلا Ùإنه برنامجًا +غير حر. يمكننا أن نقارن بين أساليب التوزيع المختلÙØ© للبرامج غير الحرة وكم +هذه الأساليب هي على قرب أو بعد من أن تكون حرة، إلا أننا نعتبر جميعها غير +أخلاقي على حد سواء.

+ +

تحت أي ظرÙØŒ يجب أن تطبق هذه الحريات على جميع الشÙرات التي نخطط إلى الاستÙادة +منها، أو التي نجر الآخرين على الاستÙادة منها. خذ على سبيل المثال البرنامج A +الذي يشغل أوتوماتيكيًا البرنامج B ليتعامل مع بعض الحالات. عندما نخطط أن +نوزع البرنامج A كما هو، ذلك يعني أن المستخدمين سيحتاجون البرنامج BØŒ وهنا +سنحكم إذا ما كان كلا البرنامجان حرًا. ولكن عندما نخطط إلى تعديل البرنامج A +حتى لا يستخدم البرنامج B ÙÙŠ عمله، ÙÙŠ هذه الحالة Ùإنه Ùقط على البرنامج A أن +يكون حرًا، بينما البرنامج B لا يتعلق بالأمر بتاتًا.

+ + +

البرمجيات الحرة ممكن أن تكون تجارية

+ +

+“البرمجيات الحرة” لا تعني “برمجيات غير تجارية.” على +العكس، يجب أن يكون البرنامج الحر جاهزًا للاستخدام والتطوير والتوزيع +التجاري. هذه السياسة هي ذات أهمية أساسية—بدونها، لا يمكن للبرمجيات +الحرة أن تحقق أهداÙها. +

-

تحت أي ظرÙØŒ يجب أن تطبق هذه الحريات على جميع الشيÙرات التي نخطط إلى -الاستÙادة منها، أو التي نجر الآخرين على الاستÙادة منها. خذ على سبيل المثال -البرنامج A الذي أوتوماتيكياً يشغل البرنامج B ليتعامل مع بعض الحالات. عندما -نخطط أن نوزع البرنامج A كما هو، ذلك يعني أن المستخدمين سيحتاجون البرنامج BØŒ -وهنا سنحكم إذا ما كان كلا البرنامجان حراً. ولكن عندما نخطط إلى تعديل -البرنامج A حتى لا يستخدم البرنامج B ÙÙŠ عمله، ÙÙŠ هذه الحالة Ùإن على البرنامج -A Ùقط أن يكون حراً، بينما البرنامج B لا يتعلق بالأمر بتاتاً.

+

+نحن ندعو الجميع إلى استخدام نظام غنو، بما Ùيهم الشركات وعمالهم. وهذا يتطلب +السماح بالاستخدام التجاري. نتمنى أن تتمكن البدائل الحرة للبرامج أن تحل مكان +أشباهها من البرمجيات الاحتكارية، ولكن لن يكون ممكنًا ÙÙŠ حال كانت الشركات +ممنوعة من استخدام هذه البرامج الحرة. نحن نريد للمنتجات التجارية التي تحوي +برمجيات أن تتضمن نظام عنو، وذلك سيشكل توزيعة تجارية معروضة بسعر ما. التطوير +التجاري للبرمجيات الحرة لم يعد غير مألوÙØ› برمجيات حرة تجارية من هذه الشاكلة +هي مهمة جدًا. الدعم الاحتراÙÙŠ المدÙوع للبرمجيات الحرة يلبي رغبة ضرورية. +

-”البرمجيات الحرة“ لا تعني ”البرمجيات غير -التجارية“. يجب أن يكون البرنامج الحر متاحاً للاستخدام التجاري والتطوير -التجاري والتوزيع التجاري. لم يعد التطوير التجاري للبرمجيات الحرة غريباً؛ بل -إن مثل هذه البرمجيات الحرة التجارية مهمة جداً. ربما دÙعت مالاً للحصول على -نسخ من برمجيات حرة، أو ربما حصلت على نسخ بدون مقابل. لكن بغض النظر عن كيÙية -حصولك على النسخ، لديك دائماً حرية نسخ وتعديل البرمجيات، بل حتى بيع نسخ منها. +لذلك، عندما نستثني الاستخدام أو التطوير أو التوزيع التجاري، ذلك سيعيق مجتمع +البرمجيات الحرة ويعرقل طريقه إلى النجاح. ومنه نستنتج أن أي برنامج مرخص ÙˆÙÙ‚ +هكذا تقييدات لا يمكن اعتباره برنامجًا حرًا.

-

الباقي من هذه الصÙحة يوضح بعض النقاط عما يجعل بعض الحريات مقبولة أم لا.

+

+على البرنامج الحر أن يمنح الحريات الأربع لأي مستخدم حصل على نسخة منه، ما دام +هذا المستخدم سار ÙˆÙÙ‚ شروط الرخصة الحرة المتعلقة بالبرنامج بأي توزيع سابق +له. حد بعض هذه الحريات لبعض المستخدمين، أو الطلب منهم أن يدÙعوا حتى يحصلوا +على هذه الحريات، نقديًا أو بأي شكل، هو مكاÙئ لعدم منح هذه الحريات، وهذا يجعل +البرنامج غير حر. +

+ + +

توضيح الخط الÙاصل بين الحر وغير الحر

-

حرية أن تشغل البرنامج كما تشاء

+

سنشرح بدقة ÙÙŠ تتمة هذه المقالة Ùيم إن احتاجت الحريات المختلÙØ© للتمديد، من +أجل قضايا مختلÙØ©ØŒ حتى يبقى البرنامج حرًا.

+ +

حرية أن تشغل البرنامج كما تشاء

حرية تشغيل البرنامج تعني حرية أي Ùرد أو منظمة ÙÙŠ استخدام البرنامج على أي @@ -140,141 +221,160 @@ href="/philosophy/selling.html">بيع نسخ منها. قادراً تقنياً على العمل ÙÙŠ بيئة ما، أو إن كان البرنامج Ù…Ùيداً لوظيÙØ© حاسوبية معينة.

-

حرية أن تدرس الشيÙرة المصدرية وأن تعدل عليها

+

على سبيل المثال، إن كانت الشÙرة ترÙض بشكل اعتباطي بعض الإدخالات +المÙيدة—أو حتى تÙشل بشكل غير شرطي—هذا يجعل البرنامج ذو Ùائدة +أقل، وربما يصبح بلا Ùائدة على الإطلاق، ولكنه لا يأخذ من المستخدمين حريتهم +لتشغيل البرنامج، لذلك Ùهو لا يتعارض مع الحرية 0. إن كان البرنامج حرًا، يمكن +للمستخدمين تجاوز قلة الÙائدة هذه، لأن الحريتين 1 Ùˆ3 تسمح للمستخدمين +والمجتمعات بأن يصنعوا ويوزعوا إصدارات معدلة بحيث يتخلصون من الشيÙرة +الاعتباطية المزعجة.

+ +

“كما ترغب” تتضمن بشكل اختياري “أبدًا” إن كان هذا ما +ترغبه. لذلك لا حاجة لوجود “حرية عدم تشغيل البرنامج” بشكل منÙصل.

+ +

حرية أن تدرس الشÙرة المصدرية وأن تعدل عليها

-لجعل الحريتين 1 Ùˆ3 (حرية إجراء تعديلات وحرية نشر Ù†Ùسَخ معدلة) ساريتين، يجب -أن تتمكن من الوصول إلى الشÙرة المصدرية للبرنامج. ولذلك، Ùإن إتاحة الشÙرة -المصدرية للبرنامج شرط لازم للبرمجيات الحرة. ”الشÙرة المصدرية“ +لجعل الحريتين 1 Ùˆ3 (حرية إجراء تعديلات وحرية نشر Ù†Ùسَخ معدلة) ساريتين، Ùأنت +تحتاج للوصول إلى الشÙرة المصدرية للبرنامج. ولذلك، Ùإن إتاحة الشÙرة المصدرية +للبرنامج شرط لازم للبرمجيات الحرة. ”الشÙرة المصدرية“ المÙعتّمة(1) ليست Ø´Ùرة مصدرية حقيقية ولا تÙعتبر كذلك.

-تتضمن الحرية 1 حرية استخدام نسختك المعدلة بدلًا من النسخة الأصلية. إذا أتى +تتضمن الحرية 1 حرية استخدام نسختك المعدلة بدلًا من النسخة الأصلية. إذا أتى البرنامج مع منتَج Ù…Ùصمّم لتشغيل النسخ التي عدلها شخص آخر، لكنه يرÙض تشغيل -نسختك — ممارسة تÙعر٠باسم التيÙزة(2) أو الحبس Lockdown أو (بحسب المصطلحات -الÙاسدة لممارسيها) ”الإقلاع الآمن Secure Boot“ — Ùإن -الحرية 1 تصبح خيالًا نظريًا بدل أن تكون حرية حقيقية، وتلك الملÙات التنÙيذية -ليست برمجيات حرة حتى لو كانت الشÙرة المصدرية الذي تÙرجمت منها حرة. +نسختك —ممارسة تÙعر٠باسم “التيÙزة”(2) أو “الحبس Lockdown” أو +(بحسب المصطلحات الÙاسدة لممارسيها) ”الإقلاع الآمنSecure +Boot“—Ùإن الحرية 1 تصبح خيالًا نظريًا بدل أن تكون واقعًا عمليًا، +وتلك الملÙات الثنائية (التنÙيذية) ليست برمجيات حرة حتى لو كانت الشÙرة +المصدرية الذي تÙرجمت منها حرة.

-من الطرق الهامة لتعديل برنامج ما هي دمجه بوحدات وبرامج جزئية حرة متوÙرة. إذا -كانت رخصة البرنامج تقول بأنك لا تستطيع دمجه بوحدة موجودة ذات ترخيص مناسب -— مثلًا، اشتراط الرخصة أن تكون مالك حقوق النشر لأي Ø´Ùرة برمجية تضيÙها -— Ùإن الرخصة مقيّÙدة جدًا ولا يمكن اعتبارها رخصة حرة. +من الطرق الهامة لتعديل برنامج ما هي دمجه بوحدات وبرامج جزئية حرة متوÙرة. +إذا كانت رخصة البرنامج تقول بأنك لا تستطيع دمجه بوحدة موجودة ذات ترخيص +مناسب—مثلًا، اشتراط الرخصة أن تكون مالك حقوق النشر لأي Ø´Ùرة برمجية +تضيÙها—Ùإن الرخصة مقيّÙدة جدًا ولا يمكن اعتبارها رخصة حرة.

-إن اعتبار أن تعديلًا ما للبرنامج يشكل تحسينًا هو مسألة شخصية. إذا كان حقك ÙÙŠ -تعديل البرنامج محدود، عمليًا، بالتعديلات التي يعتبرها شخص آخر تحسينات على +إن اعتبار أن تعديلًا ما للبرنامج يشكل تحسينًا هو مسألة شخصية. إذا كان حقك +ÙÙŠ تعديل البرنامج محدود، عمليًا، بالتعديلات التي يعتبرها شخص آخر تحسينات على البرنامج، Ùهذا البرنامج ليس حر.

-

حرية توزع كما تشاء: متطلبات أساسية

+

+حالة خاصة من الحرية 1 هو حذ٠شيÙرة البرنامج لجعله ينتهي دون أن ÙŠÙعل شيئًا، +أو ليجعله يشغل برنامجًا آخرًا. لذلك، الحرية 1 تتضمن “حرية حذ٠+البرنامج.” +

-

حرية التوزيع (الحرية 2 Ùˆ3) تعني أنك حراً ÙÙŠ توزيع نسخ، مع تعديلات أو بدونها، -مجاناً أو مقابل مبلغ مادي، إلى أي شخص ÙÙŠ أي -مكان. أن تكون حرًا ÙÙŠ Ùعل هذه الأشياء يعني (من ضمن ما يعنيه) أنك غير -مضطر لطلب الإذن أو أن تدÙع للحصول على إذن لعمل ذلك. +

حرية أن توزع كما تشاء: متطلبات أساسية

+ +

حرية التوزيع (الحريتان 2 Ùˆ3) تعني أنك حر ÙÙŠ توزيع نسخ من البرنامج، مع +تعديلات أو بدونها، مجانًا أو بطلب مبلغ مادي مقابل التوزيع، إلى أي شخص ÙÙŠ أي مكان. أن تكون حرًا ÙÙŠ Ùعل هذه +الأشياء يعني (من ضمن ما يعنيه) أنك غير مضطر لطلب الإذن أو أن تدÙع للحصول على +إذن لعمل ذلك.

-ينبغي أيضًا أن تملك حرية إنشاء تعديلات واستخدامها بشكل خاص ÙÙŠ عملك أو -تسليتك، بدون الإشارة حتى إلى وجودها (وجود تلك التعديلات). إذا نشرت تعديلاتك، -يجب ألا تÙطالب بإخطار أي شخص محدد، بأي طريقة محددة. +ينبغي أيضًا أن تملك حرية القيام بالتعديلات واستخدامها بشكل خاص ÙÙŠ عملك أو +تسليتك، بدون الإشارة حتى إلى وجودها. إذا نشرت تعديلاتك، يجب ألا تÙطالب +بإخطار أي شخص معين وبأي طريقة معينة.

