mirror/emacs
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/emacs.git synced 2025-01-05 11:45:45 +00:00
Code Issues Releases Activity

/etc cleanup

Browse Source 
* COOKIES, copying.paper, INTERVIEW, MAILINGLISTS, MOTIVATION,
	publicsuffix.txt SERVICE: More deletions suggested by RMS.
This commit is contained in:
Eric S. Raymond 2014-01-11 09:27:38 -05:00
parent 9685190b46
commit 5d1a288857
9 changed files with 8 additions and 7064 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

6
ChangeLog
View File

@ -1,9 +1,3 @@
2014-01-11 Eric S. Raymond <esr@thyrsus.com>
* celibacy.1, sex.6, condom.1, echo.msg: Deleted at RMS's
suggestion. Not lost to posterity as they are part of the
widely distributed funny-manpages collection.
2014-01-11 Fabrice Popineau <fabrice.popineau@gmail.com>
* configure.ac: Read $srcdir/nt/mingw-cfg.site when $MSYSTEM is

157
etc/COOKIES
View File

@ -1,157 +0,0 @@
[Someone sent this in from California, and we decided to extend
our campaign against information hoarding to recipes as well
as software. (Recipes are the closest thing, not involving computers,
to software.)
The story appears to be a myth, according to the Chicago Tribune,
which says that Mrs Fields Cookies hoards the information completely.
Therefore, this recipe can be thought of as a compatible replacement.
We have reports that the cookies it makes are pretty good.]
Someone at PG&E called the Mrs. Fields Cookie office
and requested the recipe for her cookies. They asked
her for her charge card number, and she gave it to them
thinking the cost would be $15 to $25. It turned out
to be $200!
Therefore, this person is giving the recipe to anyone
and everyone she knows (and doesn't know) so that
someone can get use of her $200. Anyway, just keep
passing it on.
Cream together: 2 cups butter
2 cups sugar
2 cups brown sugar
Add: 4 eggs
2 tsp. vanilla
Mix together in
separate bowl: 4 cups flour
5 cups oatmeal (put small
amounts of oatmeal in blender until it turns to
powder. Measure out 5 cups of oatmeal and only
"powderize" that, NOT 5 cups "powderized" oatmeal)
1 tsp salt
2 tsp baking powder
2 tsp baking soda
Mix: All of the above
Add: 24 oz. bag of chocolate chips and
1 finely grated 8 oz Hershey bar (plain)
Add: 3 cups chopped nuts (any kind)
Bake on greased cookie sheet (make golf ball sized balls) and
bake about two inches apart. Bake at 350 degrees for 8 - 10
minutes. DO NOT OVERBAKE. Makes 112.
From: ucdavis!lll-lcc!hplabs!parcvax!bane@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (John R. Bane)
Subject: Re: free cookie foundation?
Hi! I "stole" your very expensive cookie recipe off the net. If you
want to send me your SnailMail address, I'll be glad to send you a
dollar (I would like to suggest this to the net, but I think there is
some netiquette rule against asking for money - or is that only money
for oneself?) to help defray the cost (it's not much, but if EVERYone
who took the recipe sent you a dollar, it would help).
Here also is another cookie recipe which I'm very fond of.
Makes 6-8 dozen
Bake at 375 degrees for ~10 min.
Cream together:
1 cup shortening (I use Weight Watcher's Reduced Calorie Margarine!)
1/4 cup peanut butter (I recommend the non-sugared kind)
1/2 cup sugar
1/2 cup brown sugar
2 eggs
1 teaspoon vanilla
Add:
1/2 cup flour
1 teaspoon soda
1/2 teaspoon salt
2 cups rolled oats (I use the 5-min variety)
1-2 cups chocolate chips (I use 2 cups semi-sweet - ummmm!)
1 cup nuts (I use pecan pieces - don't get them crushed, or the extra
oil will make greasy cookies)
1 cup shredded or flaked coconut
(The nuts were listed as optional and I added the coconut myself, but
I really love them there! You could also add things like m&m's, or
raisins (I don't care for raisins in cookies, but you might). I've
always wanted to try banana chips.)
Mix well. Drop by teaspoonfuls on greased cookie sheet (I use pam).
Bake at 375 degrees for approx. 10 min.
My aunt found this recipe in an Amish book called something like
"Eating Well When The Whole World Is Starving," and although I thought
a cookie recipe was a bit odd for a book like that, they are about the
healthiest a cookie is ever likely to get.
They are also very easy to make (no blending, sifting, rolling, etc.)
and extremely delicious. I get rave reviews and recipe requests whenever
I make them.
- rene
Chocolate Chip Cookies - Glamorous, crunchy, rich with chocolate bits & nuts.
Also known as "Toll House" Cookies ... from Kenneth and Ruth Wakefield's
charming New England Toll House on the outskirts of Whitman, Massachusetts.
These cookies were first introduced to American homemakers in 1939 through
our series of radio talks on "Famous Foods From Famous Eating Places."
Mix Thoroughly :
2/3 cup soft shortening ( part butter )
1/2 cup granulated sugar
1/2 cup brown sugar ( packed )
1 egg
1 tsp vanilla
Sift together and stir in :
1-1/2 cups sifted flour (*)
1/2 tsp soda
1/2 tsp salt
Stir in :
1/2 cup cut-up nuts
6 oz package of semi-sweet chocolate pieces ( about 1-1/4 cups )
(*) for a softer, more rounded cookie, use 1-3/4 cups sifted flour.
Drop rounded teaspoonfuls about 2" apart on ungreased baking sheet. Bake until
delicately browned ... cookies should still be soft. Cool slightly before you
remove them from the baking sheet.
Temperature: 375 F. ( modern oven )
Time: bake 8 - 10 minutes
Amount: 4 - 5 dozen 2" cookies
=====
Personal comments :
I find it tastes better with a mixture of shortening and butter, as they say.
You don't need << all >> of that sugar, and it can be whatever color you want.
The nuts are optional. Feel free to play with the recipe. I put oatmeal in it,
reducing flour accordingly, and sometimes cinnamon.
I also find it useful to grease the cookie sheets.
I think I'm going to go bake some now ...
-- richard

8
etc/ChangeLog
View File

@ -1,3 +1,11 @@
2014-01-11 Eric S. Raymond <esr@thyrsus.com>
* celibacy.1, sex.6, condom.1, echo.msg: Deleted at RMS's
suggestion. Not lost to posterity as they are part of the
widely distributed funny-manpages collection.
* COOKIES, copying.paper, INTERVIEW, MAILINGLISTS, MOTIVATION,
publicsuffix.txt SERVICE: More deletions suggested by RMS.
2014-01-10 Glenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org>
* ORDERS: Replace contents with pointer to emacs.info, mark obsolete.

