rieti.html (30587B)
1 <!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> 2 <!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 --> 3 <!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html --> 4 <!--#set var="TAGS" value="speeches" --> 5 <!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" --> 6 <title>The Future of Jiyuna Software 7 - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> 8 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/rieti.translist" --> 9 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> 10 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" --> 11 <!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE--> 12 <!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" --> 13 <div class="article reduced-width"> 14 <h2>The Future of Jiyuna Software</h2> 15 16 <address class="byline">by <a href="https://www.stallman.org/">Richard 17 Stallman</a></address> 18 19 <div class="infobox"> 20 <p>Transcript of a keynote speech at the Research Institute of Economy, 21 Trade and Industry (RIETI), Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, 22 21 April 2003.</p> 23 </div> 24 <hr class="thin" /> 25 26 <p> 27 Mr. Richard Stallman, GNU Project: I am going to speak about free 28 software and, first of all, its ethical, social and political 29 significance, and secondly, something about its economic consequences. 30 </p> 31 <p> 32 Free software is a matter of freedom. The English word 33 “free” does not make this clear because it has two 34 meanings. In your language, fortunately, you have two different 35 words. So, if you say jiyu na sofuto, it is very clear that you are 36 not talking about the price, you are talking about freedom. So, I urge 37 you, always use your unambiguous word and not our unclear word when 38 you are talking about free software in Japanese. 39 </p> 40 <p> 41 The reason for having free software is very simple: to live in freedom 42 and, in particular, to be free to treat other people 43 decently. Nonfree software says that you are helpless and divided. It 44 says you cannot even tell what the program does; you are supposed to 45 take the developer's word for it; and often they will not tell you 46 what it really does. And if you do not like it, you cannot change 47 it. Even if the developer made his best sincere effort to make the 48 program useful, nobody is perfect. I could write a program, and you 49 might find it halfway good for what you want. Perhaps I wrote it for 50 somewhat different purposes, not the same as your purposes. Nobody can 51 anticipate everything. Perhaps I did it the way I thought was best, 52 but you have a better idea. Nobody can always get everything right. 53 </p> 54 <p> 55 With nonfree software you are stuck. You have to take it the way it 56 is. You have to suffer with it. And most important with nonfree 57 software, you are forbidden to share with other people. Society 58 depends on people helping each other. It is useful to live with 59 neighbors who will help you when you ask for help. Of course, not 60 always, nobody is forced to help another person, but if you are 61 friends with people, often they will help you out. So, of course, we 62 had better help other people if we want them to help us. 63 </p> 64 <p> 65 So what is it like when someone says you are prohibited from helping 66 someone else? Here is this useful knowledge, and you could help your 67 neighbor by sharing it, but you are forbidden to share with other 68 people. This is attacking the bonds of society, dissolving society 69 into isolated individuals who cannot help each other. 70 </p> 71 <p> 72 Free software is the contrast to this. Free software means that you 73 have four essential freedoms. Freedom zero is the freedom to run the 74 program for any purpose, in any way that you want to. Freedom one is 75 the freedom to help yourself by studying the source code to see what 76 the program does and then changing it to suit your needs. Freedom two 77 is the freedom to help you neighbor by distributing copies to 78 others. And freedom three is the freedom to help build your community 79 by publishing an improved version so others can use your version 80 instead, so others can get the benefit of your help. With these 81 freedoms, the users control the software they use. If these freedoms 82 are lacking, then the [software] owner controls the software and 83 controls the users. 84 </p> 85 <p> 86 We all know that computers do not make decisions themselves 87 really. They do what people told them to do. But which people told 88 them what to do? When you are using your computer, can you tell it 89 what to do, or is someone else telling it what to do? Who controls 90 your computer? This is the question of free software. The freedoms in 91 the definition of free software, freedoms zero, one, two and three, 92 the reason why these are the freedoms that matter is because these are 93 the freedoms necessary for citizens to control their own 94 computers. You need freedom zero in order to be able to do whatever 95 job you want with your computer. You need freedom one so that you can 96 make the software do what you want it to do. If you do not have 97 freedom one, you are stuck; you are a prisoner of your software. 