-تتضمن الحرية 3 حرية إصدار نسخك المعدلة بشكل برمجيات حرة. يمكن أن تسمح الرخصة -الحرة بأساليب أخرى لإصدار النسخ؛ بعبارة أخرى، لا يشترط أن تكون رخصة حقوق متروكة Copyleft . لكن الرخص التي +تتضمن الحرية 3 حرية إصدار نسخك المعدلة بشكل برمجيات حرة. يمكن أن تسمح +الرخصة الحرة بأساليب أخرى لإصدار النسخ؛ بعبارة أخرى، لا يشترط أن تكون رخصة +حقوق متروكة Copyleft . لكن الرخص التي تطالب بأن تكون النسخ المعدلة غير حرة لا تعتبر رخصًا حرة.

حرية إعادة توزيع النسخ يجب أن تتضمن الهيئتين، الثنائية أو التنÙيذية -للبرنامج، بالإضاÙØ© إلى الشÙرة المصدرية، لكلا الإصدارين المعدل وغير -المعدل. (توزيع البرنامج بصيغة قابلة للتشغيل ضروري لتوزيع أنظمة تشغيل حرة -يمكن تثبيتها بسهولة.) لا مشكلة إذا لم توجد طريقة لتوليد هيئة ثنائية أو -تنÙيذية لبرنامج معين (لأن بعض لغات البرمجة لا تدعم هذه الميزة)ØŒ لكن يجب أن -تمتلك حرية إعادة توزيع هذه الهيئات ÙÙŠ حال وجدتها أو طورت طريقة للحصول عليها. +للبرنامج، بالإضاÙØ© إلى الشÙرة المصدرية، لكلا الإصدارين المعدل وغير المعدل. +(توزيع البرنامج بصيغة قابلة للتشغيل ضروري لتوزيع أنظمة تشغيل حرة سهلة +التثبيت.) لا مشكلة إذا لم توجد طريقة لتوليد هيئة ثنائية أو تنÙيذية لبرنامج +معين (لأن بعض لغات (البرمجة) لا تدعم هذه الميزة)ØŒ لكن يجب أن تمتلك حرية +إعادة توزيع هذه الهيئات ÙÙŠ حال وجدتها أو طورت طريقة للحصول عليها.

-

الحقوق المتروكة Copyleft

+

الحقوق المتروكة Copyleft

-توجد أنواع معينة مقبولة من القواعد المتعلقة بتوزيع البرمجيات الحرة، عندما لا -تتعارض مع الحريات المركزية. على سبيل المثال، الحقوق المتروكة Copyleft (بصورة مبسطة -جدًا) هي قاعدة تقول بأنك لا تستطيع إضاÙØ© قيود تحرم الآخرين الحرياتَ المركزية -عند إعادة توزيع البرنامج. هذه القاعدة لا تتعارض مع الحريات المركزية، بل +توجد أنواع معينة من الممارسات المتعلقة بتوزيع البرمجيات الحرة، وهي مقبولة ما +دامت لا تتعارض مع الحريات المركزية. على سبيل المثال، الحقوق المتروكة Copyleft (بصورة مبسطة +جدًا) هي قاعدة تقول أنك لا تستطيع إضاÙØ© قيود تحرم الآخرين الحرياتَ المركزية +عند إعادة توزيع البرنامج. هذه القاعدة لا تتعارض مع الحريات المركزية؛ بل تحميها.

ÙÙŠ مشروع غنو، نستخدم الحقوق المتروكة Copyleft لحماية هذه الحريات قانونيًا -للجميع. لكن استخدام الحقوق المتروكة Ø£Ùضل (من عدم +استخدامها). لكن البرمجيات -الحرة غير متروكة الحقوق متوÙرة أيضًا. نحن نؤمن بوجود أسباب مهمة تجعل استخدام الحقوق المتروكة Ø£Ùضل، لكن إذا -كان برنامجك حرًا غير متروك الحقوق NoncopyleftedØŒ Ùهو لا يزال أخلاقيًا ÙÙŠ -أساسه. انظر أنواع البرمجيات الحرة -حتى تعر٠العلاقة بين ”البرمجيات الحرة“ØŒ Ùˆ”البرمجيات ذات -الحقوق المتروكة“ والأنواع الأخرى من البرمجيات. +الحرة غير متروكة الحقوق أخلاقية كذلك. انظر أنواع البرمجيات الحرة حتى تعر٠+العلاقة بين ”البرمجيات الحرة“ØŒ Ùˆ”البرمجيات ذات الحقوق +المتروكة“ والأنواع الأخرى من البرمجيات.

-

قواعد حول الحزم وتÙاصيل التوزيع

+

قواعد عن إنشاء الحزم وتÙاصيل التوزيع

إن القواعد المتعلقة بكيÙية تحزيم النسخة المعدّلة مقبولة، إذا لم تقيد حريتك ÙÙŠ إصدار نسخ معدلة من الناحية العملية، أو حريتك ÙÙŠ إنشاء واستخدام نسخ معدلة -بشكل خاص. وهكذا، يكون مقبولًا أن تطلب الرخصة منك تغيير اسم النسخة المعدلة، -أو إزالة الشعار، أو تعري٠التعديلات التي أجريتها على أنها خاصة بك. وما دامت +بشكل خاص. وهكذا، يكون مقبولًا أن تطلب الرخصة منك تغيير اسم النسخة المعدلة، +أو إزالة الشعار، أو تعري٠التعديلات التي أجريتها على أنها خاصة بك. وما دامت هذه الشروط غير ثقيلة بحيث تمنعك Ùعلًا من إصدار التعديلات التي أجريتَها، Ùهي -مقبولة؛ بما أنك تعدل على البرنامج أصلًا، Ùلن تجد مشكلة ÙÙŠ عمل بعض التعديلات +مقبولة؛ بما أنك تعدل على البرنامج أصلًا، Ùلن تجد مشكلة ÙÙŠ عمل بعض التعديلات الإضاÙية.

-القواعد مثل: ”إذا جعلت نسختك متاحة بهذه الطريقة، يجب أن تجعلها متاحة -بتلك الطريقة أيضًا“ يمكن أن تكون مقبولة أيضًا، ÙˆÙÙ‚ Ù†Ùس الشرط. مثال على -قاعدة مقبولة من هذا القبيل هي أن تقول: إذا كنت قد وزعت نسخة معدلة وطلب مطور -سابق الحصول على نسخة منه، يجب أن ترسل له واحدة. (لاحظ أن هذه القاعدة ما زالت -تترك لك خيار عدم توزيع الإصدار الخاص بك على الإطلاق.) القواعد التي تطلب -توÙير الشÙرة المصدرية لمستخدمي النسخ التي توÙرها للاستخدام العام مقبولة +القواعد مثل ”إذا جعلت نسختك متاحة بهذه الطريقة، يجب أن تجعلها متاحة +بتلك الطريقة أيضًا“ يمكن أن تكون مقبولة أيضًا، ÙˆÙÙ‚ Ù†Ùس الشرط. مثال +على قاعدة مقبولة من هذا القبيل هي أن تقول: إذا كنت قد وزعت نسخة معدلة وطلب +مطور سابق الحصول على نسخة منه، يجب أن ترسل له واحدة. (لاحظ أن هذه القاعدة +ما زالت تترك لك خيار عدم توزيع الإصدار الخاص بك على الإطلاق.) القواعد التي +تطلب توÙير الشÙرة المصدرية لمستخدمي النسخ التي توÙرها للاستخدام العام مقبولة أيضًا.

تبرز مشكلة خاصة عندما تطلب الرخصة تغيير اسم البرنامج الذي تستخدمه البرامج -الأخرى لاستدعاء البرنامج. هذا يمنعك Ùعلياً من إطلاق نسختك المعدّلة بحيث -تستبدل الأصلية عندما تستدعيها هذه البرامج الأخرى. يمكن قبول هذا النوع من +الأخرى لاستدعاء البرنامج. هذا يمنعك Ùعليًا من إطلاق نسختك المعدّلة بحيث +تستبدل الأصلية عندما تستدعيها هذه البرامج الأخرى. يمكن قبول هذا النوع من المطالب Ùقط ÙÙŠ حال وجود وسيلة تسمية متعددة مناسبة تسمح لك بتعيين اسم البرنامج الأصلي كاسم ثان للنسخة المعدلة.

-

أحكام التصدير

+

أحكام التصدير

-تصدر الحكومة أحيانًا قوانين تنظيم للتصدير ومراسيم -تجارة قد تقيد حريتك ÙÙŠ توزيع Ù†Ùسَخ من البرامج دوليًا. لا يملك مطورو -البرمجيات القدرة على إسقاط أو تجاوز هذه القيود، لكن ما يمكنهم ويجب عليهم -Ùعله هو أن يرÙضوا Ùرض هذه القيود كشروط لاستخدام البرنامج. وبهذه الطريقة لن -تؤثر هذه القيود على النشاطات والأشخاص خارج نطاق سلطة هذه الحكومات. لذلك، يجب -ألا تطلب تراخيص البرمجيات الحرة الالتزام بأي قانون تصدير غير بديهي كشرط -للتمتع بأي من الحريات الرئيسة. +ÙÙŠ بعض الأحيان، قوانين تنظيم التصدير الحكومية والمراسيم التجارية قد تقيد +حريتك ÙÙŠ توزيع Ù†Ùسَخ من البرامج دوليًا. لا يملك مطورو البرمجيات القدرة على +إسقاط أو تجاوز هذه القيود، لكن ما يمكنهم ويجب عليهم Ùعله هو أن يرÙضوا Ùرض +هذه القيود كشروط لاستخدام البرنامج. وبهذه الطريقة لن تؤثر هذه القيود على +النشاطات والأشخاص خارج نطاق سلطة هذه الحكومات. لذلك، يجب ألا تطلب تراخيص +البرمجيات الحرة الالتزام بأي قانون تصدير غير بديهي كشرط للتمتع بأي من +الحريات الأساسية.

-مجرد أن يذكر وجود أحكام التصدير، دون جعلها شرطاً للرخصة Ù†Ùسها، هو مقبول بما -أنه لا يقيد المستخدمين. إن كانت أحكام التصدير غير مؤثرة على البرامج الحرة، -Ùإن اشتراطها لا يعتبر مشكلة حقيقية، ولكنها مشكلة محتملة، بما أن تعديلاً على -قانون التصدير قد يجعل الشرط مؤثر وبدوره قد يجعل البرنامج غير حر. +مجرد ذكر وجود أحكام التصدير، دون جعلها شرطًا للرخصة Ù†Ùسها، هو مقبول بما أنه +لا يقيد المستخدمين. إن كانت أحكام التصدير غير مؤثرة على البرامج الحرة، Ùإن +اشتراطها لا يعتبر مشكلة حقيقية، ولكنها مشكلة محتملة، بما أن تعديلًا لاحقًا +على قانون التصدير قد يجعل الشرط مؤثر وبدوره سيجعل البرنامج غير حر.

-

اعتبارات قانونية

+

حتى تكون هذه الحريات حقيقية، يجب أن تكون دائمة وغير قابلة للإلغاء طالما أنك @@ -286,61 +386,50 @@ href="/philosophy/pragmatic.html">استخدام الحقوق المتروكة

قد لا تتطلب رخصة حرة الامتثال لترخيص برنامج غير حر. وهكذا، على سبيل المثال، إن كانت الرخصة تتطلب منك الالتزام “بتراخيص جميع البرامج التي -تستخدمها”ØŒ ÙÙŠ حالة كان المستخدم يشغل برامج غير حرة، Ùهذا يتطلب +تستخدمها،” ÙÙŠ حالة كان المستخدم يشغل برامج غير حرة، Ùهذا يتطلب الامتثال لتراخيص تلك البرامج غير الحرة؛ وهذا ما يجعل الرخصة غير حرة.

من المقبول من ناحية الرخصة الحرة تحديد قانون الاختصاص القضائي المعمول به، أو -ÙÙŠ حالة إجراء التقاضي، أو كليهما. +أين يجب إجراء التقاضي، أو كليهما.

-

التراخيص المبنية على العقود

+

التراخيص المبنية على العقود

معظم تراخيص البرمجيات الحرة مبنية على حقوق النشر، وتوجد حدود على أنواع -المطالب التي يمكن أن تÙرضها حقوق النشر. إذا كان الترخيص المبني على حقوق +المطالب التي يمكن أن تÙرضها حقوق النشر. إذا كان الترخيص المبني على حقوق النشر يحترم الحريات الموضحة أعلاه، Ùمن غير المرجح أن يحتوي مشاكلًا أخرى لم -نتنبأ بها (رغم أن هذا يحدث أحيانًا). من ناحية أخرى، بعض تراخيص البرمجيات +نتنبأ بها (رغم أن هذا يحدث أحيانًا). من ناحية أخرى، بعض تراخيص البرمجيات الحرة مبنية على عقد اتÙاقية، والاتÙاقيات يمكنها Ùرض نطاق أوسع من القيود -المحتملة. هذا يعني وجود الكثير من الطرق يمكن عبرها أن يكون الترخيص Ù…Ùقيدًا -بشكل غير مقبول وغير حر. +المحتملة. هذا يعني وجود الكثير من الطرق يمكن من خلالها أن يكون الترخيص +Ù…Ùقيدًا بشكل غير مقبول وغير حر.

-لا نستطيع وضع قائمة بكل الطرق المحتملة. إذا وجد ترخيص مبني على عقد اتÙاقية -يقيد المستخدم بشكل غريب لا تستطيع التراخيص المبنية على حقوق النشر Ùعله، وغير -مذكور بين القواعد المشروعة هنا، يجب أن ندرسه، والأرجح أننا سنعتبره غير حر. +لا نستطيع وضع قائمة بكل الطرق المحتملة. إذا وجد ترخيص مبني على عقد اتÙاقية +يقيد المستخدم بشكل غير مألو٠ولا تستطيع التراخيص المبنية على حقوق النشر Ùعله +(أي التقييد)ØŒ وغير مذكور بين القواعد المشروعة هنا، يجب أن ندرسه، والأرجح +أننا سنعتبره غير حر.