442
etc/INTERVIEW
View File

@ -1,442 +0,0 @@
GNU'S NOT UNIX
Conducted by David Betz and Jon Edwards
Richard Stallman discusses his public-domain
UNIX-compatible software system
with BYTE editors
(July 1986)
Copyright (C) 1986 Richard Stallman. Permission is granted to make and
distribute copies of this article as long as the copyright and this notice
appear on all copies.
Richard Stallman has undertaken probably the most ambitious free software
development project to date, the GNU system. In his GNU Manifesto,
published in the March 1985 issue of Dr. Dobb's Journal, Stallman described
GNU as a "complete Unix-compatible software system which I am writing so
that I can give it away free to everyone who can use it... Once GNU is
written, everyone will be able to obtain good system software free, just
like air." (GNU is an acronym for GNU's Not UNIX; the "G" is pronounced.)
Stallman is widely known as the author of EMACS, a powerful text editor
that he developed at the MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. It is no
coincidence that the first piece of software produced as part of the GNU
project was a new implementation of EMACS. GNU EMACS has already achieved a
reputation as one of the best implementations of EMACS currently available
at any price.
BYTE: We read your GNU Manifesto in the March 1985 issue of Dr. Dobb's.
What has happened since? Was that really the beginning, and how have you
progressed since then?
Stallman: The publication in Dr. Dobb's wasn't the beginning of the
project. I wrote the GNU Manifesto when I was getting ready to start the
project, as a proposal to ask computer manufacturers for funding. They
didn't want to get involved, and I decided that rather than spend my time
trying to pursue funds, I ought to spend it writing code. The manifesto was
published about a year and a half after I had written it, when I had barely
begun distributing the GNU EMACS. Since that time, in addition to making
GNU EMACS more complete and making it run on many more computers, I have
nearly finished the optimizing C compiler and all the other software that
is needed for running C programs. This includes a source-level debugger
that has many features that the other source-level debuggers on UNIX don't
have. For example, it has convenience variables within the debugger so you
can save values, and it also has a history of all the values that you have
printed out, making it tremendously easier to chase around list structures.
BYTE: You have finished an editor that is now widely distributed and you
are about to finish the compiler.
Stallman: I expect that it will be finished this October.
BYTE: What about the kernel?
Stallman: I'm currently planning to start with the kernel that was written
at MIT and was released to the public recently with the idea that I would
use it. This kernel is called TRIX; it's based on remote procedure call. I
still need to add compatibility for a lot of the features of UNIX which it
doesn't have currently. I haven't started to work on that yet. I'm
finishing the compiler before I go to work on the kernel. I am also going
to have to rewrite the file system. I intend to make it failsafe just by
having it write blocks in the proper order so that the disk structure is
always consistent. Then I want to add version numbers. I have a complicated
scheme to reconcile version numbers with the way people usually use UNIX.
You have to be able to specify filenames without version numbers, but you
also have to be able to specify them with explicit version numbers, and
these both need to work with ordinary UNIX programs that have not been
modified in any way to deal with the existence of this feature. I think I
have a scheme for doing this, and only trying it will show me whether it
really does the job.
BYTE: Do you have a brief description you can give us as to how GNU as a
system will be superior to other systems? We know that one of your goals is
to produce something that is compatible with UNIX. But at least in the area
of file systems you have already said that you are going to go beyond UNIX
and produce something that is better.
Stallman: The C compiler will produce better code and run faster. The
debugger is better. With each piece I may or may not find a way to improve
it. But there is no one answer to this question. To some extent I am
getting the benefit of reimplementation, which makes many systems much
better. To some extent it's because I have been in the field a long time
and worked on many other systems. I therefore have many ideas to bring to
bear. One way in which it will be better is that practically everything in
the system will work on files of any size, on lines of any size, with any
characters appearing in them. The UNIX system is very bad in that regard.
It's not anything new as a principle of software engineering that you
shouldn't have arbitrary limits. But it just was the standard practice in
writing UNIX to put those in all the time, possibly just because they were
writing it for a very small computer. The only limit in the GNU system is
when your program runs out of memory because it tried to work on too much
data and there is no place to keep it all.
BYTE: And that isn't likely to be hit if you've got virtual memory. You may
just take forever to come up with the solution.
Stallman: Actually these limits tend to hit in a time long before you take
forever to come up with the solution.
BYTE: Can you say something about what types of machines and environments
GNU EMACS in particular has been made to run under? It's now running on
VAXes; has it migrated in any form to personal computers?
Stallman: I'm not sure what you mean by personal computers. For example, is
a Sun a personal computer? GNU EMACS requires at least a megabyte of
available memory and preferably more. It is normally used on machines that
have virtual memory. Except for various technical problems in a few C
compilers, almost any machine with virtual memory and running a fairly
recent version of UNIX will run GNU EMACS, and most of them currently do.
BYTE: Has anyone tried to port it to Ataris or Macintoshes?
Stallman: The Atari 1040ST still doesn't have quite enough memory. The next
Atari machine, I expect, will run it. I also think that future Ataris will
have some forms of memory mapping. Of course, I am not designing the
software to run on the kinds of computers that are prevalent today. I knew
when I started this project it was going to take a few years. I therefore
decided that I didn't want to make a worse system by taking on the
additional challenge of making it run in the currently constrained
environment. So instead I decided I'm going to write it in the way that
seems the most natural and best. I am confident that in a couple of years
machines of sufficient size will be prevalent. In fact, increases in memory
size are happening so fast it surprises me how slow most of the people are
to put in virtual memory; I think it is totally essential.
BYTE: I think people don't really view it as being necessary for
single-user machines.
Stallman: They don't understand that single user doesn't mean single
program. Certainly for any UNIX-like system it's important to be able to
run lots of different processes at the same time even if there is only one
of you. You could run GNU EMACS on a nonvirtual-memory machine with enough
memory, but you couldn't run the rest of the GNU system very well or a UNIX
system very well.
BYTE: How much of LISP is present in GNU EMACS? It occurred to me that it
may be useful to use that as a tool for learning LISP.
Stallman: You can certainly do that. GNU EMACS contains a complete,
although not very powerful, LISP system. It's powerful enough for writing
editor commands. It's not comparable with, say, a Common LISP System,
something you could really use for system programming, but it has all the
things that LISP needs to have.
BYTE: Do you have any predictions about when you would be likely to
distribute a workable environment in which, if we put it on our machines or
workstations, we could actually get reasonable work done without using
anything other than code that you distribute?