98 </p> 99 <p> 100 But not everybody is a programmer. If we had just freedom one, then 101 programmers could change the software to do what they want. But if 102 each programmer had to make his changes personally, we would not 103 really have much control. We would be limited to what each of us, 104 individually, could do. Non-programmers would get no benefit at 105 all. That is why freedom three and two are crucial, because freedoms 106 two and three allow a group of users to work together and make the 107 software do what they jointly want. So you are not limited to changing 108 it individually, personally. 109 <span class="gnun-split"></span>You and 50 other people who want the same 110 thing, you can get together. If two or three of you are programmers, 111 they can make the changes, and then they can distribute it to all the 112 rest of you. You could all put money in and pay a programmer to make 113 the changes you want. Your company could pay a programmer to make the 114 changes your company wants. Then if you publish the improved version, 115 everybody can use it. Thus, all of society gets control over what its 116 software does. 117 </p> 118 <p> 119 Free software is a method, a democratic method, for deciding the 120 development of software. But it is democratic in an unusual way, 121 because we do not hold an election and then tell everybody what to 122 do. Nobody tells people what to do in the free software community; 123 everybody makes his own decision. But what happens is this: If many 124 people want the software to improve in that direction, many people 125 will work on changing it, so the software will develop rapidly in that 126 direction. If a few people want the software to develop in that 127 direction, a few of them will make an effort, so it will develop 128 slowly in that direction. If nobody wants it to develop in that 129 direction, it will not. By each of us deciding what we are going to 130 do, we all contribute to what happens and to deciding which direction 131 the software will develop. 132 </p> 133 <p> 134 So society collectively has control over how the software will develop 135 overall. But you, individually, or any group or company can decide how 136 to develop it themselves. The result is that free software tends to do 137 what users want, instead of what the developers want. 138 </p> 139 <p> 140 People often ask, “If everybody is free to change the software, 141 what does that do for compatibility?” Well the fact is, users 142 like compatibility. It is not the only thing they like. Sometimes, 143 certain users want an incompatible change because it has other 144 benefits, and if so they can do it. But most users want 145 compatibility. The result is most free software developers try very 146 hard to be compatible. Guess what would happen if I made an 147 incompatible difference in my program and the users did not like 148 it. 149 <span class="gnun-split"></span>Some user would change the program and make it compatible, and 150 then most users would prefer his version. So his version would become 151 popular and mine would be forgotten. Now, I do not want that to 152 happen, of course. I want people to like and use my version, so I am 153 going to recognize this in advance and I am going to make my version 154 compatible from the beginning because I want people to like it. So in 155 our community, the developers cannot resist what the users want. We 156 have to go along or the users will go where they want and leave us 157 behind. 158 </p> 159 <p> 160 But if you look at nonfree software developers, the ones who are very 161 powerful, they can impose incompatibility and they are so powerful 162 that the users cannot do anything. Microsoft is famous for this. They 163 make an incompatible change in a protocol, and then the users are 164 stuck with it. But it is not just Microsoft. Consider WAP, for 165 instance. WAP contains modified versions of ordinary Internet 166 protocols, modified to be incompatible, and the idea was they would 167 make these telephones and they would say “they can talk on the 168 Internet,” but since they did not use the ordinary Internet 169 protocols, the incompatibility would be imposed on the user. That was 170 their plan. It did not work, fortunately. But that is the danger you 171 face when the users are not really in control: Somebody will try to 172 impose incompatibility on the users. 173 </p> 174 <p> 175 Free software is primarily a political, ethical and social issue. I 176 have explained that level of it. It also has economic 177 consequences. For instance, nonfree software can be used to create 178 very rich companies, where a few people collect money from everyone 179 around the world, and those few get very rich and other people are 180 deprived. There are many countries (Japan is not one of them, I guess) 181 where the people who can afford a computer usually cannot afford to 182 pay for the nonfree software, for permission to use the nonfree 183 software. So in those countries, nonfree software as a system creates 184 tremendous deprivation. But in any country, money is squeezed out of 185 most people and concentrated to a few who become very rich by nonfree 186 software. With free software, you cannot do that. You cannot squeeze a 187 lot of money out of people, but you can do business with people as 188 long as you are providing them with a real service. 