-

استعمل الكلمات الصحيحة عند التحدث عن البرمجيات الحرة

+

تعري٠البرمجيات الحرة من الناحية العملية

-

-عند الحديث عن البرمجيات الحرة، ÙŠÙضل تÙادي استخدام مصطلحات مثل -”منح“ أو ”بالمجان“ØŒ لأن هذه المصطلحات تدل على أن -القضية حول السعر، وليست الحرية. بعض المصطلحات الشائعة مثل -”قرصنة“ تجسد آراءً نأمل ألا تدعمها. راجع كلمات وعبارات مضللة يجب تÙاديها -لتقرأ مناقشة عن هذه المصطلحات. لدينا أيضا قائمة بترجمات ”البرمجيات -الحرة“ الملائمة إلى لغات عديدة. -

- -

كي٠نترجم هذه المعايير

+

كي٠نترجم هذه المعايير

-أخيرًا، نرجو أن تلاحظ أن معاييرًا مثل هذه المبيّنة ÙÙŠ تعري٠البرمجيات الحرة -هذا تتطلب تÙكيرًا حذرًا بمعانيها. حتى نقرر Ùيما إذا كانت رخصة برمجيات ما -مؤهلة لاعتبارها رخصة برمجيات حرة، Ù†Ùصل ÙÙŠ الأمر بناءً على هذه المعايير لنحدد -Ùيما إذا كانت تلائم مبادئها وتعابيرها بدقة. إذا احتوت الرخصة قيودًا غير -مقبولة، نرÙضها، حتى لو لم تكن القضية مذكورة مسبقًا ÙÙŠ هذه المعايير. أحيانًا -يثير أحد متطلبات الرخصة قضية تستدعي تÙكيرًا عميقًا، ونقاشًا مع محامي قبل أن -نقرر Ùيما إذا كان ذاك المطلب مقبولًا. عندما نصل إلى نتيجة بخصوص قضية جديدة، -عادة ما نحدّث هذه المعايير لتسهيل Ùهم سبب مطابقة أو عدم مطابقة رخصة معينة -للمعايير. +نرجو أن تلاحظ أن معاييرًا مثل هذه المبيّنة ÙÙŠ تعري٠البرمجيات الحرة هذا +تتطلب تÙكيرًا حذرًا بمعانيها. حتى نقرر Ùيما إذا كانت رخصة برمجيات ما مؤهلة +لاعتبارها رخصة برمجيات حرة، Ù†Ùصل ÙÙŠ الأمر بناءً على هذه المعايير لنحدد Ùيما +إذا كانت تلائم مبادئها وتعابيرها بدقة. إذا احتوت الرخصة قيودًا غير مقبولة، +نرÙضها، حتى لو لم تكن القضية مذكورة مسبقًا ÙÙŠ هذه المعايير. أحيانًا يثير أحد +متطلبات الرخصة قضية تستدعي تÙكيرًا عميقًا، ونقاشًا مع محامي قبل أن نقرر Ùيما +إذا كان ذاك المطلب مقبولًا. عندما نصل إلى نتيجة بخصوص قضية جديدة، عادة ما +نحدّث هذه المعايير لتسهيل Ùهم سبب مطابقة أو عدم مطابقة رخصة معينة للمعايير.

-

احصل على المساعدة مع الرخص الحرة

+

احصل على المساعدة بشأن الرخص الحرة

إذا كنت مهتمًا بمعرÙØ© Ùيما إذا كانت إحدى الرخص مؤهلة لاعتبارها رخصة برمجيات @@ -362,7 +451,27 @@ href="mailto:licensing@gnu.org"><licensing@gnu.org>. أن الترخيص ترخيص برمجيات حرة بالÙعل وتتÙادى الكثير من المشاكل العملية.

-

ما وراء البرمجيات

+

استعمل الكلمات الصحيحة عند التحدث عن البرمجيات الحرة

+ +

+عند الحديث عن البرمجيات الحرة، ÙŠÙضل تÙادي استخدام مصطلحات مثل +”إهداء“ أو ”بالمجان“ØŒ لأن هذه المصطلحات تدل على أن +القضية حول السعر لا الحرية. بعض المصطلحات الشائعة مثل ”قرصنة“ +تجسد آراء نأمل ألا تدعمها. راجع كلمات وعبارات مضللة يجب تÙاديها +لتقرأ مناقشة عن هذه المصطلحات. لدينا أيضا قائمة بترجمات ”البرمجيات +الحرة“ الملائمة إلى لغات عديدة. +

+ +

+بدأت مجموعة أخرى ÙÙŠ استخدام المصطلح ”المصدر المÙتوح Open source“ +للتعبير عن شيء مشابه (لكنه غير مماثل) ”للبرمجيات الحرة Free +software.“ نحن Ù†Ùضل مصطلح ”البرمجيات الحرة“ لأنه يقودك إلى +التÙكير بالحرية. كلمة ”Ù…Ùتوح“ لا تشير إلى الحرية إطلاقًا. +

+ +

بعيدًا عن البرمجيات

لنÙس الأسباب التي تÙرض حرية البرمجيات، ولأن الكتيبات جزء لا يتجزأ من @@ -371,10 +480,10 @@ href="mailto:licensing@gnu.org"><licensing@gnu.org>.

-Ù†Ùس الحجة تنطبق أيضًا على أنواع أخرى من الأعمال ذات الاستخدامات العملية -— بما ÙÙŠ ذلك، الأعمال التي تجسد Ùائدة معرÙية، مثل الأعمال التعليمية -والأعمال المرجعية. ويكيبيديا هي Ø£Ùضل -مثال معروÙ. +Ù†Ùس الحجة تنطبق أيضًا على أنواع أخرى من الأعمال ذات الاستخدامات +العملية—بما ÙÙŠ ذلك، الأعمال التي تجسد Ùائدة معرÙية، مثل الأعمال +التعليمية والأعمال المرجعية. ويكيبيديا هي Ø£Ùضل مثال معروÙ.

@@ -383,101 +492,101 @@ href="mailto:licensing@gnu.org"><licensing@gnu.org>. الحرة القابل للتطبيق على أي نوع من الأعمال.

-

المصدر المÙتوح؟

- -

-بدأت مجموعة أخرى ÙÙŠ استخدام المصطلح ”المصدر المÙتوح Open Source“ -للتعبير عن شيء مشابه (لكنه غير مطابق) ”للبرمجيات الحرة Free -Software“. نحن Ù†Ùضل مصطلح ”البرمجيات الحرة“ لأنه يقودك إلى -التÙكير بالحرية. كلمة ”Ù…Ùتوح“ لا تشير إلى الحرية -إطلاقًا. -

-
-

التاريخ

-

نراجع تعري٠البرمجيات الحرة هذا من وقت لآخر. نقدم هنا قائمة بالتعديلات، مع +

نراجع تعري٠البرمجيات الحرة هذا من وقت لآخر. نقدم هنا قائمة بالتعديلات، مع روابط لتوضيح ما عÙدّل تحديدًا.

  • الإصدار +href="//web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.168&r2=1.169">الإصدار +1.169: شرح بشكل أوضح لمَ يجب على الحريات الأربع أن تطبق على الأنشطة +التجارية. شرح لمَ الحريات الأربع تدل بشكل ضمني على حرية عدم تشغيل البرنامج +وحرية حذÙه، ولذا لا حاجة لتصريح هذه الحريات كمتطلبات منÙصلة.
    • + +
  • الإصدار +1.165: توضيح أن المزعجات الاعتباطية ÙÙŠ الشيÙرة لا تناÙÙŠ الحرية 0ØŒ وأن +الحريتين 1 Ùˆ3 تمكّن المستخدمين من إزالة هذا المزعجات.
    • + +
  • الإصدار 1.153: توضيح أن حرية تشغيل البرنامج تعني أن لا شيء سيمنعك من جعله يعمل.
  • الإصدار -1.141: توضيح أي الشيÙرات هي شيÙرات حرة.
    • +href="//web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.140&r2=1.141">الإصدار +1.141: توضيح أي الشÙرات تحتاج أن تكون Ø´Ùرات حرة.
  • الإصدار +href="//web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.134&r2=1.135">الإصدار 1.135: القول كل مرة أن الحرية 0 هي حرية تشغيل البرنامج كما تشاء.
  • الإصدار +href="//web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.133&r2=1.134">الإصدار 1.134: الحرية 0 ليست حول وظائ٠البرنامج.
  • الإصدار -1.131: الرخصة الحرية قد لا تتطلب التواÙÙ‚ مع رخصة غير حرة لبرنامج آخر.
    • +href="//web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.130&r2=1.131">الإصدار +1.131: الرخصة الحرة يجب أن لا تتطلب الامتثال برخصة غير حرة لبرنامج آخر.
  • الإصدار -1.129: الإقرار بوضوح أن خيار القانون وخيار استلزامات المنتدى -مسموحة. (هذه هي سياستنا دائماً)
    • +href="//web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.128&r2=1.129">الإصدار +1.129: الإقرار بوضوح أن خيار القانون وخيار استلزامات المنتدى مسموحة. +(هذه هي سياستنا دائمًا.)
  • الإصدار +href="//web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.121&r2=1.122">الإصدار 1.122: الالتزام بقوانين التصدير ليس بمشكلة حقيقة إن كان الالتزام غير -معتبر, وخلا٠ذلك يعتبر مشكلة محتملة.
    • +معتبر، وخلا٠ذلك يعتبر مشكلة محتملة.
  • الإصدار -1.118: توضيح: المشكلة هي محدودية حق التعديل لديك، وليس التعديل التي قمت -بها. ولا تقتصر التعديلات على “التحسينات”
    • +href="//web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.117&r2=1.118">الإصدار +1.118: توضيح: المشكلة هي محدودية حق التعديل لديك، وليس التعديلات التي +قمت بها. ولا تقتصر التعديلات على “التحسينات”
  • الإصدار +href="//web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.110&r2=1.111">الإصدار 1.111: توضيح الإصدار 1.77 بأن نقول أن القيود الرجعية Ùقط هي غير مقبولة. يمكن ﻷصحاب حقوق النشر دائمًا تقديم صلاحيات إضاÙية ﻻستخدام العمل وذلك بإصداره بطريقة أخرى على التوازي.
  • الإصدار +href="//web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.104&r2=1.105">الإصدار 1.105: ÙÙŠ بيان الحرية 1 المختصر، تم عرض Ùكرة (تم توضيحها مسبقًا ÙÙŠ -الإصدار 1.80) أنها تتضمن استخدام نسختك المعدلة لتنÙيذ حساباتك.
    • +الإصدار 1.80) أنها تتضمن استخدام نسختك المعدلة لتنÙيذ عملك.
  • الإصدار +href="//web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.91&r2=1.92">الإصدار 1.92: توضيح أن الشÙرة المÙعتّمة لا تعتبر Ø´Ùرة مصدرية.
  • الإصدار +href="//web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.89&r2=1.90">الإصدار 1.90: توضيح أن الحرية 3 تعني حق توزيع Ù†Ùسخ من إصدار معدل أو محسن خاص بك، وليس حق الانضمام إلى مشروع تطوير شخص آخر.
  • الإصدار +href="//web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.88&r2=1.89">الإصدار 1.89: الحرية 3 تتضمن حق إصدار نسخ معدلة بشكل برمجيات حرة.
  • الإصدار +href="//web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.79&r2=1.80">الإصدار 1.80: يجب أن تكون الحرية 1 عملية، وليس نظرية Ùحسب، على سبيل المثال، -التيÙزة ممنوعة.
    • +التيÙزة غير مقبولة.
  • الإصدار +href="//web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.76&r2=1.77">الإصدار 1.77: توضيح أن كل التعديلات الرجعية على الرخصة غير مقبولة، حتى لو لم تÙقدّم على أنها بديل كامل عن الأصل.
  • الإصدار +href="//web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.73&r2=1.74">الإصدار 1.74: أربع توضيحات لنقاط غير واضحة بما يكÙÙŠØŒ أو تم بيانها ÙÙŠ بعض الأماكن لكن لم يتم عرضها ÙÙŠ جميع الأماكن:
      -
    • "التحسينات" لا تعني أن الرخصة تستطيع تقييد أنواع النسخ المعدلة التي يحق لك -نشرها بشكل كبير. الحرية 3 تتضمن توزيع نسخ معدلة، وليس التغييرات Ùقط.
      • +
    • “التحسينات” لا تعني أن الرخصة تستطيع تقييد أنواع النسخ المعدلة +التي يحق لك نشرها بشكل كبير. الحرية 3 تتضمن توزيع نسخ معدلة، وليس التغييرات +Ùقط.
    • حق الدمج مع وحدات موجودة يشير إلى الوحدات ذات الترخيص المناسب.
    • تصريح بيّن لخاتمة الÙكرة المتعلقة بقوانين التحكم بالتصدير.
    • Ùرض تعديل على رخصة يكاÙئ إلغاء الرخصة القديمة.
      • @@ -485,71 +594,73 @@ href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=ww
    • الإصدار -1.57: إضاÙØ© قسم "ما وراء البرمجيات".
      • +href="//web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.56&r2=1.57">الإصدار +1.57: إضاÙØ© قسم "بعيدًا عن البرمجيات".
    • الإصدار +href="//web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.45&r2=1.46">الإصدار 1.46: توضيح من هو صاحب الغرض المهم ÙÙŠ حرية تشغيل البرنامج لأي غرض.
    • الإصدار +href="//web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.40&r2=1.41">الإصدار 1.41: توضيح الكلمات المستخدمة ÙÙŠ الحديث عن التراخيص المبنية على العقود.
    • الإصدار +href="//web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.39&r2=1.40">الإصدار 1.40: شرح أن الرخصة الحرة يجب أن تسمح لك باستخدام برمجيات حرة أخرى متوÙرة لإنشاء تعديلاتك.
    • الإصدار -1.39: لاحظ أنه من المسموح للرخصة أن تطلب منك توÙير الشÙرة المصدرية لنسخ +href="//web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.38&r2=1.39">الإصدار +1.39: توضيح أنه من المسموح للرخصة أن تطلب منك توÙير الشÙرة المصدرية لنسخ البرمجيات الذي تضعها ÙÙŠ الاستخدام العام.
    • الإصدار -1.31: لاحظ أنه من المسموح للرخصة أن تطلب تعري٠نÙسك كمؤل٠-للتعديلات. توضيحات أخرى Ø·ÙÙŠÙØ© على النص.
      • +href="//web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.30&r2=1.31">الإصدار +1.31: توضيح أنه من المسموح للرخصة أن تطلب تعري٠بنÙسك كصاحب التعديلات. +توضيحات أخرى Ø·ÙÙŠÙØ© على النص.
    • الإصدار -1.23: توضيح مشاكل محتملة متعلقة بالتراخيص المبنية على العقود.
      • +href="//web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.22&r2=1.23">الإصدار +1.23: إبانة مشاكل محتملة متعلقة بالتراخيص المبنية على العقود.
    • الإصدار -1.16: توضيح أهمية توزيع الملÙات التنÙيذية.
      • +href="//web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.15&r2=1.16">الإصدار +1.16: شرح أهمية توزيع الملÙات الثنائية (التنÙيذية).
    • الإصدار -1.11: لاحظ أن الرخصة الحرة قد تطلب منك إرسال نسخة من الإصدارات التي -توزعها إلى المؤلÙ.
      • +href="//web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.10&r2=1.11">الإصدار +1.11: توضيح أن الرخصة الحرة قد تطلب منك إرسال نسخة من الإصدارات التي +توزعها إلى المطورين السابقين ÙÙŠ حال طلبوا ذلك.

