taler-merchant-demos

rms-hack.html (27713B)

---

 <!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
 <!-- 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>The Hacker Community and Ethics
 - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/rms-hack.translist" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
 <!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
 <div class="article reduced-width">
 <h2>The Hacker Community and Ethics</h2>
 
 <address class="byline">by Tere Vad&eacute;n and Richard
 Stallman</address>
 
 <div class="infobox">
 <p>Transcript of an interview that took place in 2002.<a 
 href="#pub"><sup>[*]</sup></a></p>
 </div>
 <hr class="thin" />
 
 <h3>Hackerism</h3>
 
 <p>Tere Vad&eacute;n (<b>TV</b>): One of the most striking features of your
 approach to the issues of technology and software and so on is that
 you consider ethical and social matters more important than possible
 technological advantages. While that maybe should be the norm, it
 unfortunately is not so. The main issues seems to be one of community;
 what kinds of communities different ways of using technology promote.
 Am I guessing right if I believe that you are thinking of ethical
 issues in terms of communities?</p>
 
 <p>Richard M. Stallman (<b>RMS</b>): Yes. The way I reached my
 conclusions about which freedoms are essential for using software, and
 which kinds of license requirements are acceptable, is by thinking
 about whether they would interfere with the kinds of use of the
 software that are necessary to have a functioning community.</p>
 
 <p><b>TV:</b> The idea of free software was born out of your
 experiences at <abbr title="Massachusetts Institute of Technology">
 MIT</abbr>, and how that community was infiltrated and in some sense
 destroyed by commercial interests.</p>
 
 <p><b>RMS:</b> Yes, that is correct. The hackers really enjoyed the freedom to
 share and change software; that was the basis for our free-wheeling
 community.</p>
 <p>
 <b>TV:</b> What does the word &ldquo;hacker&rdquo; mean to you,
 personally?</p>
 <p>
 <b>RMS:</b> It means someone who enjoys playful cleverness, especially
 in programming but other media are also possible. In the 14th century,
 Guillaume de Machaut wrote a palindromic three-part musical
 composition. It sounded good, too&mdash;I think I played in it once,
 because I still remember one of the parts. I think that was a good
 hack. I heard somewhere that J. S. Bach did something similar.<br />
 One possible arena for playful cleverness is breaking
 security. Hackers never had much respect for bureaucratic
 restrictions. If the computer was sitting idle because the
 administrators wouldn't let them use it, they would sometimes figure
 out how to bypass the obstacles and use it anyway. If this required
 cleverness, it would be fun in itself, as well as making it possible
 to do other hacking (for instance, useful work) on the computer
 instead of twiddling one's thumbs. But not all hackers did security
 breaking. Many never were interested in that.<br />  
 On the Incompatible Timesharing System, the operating system developed
 by the AI lab's hackers, we made it unnecessary to break security: we
 simply did not implement security in the system. The hackers realized
 that security would be a mechanism for the administrators to dominate
 us. So we never gave them the means.</p>
 <p>
 <b>TV:</b> How about the concepts of freedom and community? There's
 this idea that freedom to distribute ideas, thoughts, recipes and
 software creates the best kinds of communities or at least better than
 those based on commercial limitations on distribution and sharing.</p>
 <p>
 <b>RMS:</b> I think it is a mistake to label these restrictions as
 &ldquo;commercial,&rdquo; because that pertains to the motive for the
 restrictions.  The same restrictions, if imposed for a different
 motive, would do the same harm. What matters is the restrictions, not
 the motive. Commercial software can be free or nonfree, just as
 noncommercial software can be free or nonfree. It only depends on the
 license.</p>
 <p>
 <b>TV:</b> How would you delineate the distinction between the public
 (communal, freedom-based) and the commercial spheres?</p>
 
 <p><b>RMS:</b> Comparing free with commercial is like comparing happiness with
 purple. It doesn't make sense, because they are not answers to the same
 question. They are not alternatives. The meaningful comparison is
 between free and nonfree software.</p>
 