Stallman: It's really hard to say. That could happen in a year, but of
course it could take longer. It could also conceivably take less, but
that's not too likely anymore. I think I'll have the compiler finished in a
month or two. The only other large piece of work I really have to do is in
the kernel. I first predicted GNU would take something like two years, but
it has now been two and a half years and I'm still not finished. Part of
the reason for the delay is that I spent a lot of time working on one
compiler that turned out to be a dead end. I had to rewrite it completely.
Another reason is that I spent so much time on GNU EMACS. I originally
thought I wouldn't have to do that at all.
BYTE: Tell us about your distribution scheme.
Stallman: I don't put software or manuals in the public domain, and the
reason is that I want to make sure that all the users get the freedom to
share. I don't want anyone making an improved version of a program I wrote
and distributing it as proprietary. I don't want that to ever be able to
happen. I want to encourage the free improvements to these programs, and
the best way to do that is to take away any temptation for a person to make
improvements nonfree. Yes, a few of them will refrain from making
improvements, but a lot of others will make the same improvements and
they'll make them free.
BYTE: And how do you go about guaranteeing that?
Stallman: I do this by copyrighting the programs and putting on a notice
giving people explicit permission to copy the programs and change them but
only on the condition that they distribute under the same terms that I
used, if at all. You don't have to distribute the changes you make to any
of my programs--you can just do it for yourself, and you don't have to give
it to anyone or tell anyone. But if you do give it to someone else, you
have to do it under the same terms that I use.
BYTE: Do you obtain any rights over the executable code derived from the C
compiler?
Stallman: The copyright law doesn't give me copyright on output from the
compiler, so it doesn't give me a way to say anything about that, and in
fact I don't try to. I don't sympathize with people developing proprietary
products with any compiler, but it doesn't seem especially useful to try to
stop them from developing them with this compiler, so I am not going to.
BYTE: Do your restrictions apply if people take pieces of your code to
produce other things as well?
Stallman: Yes, if they incorporate with changes any sizable piece. If it
were two lines of code, that's nothing; copyright doesn't apply to that.
Essentially, I have chosen these conditions so that first there is a
copyright, which is what all the software hoarders use to stop everybody
from doing anything, and then I add a notice giving up part of those
rights. So the conditions talk only about the things that copyright applies
to. I don't believe that the reason you should obey these conditions is
because of the law. The reason you should obey is because an upright person
when he distributes software encourages other people to share it further.
BYTE: In a sense you are enticing people into this mode of thinking by
providing all of these interesting tools that they can use but only if they
buy into your philosophy.
Stallman: Yes. You could also see it as using the legal system that
software hoarders have set up against them. I'm using it to protect the
public from them.
BYTE: Given that manufacturers haven't wanted to fund the project, who do
you think will use the GNU system when it is done?
Stallman: I have no idea, but it is not an important question. My purpose
is to make it possible for people to reject the chains that come with
proprietary software. I know that there are people who want to do that.
Now, there may be others who don't care, but they are not my concern. I
feel a bit sad for them and for the people that they influence. Right now a
person who perceives the unpleasantness of the terms of proprietary
software feels that he is stuck and has no alternative except not to use a
computer. Well, I am going to give him a comfortable alternative.
Other people may use the GNU system simply because it is technically
superior. For example, my C compiler is producing about as good a code as I
have seen from any C compiler. And GNU EMACS is generally regarded as being
far superior to the commercial competition. And GNU EMACS was not funded by
anyone either, but everyone is using it. I therefore think that many people
will use the rest of the GNU system because of its technical advantages.
But I would be doing a GNU system even if I didn't know how to make it
technically better because I want it to be socially better. The GNU project
is really a social project. It uses technical means to make a change in
society.
BYTE: Then it is fairly important to you that people adopt GNU. It is not
just an academic exercise to produce this software to give it away to
people. You hope it will change the way the software industry operates.
Stallman: Yes. Some people say no one will ever use it because it doesn't
have some attractive corporate logo on it, and other people say that they
think it is tremendously important and everyone's going to want to use it.
I have no way of knowing what is really going to happen. I don't know any
other way to try to change the ugliness of the field that I find myself in,
so this is what I have to do.
BYTE: Can you address the implications? You obviously feel that this is an
important political and social statement.
Stallman: It is a change. I'm trying to change the way people approach
knowledge and information in general. I think that to try to own knowledge,
to try to control whether people are allowed to use it, or to try to stop
other people from sharing it, is sabotage. It is an activity that benefits
the person that does it at the cost of impoverishing all of society. One
person gains one dollar by destroying two dollars' worth of wealth. I think
a person with a conscience wouldn't do that sort of thing except perhaps if
he would otherwise die. And of course the people who do this are fairly
rich; I can only conclude that they are unscrupulous. I would like to see
people get rewards for writing free software and for encouraging other
people to use it. I don't want to see people get rewards for writing
proprietary software because that is not really a contribution to society.
The principle of capitalism is the idea that people manage to make money by
producing things and thereby are encouraged to do what is useful,
automatically, so to speak. But that doesn't work when it comes to owning
knowledge. They are encouraged to do not really what's useful, and what
really is useful is not encouraged. I think it is important to say that
information is different from material objects like cars and loaves of
bread because people can copy it and share it on their own and, if nobody
attempts to stop them, they can change it and make it better for
themselves. That is a useful thing for people to do. This isn't true of
loaves of bread. If you have one loaf of bread and you want another, you
can't just put your loaf of bread into a bread copier. you can't make
another one except by going through all the steps that were used to make
the first one. It therefore is irrelevant whether people are permitted to
copy it--it's impossible.
Books were printed only on printing presses until recently. It was
possible to make a copy yourself by hand, but it wasn't practical because
it took so much more work than using a printing press. And it produced
something so much less attractive that, for all intents and purposes, you
could act as if it were impossible to make books except by mass producing
them. And therefore copyright didn't really take any freedom away from the
reading public. There wasn't anything that a book purchaser could do that
was forbidden by copyright.
But this isn't true for computer programs. It's also not true for tape
cassettes. It's partly false now for books, but it is still true that for
most books it is more expensive and certainly a lot more work to Xerox them