    يوجد Ùراغات ÙÙŠ أرقام الإصدارات المبينة أعلاه بسبب وجود تعديلات أخرى على هذه -الصÙحة لم تؤثر على التعري٠أو Ù…Ùاهيمه. مثلاً، اللائحة لا تتضمن تعديلات -كالتنسيق أو التهجئة أو أجزاء أخرى من الصÙحة. يمكنك مراجعة قائمة كاملة -بتعديلات هذه الصÙحة من خلال واجهة +الصÙحة لم تؤثر على التعري٠أو Ù…Ùاهيمه. مثلًا، لا تتضمن اللائحة تعديلات ÙÙŠ +الجوانب أو التنسيق أو التهجئة أو علامات الترقيم أو أجزاء أخرى من الصÙحة. +يمكنك مراجعة القائمة الكاملة بالتعديلات على هذه الصÙحة من خلال واجهة cvsweb.

    +
    -

    هوامش

    +

    هوامش

    1. السبب الذي ÙŠÙسر أن الحريات الأربعة تبدأ من الرقم 0 هو سبب تاريخي. ÙÙŠ Ùترة 1990 كان هناك ثلاث حريات، رقم 1ØŒ 2 Ùˆ3. ولكننا أدركنا أهمية ذكر حرية تشغيل -البرنامج بشكل واضح. وهي أساسية أكثر من الثلاث الأخريات، لذا وضعت -قبلهم. بدلاً من إعادة ترقيم الأخريات، جعلناها الحرية رقم 0.
      2. +البرنامج بشكل واضح. وهي أساسية أكثر من الثلاث الأخريات، لذا وضعت +قبلهم. بدلاً من إعادة ترقيم الأخريات، جعلناها الحرية رقم 0.
    +
- ملاحظات المترجم: +ملاحظات المترجم:
  1. الشÙرة المعتّمة Obfuscript هي الشÙرة التي يتم تعقيدها عمدًا لجعل Ùهمها صعبًا، مثلاً بإزالة جميع المساÙات البيضاء Whitespaces.
  2. -التيÙزة: (بالإنكليزية tivoizationØŒ وهي تلÙظ: تيÙÙˆ-يزايشن) كلمة مشتقة من +التيÙزة (بالإنكليزية tivoizationØŒ وهي تلÙظ: تيÙÙˆ-يزايشن): كلمة مشتقة من الاسم (تيÙÙˆ)ØŒ وهو منتج يعمل ببرمجيات مرخصة ÙˆÙÙ‚ GPLv2 لكنه ï»» يقبل تشغيل النسخ المعدّلة (تم تصميم المنتج ليرÙض النسخ المعدلة).
    3. @@ -558,14 +669,14 @@ cvsweb.

    -
@@ -159,7 +159,9 @@ href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org>. هناك أيضاً طرق أ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">دليل الترجمة.

-

Copyright © 2001, 2009 برادلي كوهن وريتشارد ستولمن

+

حقوق النشر:

+Copyright © 2001, 2009, 2020 Bradley M. Kuhn and Richard M. Stallman +(برادلي كوهن وريتشارد ستولمن)

النسخ الحرÙÙŠ والتوزيع لهذه المقالة كاملة مجاز بدون قيود، ÙÙŠ أي وسط، شريطة الحÙاظ على هذا الإشعار.

@@ -174,7 +176,7 @@ href="mailto:m-saied@live.com"><m-saied@live.com>

Ø­Ùدّثت: -$Date: 2020/12/25 13:31:50 $ +$Date: 2021/08/19 08:13:18 $

diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/gates.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/gates.html index 178c086..62c6565 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/gates.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/gates.html @@ -1,4 +1,9 @@ - + @@ -8,6 +13,7 @@ +

ليست أبواباً،1 بل قضبان زنزانة

بقلم ريتشارد ستولمان
@@ -165,7 +171,8 @@ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">دليل الترجمة. -

Copyright © 2008 ريتشارد ستولمان

+

حقوق النشر:

+Copyright © 2008 Richard Stallman (ريتشارد ستولمان)

هذا المÙصنَّ٠مرخص بموجب رخصة المشاع @@ -180,7 +187,7 @@ href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/deed.ar">رخصة الم

Ø­Ùدّثت: -$Date: 2014/11/29 21:58:07 $ +$Date: 2021/09/16 10:03:04 $

diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/gnu-breadcrumb.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/gnu-breadcrumb.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..18a355d --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/gnu-breadcrumb.html @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/imperfection-isnt-oppression.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/imperfection-isnt-oppression.html index 38091bf..a036f3e 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/imperfection-isnt-oppression.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/imperfection-isnt-oppression.html @@ -1,4 +1,9 @@ - + @@ -8,6 +13,7 @@ +

شتان ما بين انعدام الكمال والاضطهاد

بقلم ريتشارد ستالمن

@@ -98,7 +104,9 @@ href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org>. هناك أيضاً طرق أ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">دليل الترجمة.

-

Copyright © 2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

+

حقوق النشر:

+Copyright © 2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc. (مؤسسة البرمجيات +الحرة)

هذا المÙصنَّ٠مرخص بموجب رخصة المشاع @@ -112,9 +120,9 @@ href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/deed.ar">رخصة الم ØŒFaycal Alami Hassani

-تحديث: +Ø­Ùدّثت: -$Date: 2016/04/17 07:00:38 $ +$Date: 2021/09/14 17:07:12 $

diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/ph-breadcrumb.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/ph-breadcrumb.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6ac4a04 --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/ph-breadcrumb.html @@ -0,0 +1,131 @@ + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/pragmatic.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/pragmatic.html index ee13fef..04e62d6 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/pragmatic.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/pragmatic.html @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/pragmatic.ar.po' --> + --> @@ -151,9 +151,9 @@ Readline مثلاً، التي تÙستخدَم٠لإنجاز مهام تعدي واستخدام رخص الحقوق المتروكة.

-

نشرت النسخة اﻷصلية من هذا المقال ÙÙŠ البرمجيات -الحرة، المجتمع الحر: مقالات مختارة لريتشارد ستالمان.

+

Ù†Ùشرت هذه المقالة ÙÙŠ برمجيات +حرة، مجتمع حر: مقالات مختارة بقلم ريتشارد ستولمن.

@@ -197,7 +197,7 @@ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">دليل الترجمة.دليل الترجمة. -

Copyright © 1998, 2003, 2016 مؤسسة البرمجيات الحرة، المحدودة.

+

حقوق النشر:

+Copyright © 1998, 2003, 2020 Free Software Foundation, Inc. (مؤسسة +البرمجيات الحرة)

هذا المÙصنَّ٠مرخص بموجب رخصة المشاع -الإبداعي نسب المصن٠- منع الاشتقاق 3.0 الولايات المتحدة.

+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/deed.ar">رخصة المشاع +الإبداعي نسب المصن٠- منع الاشتقاق 4.0 دولي.

@@ -228,7 +230,7 @@ href="https://savannah.gnu.org/projects/www-ar/"><www-ar>.
Ø­Ùدّثت: -$Date: 2020/12/25 13:31:54 $ +$Date: 2021/09/19 18:33:52 $

diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/shouldbefree.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/shouldbefree.html index 74299d7..a51cd52 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/shouldbefree.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/shouldbefree.html @@ -1,4 +1,9 @@ - + @@ -8,6 +13,7 @@ +

لماذا يجب أن تكون البرمجيات حرة؟

@@ -685,7 +691,7 @@ href="/software/emacs/">GNU Emacs. (أقدم هذه التحسينات لل عليه.

-

ملاحظات مرجعية

+

هوامش

  1. مصطلح ”حر“ ÙÙŠ ”البرمجيات الحرة“ يشير إلى الحرية، @@ -708,10 +714,9 @@ href="/software/emacs/">GNU Emacs. (أقدم هذه التحسينات لل
-

نشرت النسخة اﻷصلية من هذا المقال ÙÙŠ Free -Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard -M. Stallman.

+

Ù†Ùشرت هذه المقالة ÙÙŠ برمجيات +حرة، مجتمع حر: مقالات مختارة بقلم ريتشارد ستولمن.

@@ -753,8 +758,9 @@ href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org>. هناك أيضاً طرق أ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">دليل الترجمة.

-

Copyright © 1991, 1992, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2017, 2018, -2020 مؤسسة البرمجيات الحرة، المحدودة.

+

حقوق النشر:

+Copyright © 1991, 1992, 1998, 2000, 2001, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2017, 2018, +2020 Free Software Foundation, Inc. (مؤسسة البرمجيات الحرة)

هذا المÙصنَّ٠مرخص بموجب رخصة المشاع @@ -770,9 +776,9 @@ href="https://savannah.gnu.org/projects/www-ar/"><www-ar>
< href="https://savannah.gnu.org/projects/www-ar/"><www-ar>

-تحديث: +Ø­Ùدّثت: -$Date: 2020/10/26 13:34:15 $ +$Date: 2021/09/12 09:05:50 $

diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/why-free.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/why-free.html index 46cb36f..af57b44 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/why-free.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/ar/why-free.html @@ -1,4 +1,9 @@ - + @@ -11,6 +16,7 @@ +

لماذا ليس على البرامج أن يكون لديها مالك

من قبل ريشارد ستالمان @@ -279,9 +285,9 @@ href="/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware">برنامج احتكار

-

هذا المقال نشر ÙÙŠ

Ù†Ùشرت هذه المقالة ÙÙŠ برمجيات -حرة ØŒ مجتمع حر : المقالات المختارة لريتشارد ستالمان.

+حرة، مجتمع حر: مقالات مختارة بقلم ريتشارد ستولمن.

@@ -339,7 +345,8 @@ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">دليل الترجمة. -

Copyright © 1994, 2009, 2020 Richard Stallman

+

حقوق النشر:

+Copyright © 1994, 2009, 2020 Richard Stallman (ريتشارد سالمن)

هذا المÙصنَّ٠مرخص بموجب رخصة المشاع @@ -352,9 +359,9 @@ href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/deed.ar">رخصة المشا تم تحديث الترجمة من قبل رÙيق Ø¥. جرجس

-Ø­Ùدثت: +Ø­Ùدّثت: -$Date: 2020/10/26 13:34:15 $ +$Date: 2021/09/09 10:04:49 $

diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/bg/enforcing-gpl.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/bg/enforcing-gpl.html index 8c48f03..4cd4d7b 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/bg/enforcing-gpl.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/bg/enforcing-gpl.html @@ -1,4 +1,9 @@ - + @@ -9,6 +14,7 @@ +

Привеждане в Ñила на ÐžÐ±Ñ‰Ð¸Ñ Ð¿ÑƒÐ±Ð»Ð¸Ñ‡ÐµÐ½ лиценз на GNU

от Ебен @@ -241,7 +247,7 @@ href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"><web-translators@gnu.org>.

тази ÑтатиÑ.