 <p><b>TV:</b> It seems that the distinction between &ldquo;open
 source&rdquo; and &ldquo;free software&rdquo; is that the open source
 movement ultimately justifies the idea on utilitarian grounds; open
 source is the best way of producing functional software; while the
 ultimate justification for free software is non-calculative,
 non-utilitarian; freedom is unviolable. Is that a correct
 interpretation?</p>
 
 <p><b>RMS:</b> More or less. I would say that freedom has value in
 itself, just as powerful reliable software does.</p>
 
 <p><b>TV:</b> But isn't there a problem here? one of the utilitarian
 calculations of &ldquo;open source&rdquo; is that it is more
 profitable&mdash;in the sense of making more money or making better
 software&mdash;to use an open source license than a copyleft
 license. A company like Apple or Nokia will adapt open source up to
 point, precisely the point where making it more free would turn the
 profitability down.</p>
 
 <p><b>RMS:</b> I agree that it is wrong for these decisions (about
 your freedom and mine) to be made by the software developer for the
 sake of his profit, just as the decision about whether you and I have
 freedom of speech should not be made by some third party for his own
 interests.<br />
 I am not going to condemn someone who does the right thing for the
 wrong reason, but it is true that relying on people to respect our
 freedom because it is profitable for them to do so is not a reliable
 system for protecting our freedom. This is the reason why we must
 reduce the political power of business.</p>
 
 <p><b>TV:</b> The argument that a company would use, of course, is
 that the profit it creates ultimately benefits the whole society. How
 would you respond to that?</p>
 
 <p><b>RMS:</b> That is a claim with no basis. A nonfree program can
 only benefit those who don't value their freedom, and thus serves as a
 temptation for people to give up their freedom. That is harmful to
 society.</p>
 
 <p><b>TV:</b> There is also this question of individual/private vs
 public/communal here. It is often in the interests of the individual to
 do something that threatens the community, threatens freedom.</p>
 
 <p><b>RMS:</b> I know. This is why we need to think about right and wrong in
 making our decisions, and also the reason why societies have a notion
 of punishing actions that hurt the community.</p>
 
 <p><b>TV:</b> Now, somebody like Torvalds&mdash;and we don't
 necessarily have to use any names here&mdash;would probably share
 your enthusiasm about hackerism in the sense of playful cleverness,
 and would take that playful cleverness also to the area of being
 clever in making money and enjoying the good life. Actually that is
 what he hints at in a recent book called &ldquo;The Hacker
 Ethics.&rdquo;</p>
 
 <p><b>RMS:</b> That is true. Just because someone enjoys hacking does
 not mean he has an ethical commitment to treating other people
 properly. Some hackers care about ethics&mdash;I do, for
 instance&mdash;but that is not part of being a hacker, it is a
 separate trait. Some stamp collectors care a lot about ethics, while
 other stamp collectors don't. It is the same for hackers.<br />
 I agree with the person who said that there is no hacker ethic, but
 rather a hacker aesthetic.</p>
 
 <p><b>TV:</b> Now, if one wants to avoid the negative consequences of the
 profit-oriented business, it feels that one has to give the individual a
 good reason for not looking after only his or her own best. And that
 something, that reason, might be something in the public sphere.</p>
 
 <p><b>RMS:</b> Of course&mdash;but why are you treating this as if it
 were a new idea that can only be hinted at. This idea is thousands of
 years old. This is the basic idea of ethics.</p>
 
 <p><b>TV:</b> The question about hacker aesthetics&mdash;as you
 explained, there is no special hacker ethics, because a hacker can act
 ethically or unethically and nothing in hackerism itself necessitates
 ethical behavior.</p>
 
 <p><b>RMS:</b> Hacking is not primarily about an ethical issue. It is an idea of
 what makes life meaningful. But he may be right that hacking tends to
 lead a significant number of hackers to think about ethical questions
 in a certain way. I would not want to completely deny all connection
 between hacking and views on ethics.</p>
 <p>
 Although someone said that there was a hacker aesthetic rather than a
 hacker ethic, I think &ldquo;aesthetic&rdquo; is not quite the right
 word either.  An aesthetic is an idea of what is beautiful. This is an
 idea of what is exciting and meaningful. Is there a word for that? I
 can think of &ldquo;the hacker way,&rdquo; but that sounds rather
 pompous and new-age.</p>
 