than to buy a copy, and the result is still less attractive. Right now we
are in a period where the situation that made copyright harmless and
acceptable is changing to a situation where copyright will become
destructive and intolerable. So the people who are slandered as "pirates"
are in fact the people who are trying to do something useful that they have
been forbidden to do. The copyright laws are entirely designed to help
people take complete control over the use of some information for their own
good. But they aren't designed to help people who want to make sure that
the information is accessible to the public and stop others from depriving
the public. I think that the law should recognize a class of works that are
owned by the public, which is different from public domain in the same
sense that a public park is different from something found in a garbage
can. It's not there for anybody to take away, it's there for everyone to
use but for no one to impede. Anybody in the public who finds himself being
deprived of the derivative work of something owned by the public should be
able to sue about it.
BYTE: But aren't pirates interested in getting copies of programs because
they want to use those programs, not because they want to use that
knowledge to produce something better?
Stallman: I don't see that that's the important distinction. More people
using a program means that the program contributes more to society. You
have a loaf of bread that could be eaten either once or a million times.
BYTE: Some users buy commercial software to obtain support. How does your
distribution scheme provide support?
Stallman: I suspect that those users are misled and are not thinking
clearly. It is certainly useful to have support, but when they start
thinking about how that has something to do with selling software or with
the software being proprietary, at that point they are confusing
themselves. There is no guarantee that proprietary software will receive
good support. Simply because sellers say that they provide support, that
doesn't mean it will be any good. And they may go out of business. In fact,
people think that GNU EMACS has better support than commercial EMACSes. One
of the reasons is that I'm probably a better hacker than the people who
wrote the other EMACSes, but the other reason is that everyone has sources
and there are so many people interested in figuring out how to do things
with it that you don't have to get your support from me. Even just the free
support that consists of my fixing bugs people report to me and
incorporating that in the next release has given people a good level of
support. You can always hire somebody to solve a problem for you, and when
the software is free you have a competitive market for the support. You can
hire anybody. I distribute a service list with EMACS, a list of people's
names and phone numbers and what they charge to provide support.
BYTE: Do you collect their bug fixes?
Stallman: Well, they send them to me. I asked all the people who wanted to
be listed to promise that they would never ask any of their customers to
keep secret whatever they were told or any changes they were given to the
GNU software as part of that support.
BYTE: So you can't have people competing to provide support based on their
knowing the solution to some problem that somebody else doesn't know.
Stallman: No. They can compete based on their being clever and more likely
to find the solution to your problem, or their already understanding more
of the common problems, or knowing better how to explain to you what you
should do. These are all ways they can compete. They can try to do better,
but they cannot actively impede their competitors.
BYTE: I suppose it's like buying a car. You're not forced to go back to the
original manufacturer for support or continued maintenance.
Stallman: Or buying a house--what would it be like if the only person who
could ever fix problems with your house was the contractor who built it
originally? That is the kind of imposition that's involved in proprietary
software. People tell me about a problem that happens in UNIX. Because
manufacturers sell improved versions of UNIX, they tend to collect fixes
and not give them out except in binaries. The result is that the bugs don't
really get fixed.
BYTE: They're all duplicating effort trying to solve bugs independently.
Stallman: Yes. Here is another point that helps put the problem of
proprietary information in a social perspective. Think about the liability
insurance crisis. In order to get any compensation from society, an injured
person has to hire a lawyer and split the money with that lawyer. This is a
stupid and inefficient way of helping out people who are victims of
accidents. And consider all the time that people put into hustling to take
business away from their competition. Think of the pens that are packaged
in large cardboard packages that cost more than the pen--just to make sure
that the pen isn't stolen. Wouldn't it be better if we just put free pens
on every street corner? And think of all the toll booths that impede the
flow of traffic. It's a gigantic social phenomenon. People find ways of
getting money by impeding society. Once they can impede society, they can
be paid to leave people alone. The waste inherent in owning information
will become more and more important and will ultimately make the difference
between the utopia in which nobody really has to work for a living because
it's all done by robots and a world just like ours where everyone spends
much time replicating what the next fellow is doing.
BYTE: Like typing in copyright notices on the software.
Stallman: More like policing everyone to make sure that they don't have
forbidden copies of anything and duplicating all the work people have
already done because it is proprietary.
BYTE: A cynic might wonder how you earn your living.
Stallman: From consulting. When I do consulting, I always reserve the right
to give away what I wrote for the consulting job. Also, I could be making
my living by mailing copies of the free software that I wrote and some that
other people wrote. Lots of people send in $150 for GNU EMACS, but now this
money goes to the Free Software Foundation that I started. The foundation
doesn't pay me a salary because it would be a conflict of interest.
Instead, it hires other people to work on GNU. As long as I can go on
making a living by consulting I think that's the best way.
BYTE: What is currently included in the official GNU distribution tape?
Stallman: Right now the tape contains GNU EMACS (one version fits all
computers); Bison, a program that replaces YACC; MIT Scheme, which is
Professor Sussman's super-simplified dialect of LISP; and Hack, a
dungeon-exploring game similar to Rogue.
BYTE: Does the printed manual come with the tape as well?
Stallman: No. Printed manuals cost $15 each or copy them yourself. Copy
this interview and share it, too.
BYTE: How can you get a copy of that?
Stallman: Write to the Free Software Foundation, 675 Massachusetts Ave.,
Cambridge, MA 02139.
[As of April 2005, this address is:
Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor
Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA
Voice: +1-617-542-5942
Fax: +1-617-542-2652
]
BYTE: What are you going to do when you are done with the GNU system?
Stallman: I'm not sure. Sometimes I think that what I'll go on to do is the
same thing in other areas of software.
BYTE: So this is just the first of a whole series of assaults on the
software industry?
Stallman: I hope so. But perhaps what I'll do is just live a life of ease
working a little bit of the time just to live. I don't have to live
expensively. The rest of the time I can find interesting people to hang
around with or learn to do things that I don't know how to do.
Editorial Note: BYTE holds the right to provide this interview on BIX but
will not interfere with its distribution.
Richard Stallman, 545 Technology Square, Room 703, Cambridge, MA 02139.
Copyright (C) 1986 Richard Stallman. Permission is granted to make and
distribute copies of this article as long as the copyright and this notice
appear on all copies.