-

Copyright © 2001 Ебен Моглен

+

Copyright © 2001 Eben Moglen (Ебен Моглен)

ДоÑловното копиране и разпроÑтранение на цÑлата ÑÑ‚Ð°Ñ‚Ð¸Ñ Ñа позволени за вÑеки тип ноÑител без нужда от заплащането на такÑи, Ñтига тази бележка да бъде @@ -258,7 +264,7 @@ href="mailto:vassia.atanassova@gmail.com"><vassia.atanassova@gmail.com> ПоÑледно обновÑване: -$Date: 2014/12/29 09:29:45 $ +$Date: 2021/10/03 09:02:36 $

diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/bg/essays-and-articles.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/bg/essays-and-articles.html index d0d258b..ff43e90 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/bg/essays-and-articles.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/bg/essays-and-articles.html @@ -363,9 +363,6 @@ href="/philosophy/ipjustice.html">отхвърлÑнето на директив на фразата „интелектуална ÑобÑтвеноÑт“, от Ричард Столман. -
    -
-

Културни и общеÑтвени проблеми

    @@ -530,7 +527,7 @@ href="mailto:yavor@gnu.org"><yavor@gnu.org>, 2007, 2008 г.

    ПоÑледно обновÑване: -$Date: 2020/06/21 22:59:20 $ +$Date: 2021/08/20 11:31:39 $

    diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/bg/gnu-breadcrumb.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/bg/gnu-breadcrumb.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..18a355d --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/bg/gnu-breadcrumb.html @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/bg/ph-breadcrumb.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/bg/ph-breadcrumb.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6ac4a04 --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/bg/ph-breadcrumb.html @@ -0,0 +1,131 @@ + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/bg/pragmatic.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/bg/pragmatic.html index e82f698..2aefebb 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/bg/pragmatic.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/bg/pragmatic.html @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/pragmatic.bg.po' --> + --> @@ -173,7 +173,7 @@ copyleft-лиценз програма под не-copyleft уÑловиÑ, и ги игнорирайте и продължавайте да Ñи използвате „copyleft“.

    -

    Това еÑе е публикувано в книгата

    Това еÑе е публикувано в книгата Свободен Ñофтуер, Ñвободно общеÑтво: избрани еÑета от Ричард Ðœ. Столман.

    @@ -218,7 +218,7 @@ href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"><web-translators@gnu.org>.

    -

    Copyright © 1998, 2003 Ð¤Ð¾Ð½Ð´Ð°Ñ†Ð¸Ñ Ð·Ð° Ñвободен Ñофтуер

    +

    Copyright © 1998, 2003, 2020 Free Software Foundation, Inc. (Ð¤Ð¾Ð½Ð´Ð°Ñ†Ð¸Ñ +за Ñвободен Ñофтуер)

    Може да копирате и разпроÑтранÑвате тази ÑÑ‚Ð°Ñ‚Ð¸Ñ Ñпоред уÑловиÑта на Криейтив ÐšÐ¾Ð¼ÑŠÐ½Ñ -„Признание-Без производни произведениÑ“ 3.0 СÐЩ.

    +rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Криейтив +ÐšÐ¾Ð¼ÑŠÐ½Ñ â€žÐŸÑ€Ð¸Ð·Ð½Ð°Ð½Ð¸Ðµ-Без производни произведениÑ“ 4.0.

    @@ -250,7 +250,7 @@ href="mailto:vassia.atanassova@gmail.com"><vassia.atanassova@gmail.com> ПоÑледно обновÑване: -$Date: 2020/12/25 13:31:54 $ +$Date: 2021/09/19 18:33:52 $

    diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/bg/sun-in-night-time.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/bg/sun-in-night-time.html index e1f4129..2612339 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/bg/sun-in-night-time.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/bg/sun-in-night-time.html @@ -1,4 +1,9 @@ - + @@ -9,6 +14,7 @@ +

    ЛюбопитниÑÑ‚ инцидент ÑÑŠÑ â€žÐ¡ÑŠÐ½â€œ в къÑна доба

    Тази уеб-Ñтраница ще оÑтане тук за иÑториÑта, тъй като през декември 2006 @@ -141,7 +147,7 @@ href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"><web-translators@gnu.org>.

    тази ÑтатиÑ.

    -

    Copyright © 2006 Ричард Ðœ. Столман

    +

    Copyright © 2006 Richard M. Stallman (Ричард Ðœ. Столман)

    Може да копирате и разпроÑтранÑвате тази ÑÑ‚Ð°Ñ‚Ð¸Ñ Ñпоред уÑловиÑта на <kaloian@doganov.org>, 2006 г. ПоÑледно обновÑване: -$Date: 2017/04/01 11:59:44 $ +$Date: 2021/11/30 11:06:56 $

    diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/bg/vaccination.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/bg/vaccination.html index cb2d4e8..6d25ecb 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/bg/vaccination.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/bg/vaccination.html @@ -1,15 +1,26 @@ - + + + + ВируÑен код и вакÑÐ¸Ð½Ð°Ñ†Ð¸Ñ - Проектът GNU - Ð¤Ð¾Ð½Ð´Ð°Ñ†Ð¸Ñ Ð·Ð° Ñвободен Ñофтуер -

    ВируÑен код и вакÑинациÑ

    + +
    +

    ВируÑен код и вакÑинациÑ

    -

    от Робърт Дж. ЧаÑел

    +
    от Робърт Дж. ЧаÑел
    +

    Когато другите ме наранÑват, аз Ñе опитвам да Ñе отбранÑвам. Пък нÑкои от Ñ‚ÑÑ… ми викат, че ги болÑло от това. Казват, че Ñ‚Ñ€Ñбвало да Ð¿Ð¾Ð·Ð²Ð¾Ð»Ñ Ð½Ð° другите да ограбват труда ми. ОбÑÑнÑват ми, че не бивало никога да Ð¿Ñ€Ð°Ð²Ñ @@ -54,6 +65,8 @@ лиценз, тогава другите могат законно да вземат наготово труда ви, да правÑÑ‚ по него поправки и Ð¿Ð¾Ð´Ð¾Ð±Ñ€ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ Ð¸ да ви забранÑÑ‚ поÑле вие да използвате този код. Лично аз ненавиждам тази поÑтановка, но Ñ‚Ñ ÑъщеÑтвува.

    +
    +
    @@ -61,27 +74,41 @@
    + - - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/15-years-of-free-software.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/15-years-of-free-software.html index c7daefd..4dad839 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/15-years-of-free-software.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/15-years-of-free-software.html @@ -1,7 +1,10 @@ - + + + + 15 anos de software livre - Projeto GNU - Free Software Foundation @@ -14,11 +17,14 @@ operacional livre." /> + + + +
    +

    15 anos de software livre

    -

    - por Richard M. Stallman -

    +
    por Richard Stallman

    Agora são apenas mais de 15 anos desde o início do Movimento Software Livre @@ -27,7 +33,7 @@ e do Projeto GNU. Percorremos um longo caminho.

    Em 1984, era impossível usar um computador moderno sem instalar um sistema -operacional proprietário, que você teria que obter sob uma licença +operacional privativo, que você teria que obter sob uma licença restritiva. Ninguém tinha permissão para compartilhar softwares livremente com outros usuários de computador, e dificilmente alguém poderia mudar o software para atender às suas próprias necessidades. Os donos do software @@ -83,6 +89,7 @@ enfrentados pela comunidade de software livre, e outras questões que afetam a liberdade para usuários de computador, bem como os desenvolvimentos que afetam o sistema operacional GNU/Linux.

    +
    @@ -92,7 +99,7 @@ afetam o sistema operacional GNU/Linux. -

    Última atualização: -$Date: 2020/07/26 11:30:53 $ +$Date: 2021/09/05 08:35:41 $

    + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/about-gnu.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/about-gnu.html index b2e8599..c438254 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/about-gnu.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/about-gnu.html @@ -1,28 +1,28 @@ - + + + + -Sobre o Sistema Operacional do GNU - Projeto GNU - Free Software Foundation +GNU em poucas palavras - Projeto GNU - Free Software Foundation -

    Sobre o Sistema Operacional do GNU

    - -
    -

    O nome “GNU†é um acrônimo recursivo para “GNU's Not Unix!â€; ela é -pronunciada como uma sílaba com um g -forte.

    -
    - -

    [Outros artigos históricos e gerais sobre o -GNU.]

    - -

    O GNU foi lançado por Richard Stallman (rms) em 1983, como um sistema -operacional que seria reunido por pessoas que trabalham juntas pela -liberdade de todos os usuários de software para controlar sua -computação. rms permanece sendo o hoje Cheif GNUisance.

    + + + +
    +

    GNU em poucas palavras

    +
    + +

    O GNU [1] foi lançado por Richard Stallman (rms) em +1983, como um sistema operacional que seria reunido por pessoas que +trabalham juntas pela liberdade de todos os usuários de software para +controlar sua computação. rms permanece sendo hoje o Cheif +GNUisance.

    O objetivo principal e contínuo do GNU é oferecer um sistema compatível com o Unix que seria 100% software @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ usuários.

    Distribuições de sistema totalmente livre (“distrosâ€) que atendem a este objetivo estão disponíveis hoje, muitas usando o kernel +href="https://www.fsfla.org/svnwiki/selibre/linux-libre/">kernel Linux-libre (a relação entre GNU e o kernel Linux é descrita mais detalhadamente em outro lugar). Os pacotes GNU foram criados para trabalhar @@ -55,11 +55,11 @@ href="/help/evaluation.html">Novos pacotes são bem-vindos.

    como não técnicas. Os desenvolvedores do GNU se reúnem de tempos em tempos em GNU Hackers Meetings (“Reuniões de Hackers do GNUâ€), às vezes como parte das conferências do LibrePlanet, a maior comunidade de +href="https://libreplanet.org/">LibrePlanet, a maior comunidade de software livre.

    O GNU sido apoiado de várias maneiras pela Free Software Foundation, a organização sem +href="https://www.fsf.org/">Free Software Foundation, a organização sem fins lucrativos também fundada pelo rms para defender ideais de software livre. Entre outras coisas, a FSF aceita atribuições de copyrights e isenções de responsabilidade, para que possa atuar no tribunal em nome dos @@ -70,7 +70,15 @@ você mantiver o copyright, a aplicação dependerá de você.)

    O objetivo final é fornecer software livre para fazer todos os trabalhos que os usuários de computadores desejam fazer — e assim fazer o software -proprietário uma coisa do passado.

    +privativo uma coisa do passado.

    +
    + +

    Nota de rodapé

    +
      +
    1. O nome “GNU†é pronunciado como uma sílaba +com um g forte.
      2. +
    +
    @@ -80,7 +88,7 @@ proprietário uma coisa do passado.

    -

    Última atualização: -$Date: 2020/05/22 22:05:08 $ +$Date: 2021/12/27 01:00:02 $

    diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/amazon.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/amazon.html index 209b6c2..035666b 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/amazon.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/amazon.html @@ -1,27 +1,35 @@ - + + + + (Anteriormente) Boicote à Amazônia! - Projeto GNU - Free Software Foundation + + + +

    (Anteriormente) Boicote à Amazônia!

    -
    +

    -A FSF decidiu encerrar seu boicote à Amazon em setembro de 2002. (Esquecemos -de editar esta página na época.) Não conseguimos dizer o resultado exato do -processo contra a Barnes & Nobre, mas não parece ser muito prejudicial -para o réu. E a Amazon não atacou mais ninguém.

    +A FSF decidiu encerrar seu boicote à Amazon em setembro de +2002. (Esquecemos de editar esta página na época.) Não conseguimos dizer o +resultado exato do processo contra a Barnes & Nobre, mas não parece ser +muito prejudicial para o réu. E a Amazon não atacou mais ninguém.

    -A Amazon tem uma série de outras patentes ameaçadoras desde então, mas ainda -não as usou para agressão. Talvez não faça isso. Se isso acontecer, vamos -analisar como podemos denunciá-la.

    +A Amazon tem uma série de outras patentes ameaçadoras desde então, mas +ainda não as usou para agressão. Talvez não faça isso. Se isso acontecer, +vamos analisar como podemos denunciá-la.

    -O resto desta página é como era em 2001, enquanto o boicote estava ativo.

    +O resto desta página é como era em 2001, enquanto o boicote estava +ativo.

    @@ -175,12 +183,12 @@ boicote. Novas informações são adicionadas ao final desta seção.

    Tim O'Reilly enviou à Amazon uma carta +href="https://web.archive.org/web/20131114095827/http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreilly/ask_tim/2000/amazon_patent.html">carta aberta desaprovando o uso desta patente, afirmando a posição com a maior força possível, dada a falta de vontade de parar de fazer negócios com eles.

    -Richard M. Stallman escreveu uma Richard M. Stallman escreveu uma carta a Tim O'Reilly a respeito da declaração por Jeff Bezos, CEO da Amazon, na qual pediu que patentes de software @@ -202,16 +210,17 @@ href="https://web.archive.org/web/20140610154715/http://www.salon.com/1999/10/28 coisas desagradáveis em outras ações judiciais também.

    -Veja http://endsoftpatents.org para -mais informações sobre um problema mais amplo das endsoftpatents.org para mais +informações sobre um problema mais amplo das patentes de software.

    +href="https://web.archive.org/web/20010430183216/http://www.cpsr.org/links/bookstore/"> Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility retiraram sua afiliação da Amazon.

    +
    @@ -221,7 +230,7 @@ Amazon.