 <h3>Community</h3>
 
 <p><b>TV:</b> Now that brings to mind several questions. For the
 first, one could maybe inquire after an ideal society or go forth, but
 let's leave that for the moment.</p>
 
 <p><b>RMS:</b> I approach these issues incrementally. I don't think I
 could try to design an ideal society and have any confidence in the
 conclusion.  Attempts to propose a society quite different from the
 ones we know often tend to be disastrously flawed. So instead I
 propose local changes which I have some reason to believe are
 good. Note that I didn't imagine the free software community on my
 own&mdash;if I had, I would not be so confident it is a good idea. I
 knew that from having tried it.</p>
 
 <p><b>TV:</b> Is there something that digitalization offers for
 community-building, something that other media (like printed books)
 could not offer, or does digitalization mean &ldquo;just&rdquo; an
 effectivization of existing means?</p>
 
 <p><b>RMS:</b> Computers and the web make it much easier to work
 collaboratively and continuing to improve publications. I think that
 this will become even more true in the future, as people develop
 better ways to do it.  The proprietary mindset might as well be
 precisely calculated to deprive us of this benefit of the
 Internet.</p>
 
 <p><b>TV:</b> Now, from a historical and philosophical perspective it
 seems that many a good invention or technological advance has resulted
 in the intensification of colonialization </p>
 
 <p><b>RMS:</b> In general, technology is a good thing, and we
 shouldn't turn it down. Technology tends to cause cultural
 change. This is not necessarily a bad thing, and we should not condemn
 it in a blanket fashion. There are just certain specific kinds of
 cultural change that we need to oppose.</p>
 
 <p><b>TV:</b> I do not necessarily want to get stuck on this
 public/commercial issue, but if we say that we need communal
 agreements, values and systems that tone down the selfishness of the
 individual, and we say that the commercial world systematically has a
 tendency to promote selfishness, then I guess we have to conclude that
 there is a crucial distinction between the communal and the
 commercial?</p>
 
 <p><b>RMS:</b> I would agree. One person can belong to a community and
 work in a business at the same time. Nevertheless, there is a
 fundamental conflict between the communitarian attitude and the
 commercial attitude.  I would not say that the communitarian attitude
 is good and the commercial attitude is bad. It makes no sense to aim
 to eliminate the commercial attitude, because that is simply
 selfishness, and selfishness is vital. People must be selfish to a
 certain extent, just as they ought to be altruistic to a certain
 extent. To abolish selfishness would not make sense, even if it were
 possible.</p>
 
 <p><b>TV:</b> I mean, in many ways one could say that the communities
 in the post-industrial countries these days are based on
 commercialism, i.e., people get together, work, communicate
 etc. mostly because of commercial reasons.</p>
 
 <p><b>RMS:</b> This is a rather weak and ineffective kind of
 community, hardly worthy of the name.</p>
 
 <p><b>TV:</b> And, furthermore, like you know, the research and university
 community is also very tightly bound to the economical interests of the
 nations, states and of the companies.</p>
 
 <p><b>RMS:</b> Universities ought to resist being turned to commercial
 purposes, for the sake of their integrity. They have failed to resist.
 People will always be partly selfish; to keep selfishness from
 engulfing society, we need unselfish institutions such as universities
 and democratic governments to balance the selfishness and put a check
 on it. The problem today is that organized selfishness is taking over
 society, crushing the other institutions that were designed to put a
 check on it.</p>
 
 <p><b>TV:</b> But, the counter argument goes, a free market economy
 that seeks to maximize profit, is the only way of producing wealth and
 functioning democratic communities.</p>
 