189 </p> 190 <p> 191 Free software business already exists. In fact, I started a free 192 software business in 1985. I was selling copies of GNU Emacs. I was 193 looking for a way to make money through free software. So I said, 194 “Pay me $150, and I will mail you a tape with the GNU Emacs text 195 editor.” People started paying me, and I mailed them tapes. I 196 made enough money to live on. I stopped this because I started the 197 Free Software Foundation, and it seemed appropriate for the Free 198 Software Foundation to start distributing GNU Emacs. I did not want to 199 compete with the Free Software Foundation, so I had to find a 200 different way. For several years, the Foundation made enough money 201 this way to pay several employees, including programmers. So actually, 202 if I had done it myself, I would probably have become comfortably well 203 off by selling copies of free software. 204 </p> 205 <p> 206 After that, I started another free software business where I would 207 make changes on commission. 208 </p> 209 <p> 210 With nonfree software, you cannot change it. You are a prisoner of 211 the software. So you either use it exactly as it is or you do not use 212 it at all. With free software, you have those two choices, but you 213 have another choice also, actually many different choices. You can 214 make changes, bigger or smaller, in the program and use the modified 215 program. 216 </p> 217 <p> 218 Now, if you are personally a programmer, you could make the changes 219 yourself. But suppose you are not a programmer. Then, you can pay a 220 programmer to make the changes for you. For instance, if this ministry 221 is using a program and people conclude this program does not work the 222 way we really want, you could easily spend some money to pay a 223 programmer to change it to do what you want. This is the kind of free 224 software business that I was doing for several years in the 1980s. (I 225 could have kept on doing it, but I received a big prize and I did not 226 have to do it anymore.) 227 </p> 228 <p> 229 Nowadays there are many people making a living this way. I recently 230 heard from somebody in South America who said that he know 30 people 231 there who are making a living this way. South America is not among the 232 technologically most advanced parts of the world, but this is already 233 starting there. In 1989 or 1990, I believe, a company was started to 234 do this kind of business, and that company was started by three 235 people. In several years it had grown to 50 people, and it had been 236 profitable every year. They could have kept on doing it, but they got 237 greedy, and so they started developing nonfree software, and later on 238 they were purchased by Red Hat. 239 </p> 240 <p> 241 Anyway, the free software business is a new way of doing business that 242 does not exist in the proprietary software world. So people often 243 wonder how would free software affect employment. Suppose every 244 computer user had freedom. Suppose, therefore, that all software were 245 free software. In other words, if you have the program, you have the 246 freedom to run it, study it, change it and redistribute it.What would 247 that do to employment in the information technology field? 248 </p> 249 <p> 250 Well, of all the employment in the field, a small fraction is 251 programming; and most programming is custom software, software being 252 written for one client. That is perfectly okay; as long as the client 253 gets the source code and gets the full rights to control the software 254 once he has paid for it, then this is legitimate. In fact, it is free 255 software for the client who has it. [Thus, only the programming 256 which is not client-specific is really nonfree.] 257 </p> 258 <p> 259 So of this fraction that is programming, most of that is custom 260 software; software to be published is a small fraction of a small 261 fraction of the total [IT sector employment]. 262 </p> 263 <p> 264 So, what would free software do? It might eliminate this tiny fraction 265 of the employment, but maybe not. Because while the possibility of 266 paying these programmers by restricting the users would go away, there 267 would be a new possibility instead of supporting programmers who would 268 be paid to make improvements and extensions in free software. So will 269 we lose more jobs or gain more jobs? Nobody knows. It is impossible to 270 tell. What we do know is that the decrease in employment in the IT 271 field is limited to this small fraction of a small fraction, which is 272 programming for publication. The rest would continue the way it is 273 now. So it is clear that there is no problem for employment. 274 </p> 275 <p> 276 What about another issue people sometimes raise: Could we possibly 277 develop enough software and make it free? The answer is obvious 278 because we already are. The people who ask this question are like 279 asking could airplanes really stay up? Well, I flew in one. Probably 280 all of you have flown in airplanes too. I think they can stay up. In 281 free software today, we have hundreds of people, maybe thousands, 282 getting paid to develop free software. But we have over half a million 283 volunteer developers of free software working part time and not 284 getting paid and developing a lot of software. 