    -

    Última atualização: -$Date: 2020/07/26 11:30:53 $ +$Date: 2021/09/05 15:33:45 $

    diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/applying-free-sw-criteria.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/applying-free-sw-criteria.html index 5e35d3e..61b5a4b 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/applying-free-sw-criteria.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/applying-free-sw-criteria.html @@ -1,7 +1,10 @@ - + + + + Aplicando os critérios de software livre - Projeto GNU - Free Software @@ -9,9 +12,13 @@ Foundation + + + +

    Aplicando os critérios de software livre

    -

    por Richard Stallman

    +
    por Richard Stallman

    As quatro liberdades essenciais fornecem os critérios para definir se uma parte específica do código é livre/. Quando um programa permite complementos não livres, deve pelo menos não orientar as pessoas para usá-los. Por exemplo, escolhemos o LibreOffice sobre o OpenOffice porque o OpenOffice sugere o uso de complementos não livres, enquanto o LibreOffice os evita. Nós -desenvolvemos IceCat +desenvolvemos IceCat inicialmente para evitar propor os complementos não livres sugeridos pelo Firefox.

    @@ -102,9 +109,9 @@ falar sobre essas coisas.

    Às vezes, um programa livre e um programa não livre interoperam, mas nenhum é baseado no outro. Nossa regra para tais casos é que, se o programa não livre for muito bem conhecido, devemos dizer às pessoas como usar nosso -programa livre com ele; mas se o programa proprietário é obscuro, não -devemos sugerir que ele existe. Às vezes, oferecemos suporte à interoperação -com o programa não livre, se ele estiver instalado, mas evite informar aos +programa livre com ele; mas se o programa privativo é obscuro, não devemos +sugerir que ele existe. Às vezes, oferecemos suporte à interoperação com o +programa não livre, se ele estiver instalado, mas evite informar aos usuários sobre a possibilidade de fazê-lo.

    Rejeitamos os “aprimoramentos†que funcionariam apenas em um sistema não @@ -279,6 +286,7 @@ computador à liberdade, na prática e em princípio. Ao recomendar apenas programas, distros e produtos de hardware que respeitem a liberdade, e declarar sua política, você pode dar o apoio tão necessário ao movimento do software livre.

    +
    @@ -288,7 +296,7 @@ software livre.

    -

    Última atualização: -$Date: 2020/05/22 22:05:20 $ +$Date: 2021/09/05 08:35:41 $

    + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/basic-freedoms.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/basic-freedoms.html index 3ff61d9..493b2dd 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/basic-freedoms.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/basic-freedoms.html @@ -1,7 +1,10 @@ - + + + + Liberdade de Expressão, Imprensa e Associação na Internet - Projeto GNU - @@ -9,8 +12,12 @@ Free Software Foundation + + + +

    Liberdade de Expressão, Imprensa e Associação na Internet

    - +

    A Fundação para o Software Livre suporta as liberdades de expressão, imprensa, e associação na Internet. Por favor verifique: @@ -43,16 +50,16 @@ paradoxalmente, teve o efeito oposto do que os censores desejaram.

  • - F.A.C.T.Net Inc. (Rede de Fatos) -é um jornal na Internet, sem fins lucrativos, e um arquivo dedicado à + F.A.C.T.Net Inc. (Rede de +Fatos) é um jornal na Internet, sem fins lucrativos, e um arquivo dedicado à promoção e defesa do livre-pensamento, liberdade de expressão e direitos de privacidade em âmbito internacional.
  • - A Blue Ribbon Campaign -(Campanha da Fita Azul) pela liberdade de discurso, imprensa e associação no -mundo conectado. + A Blue Ribbon +Campaign (Campanha da Fita Azul) pela liberdade de discurso, imprensa e +associação no mundo conectado.
  • @@ -74,6 +81,7 @@ trabalham pela liberdade no desenvolvimento dos computadores e das comunicações eletrônicas.
+
@@ -83,7 +91,7 @@ comunicações eletrônicas. -

Última atualização: -$Date: 2020/05/22 22:05:20 $ +$Date: 2021/10/01 17:39:48 $

diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/bug-nobody-allowed-to-understand.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/bug-nobody-allowed-to-understand.html index bfb3daf..cae0c73 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/bug-nobody-allowed-to-understand.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/bug-nobody-allowed-to-understand.html @@ -1,7 +1,10 @@ - + + + + O erro que ninguém tem permissão para entender - Projeto GNU - Free Software @@ -9,22 +12,27 @@ Foundation + + + +

O erro que ninguém tem permissão para entender

-

por Richard Stallman

+
por Richard Stallman
-

Na década de 1980, usuários de software proprietários descobriram o problema +

Na década de 1980, usuários de software privativo descobriram o problema do erro que ninguém tem permissão para entender. Quando ocorre um -problema na interação de vários pacotes de software proprietários com +problema na interação de vários pacotes de software privativo com desenvolvedores diferentes, nenhum deles pode estudar o código fonte de todos os programas pertinentes. Como resultado, nenhum deles pode entender a má interação entre eles e o erro nunca é corrigido, exceto por acidente.

De acordo com +href="https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/joris-luyendijk-banking-blog/2012/may/30/former-it-salesman-voices-of-finance"> esse artigo, um problema similar agora ocorre entre múltiplas instâncias de Serviço como um Substituto de Software.

+
@@ -34,7 +42,7 @@ um Substituto de Software.

-

Última atualização: -$Date: 2020/05/22 22:05:20 $ +$Date: 2021/09/05 16:33:26 $

+ diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/byte-interview.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/byte-interview.html index 290519e..6e1f6cf 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/byte-interview.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/byte-interview.html @@ -1,7 +1,10 @@ - + + + + Entrevista à BYTE com Richard Stallman - Projeto GNU - Free Software @@ -9,12 +12,19 @@ Foundation + + + +

Entrevista à BYTE com Richard Stallman

-

Conduzida por David Betz e Jon Edwards

+
conduzida por David Betz e Jon Edwards
-

Richard Stallman fala sobre seu sistema de software compatível com Unix de -domínio público com editores da BYTE (julho de 1986)

+
+

Richard Stallman fala sobre seu sistema de software compatível com Unix de +domínio público com editores da BYTE (julho de 1986).

+
+

Richard Stallman realizou provavelmente o mais ambicioso projeto de desenvolvimento de software livre até hoje, o sistema GNU. Em seu Manifesto @@ -24,7 +34,7 @@ que estou escrevendo para que eu possa distribuí-lo livremente para todos que possam usá-lo … Uma vez que o GNU seja escrito, todos poderão obter um bom software de sistema livremente, assim como o ar.†(GNU é um acrônimo para GNU's Not Unix ou, traduzido para português, “GNU Não é -Unixâ€; o “G†é pronunciado.)

+Unixâ€; o g é pronunciado.)

Stallman é amplamente conhecido como o autor do EMACS, um poderoso editor de texto que ele desenvolveu no Laboratório de Inteligência Artificial do @@ -178,7 +188,7 @@ originalmente pensei que não teria que fazer isso.

Stallman: Eu não coloco software ou manuais no domínio público, e o motivo é que eu quero ter certeza de que todos os usuários tenham a liberdade de compartilhar. Eu não quero ninguém fazendo uma versão -melhorada de um programa que eu escrevi e distribuindo como proprietário. Eu +melhorada de um programa que eu escrevi e distribuindo como privativo. Eu não quero que isso nunca aconteça. Quero incentivar as melhorias livres para esses programas, e a melhor maneira de fazer isso é eliminar qualquer tentação de uma pessoa fazer melhorias que não sejam livres. Sim, alguns @@ -202,7 +212,7 @@ derivado do compilador C?

Stallman: A lei de direitos autorais não me dá direitos autorais sobre a saída do compilador, então não me dá uma maneira de dizer algo sobre isso, e na verdade eu não tento. Eu não simpatizo com pessoas que -desenvolvem produtos proprietários com qualquer compilador, mas não parece +desenvolvem produtos privativos com qualquer compilador, mas não parece especialmente útil tentar impedi-los de desenvolvê-los com este compilador, então não vou fazê-lo.

@@ -235,13 +245,12 @@ feito?

Stallman: Não faço ideia, mas não é uma questão importante. Meu objetivo é possibilitar que as pessoas rejeitem as correntes -que vêm com software proprietário. Eu sei que existem pessoas que querem -fazer isso. Agora, pode haver outros que não se importam, mas não são minha +que vêm com software privativo. Eu sei que existem pessoas que querem fazer +isso. Agora, pode haver outros que não se importam, mas não são minha preocupação. Sinto-me um pouco triste por eles e pelas pessoas que eles influenciam. Neste momento, uma pessoa que percebe o desagrado dos termos do -software proprietário sente que ele está preso e não tem alternativa a não -ser deixar de usar um computador. Bem, vou dar-lhe uma alternativa -confortável.

+software privativo sente que ele está preso e não tem alternativa a não ser +deixar de usar um computador. Bem, vou dar-lhe uma alternativa confortável.

Outras pessoas podem usar o sistema GNU apenas porque é tecnicamente superior. Por exemplo, meu compilador C está produzindo um código tão bom @@ -280,7 +289,7 @@ talvez, se ele morresse de outra forma. E, claro, as pessoas que fazem isso são razoavelmente ricas; Só posso concluir que eles são inescrupulosos. Eu gostaria de ver as pessoas sendo recompensadas por escrever software livre e por encorajar outras pessoas a usá-lo. Eu não quero ver pessoas recebendo -recompensas por escrever softwares proprietários porque isso não é realmente +recompensas por escrever softwares privativos porque isso não é realmente uma contribuição para a sociedade. O princípio do capitalismo é a ideia de que as pessoas conseguem ganhar dinheiro produzindo coisas e, portanto, são encorajadas a fazer o que é útil, automaticamente, por assim dizer. Mas isso @@ -341,22 +350,22 @@ suporte. Como o seu esquema de distribuição fornece suporte?

Stallman: Eu suspeito que esses usuários são enganados e não estão pensando claramente. É certamente útil ter suporte, mas quando eles começam a pensar em como isso tem a ver com a venda de software ou com -o software sendo proprietário, nesse ponto eles estão se confundindo. Não há -garantia de que o software proprietário receberá um bom -suporte. Simplesmente porque os vendedores dizem que eles fornecem suporte, -isso não significa que será bom. E eles podem sair do negócio. Na verdade, -as pessoas acham que o GNU EMACS tem um suporte melhor do que o EMACS -comercial. Uma das razões é que eu sou provavelmente um hacker melhor do que -as pessoas que escreveram os outros EMACS, mas a outra razão é que todo -mundo tem fontes e há tantas pessoas interessadas em descobrir como fazer as -coisas com ele que você não tem que obter o seu suporte de mim. Mesmo apenas -o suporte gratuito que consiste na correção de bugs relatados pelas pessoas -a mim e incorporação disso no próximo lançamento deu às pessoas um bom nível -de suporte. Você sempre pode contratar alguém para resolver um problema para -você, e quando o software é livre, você tem um mercado competitivo para o -suporte. Você pode contratar alguém. Eu distribuo uma lista de serviços com -o EMACS, uma lista de nomes de pessoas e números de telefone e o que eles -cobram para fornecer suporte.

+o software sendo privativo, nesse ponto eles estão se confundindo. Não há +garantia de que o software privativo receberá um bom suporte. Simplesmente +porque os vendedores dizem que eles fornecem suporte, isso não significa que +será bom. E eles podem sair do negócio. Na verdade, as pessoas acham que o +GNU EMACS tem um suporte melhor do que o EMACS comercial. Uma das razões é +que eu sou provavelmente um hacker melhor do que as pessoas que escreveram +os outros EMACS, mas a outra razão é que todo mundo tem fontes e há tantas +pessoas interessadas em descobrir como fazer as coisas com ele que você não +tem que obter o seu suporte de mim. Mesmo apenas o suporte gratuito que +consiste na correção de bugs relatados pelas pessoas a mim e incorporação +disso no próximo lançamento deu às pessoas um bom nível de suporte. Você +sempre pode contratar alguém para resolver um problema para você, e quando o +software é livre, você tem um mercado competitivo para o suporte. Você pode +contratar alguém. Eu distribuo uma lista de serviços com o EMACS, uma lista +de nomes de pessoas e números de telefone e o que eles cobram para fornecer +suporte.

BYTE: Você coleciona suas correções de bugs?

@@ -384,17 +393,17 @@ contínua.

Stallman: Ou comprar uma casa – como seria se a única pessoa que pudesse resolver problemas com sua casa fosse o empreiteiro que a construiu originalmente? Esse é o tipo de imposição envolvida em software -proprietário. As pessoas me dizem sobre um problema que acontece no -Unix. Como os fabricantes vendem versões aprimoradas do Unix, eles tendem a -coletar correções e não distribuí-las, exceto em binários. O resultado é que -os bugs não são realmente consertados.

+privativo. As pessoas me dizem sobre um problema que acontece no Unix. Como +os fabricantes vendem versões aprimoradas do Unix, eles tendem a coletar +correções e não distribuí-las, exceto em binários. O resultado é que os bugs +não são realmente consertados.

BYTE: Todos eles estão duplicando esforços tentando resolver bugs de forma independente.

Stallman: Sim. Aqui está outro ponto que ajuda a colocar o -problema da informação proprietária em uma perspectiva social. Pense na -crise do seguro de responsabilidade. A fim de obter qualquer indenização da +problema da informação privativa em uma perspectiva social. Pense na crise +do seguro de responsabilidade. A fim de obter qualquer indenização da sociedade, uma pessoa lesada tem que contratar um advogado e dividir o dinheiro com esse advogado. Esta é uma maneira estúpida e ineficiente de ajudar as pessoas que são vítimas de acidentes. E considere todo o tempo que @@ -414,9 +423,9 @@ fazendo.

BYTE: Como digitar avisos de direitos autorais no software.

-

Stallman: Mais como o policiamento de todos para garantir -que eles não tenham cópias proibidas de nada e dupliquem todo o trabalho que -as pessoas já fizeram porque é proprietário.