261
etc/MAILINGLISTS
View File

@ -1,261 +0,0 @@
GNU Project Electronic Mailing Lists and gnUSENET Newsgroups
Last Updated 2006-06-03
Please report improvements to: gnu@gnu.org
See the end of this file for copyright notice and copying conditions
* Mailing list archives
The GNU mailing lists are archived at http://lists.gnu.org.
* Some GNU mailing lists are also distributed as USENET news groups
Certain GNU mailing lists are gated both ways with the gnu.all
newsgroups at uunet. You can tell which they are, because the names
correspond. For instance, bug-gnu-emacs corresponds to gnu.emacs.bug;
info-gnu-emacs, to gnu.emacs.announce; help-gnu-emacs, to
gnu.emacs.help; gnu-emacs-sources, to gnu.emacs.sources. Replacing
`emacs' with some other program in those four examples shows you
the whole pattern.
* How to subscribe to and report bugs in mailing lists
Send requests to be added or removed, to help-gnu-emacs-request (or
info-gnu-request, bug-gdb-request, etc.), NOT to info-gnu-emacs (or
info-gnu, etc.). Most <LIST_NAME>-request addresses are now handled
automagically by GNU Mailman.
If you need to report problems to a human, send mail to gnu@gnu.org
explaining the problem.
Many of the GNU mailing lists are very large and are received by many
people.
If a message you mail to a list is returned from a MAILER-DAEMON (often
with the line:
----- Transcript of session follows -----
don't resend the message to the list. All this return means is that
your original message failed to reach a few addresses on the list. Such
messages are NEVER a reason to resend a piece of mail a 2nd time. This
just bothers all (less the few delivery failures (which will probably
just fail again!)) of the readers of the list with a message they have
already seen. It also wastes computer and network resources.
It is appropriate to send these to the -request address for a list, and
ask them to check the problem out.
* Send Specific Requests for Information to: gnu@gnu.org
Specific requests for information about obtaining GNU software, or GNU
activities in Cambridge and elsewhere can be directed to:
gnu@gnu.org
* General Information about all lists
Do not send very large files to mailing lists; instead put then on a web
page and announce the URL. Good bug reports are short.
See section '* General Information about bug-* lists and ...' for
further details.
The GNU mailing lists and newsgroups, like the GNU project itself, exist
to promote the freedom to share software. So don't use these lists to
promote or recommend non-free software or documentation, like
proprietary books on GNU software. (Using them to post ordering
information is the ultimate faux pas.) If there is no free program to
do a certain task, then somebody should write one! Similarly, free
documentation that is inadequate should be improved--a way in which
non-programmers can make a valuable contribution. See also the article
at <URL:http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html>.
* General Information about info-* lists
These lists and their newsgroups are meant for important announcements.
Since the GNU project uses software development as a means for social
change, the announcements may be technical or political.
Most GNU projects info-* lists (and their corresponding gnu.*.announce
newsgroups) are moderated to keep their content significant and
relevant. If you have a bug to report, send it to the bug-* list. If
you need help on something else and the help-* list exists, ask it.
See section '* General Information about all lists'.
* General Information about help-* lists
These lists (and their newsgroups) exist for anyone to ask questions
about the GNU software that the list deals with. The lists are read by
people who are willing to take the time to help other users.
When you answer the questions that people ask on the help-* lists, keep
in mind that you shouldn't answer by promoting a proprietary program as
a solution. The only real solutions are the ones all the readers can
share.
If a program crashes, or if you build it following the standard
procedure on a system on which it is supposed to work and it does not
work at all, or if an command does not behave as it is documented to
behave, this is a bug. Don't send bug reports to a help-* list; mail
them to the bug-* list instead.
See section '* General Information about all lists'.
* General Information about bug-* lists and reporting program bugs
If you think something is a bug in a program, it might be one; or, it
might be a misunderstanding or even a feature. Before beginning to
report bugs, please read the section ``Reporting Bugs'' in
the GNU Emacs reference manual (or node Bugs in Emacs's
built-in Info system) for a discussion of how and when to send in bug
reports. For GNU programs other than GNU Emacs, also consult their
documentation for their bug reporting procedures. Always include the
version number of the GNU program, as well as the operating system and
machine the program was ran on (if the program doesn't have a version
number, send the date of the latest entry in the file ChangeLog). For
GNU Emacs bugs, type "M-x emacs-version". A debugger backtrace of any
core dump can also be useful. Be careful to separate out hypothesis
from fact! For bugs in GNU Emacs lisp, set variable debug-on-error to
t, and re-enter the command(s) that cause the error message; Emacs will
pop up a debug buffer if something is wrong; please include a copy of
the buffer in your bug report. Please also try to make your bug report
as short as possible; distill the problem to as few lines of code and/or
input as possible. GNU maintainers give priority to the shortest, high
quality bug reports.
Please don't send in a patch without a test case to illustrate the
problem the patch is supposed to fix. Sometimes the patches aren't
correct or aren't the best way to do the job, and without a test case
there is no way to debug an alternate fix.
The purpose of reporting a bug is to enable the bug to be fixed for the
sake of the whole community of users. You may or may not receive a
response; the maintainers will send one if that helps them find or
verify a fix. Most GNU maintainers are volunteers and all are
overworked; they don't have time to help individuals and still fix the
bugs and make the improvements that everyone wants. If you want help
for yourself in particular, you may have to hire someone. The GNU
project maintains a list of people providing such services. It is
found at <URL:http://www.fsf.org/resources/service>.
Anything addressed to the implementers and maintainers of a GNU program
via a bug-* list, should NOT be sent to the corresponding info-* or
help-* list.
Please DON'T post your bug reports on the gnu.*.bug newsgroups! Mail
them to bug-*@gnu.org instead! At first sight, it seems to make no
difference: anything sent to one will be propagated to the other; but:
- if you post on the newsgroup, the information about how to
reach you is lost in the message that goes on the mailing list. It
can be very important to know how to reach you, if there is anything
in the bug report that we don't understand;
- bug reports reach the GNU maintainers quickest when they are
sent to the bug-* mailing list submittal address;
- mail is much more reliable then netnews; and
- if the internet mailers can't get your bug report delivered,
they almost always send you an error message, so you can find another
way to get the bug report in. When netnews fails to get your message
delivered to the maintainers, you'll never know about it and the
maintainers will never see the bug report.
And please DON'T post your GNU bug reports to comp.* or other gnu.*
newsgroups, they never make it to the GNU maintainers at all. Please
mail them to bug-*@gnu.org instead!
* Some special lists that don't fit the usual patterns of help-, bug- and info-
** info-gnu-request@gnu.org to subscribe to info-gnu
gnUSENET newsgroup: gnu.announce
Send announcements to: info-gnu@gnu.org
This list distributes progress reports on the GNU Project. It is also
used by the GNU Project to ask people for various kinds of help. It is
moderated and NOT for general discussion.
** gnu-misc-discuss-request@gnu.org to subscribe to gnu-misc-discuss
gnUSENET newsgroup: gnu.misc.discuss
Send contributions to: gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
This list is for serious discussion of free software, the GNU Project,
the GNU Manifesto, and their implications. It's THE place for
discussion that is not appropriate in the other GNU mailing lists and
gnUSENET newsgroups.
Flaming is out of place. Tit-for-tat is not welcome. Repetition
should not occur.
Good READING and writing are expected. Before posting, wait a while,
cool off, and think.
Don't use this group for complaints and bug reports about GNU software!
The maintainers of the package you are using probably don't read this
group; they won't see your complaint. Use the appropriate bug-reporting
mailing list instead, so that people who can do something about the
problem will see it. Likewise, use the help- list for technical
questions.
Don't trust pronouncements made on gnu-misc-discuss about what GNU is,
what FSF position is, what the GNU General Public License is, etc.,
unless they are made by someone you know is well connected with GNU and
are sure the message is not forged.
USENET and gnUSENET readers are expected to have read ALL the articles
in news.announce.newusers before posting.
Remember, "GNUs Not Unix" and "gnUSENET is Not USENET". We have
higher standards!
** gnu-emacs-sources-request@gnu.org to subscribe to gnu-emacs-sources
gnUSENET newsgroup: gnu.emacs.sources
GNU Emacs source code to: gnu-emacs-sources@gnu.org
This list/newsgroup will be for the posting, by their authors, of Emacs
Lisp and C sources and patches that improve GNU Emacs. Its contents
will be reviewed by the FSF for inclusion in future releases of GNU
Emacs.
Please do NOT discuss or request source code here. Use
help-gnu-emacs/gnu.emacs.help for those purposes. This allows the
automatic archiving of sources posted to this list/newsgroup.
Please do NOT post such sources to any other GNU mailing list (e.g
help-gnu-emacs) or gnUSENET newsgroups (e.g. gnu.emacs.help). It's up
to each poster to decide whether to cross-post to any non-gnUSENET
newsgroup (e.g. comp.emacs).
Please do NOT announce that you have posted source code to
gnu.emacs.sources to any other GNU mailing list (e.g. help-gnu-emacs) or
gnUSENET newsgroups (e.g. gnu.emacs.help). People who want to keep up
with sources will read this list/newsgroup. It's up to each poster to
decide whether to announce a gnu.emacs.sources article in any
non-gnUSENET newsgroup (e.g. comp.emacs).
If source or patches that were previously posted or a simple fix is
requested in help-gnu-emacs, please mail it to the requester. Do NOT
repost it. If you also want something that is requested, send mail to
the requester asking him to forward it to you. This kind of traffic is
best handled by e-mail, not by a broadcast medium that reaches millions
of sites.
If the requested source is very long, send mail offering to
send it. This prevents the requester from getting many redundant copies
and saves network bandwidth.
Local variables:
mode: outline
fill-column: 72
End:
Copyright (C) 1999, 2001-2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining
a copy of this file, to deal in the file without restriction, including
without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish,
distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the file, and to
permit persons to whom the file is furnished to do so, subject to
the following condition:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
included in all copies or substantial portions of the file.