285 </p> 286 <p> 287 So in fact, free software business is not necessary for free software 288 to do its job. Free software business is very desirable. The more we 289 can develop institutions that funnel funds from users to free software 290 developers, the more free software we can produce, the better we can 291 produce it. So it is certainly desirable, but it is not crucial. We 292 have already developed two entire operating systems, two graphical 293 user interface desktops and two office suites that are free 294 software. 295 </p> 296 <p> 297 People are creatively looking for ways to fund free software, and some 298 [ways] work and some do not, as you might expect. For instance, last 299 summer, there was a product that people had liked but was nonfree 300 called Blender, and the business decided it was no use supporting this 301 or selling this anymore. They discontinued it. But the developers did 302 not want it to be discontinued, so they negotiated a deal: If they 303 could raise $100,000, they could buy the rights and make it free 304 software. So they went to the community, and in a few weeks they 305 raised the money. Blender is now free software. This suggests that 306 maybe we can raise money from the community in the same way to make 307 specific extensions. 308 </p> 309 <p> 310 A programmer who has a name, a reputation for ability, could go to the 311 community and say, “If people put up this much money, I will do 312 the work.” He does not have to do the work entirely himself. He 313 can employ other programmers working with him, and this is how you 314 would get started. Before you have a name, before you could go to the 315 community on the strength of your own reputation, you could be working 316 as an apprentice for other programmers. They raise the funds, they 317 supervise the work, but by doing this, eventually you develop a 318 reputation too, and then you can go and get clients. 319 </p> 320 <p> 321 There are also, of course, legitimate roles for government funding in 322 developing useful software, just as governments fund scientific 323 research designed to be of use to the citizens, and even just for the 324 sake of human curiosity, but certainly to be of use for the citizens, 325 for the public. It is equally legitimate for governments to fund the 326 development of software that is going be of use to the public, and 327 then when it is done, hand it off to the public and say, 328 “Everyone can now use and improve this. It is human 329 knowledge.” Because that is what free software is really 330 about. It is human knowledge, knowledge that belongs to humanity, to 331 all beings. A nonfree program is restricted knowledge, knowledge that 332 is kept under control by a few, and other people cannot really have 333 access to it. They can only use it barely on sufferance. They can 334 never have the knowledge. 335 </p> 336 <p> 337 For this reason, it is essential that schools use free software. There 338 are three reasons why schools should use exclusively free 339 software. The most shallow reason is to save money. Even in a 340 developed country, schools never have enough money, and so the use of 341 computers in schools is held back. Now, if the schools use free 342 software, then the school system has the freedom to make copies and 343 redistribute them to all the schools and they do not have to pay for 344 permission to use the software. So the school system can thus install 345 more computers, make more facilities available. In addition, the GNU 346 plus Linux operating system is more efficient than Windows, so you can 347 use an older, less powerful, cheaper model of computer. Maybe you can 348 use a second-hand computer that somebody else is getting rid of. So 349 that is another way to save. That is obvious, but it is shallow. 350 </p> 351 <p> 352 A more important reason for schools to use free software is for the 353 sake of learning. You see, in the teenage years, some students are 354 going to want to learn everything there is to know about the inside of 355 the computer system. These are the people who can become good 356 programmers. If you want to develop a strong programming capacity, 357 people prepared not just to work as part of a big team in a rather 358 mechanical way, but people who will take the initiative, do big 359 things, develop powerful, exciting programs, then you need to 360 encourage the impulse to do that, whenever a kid has that impulse. So 361 it is important to provide facilities and a social milieu that 362 encourages this kind of learning to develop. 363 <span class="gnun-split"></span>The way to do this is the 364 schools should run free software, and whenever a kid starts wondering, 365 “How does this actually work?” the teacher can say, 366 “This is done by the Fubar program. You can find the source code 367 of the Fubar program there. Go read it and figure it out, see for 368 yourself how this works.” Then if a kid says, “You know, I 369 have got an idea for how this could be better,” the teacher 370 could say, “Why not give it a try? Try writing it. Make the 371 change in the Fubar program to change this one feature.” 372 </p> 373 <p> 374 To learn to be a good writer, you have to read a lot and write a 375 lot. It is the same if you are writing software: You have to read a 376 lot of software and write a lot of software. To learn to understand 377 big programs, you have to work with big programs. But how can you get 378 started at that? When you are beginning, you cannot write a big 379 program yourself, not and do a good job, because you have not learned 380 how. So how are you going to learn? The answer is you have to read 381 existing big programs and then try making small changes in 382 them. Because at that stage, you cannot write a big program yourself, 383 but you can write a small improvement in a big program. 