+

Stallman: Mais como policiar todos para garantir que eles +não tenham cópias proibidas de nada e duplicar todo o trabalho que as +pessoas já fizeram porque é privativo.

BYTE: Um cínico pode se perguntar como você ganha a vida.

@@ -449,10 +458,12 @@ ou copie-os você mesmo. Copie esta entrevista e compartilhe-a também.

Stallman: Escreva para a Free Software Foundation, 675 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA 02139.

-

[O endereço atual (desde 2005) é: Free Software Foundation 51 Franklin St, -Fifth Floor Boston, MA 02110-1301, Telefone dos EUA: +1-617-542-5942 Fax: -+1-617-542-2652] -

+
[O endereço atual (desde 2005) é:
+ Free Software Foundation, 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA +02110-1301, USA.
+ Voz: +1-617-542-5942
+ Fax: +1-617-542-2652] +

BYTE: O que você vai fazer quando terminar o sistema GNU?

@@ -467,6 +478,7 @@ apenas viver uma vida de facilidade trabalhando um pouco do tempo apenas para viver. Eu não tenho que viver caro. O resto do tempo eu posso encontrar pessoas interessantes para andar ou aprender a fazer coisas que eu não sei fazer.

+
@@ -476,7 +488,7 @@ fazer.

-

Última atualização: -$Date: 2020/07/25 19:29:31 $ +$Date: 2021/12/27 01:00:02 $

+ diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/categories.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/categories.html index c2ced5e..532e174 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/categories.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/br/categories.html @@ -1,7 +1,15 @@ - + - + + + + Categorias de softwares livres e não livres - Projeto GNU - Free Software @@ -16,6 +24,11 @@ Foundation + + + + +

Categorias de softwares livres e não livres

Veja também Palavras confusas que @@ -53,12 +66,11 @@ abaixo. Para informações sobre licenças de software livre específicas, veja a página de lista de licenças.

Software livre é uma questão de liberdade, não preço. Mas empresas de -software proprietários geralmente usam o termo “free software†para -referir-se ao preço. Algumas vezes eles querem dizer que você pode obter uma -cópia binária sem nenhum custo; algumas vezes querem dizer que uma cópia -está incluída no computador que você está comprando. Em ambos casos, isso -não tem nada a ver com o que nós queremos dizer com software livre no -projeto GNU.

+software privativo geralmente usam o termo “free software†para referir-se +ao preço. Algumas vezes eles querem dizer que você pode obter uma cópia +binária sem nenhum custo; algumas vezes querem dizer que uma cópia está +incluída no computador que você está comprando. Em ambos casos, isso não tem +nada a ver com o que nós queremos dizer com software livre no projeto GNU.

Devido a essa potencial confusão, quando uma empresa de software disser que seu produto é “free softwareâ€, sempre verifique os termos de distribuição @@ -131,10 +143,10 @@ copyleft geralmente proíbem que outros adicionem requisitos ao software (apesar de que um conjunto limitado de requisitos seguros adicionados pode ser permitido) e exigem tornar código-fonte disponível. Isto blinda o programa, e suas versões modificadas, de algumas das formas comuns de tornar -um programa proprietário.

+um programa privativo.

Algumas licenças copyleft, tal como a GPL versão 3, bloqueiam outros -meios de tornar em software em proprietário, tal como tivoização.

No projeto GNU, nós distribuímos sob copyleft praticamente todo software que @@ -163,26 +175,26 @@ modificar, e também para incluir restrições adicionais a ele.

versões modificadas podem não ser software livre. Uma empresa de software pode compilar o programa, com ou sem modificações, e distribuir o arquivo executável na forma de um produto proprietário.

+href="#ProprietarySoftware">privativo.

-

O X Window System ilustra isso. O X +

O X Window System ilustra isso. O X Consortium lançou o X11 com termos de distribuição que o torna software livre sem copyleft, e desenvolvedores subsequentes em sua boa parte seguiram -a mesma prática. Uma cópia que tem esses termos de distribuição é livre. No -entanto, também existem versões não livres, e existem (ou pelo menos -existiram) estações de trabalho e placas gráficas populares para as quais as -versões não livres são as únicas que funcionam. Se você estiver usando este -hardware, o X11 não é livre para você. Os -desenvolvedores do X11 o tornaram não livre por um tempo; eles foram -capazes de fazer isso, porque outros contribuíram seus códigos sob a mesma -licença sem copyleft.

+a mesma prática. Uma cópia que tem esses termos de distribuição é software +livre. No entanto, também existem versões não livres, e existem (ou pelo +menos existiram) estações de trabalho e placas gráficas populares para as +quais as versões não livres são as únicas que funcionam. Se você estiver +usando este hardware, o X11 não é livre para você. Os desenvolvedores do X11 o tornaram não livre +por um tempo; eles foram capazes de fazer isso, porque outros contribuíram +seus códigos sob a mesma licença sem copyleft.

Software com licença permissiva e leniente

Licenças permissivas e lenientes incluem a licença X11 e as duas licenças BSD. Essas licenças permitem -quase qualquer uso do código, incluindo distribuição de binários -proprietários com ou sem alteração do código-fonte.

+quase qualquer uso do código, incluindo distribuição de binários privativos +com ou sem alteração do código-fonte.

Software coberto pela GPL

@@ -230,7 +242,7 @@ um “pacote GNUâ€.

Softwares GNU

Software GNU é um software lançado sob -os auspícios do Projeto GNU. Se um +os auspícios do Projeto GNU. Se um programa é software GNU, nós também dizemos que é um programa GNU ou um pacote GNU. O README ou manual de um pacote GNU deve dizer que ele é um; também, o Diretório de Software Livre identifica @@ -240,9 +252,9 @@ todos os pacotes GNU.

"/licenses/copyleft.html">copyleft, mas nem todos; contudo, todo software GNU deve ser software livre.

-

Alguns softwares GNU foram escritos pela equipe da Free Software Foundation, mas a maior parte +

Alguns softwares GNU foram escritos pela equipe da Free Software Foundation, mas a maior parte dos softwares GNU vem de muitos voluntários. (Alguns desses voluntário são pagos por empresas ou universidades, mas eles são voluntários para nós.) @@ -268,19 +280,19 @@ redistribuição ou modificação é proibido, ou requer que você peça permiss ou é restrito de tal forma que você não possa efetivamente fazê-lo livremente.

-

Software proprietário

+

Software privativo

-

Software proprietário é um outro nome para software não livre. No passado, -nós subdividíamos software não livre em “software semilivreâ€, o qual poderia -ser modificado e redistribuído não comercialmente, e “software -proprietárioâ€, que não poderia. Mas nós descartamos tal distinção e agora -usamos “software proprietário†como sinônimo de software não livre.

+

Software privativo é um outro nome para software não livre. No passado, nós +subdividíamos software não livre em “software semilivreâ€, o qual poderia ser +modificado e redistribuído não comercialmente, e “software privativoâ€, que +não poderia. Mas nós descartamos tal distinção e agora usamos “software +privativo†como sinônimo de software não livre.

A Free Software Foundation segue a regra de que não podemos instalar -qualquer programa proprietário em nossos computadores, exceto -temporariamente para o propósito específico de escrever um substituto livre -para aquele mesmo programa. Fora isso, achamos que não há justificativa -possível para instalar um programa proprietário.

+qualquer programa privativo em nossos computadores, exceto temporariamente +para o propósito específico de escrever um substituto livre para aquele +mesmo programa. Fora isso, achamos que não há justificativa possível para +instalar um programa privativo.

Por exemplo, nós achamos justificável instalar Unix em nosso computador nos anos 80, porque o estávamos usando para escrever um substituto livre para @@ -320,11 +332,11 @@ distribuição e fazem isso de qualquer forma, mas os termos não permitem isso). -

Softwares privativos

-

Software privativo ou personalizados é um software desenvolvido para um -usuário (geralmente uma organização ou empresa). Aquele usuário o mantém e o -usa, e não o libera para o público como código-fonte ou como binários.

-

Um programa privativo é um software livre (em algum sentido trivial) se seu +

Softwares privados

+

Software privado ou personalizado é um software desenvolvido para um usuário +(geralmente uma organização ou empresa). Aquele usuário o mantém e o usa, e +não o libera para o público como código-fonte ou como binários.

+

Um programa privado é um software livre (em algum sentido trivial) se seu único usuário tem as quatro liberdades. Em particular, se o usuário tem todos os direitos ao programa privado, o programa é livre. Porém, se o usuário distribui cópias para outros e não fornece as quatro liberdades com @@ -346,10 +358,10 @@ livre.

Software comercial

-

“Comercial†e “proprietário†não são a mesma coisa! Software comercial é +

“Comercial†e “privativo†não são a mesma coisa! Software comercial é software desenvolvido por uma empresa como parte de seu negócio. A maior parte dos softwares comerciais é proprietária, mas existem softwares livres +href="#ProprietarySoftware">privativa, mas existem softwares livres comerciais, e softwares não comerciais e não livres.

Por exemplo, o GNU Ada é desenvolvido por uma empresa. Ele é sempre @@ -365,14 +377,9 @@ entanto, o desenvolvimento adicional do GNU Ada que resulta do mesmo ser comercial é definitivamente benéfico.

Por favor, ajude-nos a divulgar o fato de que software comercial livre é possível. Você pode fazer isso através de um esforço de não dizer -“comercial†quando quer dizer “proprietárioâ€.

- - - - - - - +“comercial†quando quer dizer “privativoâ€.

+
+
@@ -381,7 +388,7 @@ possível. Você pode fazer isso através de um esforço de não dizer - - +
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]

-
+
conducted by Jeremy Andrews

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.
  3. 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.
    4. + +
  4. 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

+
by Richard Stallman
-
-

A plain +

+

Transcript of a speech that was given at New York University in +New York, NY, on 29 May 2001.

+ +

A plain text version of this transcript and a summary of the speech -are also available.

+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

-
    -
  • [00:00] Introduction
    • -
  • [00:40] Surveillance
    • -
  • [00:19] Terrorism and 9/11
    • -
  • [04:30] Barack Obama
    • -
  • [06:23] Airline Security
    • -
  • [08:02] Digital Surveillance
    • -
  • [10:26] Systematic Surveillance
    • -
  • [12:20] Taxi surveillance
    • -
  • [14:25] Matters of Principle — cellphones
    • -
  • [15:33] Free Software and Freedom
    • -
  • [17:24] Free Trade treaties
    • -
  • [20:08] Cars, microwaves and planes
    • -
  • [21:05] Copying books
    • -
  • [25:31] E-books & supporting artists
    • -
  • [28:42] Micropayments
    • -
  • [30:47] A simplistic political philosophy?
    • -
  • [32:51] Income
    • -
  • [33:48] Digital handcuffs — Amazon Kindle
    • -
  • [36:13] Buying books
    • -
  • [37:16] Social networking
    • -
  • [38:08] The -ACTA
    • + + + +
    +

    RMS on Radio New Zealand

    + +
    +

    Transcript (by Jim Cheetham) of an interview between Kim Hill (presenter) +and Richard Stallman in October 2009; originally published on + +iNode: Nota Bene.