179
etc/MOTIVATION
View File

@ -1,179 +0,0 @@
STUDIES FIND REWARD OFTEN NO MOTIVATOR
Creativity and intrinsic interest diminish if task is done for gain
By Alfie Kohn
Special to the Boston Globe
[reprinted with permission of the author
from the Monday 19 January 1987 Boston Globe]
Verbatim copying and distribution is permitted in any medium
provided this notice is preserved.
In the laboratory, rats get Rice Krispies. In the classroom the top
students get A's, and in the factory or office the best workers get
raises. It's an article of faith for most of us that rewards promote
better performance.
But a growing body of research suggests that this law is not nearly as
ironclad as was once thought. Psychologists have been finding that
rewards can lower performance levels, especially when the performance
involves creativity.
A related series of studies shows that intrinsic interest in a task -
the sense that something is worth doing for its own sake - typically
declines when someone is rewarded for doing it.
If a reward - money, awards, praise, or winning a contest - comes to
be seen as the reason one is engaging in an activity, that activity
will be viewed as less enjoyable in its own right.
With the exception of some behaviorists who doubt the very existence
of intrinsic motivation, these conclusions are now widely accepted
among psychologists. Taken together, they suggest we may unwittingly
be squelching interest and discouraging innovation among workers,
students and artists.
The recognition that rewards can have counter-productive effects is
based on a variety of studies, which have come up with such findings
as these: Young children who are rewarded for drawing are less likely
to draw on their own that are children who draw just for the fun of
it. Teenagers offered rewards for playing word games enjoy the games
less and do not do as well as those who play with no rewards.
Employees who are praised for meeting a manager's expectations suffer
a drop in motivation.
Much of the research on creativity and motivation has been performed
by Theresa Amabile, associate professor of psychology at Brandeis
University. In a paper published early last year on her most recent
study, she reported on experiments involving elementary school and
college students. Both groups were asked to make "silly" collages.
The young children were also asked to invent stories.
The least-creative projects, as rated by several teachers, were done
by those students who had contracted for rewards. "It may be that
commissioned work will, in general, be less creative than work that is
done out of pure interest," Amabile said.
In 1985, Amabile asked 72 creative writers at Brandeis and at Boston
University to write poetry. Some students then were given a list of
extrinsic (external) reasons for writing, such as impressing teachers,
making money and getting into graduate school, and were asked to think
about their own writing with respect to these reasons. Others were
given a list of intrinsic reasons: the enjoyment of playing with
words, satisfaction from self-expression, and so forth. A third group
was not given any list. All were then asked to do more writing.
The results were clear. Students given the extrinsic reasons not only
wrote less creatively than the others, as judged by 12 independent
poets, but the quality of their work dropped significantly. Rewards,
Amabile says, have this destructive effect primarily with creative
tasks, including higher-level problem-solving. "The more complex the
activity, the more it's hurt by extrinsic reward," she said.
But other research shows that artists are by no means the only ones
affected.
In one study, girls in the fifth and sixth grades tutored younger
children much less effectively if they were promised free movie
tickets for teaching well. The study, by James Gabarino, now
president of Chicago's Erikson Institute for Advanced Studies in Child
Development, showed that tutors working for the reward took longer to
communicate ideas, got frustrated more easily, and did a poorer job in
the end than those who were not rewarded.
Such findings call into question the widespread belief that money is
an effective and even necessary way to motivate people. They also
challenge the behaviorist assumption that any activity is more likely
to occur if it is rewarded. Amabile says her research "definitely
refutes the notion that creativity can be operantly conditioned."
But Kenneth McGraw, associate professor of psychology at the
University of Mississippi, cautions that this does not mean
behaviorism itself has been invalidated. "The basic principles of
reinforcement and rewards certainly work, but in a restricted context"
- restricted, that is, to tasks that are not especially interesting.
Researchers offer several explanations for their surprising findings
about rewards and performance.
First, rewards encourage people to focus narrowly on a task, to do it
as quickly as possible and to take few risks. "If they feel that
'this is something I have to get through to get the prize,' they're
going to be less creative," Amabile said.
Second, people come to see themselves as being controlled by the
reward. They feel less autonomous, and this may interfere with
performance. "To the extent one's experience of being
self-determined is limited," said Richard Ryan, associate psychology
professor at the University of Rochester, "one's creativity will be
reduced as well."
Finally, extrinsic rewards can erode intrinsic interest. People who
see themselves as working for money, approval or competitive success
find their tasks less pleasurable, and therefore do not do them as
well.
The last explanation reflects 15 years of work by Ryan's mentor at the
University of Rochester, Edward Deci. In 1971, Deci showed that
"money may work to buy off one's intrinsic motivation for an activity"
on a long-term basis. Ten years later, Deci and his colleagues
demonstrated that trying to best others has the same effect. Students
who competed to solve a puzzle quickly were less likely than those who
were not competing to keep working at it once the experiment was over.
Control plays role
There is general agreement, however, that not all rewards have the
same effect. Offering a flat fee for participating in an experiment -
similar to an hourly wage in the workplace - usually does not reduce
intrinsic motivation. It is only when the rewards are based on
performing a given task or doing a good job at it - analogous to
piece-rate payment and bonuses, respectively - that the problem
develops.
The key, then, lies in how a reward is experienced. If we come to
view ourselves as working to get something, we will no longer find
that activity worth doing in its own right.
There is an old joke that nicely illustrates the principle. An
elderly man, harassed by the taunts of neighborhood children, finally
devises a scheme. He offered to pay each child a dollar if they would
all return Tuesday and yell their insults again. They did so eagerly
and received the money, but he told them he could only pay 25 cents on
Wednesday. When they returned, insulted him again and collected their
quarters, he informed them that Thursday's rate would be just a penny.
"Forget it," they said - and never taunted him again.
Means to and end
In a 1982 study, Stanford psychologist Mark L. Lepper showed that any
task, no matter how enjoyable it once seemed, would be devalued if it
were presented as a means rather than an end. He told a group of
preschoolers they could not engage in one activity they liked until
they first took part in another. Although they had enjoyed both
activities equally, the children came to dislike the task that was a
prerequisite for the other.
It should not be surprising that when verbal feedback is experienced
as controlling, the effect on motivation can be similar to that of
payment. In a study of corporate employees, Ryan found that those who
were told, "Good, you're doing as you /should/" were "significantly
less intrinsically motivated than those who received feedback
informationally."
There's a difference, Ryan says, between saying, "I'm giving you this
reward because I recognize the value of your work" and "You're getting
this reward because you've lived up to my standards."
A different but related set of problems exists in the case of
creativity. Artists must make a living, of course, but Amabile
emphasizes that "the negative impact on creativity of working for
rewards can be minimized" by playing down the significance of these
rewards and trying not to use them in a controlling way. Creative
work, the research suggests, cannot be forced, but only allowed to
happen.
/Alfie Kohn, a Cambridge, MA writer, is the author of "No Contest: The
Case Against Competition," recently published by Houghton Mifflin Co.,
Boston, MA. ISBN 0-395-39387-6. /

11
etc/SERVICE
View File

@ -1,11 +0,0 @@
GNU Service Directory
---------------------
Please see <http://www.fsf.org/resources/service/> for a list of
people who have asked to be listed as offering support services for
GNU software, including GNU Emacs, for a fee or in some cases at no
charge.
Note added January 2014:
This file is obsolete and will be removed in future.
Please update any links to use the above URL.