384 </p> 385 <p> 386 That is how I learned to be a good programmer. I had a special 387 opportunity at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. There was a 388 lab where they had written their own operating system, and then they 389 used it. I went there and they said, “We would like to hire 390 you.” They hired me to improve the programs in this operating 391 system. It was my second year of college. At the time, I could not 392 have written an operating system myself. I could not have written 393 those programs from zero, but I could read them and add a feature and 394 then add another feature and another and another. 395 <span class="gnun-split"></span>Every week I would 396 add another feature to some program. By doing this many, many times, I 397 developed my skill. In the 1970s, the only way you could get that 398 opportunity was to be in a very special place. But today, we can give 399 that opportunity to everyone. All you need is a PC running the 400 GNU/Linux system with the source code, and you have this 401 opportunity. So you can easily encourage Japanese teenagers, those of 402 them who are fascinated by computers, to become good programmers. 403 </p> 404 <p> 405 I have a friend who was a high school teacher around 1980, and he set 406 up the first Unix machine in a high school. He then mentored the high 407 school students so that they learned to become good 408 programmers. Several of them were very good programmers with 409 reputations by the time they graduated from high school. I am sure any 410 high school has a few people who have that talent and will want to 411 develop it. They just need the opportunity. So that is the second 412 reason why schools should use free software exclusively. 413 </p> 414 <p> 415 The third reason is even more fundamental. We want schools to teach 416 facts and skill, of course, but also good moral character, which means 417 being prepared to help other people. That means the school should say 418 to the kids, “Any software that is here, you can copy it. Copy 419 it and take it home. That is what it is here for. If you bring any 420 software to school, you must share it with the other kids. If you are 421 not willing to share it with the other kids, do not bring it here, it 422 does not belong here, because we are teaching kids to be helpful to 423 each other.” Education of moral character is important for every 424 society. 425 </p> 426 <p> 427 I did not invent the idea of free software. Free software began as 428 soon as there were two computers of the same kind, because then people 429 using one computer would write some software, and the people using the 430 other computer would say, “Do you know anything to solve this 431 problem?” and they would say, “Yes. We wrote something to 432 solve this problem. Here is a copy.” So they started exchanging 433 the software that they had developed, so that they could all develop 434 more. But in the 1960s, there was a trend to replace it with nonfree 435 software, a trend to subjugate the users, to deny users freedom. 436 </p> 437 <p> 438 When I was in my first year of college, I got to see a moral example 439 that impressed me. I was using a computer facility, and at this 440 facility they said, “This is an educational institution, and we 441 are here for people to learn about computer science. So we will have a 442 rule: any time software is installed on a system, the source code must 443 be on display so people can read it and learn how this software 444 works.” 445 <span class="gnun-split"></span>One of the employees wrote a utility program and he 446 started selling it as nonfree software. He was not just selling 447 copies the way I was doing; he was restricting the users. But he 448 offered the school a copy at no charge, and the people in charge of 449 the computer facility said, “No, we will not install this here 450 because our rule is the source code must be on display. If you will 451 not let us put the source code of this program on display, we just 452 will not run your program.” This inspired me because it was a 453 willingness to renounce a practical convenience for the sake of 454 something more important which is the mission of the school: 455 education. 456 </p> 457 <p> 458 The lab where I worked at MIT was an exception though in the 1970s due 459 to the fact that we had an operating system that was free 460 software. Most computers were using nonfree operating systems at the 461 time. But I was inspired by the example that I saw there and I learned 462 to live in that way. I learned the way of life where you will teach 463 your knowledge to others instead of keeping it all for yourself. Then 464 this community died in the early 1980s. At that point, I started the 465 free software movement. I did not begin free software. I learned the 466 free software way of life by joining a lab where people already 467 practiced it. What I did was to turn this into an ethical and social 468 movement, to say that this is a matter of choosing between a good 469 society and an ugly society, between a clean, kind, helpful way of 470 life where we have freedom, and a way of life where everybody is in 471 bondage to various empires that conquer them, where people believe 472 they have no practical choice but to give up their freedom. 