    +
    + +
    +

    Interesting sections

    +
    @@ -48,7 +62,7 @@ patents and extensions of copyright laws. His battle is, as he told us last year, against what he calls extreme capitalism. His GNU operating system with Linux was the first Free operating system that could run on a PC. Richard Stallman says “it's all about -freedom”, a cause which goes beyond software; and we could talk +freedom,” a cause which goes beyond software; and we could talk about the others he's identified, surveillance and censorship, because he joins me now, hello. @@ -73,7 +87,7 @@ mistreated that way.
    Because it's too much information to collect about people who aren't criminals. And by the way for the same reason I will not ever go to Japan again unless they changed that policy, which makes me sad, -but one must …
    +but one must…
    [01:19]
    KH
    @@ -93,14 +107,13 @@ prevent it from happening. 9/11?
    RMS
    -
    I can't say … first of all I think it's unfair — we +
    I can't say … first of all I think it's unfair—we know that the attack was a conspiracy. All the theories are conspiracies.
    KH
    Well, all right, the conspiracy theory for example, that has the -Bush administration staging the 9/11 attack in order to justify -…
    +Bush administration staging the 9/11 attack in order to justify…
    RMS
    I don't know. The only way there could ever be proof of that is @@ -126,8 +139,8 @@ world's biggest danger, as an excuse for what they want to do, which is … and remember that these governments are much more dangerous, it's quite clear that Bush's invasion of Iraq was far more destructive than anything non state-sponsored terrorists have been -able to do — that's assuming that those terrorists in September -2001 were not state-sponsored, which we don't know — but the +able to do—that's assuming that those terrorists in September +2001 were not state-sponsored, which we don't know—but the point is, what Bush did by invading Iraq, using those attacks as an excuse, was tremendously worse and we must remember than governments gone amok can do far more damage than anybody not state-sponsored. @@ -163,14 +176,14 @@ them or release them. They're entitled to that.
    KH
    Yeah, they may be entitled to that but he's also democratically -elected President who …
    +elected President who…
    RMS
    That doesn't mean he's entitled to violate human rights.
    KH
    No, but would the American people be in favor of the release of -those …
    +those…
    RMS
    I don't know.
    @@ -182,15 +195,15 @@ those …
    No it's not, if they're not that just makes them responsible.
    KH
    -
    I know you're …
    +
    I know you're…
    RMS
    I don't think I can excuse massive violations of human rights by saying that the public is maddened and supports it. Especially, why are they so maddened? Because of a constant propaganda campaign -telling you “Be terrified of terrorists”, “throw +telling you “Be terrified of terrorists, throw away your human rights and everyone else's because you're so scared of -these terrorists”. It's disproportionate, we have to keep these +these terrorists.” It's disproportionate, we have to keep these dangers in their proportion, there isn't a campaign saying “be terrified of getting in a car” but maybe there ought to be.
    @@ -207,7 +220,7 @@ OK, that's a sensible measure.
    KH
    But are you? I would have thought that you would have said “why would they spend money reinforcing the cabin doors because -hijackers are a minor issue”.
    +hijackers are a minor issue.”
    RMS
    I'm not against spending a little bit of money.
    @@ -235,7 +248,7 @@ gang.
    [08:02]
    KH
    If you don't agree with surveillance, is there any way that you -would accept that it might be quite a handy thing, CCTV …
    +would accept that it might be quite a handy thing, CCTV…
    RMS
    Wait a second, your view of surveillance is oversimplifying @@ -245,7 +258,7 @@ governments like Romania under Ceaușescu, or East Germany with the Stasi, they did a lot of surveillance but it took a lot of people working on it and even then it was limited what they could actually watch and record because it was so hard. Now, we're entering a kind -of surveillance society that has never been seen before …
    +of surveillance society that has never been seen before…
    KH
    You're talking about digital surveillance.
    @@ -315,7 +328,7 @@ say that they don't exist, or that they're no danger at all.
    KH
    No, the difficulty is being on guard against the danger that -you've cited, without giving quarter to …
    +you've cited, without giving quarter to…
    [12:20]
    RMS
    @@ -339,7 +352,7 @@ in those ways.
    KH
    How come you can justify people being treated as if they're going -to attack taxi drivers …
    +to attack taxi drivers…
    RMS
    But you see there the point is, those are not looked at unless @@ -356,7 +369,7 @@ place I've been, that I bought anything in, what I bought.
    [14:25]
    KH
    -
    As a matter of principle, rather than …
    +
    As a matter of principle, rather than…
    RMS
    As a matter of principle. It's not an issue of convenience.
    @@ -389,14 +402,14 @@ that they're constantly saying where you are, and I just don't want to participate in a system like that, I think people shouldn't. It would be very convenient for me to have a cellphone, I'm not one of those people who would, who says “I resent the fact that people can -call me”, it's convenient when people can call me, but I'm not +call me,” it's convenient when people can call me, but I'm not going to do it that way.
    [15:33]
    KH
    It's interesting that your battle for Free Software and the issues of freedom that you identify intersect. They didn't start out being -the same — or did they?
    +the same—or did they?
    RMS
    Well they didn't start out being the same. Pervasive digital @@ -405,7 +418,7 @@ surveillance wasn't a big problem twenty-seven years ago.
    KH
    But the people who were in charge were still the people who were in charge, the people who you identified as the people you didn't want -to see …
    +to see…
    RMS
    Well actually they're not the same people. Proprietary software's @@ -421,11 +434,11 @@ capitalism.
    Well I'm sorry, when I say extreme capitalism I'm talking about a philosophy, and that philosophy says “the market should control everything, everything should be for sale, and business should be -allowed to dominate politics and get the laws it wants”, which +allowed to dominate politics and get the laws it wants,” which is very different from mere capitalism, which says “within a society which we set up to protect peoples rights and so on, there are lots of things that people should be free to do, and make businesses -to do them, as they wish”. That difference is why today's form +to do them, as they wish.” That difference is why today's form of capitalism is running wild and why we see free exploitation treaties which basically undermine democracy and turn it in to a sham.
    @@ -449,7 +462,7 @@ do it. Of course it was they who decided to adopt that treaty in the first place which they shouldn't have done. But then a lot of these treaties go beyond that, and they explicitly deny democracy. Now the -US had a law that said it wouldn't sell tuna — you weren't +US had a law that said it wouldn't sell tuna—you weren't allowed to sell tuna in the US if it had been caught in a way that endangered dolphins. Well that law had to be scrapped because of the World Trade Organization, that's just one example. @@ -466,7 +479,7 @@ way of that, we owe them.
    KH
    Of course, we're in favor of Free Trade here, Richard, because we -rely on it …
    +rely on it…
    RMS
    Well I'm not in favor of free trade beyond a certain point. The @@ -602,8 +615,7 @@ start wanting the money more, and the thing that they used to yearn to do, they want less.
    KH
    -
    So if being read and appreciated is what authors want -…
    +
    So if being read and appreciated is what authors want…
    RMS
    Well they start out wanting. Those who have got rich, some of @@ -627,7 +639,7 @@ penury.
    Oh no I'm not, you're mistaken.
    KH
    -
    If they cannot sell the book …
    +
    If they cannot sell the book…
    RMS
    You're mistaken, you're making a projection which people who know @@ -662,8 +674,8 @@ and I'm against it, because the freedom to share must be respected. the current system mostly supports corporations, so I don't think it works very well. And it makes a few authors quite rich, and those get treated with great deference by the corporations, and the rest -basically get ground into the dust. My proposals — I have two, -and another that combines them — one proposal is support artists +basically get ground into the dust. My proposals—I have two, +and another that combines them—one proposal is support artists using taxes, it could either be a specific tax on Internet connectivity or general funds, it wouldn't be a tremendous amount of money by comparison with other government expenditures, and then you @@ -734,7 +746,7 @@ it.
    KH
    What about getting rid of taxes entirely, and giving us all the -power to direct …
    +power to direct…
    RMS
    I'm not against taxes.
    @@ -841,8 +853,8 @@ Free Software that can break digital handcuffs. More and more products are designed with digital handcuffs, that is features to stop the user from doing things. So nowadays when I hear about a new product or a new service my first thought is “what's malicious -in that?”, “how is it designed to restrict what you can -do?”. And these products are very malicious, for instance there +in that? How is it designed to restrict what you can +do?” And these products are very malicious, for instance there is the Amazon Kindle, it's an e-book reader, and they call it the Kindle to express what it's designed to do to our books [1]. @@ -879,7 +891,7 @@ dependent on any company's goodwill.
    [36:13]
    RMS
    I buy books from bookstores, yes I go to a store and I say -“I want that one”.
    +“I want that one.”
    KH
    And you hand money over for it? Even though you think that that's @@ -900,7 +912,7 @@ get some money. With academic textbooks they generally don't.
    KH
    As a matter of interest we've been talking about freedoms, surveillance and digital monitoring, does the extraordinary rise of -social networking …
    +social networking…
    RMS
    I buy CDs of music as well even though in that case I know the @@ -942,7 +954,7 @@ publishers what's in the text that they're working on, but they won't tell the public. So the point is that the; many governments, including of course the US are conspiring in secret to impose new restrictions on us relating to copyright and part of their latest -propaganda is they call sharing “counterfeiting”. +propaganda is they call sharing “counterfeiting.” But the point is that this treaty will have provisions to restrict the public, we think, but they won't tell us. This is called Policy Laundering, @@ -960,17 +972,18 @@ time.
    -

    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-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

+
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

+ +
by Richard Stallman
+ +
+

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

-
    -
  • Get the latest threats to Europe's internet - from ffii.org
    • -
+
- - - + 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 + [*]
-

-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.

+
by Richard +Stallman

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.

+ + +

This essay is published in +Free Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard -M. Stallman.

+M. Stallman.

+
- + 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

+
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 +

+

This essay is published in +Free Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard -M. Stallman.

+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 +
by Richard Stallman
- - - -

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)

+
+
+

Summary

-
- -

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.

+
by Marc Rotenberg <rotenberg@epic.org>
+

- 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

    by Richard Stallman
    @@ -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?

    by -Richard Stallman
    -
    +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 +

    +

    This essay is published in +Free Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard -M. Stallman.

    +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

    +
    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?

    + +
    by Richard +Stallman

    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

    +
    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

    +
    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.)

    +
    by Richard Stallman
    -

    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

    +
    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?

    -
    by by Richard Stallman
    -
    -
    -
    -

    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.

    -
    + +
    +

    This essay is published in +Free +Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard +M. Stallman.

    @@ -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

    +
    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

    +
    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.

    -
    -

    Also note Categories of Free -Software, -Why Call It The -Swindle?

    -
    - +

    “Ad-blocker” | “

    href="#FOSS">FOSS” | “Freely available” +| “Freemium” +| “Free-to-play” | “Freeware” | “

    | “    Vendor”

    +
    + +
    +
    +

    Also note Categories of Free +Software, +Why Call It The +Swindle?

    +
    +
    @@ -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 +

    +

    This essay is published in +Free Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard -M. Stallman.

    +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.)

    +
    by Richard +Stallman
    -
    +

    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

    by Alexandre Oliva
    -

    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

    by Richard M. Stallman
    -
    -
    +

    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

    +
    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

    +
    by Richard Stallman
    + +

    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.

    +
    - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/eo/gnu-breadcrumb.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/eo/gnu-breadcrumb.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..18a355d --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/eo/gnu-breadcrumb.html @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/eo/ph-breadcrumb.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/eo/ph-breadcrumb.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6ac4a04 --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/eo/ph-breadcrumb.html @@ -0,0 +1,131 @@ + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/es/15-years-of-free-software.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/es/15-years-of-free-software.html index ced20e4..2551bd6 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/es/15-years-of-free-software.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/es/15-years-of-free-software.html @@ -1,7 +1,10 @@ - + + + + 15 años de software libre - Proyecto GNU - Free Software Foundation @@ -14,11 +17,14 @@ un sistema operativo libre." /> + + + +
    +

    15 años de software libre

    -

    - por Richard M. Stallman -

    +
    por Richard Stallman

    Acaban de cumplirse 15 años desde los inicios del movimiento del software @@ -86,6 +92,7 @@ enfrenta la comunidad del software libre y a otras cuestiones que afectan a la libertad de los usuarios de ordenadores, así como a los acontecimientos que afecten al sistema operativo GNU/Linux.

    +
    @@ -99,7 +106,7 @@ principio, podría aplicarse a cualquier campo del conocimiento.
    - + diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/es/2020-announcement-1.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/es/2020-announcement-1.html index 9105c0f..ae70f2e 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/es/2020-announcement-1.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/es/2020-announcement-1.html @@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ Commons Reconocimiento-SinObraDerivada 4.0 Internacional.

    Última actualización: -$Date: 2020/02/08 09:59:58 $ +$Date: 2021/04/30 09:12:02 $

    diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/es/about-gnu.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/es/about-gnu.html index 81e7264..68bbe8b 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/es/about-gnu.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/es/about-gnu.html @@ -1,28 +1,29 @@ - + + + + -Acerca del sistema operativo GNU - Proyecto GNU - Free Software Foundation +GNU en pocas palabras - Proyecto GNU - Free Software Foundation -

    Acerca del sistema operativo GNU

    - -
    -

    El nombre «GNU» es un acrónimo recursivo que significa «¡GNU No es -Unix!». En español se puede pronunciar como «ñu».

    -
    - -

    [Otros artículos acerca de GNU y su historia]

    - -

    GNU fue fundado por Richard Stallman (rms) en 1983 como un sistema operativo -desarrollado por personas que trabajan juntas con el fin de lograr que todos -los usuarios de software tengan la libertad de controlar sus operaciones -informáticas. RMS continúa siendo el Jefe GNUisance[1] a día de hoy.

    + + + +
    +

    GNU en pocas palabras

    +
    + +

    GNU [1] fue fundado por Richard Stallman (rms) en +1983 como un sistema operativo desarrollado por personas que trabajan juntas +con el fin de lograr que todos los usuarios de software tengan la libertad +de controlar sus operaciones informáticas. RMS continúa siendo el Jefe +GNUisance[1] a día +de hoy.

    El objetivo primordial y continuo de GNU es ofrecer un sistema compatible con Unix que sea 100% software @@ -35,7 +36,7 @@ diferencia de Unix, GNU proporciona libertad a los usuarios.

    Hoy en día existen distribuciones completamente libres («distros») que satisfacen este objetivo, muchas de las cuales utilizan el kernel +href="https://www.fsfla.org/svnwiki/selibre/linux-libre/">kernel Linux-libre (la relación entre GNU y el kernel Linux se describe con más detalle en otro artículo). Los paquetes de GNU se diseñaron para que @@ -56,11 +57,11 @@ hoy. Existen muchas maneras de contribuir tanto con aportaciones técnicas como no técnicas. Los desarrolladores de GNU se reúnen de vez en cuando en GNU Hackers Meetings, a veces como parte de las conferencias de la comunidad -de software libre LibrePlanet .

    +de software libre LibrePlanet .

    GNU ha recibido en diversas formas el apoyo de la Free Software Foundation, la organización sin -ánimo de lucro fundada también por rms para promover los ideales del +href="https://www.fsf.org/">Free Software Foundation, la organización +sin ánimo de lucro fundada también por rms para promover los ideales del software libre. Entre otras cosas, la FSF acepta cesiones de copyright y exoneraciones de responsabilidad para poder así actuar en los tribunales como representante de los programas de GNU. (Conviene aclarar que donar un @@ -72,6 +73,14 @@ ocupa del asunto).

    El objetivo último es proporcionar software libre apto para realizar todas las tareas que los usuarios de ordenadores deseen, y lograr así que el software privativo sea cosa del pasado.

    +
    + +

    Nota

    +
      +
    1. «GNU» es un acrónimo recursivo que significa «¡GNU No es Unix!». En español +se puede pronunciar como «ñu».
      2. +
    +
    @@ -83,7 +92,7 @@ palabras en inglés creado mediante el cruce de los vocablos gnu -