819
etc/copying.paper
View File

@ -1,819 +0,0 @@
(For more information about the GNU project and free software,
look at the files `GNU', `COPYING', and `DISTRIB', in the same
directory as this file.)
Why Software Should Be Free
by Richard Stallman
(Version of April 24, 1992)
Copyright (C) 1991, 1992, Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Verbatim copying and redistribution is permitted
without royalty; alteration is not permitted.
Introduction
************
The existence of software inevitably raises the question of how
decisions about its use should be made. For example, suppose one
individual who has a copy of a program meets another who would like a
copy. It is possible for them to copy the program; who should decide
whether this is done? The individuals involved? Or another party,
called the "owner"?
Software developers typically consider these questions on the
assumption that the criterion for the answer is to maximize developers'
profits. The political power of business has led to the government
adoption of both this criterion and the answer proposed by the
developers: that the program has an owner, typically a corporation
associated with its development.
I would like to consider the same question using a different
criterion: the prosperity and freedom of the public in general.
This answer cannot be decided by current law--the law should conform
to ethics, not the other way around. Nor does current practice decide
this question, although it may suggest possible answers. The only way
to judge is to see who is helped and who is hurt by recognizing owners
of software, why, and how much. In other words, we should perform a
cost-benefit analysis on behalf of society as a whole, taking account of
individual freedom as well as production of material goods.
In this essay, I will describe the effects of having owners, and show
that the results are detrimental. My conclusion is that programmers
have the duty to encourage others to share, redistribute, study and
improve the software we write: in other words, to write "free"
software.(1)
How Owners Justify Their Power
******************************
Those who benefit from the current system where programs are property
offer two arguments in support of their claims to own programs: the
emotional argument and the economic argument.
The emotional argument goes like this: "I put my sweat, my heart, my
soul into this program. It comes from *me*, it's *mine*!"
This argument does not require serious refutation. The feeling of
attachment is one that programmers can cultivate when it suits them; it
is not inevitable. Consider, for example, how willingly the same
programmers usually sign over all rights to a large corporation for a
salary; the emotional attachment mysteriously vanishes. By contrast,
consider the great artists and artisans of medieval times, who didn't
even sign their names to their work. To them, the name of the artist
was not important. What mattered was that the work was done--and the
purpose it would serve. This view prevailed for hundreds of years.
The economic argument goes like this: "I want to get rich (usually
described inaccurately as `making a living'), and if you don't allow me
to get rich by programming, then I won't program. Everyone else is like
me, so nobody will ever program. And then you'll be stuck with no
programs at all!" This threat is usually veiled as friendly advice
from the wise.
I'll explain later why this threat is a bluff. First I want to
address an implicit assumption that is more visible in another
formulation of the argument.
This formulation starts by comparing the social utility of a
proprietary program with that of no program, and then concludes that
proprietary software development is, on the whole, beneficial, and
should be encouraged. The fallacy here is in comparing only two
outcomes--proprietary software vs. no software--and assuming there are
no other possibilities.
Given a system of intellectual property, software development is
usually linked with the existence of an owner who controls the
software's use. As long as this linkage exists, we are often faced
with the choice of proprietary software or none. However, this linkage
is not inherent or inevitable; it is a consequence of the specific
social/legal policy decision that we are questioning: the decision to
have owners. To formulate the choice as between proprietary software
vs. no software is begging the question.
The Argument against Having Owners
**********************************
The question at hand is, "Should development of software be linked
with having owners to restrict the use of it?"
In order to decide this, we have to judge the effect on society of
each of those two activities *independently*: the effect of developing
the software (regardless of its terms of distribution), and the effect
of restricting its use (assuming the software has been developed). If
one of these activities is helpful and the other is harmful, we would be
better off dropping the linkage and doing only the helpful one.
To put it another way, if restricting the distribution of a program
already developed is harmful to society overall, then an ethical
software developer will reject the option of doing so.
To determine the effect of restricting sharing, we need to compare
the value to society of a restricted (i.e., proprietary) program with
that of the same program, available to everyone. This means comparing
two possible worlds.
This analysis also addresses the simple counterargument sometimes
made that "the benefit to the neighbor of giving him or her a copy of a
program is cancelled by the harm done to the owner." This
counterargument assumes that the harm and the benefit are equal in
magnitude. The analysis involves comparing these magnitudes, and shows
that the benefit is much greater.
To elucidate this argument, let's apply it in another area: road
construction.
It would be possible to fund the construction of all roads with
tolls. This would entail having toll booths at all street corners.
Such a system would provide a great incentive to improve roads. It
would also have the virtue of causing the users of any given road to
pay for that road. However, a toll booth is an artificial obstruction
to smooth driving--artificial, because it is not a consequence of how
roads or cars work.
Comparing free roads and toll roads by their usefulness, we find that
(all else being equal) roads without toll booths are cheaper to
construct, cheaper to run, safer, and more efficient to use.(2) In a
poor country, tolls may make the roads unavailable to many citizens.
The roads without toll booths thus offer more benefit to society at
less cost; they are preferable for society. Therefore, society should
choose to fund roads in another way, not by means of toll booths. Use
of roads, once built, should be free.
When the advocates of toll booths propose them as *merely* a way of
raising funds, they distort the choice that is available. Toll booths
do raise funds, but they do something else as well: in effect, they
degrade the road. The toll road is not as good as the free road; giving
us more or technically superior roads may not be an improvement if this
means substituting toll roads for free roads.
Of course, the construction of a free road does cost money, which the
public must somehow pay. However, this does not imply the inevitability
of toll booths. We who must in either case pay will get more value for
our money by buying a free road.
I am not saying that a toll road is worse than no road at all. That
would be true if the toll were so great that hardly anyone used the
road--but this is an unlikely policy for a toll collector. However, as
long as the toll booths cause significant waste and inconvenience, it is
better to raise the funds in a less obstructive fashion.
To apply the same argument to software development, I will now show
that having "toll booths" for useful software programs costs society
dearly: it makes the programs more expensive to construct, more
expensive to distribute, and less satisfying and efficient to use. It
will follow that program construction should be encouraged in some other
way. Then I will go on to explain other methods of encouraging and (to
the extent actually necessary) funding software development.
The Harm Done by Obstructing Software
=====================================
Consider for a moment that a program has been developed, and any
necessary payments for its development have been made; now society must
choose either to make it proprietary or allow free sharing and use.
Assume that the existence of the program and its availability is a
desirable thing.(3)
Restrictions on the distribution and modification of the program
cannot facilitate its use. They can only interfere. So the effect can
only be negative. But how much? And what kind?
Three different levels of material harm come from such obstruction:
* Fewer people use the program.
* None of the users can adapt or fix the program.
* Other developers cannot learn from the program, or base new work
on it.
Each level of material harm has a concomitant form of psychosocial
harm. This refers to the effect that people's decisions have on their
subsequent feelings, attitudes and predispositions. These changes in
people's ways of thinking will then have a further effect on their
relationships with their fellow citizens, and can have material
consequences.
The three levels of material harm waste part of the value that the
program could contribute, but they cannot reduce it to zero. If they
waste nearly all the value of the program, then writing the program
harms society by at most the effort that went into writing the program.
Arguably a program that is profitable to sell must provide some net
direct material benefit.
However, taking account of the concomitant psychosocial harm, there
is no limit to the harm that proprietary software development can do.
Obstructing Use of Programs
===========================
The first level of harm impedes the simple use of a program. A copy
of a program has nearly zero marginal cost (and you can pay this cost by
doing the work yourself), so in a free market, it would have nearly zero
price. A license fee is a significant disincentive to use the program.
If a widely-useful program is proprietary, far fewer people will use it.
It is easy to show that the total contribution of a program to
society is reduced by assigning an owner to it. Each potential user of
the program, faced with the need to pay to use it, may choose to pay,
or may forego use of the program. When a user chooses to pay, this is a
zero-sum transfer of wealth between two parties. But each time someone
chooses to forego use of the program, this harms that person without
benefiting anyone. The sum of negative numbers and zeros must be
negative.
But this does not reduce the amount of work it takes to *develop*
the program. As a result, the efficiency of the whole process, in
delivered user satisfaction per hour of work, is reduced.
This reflects a crucial difference between copies of programs and
cars, chairs, or sandwiches. There is no copying machine for material
objects outside of science fiction. But programs are easy to copy;
anyone can produce as many copies as are wanted, with very little
effort. This isn't true for material objects because matter is
conserved: each new copy has to be built from raw materials in the same
way that the first copy was built.
With material objects, a disincentive to use them makes sense,
because fewer objects bought means less raw materials and work needed
to make them. It's true that there is usually also a startup cost, a
development cost, which is spread over the production run. But as long
as the marginal cost of production is significant, adding a share of the
development cost does not make a qualitative difference. And it does
not require restrictions on the freedom of ordinary users.
However, imposing a price on something that would otherwise be free
is a qualitative change. A centrally-imposed fee for software
distribution becomes a powerful disincentive.
What's more, central production as now practiced is inefficient even
as a means of delivering copies of software. This system involves
enclosing physical disks or tapes in superfluous packaging, shipping
large numbers of them around the world, and storing them for sale. This
cost is presented as an expense of doing business; in truth, it is part
of the waste caused by having owners.
Damaging Social Cohesion