473 </p> 474 <p> 475 Theoretically speaking, on the one hand people say, “Oh, nobody 476 forces you to use that nonfree software. Nobody forces you to use 477 Microsoft Word.” On the other hand, you have people saying, 478 “I have no choice.” So practically speaking, it is not a 479 situation of individual choice. Yes, it is true, if you are determined 480 to be free, determined to reject it, you can do it, but it takes a lot 481 of determination. When we started 20 years ago, it took tremendous 482 work to use a computer without the nonfree software. All the 483 operating systems for modern computers in 1983 were proprietary. You 484 could not get a computer and use it, except with nonfree software. To 485 change this, we had to spend years working, and we did, we changed it. 486 </p> 487 <p> 488 For you, today, the situation is easier. There are free operating 489 systems. You can get a modern computer and use it with free software, 490 exclusively with free software. So nowadays, instead of a tremendous 491 sacrifice, you just have to make a temporary, small sacrifice, and 492 then you can live in freedom. By working together, we can eliminate 493 that sacrifice. We can make it easier to live in freedom. But for that 494 we have to work. We have to recognize freedom as a social value. 495 </p> 496 <p> 497 Every government tries to get its work done inexpensively, and every 498 government agency has a specific job to get done. So when government 499 agencies choose their computers, they tend to look at narrow, 500 practical questions: How much will it cost, when can we have it 501 running, and so on. 502 </p> 503 <p> 504 But the government has a larger mission, which is to lead the country 505 in a healthy direction, one that is good for the citizens. So when 506 government agencies choose their computer systems, they should make 507 this choice so as to lead the country to free software. It is better 508 for the economy of the country because the users, instead of paying 509 merely for permission to run the software, will be paying people in 510 the local area to improve it and adapt it for them. So in instead of 511 all draining away to Redmond, Washington, the money will circulate in 512 the region, creating employment locally instead of filling 513 somebody's pockets. But more important, it creates a way of life 514 where the country and the people are independent and free. 515 </p> 516 </div> 517 518 </div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --> 519 <!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --> 520 <div id="footer" role="contentinfo"> 521 <div class="unprintable"> 522 523 <p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to 524 <a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>. 525 There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> 526 the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent 527 to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p> 528 529 <p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph, 530 replace it with the translation of these two: 531 532 We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality 533 translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection. 534 Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard 535 to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"> 536 <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p> 537 538 <p>For information on coordinating and contributing translations of 539 our web pages, see <a 540 href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations 541 README</a>. --> 542 Please see the <a 543 href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations 544 README</a> for information on coordinating and contributing translations 545 of this article.</p> 546 </div> 547 548 <!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to 549 files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should 550 be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this 551 without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first. 552 Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the 553 document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the 554 document was modified, or published. 555 556 If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too. 557 Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying 558 years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable 559 year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including 560 being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system). 561 562 There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers 563 Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --> 564 565 <p>Copyright © 2003, 2021 Richard M. Stallman</p> 566 567 <p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license" 568 href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative 569 Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p> 570 571 <!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --> 572 573 <p class="unprintable">Updated: 574 <!-- timestamp start --> 575 $Date: 2021/09/09 20:25:37 $ 576 <!-- timestamp end --> 577 </p> 578 </div> 579 </div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include --> 580 </body> 581 </html>