 <p><b>RMS:</b> The free software community shows, as cooperatives in
 Sweden showed, that this is not true. There are other ways of
 producing wealth. But beyond that, producing wealth is not the be-all
 and end-all of a good society. There is no need to bend every aspect
 of life to maximizing the total wealth. The idea of sacrificing
 everything else to the production of wealth&mdash;regardless of who
 gets to share in it!&mdash;is exactly what's wrong with the WTO. As
 for producing functioning democratic communities, allowing commerce to
 dominate not only fails to do that, it is directly antagonistic to
 that.</p>
 
 <p><b>TV:</b> If ethics applies to everyone, and ethics is based on
 community, does this mean that there is an ideal community to which
 everyone should belong?</p>
 
 <p><b>RMS:</b> I don't think that follows.</p>
 
 <h3>Copyleft</h3>
 
 <p><b>TV:</b> The concept of copyleft is a brilliant tool for the
 communal purposes. Could you tell a little on how you arrived at the
 idea?</p>
 
 <p><b>RMS:</b> I had seen simple notices of the form &ldquo;verbatim
 copying permitted provided this notice is preserved,&rdquo; and
 investigated extending this to handle modification as well.</p>
 
 <p><b>TV:</b> Let's take a case here. I can see that a free software
 developer might be able to make a living by doing free software,
 because people would pay for the software, pay for the manuals, pay
 for the joy of being a part of the community, and so on. I don't think
 that is impossible. The same might go for certain musicians, even
 scientists and so on. But how about a writer, a poet, even a musician
 that works in a very limited language area&mdash;say,
 Finnish. Making free software or free music or free poetry will not be
 a viable option, because the community is too small to support that
 kind of activity.</p>
 
 <p><b>RMS:</b> The current system does rather a bad job of supporting
 these activities. To replace it with nothing at all would not make
 things much worse for these people. However, I think that voluntary
 methods of support could do just as good a job as the present
 system&mdash;maybe better.</p>
 
 <p><b>TV:</b> This seems to lead to some kind of
 &ldquo;americanization&rdquo; or &ldquo;anglization.&rdquo;</p>
 
 <p><b>RMS:</b> You can't be serious, can you? Don't you realize that the
 media-copyright complex is fueling the americanization of culture
 around the world? Disconnecting that complex would do a lot to improve
 the situation.</p>
 
 <p><b>TV:</b> I was just thinking of the fact that in a small language
 area something like copyrights actually do some good for creative
 work.</p>
 
 <p><b>RMS:</b> Not much good, though. How many Finnish writers make a
 living from copyright today? Note that I don't advocate the simple and
 total abolition of copyright for all kinds of works. See my
 speech, <a href="/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.html">Copyright
 and Globalization</a>.</p>
 
 <h3>Globalization </h3>
 
 <p><b>TV:</b> You have touched on some issues of globalization is some
 recent interviews. One of the problems is that copyright laws put many
 third world countries in an unfavorable position. Do you think that
 those countries should not follow the copyright laws?</p>
 
 <p><b>RMS:</b> The US when it was a developing country did not
 recognize foreign copyrights. So why should anyone else? Of course, we
 know the reason why: it is part of a system of economic domination
 that the wealthiest business owners have imposed on the rest of the
 world.</p>
 
 <p><b>TV:</b> And, furthermore, could one see this issue also in terms
 of communities? If I remember correctly, you have said that
 globalization in the economic sense does not seem to be a good way of
 promoting or distributing well-being.</p>
 
 <p><b>RMS:</b> There is nothing wrong with globalization in the
 abstract. What makes today's form of globalization so bad is not
 really the global aspect of it. It is that the WTO/IMF system
 subordinates all other interests to the interests of business. Laws to
 protect the environment, public health, workers' rights, and the
 general standard of living, are regularly swept aside. The result is a
 major transfer of wealth from most people to business
 owners. Paradoxically, it seems to be accompanied by reduced growth as
 well. 
 <span class="gnun-split"></span>The best way to understand today's &ldquo;globalization&rdquo;
 is as a system to transfer power from democratic governments to
 business, which only incidentally happens to be global. Elimination of
 trade barriers could be a good thing if accompanied by global labor
 standards, global environmental standards, global health care, a
 global minimum wage (even if not uniform), and global income taxes. If
 these were enforced world-wide with the same energy that the US
 pressures countries to use for copyright enforcement, we could have
 global trade, clean factories, and high wages. The world-wide free
 software community is an example of beneficial globalization: people
 share knowledge with the whole world.</p>
 
 <h3>Ethics</h3>
 
 <p><b>TV:</b> How is ethical &ldquo;work&rdquo; best done? It seems
 that you often invoke teachers like Buddha or Jesus as examples of a
 ethical way of life.</p>
 
 <p><b>RMS:</b> I never invoke Jesus. I am not a Christian and I don't
 especially admire Jesus. I admire Buddha somewhat more, but I don't
 invoke any teacher or hero as an <b>authority</b>, only perhaps as an
 <b>example</b>.</p>
 
 <p><b>TV:</b> It is also clear that one of the fascinating and
 influential features of your work is that you live as you teach. Is
 that a conscious decision in the sense that you think that ethics is
 something that can be taught best through example?</p>
 
 <p><b>RMS:</b> Not at all. I do write about my ethical ideas, and I
 would like to do it more and better if I could. Of course, it is
 necessary to live in conformity with one's principles, or one is a
 hypocrite and people can see that.</p>
 
 <p><b>TV:</b> If we say that the reason for ethical behavior must be
 given in the public sphere, let's say through a social contract or
 something similar, and if we at the same time notice that the
 economical/commercial sphere is driven by &ldquo;maximum
 profit&rdquo;-type of principles, then we have to have some sort of
 separation between the public and the commercial world.</p>
 
 <p><b>RMS:</b> I don't follow this reasoning&mdash;I see no
 separation. Ethics applies to everyone, and the whole point of ethics
 is that some things you might selfishly wish to do are wrong, so you
 may not do them. This applies to group selfishness just as as to
 personal selfishness.</p>
 
 <p><b>TV:</b> &hellip; and then the commercial world would be
 something that almost by necessity corrupts the idea of freedom.</p>
 
 <p><b>RMS:</b> Business does have that tendency. Corporations provide
 a mechanism to distill the selfishness out of people who, as
 individuals, are partly selfish but also have ethics to limit their
 selfishness. The result is selfishness that can often be unchecked by
 any ethics. To change this will require taking away the power of
 global business over governments.</p>
 
 <p><b>TV:</b> Reading Steven Levy's Hackers once again, I was struck
 by one issue: the hackers as displayed in the book are mostly
 concerned with the hacker ethic in so far as it concerns &ldquo;tools
 to make tools.&rdquo;</p>
 
 <p><b>RMS:</b> I don't think so. A number of our programs were tools
 for making programs, but very few were specifically &ldquo;tools to
 make tools.&rdquo; Why were many of them tools? Because hackers
 writing programs get ideas for better ways to do that. What computer
 hackers do is program. So they get excited about anything that makes
 programming easier.<br />
 If a hacker does square dancing, he would get excited about anything
 on the computer that is helpful for square dancing. He might write a
 program to help people learn square dancing. This indeed has
 happened. A few computer hackers do square dancing, but all computer
 hackers program. So a few are interested in writing programs for
 square dancing, but many are interested in programs they can use while
 programming.</p>
 
 <p><b>TV:</b> Levy is not too hard on the point, but the
 unscrupulousness with which the early MIT hackers
 accepted the Department of Defence funding is a case in point.</p>
 
 <p><b>RMS:</b> Some of the hackers were uncomfortable with DoD funding
 at the time, but they did not go so far as to rebel against it (by
 quitting, say). I disagreed with them I don't think it was wrong to
 accept that funding, and I did not think it wrong at the
 time. Corporate funding is far more dangerous.<br />
 So I would not call them unscrupulous for having accepted this funding.</p>
 
 <p><b>TV:</b> This reminds of the &ldquo;instrumental
 rationality&rdquo; that the Frankfurt school of critical theorists
 talked about; rationality that pertains to tools, but not goals.</p>
 
 <p><b>RMS:</b> Engineers of all kinds are famous for this; I am not
 sure it is more true of hackers than others.</p>
 
 <p><b>TV:</b> So, this brings me to the question, if ethics is about
 goals and about content, what exactly is the society or community that
 Free Software promotes?</p>
 
 <p><b>RMS:</b> My goal is that we help each other to live better together.
 Advancing human knowledge is a part of this; making sure it is
 available to everyone is a part of this; encouraging the spirit of
 cooperation is a part of this. Those goals apply to various parts of
 life, but in the area of software they direct one towards free software.</p>
 
 <p><b>TV:</b> When and how did you notice that the Tools to Make
 Tools-attitude is not enough?</p>
 
 <p><b>RMS:</b> That just tools without thinking of what to do with
 them is one I picked up this idea in my teens, I think. It was well
 known in the 60s; one did not have to be especially searching to
 happen across it then. I think of the Tom Lehrer song, &ldquo;Werner
 von Braun&rdquo;:</p>
 <blockquote><p>
 I send rockets up, but where they come down<br />
 is not my department, says Werner von Braun.
 </p></blockquote>
 <p>Lots of people heard this song.</p>
 
 <p><b>TV:</b> And, maybe most interestingly, how do you combine the
 two, the hacking that is intense and interesting and the ethical
 real-world work, that is often tenuous and boring? </p>
 
 <p><b>RMS:</b> Here you seem to assume that hacking is neither ethical nor
 real-world. I disagree with both assumptions. By the way, some parts of
 developing and releasing a working program are tedious; they are not
 merely boring, they are frustrating. But hackers by the thousands in
 the free software community do these tasks in order to release working
 and reliable free software.</p>
 
 <p><b>TV:</b> I think this is even quite common in fields like
 computer science, physics, mathematics, philosophy, where the
 austerity and purity of the formalism give an intense pleasure of a
 &ldquo;non-earthly&rdquo; kind. Is there a link? Should there be? And
 how do you bridge the two?</p>
 
 <p><b>RMS:</b> Is there a link between the pleasure of pure math and
 the rest of life? No, I see very little connection, and why should
 there be one?</p>
 
 <p>I enjoy folk dancing, as well as pure math. There is very little
 link between either of those pleasures and the rest of what I do. Why
 should there be? They are both harmless. Is there a &ldquo;gap&rdquo;
 that I need to &ldquo;bridge&rdquo;?</p>
 
 <div class="infobox extra" role="complementary">
 <hr />
 <p id="pub">[*] Published in Finnish in Tere Vad&eacute;n &amp; Richard
 M. Stallman: <cite><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20100807063010/http://www.uta.fi/%7Efiteva/koodivapaaksi.html">
 Koodi vapaaksi - Hakkerietiikan vaativuus</a></cite>, Tampere University
 Press. 2002, sivut 62-80.</p>
 </div>
 </div>
 
 </div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
 <div id="footer" role="contentinfo">
 <div class="unprintable">
 
 <p>Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to
 <a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org">&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;</a>.
 There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
 the FSF.  Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
 to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org">&lt;webmasters@gnu.org&gt;</a>.</p>
 
 <p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
         replace it with the translation of these two:
 
         We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
         translations.  However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
         Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
         to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">
         &lt;web-translators@gnu.org&gt;</a>.</p>
 
         <p>For information on coordinating and contributing translations of
         our web pages, see <a
         href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
         README</a>. -->
 Please see the <a
 href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
 README</a> for information on coordinating and contributing translations
 of this article.</p>
 </div>
 
 <!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
      files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
      be under CC BY-ND 4.0.  Please do NOT change or remove this
      without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
      Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
      document.  For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
      document was modified, or published.
      
      If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
      Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
      years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
      year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
      being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
      
      There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
      Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
 
 <p>Copyright &copy; 2002, 2021 Richard Stallman</p>
 
 <p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
 href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
 Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p>
 
 <!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
 
 <p class="unprintable">Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
 $Date: 2021/09/22 11:14:52 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>
 </div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include -->
 </body>
 </html>