========================
Suppose that both you and your neighbor would find it useful to run a
certain program. In ethical concern for your neighbor, you should feel
that proper handling of the situation will enable both of you to use it.
A proposal to permit only one of you to use the program, while
restraining the other, is divisive; neither you nor your neighbor should
find it acceptable.
Signing a typical software license agreement means betraying your
neighbor: "I promise to deprive my neighbor of this program so that I
can have a copy for myself." People who make such choices feel
internal psychological pressure to justify them, by downgrading the
importance of helping one's neighbors--thus public spirit suffers.
This is psychosocial harm associated with the material harm of
discouraging use of the program.
Many users unconsciously recognize the wrong of refusing to share, so
they decide to ignore the licenses and laws, and share programs anyway.
But they often feel guilty about doing so. They know that they must
break the laws in order to be good neighbors, but they still consider
the laws authoritative, and they conclude that being a good neighbor
(which they are) is naughty or shameful. That is also a kind of
psychosocial harm, but one can escape it by deciding that these licenses
and laws have no moral force.
Programmers also suffer psychosocial harm knowing that many users
will not be allowed to use their work. This leads to an attitude of
cynicism or denial. A programmer may describe enthusiastically the
work that he finds technically exciting; then when asked, "Will I be
permitted to use it?", his face falls, and he admits the answer is no.
To avoid feeling discouraged, he either ignores this fact most of the
time or adopts a cynical stance designed to minimize the importance of
it.
Since the age of Reagan, the greatest scarcity in the United States
is not technical innovation, but rather the willingness to work together
for the public good. It makes no sense to encourage the former at the
expense of the latter.
Obstructing Custom Adaptation of Programs
=========================================
The second level of material harm is the inability to adapt programs.
The ease of modification of software is one of its great advantages over
older technology. But most commercially available software isn't
available for modification, even after you buy it. It's available for
you to take it or leave it, as a black box--that is all.
A program that you can run consists of a series of numbers whose
meaning is obscure. No one, not even a good programmer, can easily
change the numbers to make the program do something different.
Programmers normally work with the "source code" for a program, which
is written in a programming language such as Fortran or C. It uses
names to designate the data being used and the parts of the program, and
it represents operations with symbols such as `+' for addition and `-'
for subtraction. It is designed to help programmers read and change
programs. Here is an example; a program to calculate the distance
between two points in a plane:
float
distance (p0, p1)
struct point p0, p1;
{
float xdist = p1.x - p0.x;
float ydist = p1.y - p0.y;
return sqrt (xdist * xdist + ydist * ydist);
}
Here is the same program in executable form, on the computer I
normally use:
1314258944 -232267772 -231844864 1634862
1411907592 -231844736 2159150 1420296208
-234880989 -234879837 -234879966 -232295424
1644167167 -3214848 1090581031 1962942495
572518958 -803143692 1314803317
Source code is useful (at least potentially) to every user of a
program. But most users are not allowed to have copies of the source
code. Usually the source code for a proprietary program is kept secret
by the owner, lest anybody else learn something from it. Users receive
only the files of incomprehensible numbers that the computer will
execute. This means that only the program's owner can change the
program.
A friend once told me of working as a programmer in a bank for about
six months, writing a program similar to something that was commercially
available. She believed that if she could have gotten source code for
that commercially available program, it could easily have been adapted
to their needs. The bank was willing to pay for this, but was not
permitted to--the source code was a secret. So she had to do six
months of make-work, work that counts in the GNP but was actually waste.
The MIT Artificial Intelligence lab (AI lab) received a graphics
printer as a gift from Xerox around 1977. It was run by free software
to which we added many convenient features. For example, the software
would notify a user immediately on completion of a print job. Whenever
the printer had trouble, such as a paper jam or running out of paper,
the software would immediately notify all users who had print jobs
queued. These features facilitated smooth operation.
Later Xerox gave the AI lab a newer, faster printer, one of the first
laser printers. It was driven by proprietary software that ran in a
separate dedicated computer, so we couldn't add any of our favorite
features. We could arrange to send a notification when a print job was
sent to the dedicated computer, but not when the job was actually
printed (and the delay was usually considerable). There was no way to
find out when the job was actually printed; you could only guess. And
no one was informed when there was a paper jam, so the printer often
went for an hour without being fixed.
The system programmers at the AI lab were capable of fixing such
problems, probably as capable as the original authors of the program.
Xerox was uninterested in fixing them, and chose to prevent us, so we
were forced to accept the problems. They were never fixed.
Most good programmers have experienced this frustration. The bank
could afford to solve the problem by writing a new program from
scratch, but a typical user, no matter how skilled, can only give up.
Giving up causes psychosocial harm--to the spirit of self-reliance.
It is demoralizing to live in a house that you cannot rearrange to suit
your needs. It leads to resignation and discouragement, which can
spread to affect other aspects of one's life. People who feel this way
are unhappy and do not do good work.
Imagine what it would be like if recipes were hoarded in the same
fashion as software. You might say, "How do I change this recipe to
take out the salt?", and the great chef would respond, "How dare you
insult my recipe, the child of my brain and my palate, by trying to
tamper with it? You don't have the judgment to change my recipe and
make it work right!"
"But my doctor says I'm not supposed to eat salt! What can I do?
Will you take out the salt for me?"
"I would be glad to do that; my fee is only $50,000." Since the
owner has a monopoly on changes, the fee tends to be large. "However,
right now I don't have time. I am busy with a commission to design a
new recipe for ship's biscuit for the Navy Department. I might get
around to you in about two years."
Obstructing Software Development
================================
The third level of material harm affects software development.
Software development used to be an evolutionary process, where a person
would take an existing program and rewrite parts of it for one new
feature, and then another person would rewrite parts to add another
feature; in some cases, this continued over a period of twenty years.
Meanwhile, parts of the program would be "cannibalized" to form the
beginnings of other programs.
The existence of owners prevents this kind of evolution, making it
necessary to start from scratch when developing a program. It also
prevents new practitioners from studying existing programs to learn
useful techniques or even how large programs can be structured.
Owners also obstruct education. I have met bright students in
computer science who have never seen the source code of a large
program. They may be good at writing small programs, but they can't
begin to learn the different skills of writing large ones if they can't
see how others have done it.
In any intellectual field, one can reach greater heights by standing
on the shoulders of others. But that is no longer generally allowed in
the software field--you can only stand on the shoulders of the other
people *in your own company*.
The associated psychosocial harm affects the spirit of scientific
cooperation, which used to be so strong that scientists would cooperate
even when their countries were at war. In this spirit, Japanese
oceanographers abandoning their lab on an island in the Pacific
carefully preserved their work for the invading U.S. Marines, and left a
note asking them to take good care of it.
Conflict for profit has destroyed what international conflict spared.
Nowadays scientists in many fields don't publish enough in their papers
to enable others to replicate the experiment. They publish only enough
to let readers marvel at how much they were able to do. This is
certainly true in computer science, where the source code for the
programs reported on is usually secret.
It Does Not Matter How Sharing Is Restricted
============================================
I have been discussing the effects of preventing people from copying,
changing and building on a program. I have not specified how this
obstruction is carried out, because that doesn't affect the conclusion.
Whether it is done by copy protection, or copyright, or licenses, or
encryption, or ROM cards, or hardware serial numbers, if it *succeeds*
in preventing use, it does harm.
Users do consider some of these methods more obnoxious than others.
I suggest that the methods most hated are those that accomplish their
objective.
Software Should be Free
=======================
I have shown how ownership of a program--the power to restrict
changing or copying it--is obstructive. Its negative effects are
widespread and important. It follows that society shouldn't have
owners for programs.
Another way to understand this is that what society needs is free
software, and proprietary software is a poor substitute. Encouraging
the substitute is not a rational way to get what we need.
Vaclav Havel has advised us to "Work for something because it is
good, not just because it stands a chance to succeed." A business
making proprietary software stands a chance of success in its own narrow
terms, but it is not what is good for society.
Why People Will Develop Software
********************************
If we eliminate intellectual property as a means of encouraging
people to develop software, at first less software will be developed,
but that software will be more useful. It is not clear whether the
overall delivered user satisfaction will be less; but if it is, or if
we wish to increase it anyway, there are other ways to encourage
development, just as there are ways besides toll booths to raise money
for streets. Before I talk about how that can be done, first I want to
question how much artificial encouragement is truly necessary.
Programming is Fun
==================
There are some lines of work that few will enter except for money;
road construction, for example. There are other fields of study and
art in which there is little chance to become rich, which people enter
for their fascination or their perceived value to society. Examples
include mathematical logic, classical music, and archaeology; and
political organizing among working people. People compete, more sadly
than bitterly, for the few funded positions available, none of which is
funded very well. They may even pay for the chance to work in the
field, if they can afford to.
Such a field can transform itself overnight if it begins to offer the
possibility of getting rich. When one worker gets rich, others demand
the same opportunity. Soon all may demand large sums of money for doing
what they used to do for pleasure. When another couple of years go by,
everyone connected with the field will deride the idea that work would
be done in the field without large financial returns. They will advise
social planners to ensure that these returns are possible, prescribing
special privileges, powers and monopolies as necessary to do so.
This change happened in the field of computer programming in the past
decade. Fifteen years ago, there were articles on "computer
addiction": users were "onlining" and had hundred-dollar-a-week habits.
It was generally understood that people frequently loved programming
enough to break up their marriages. Today, it is generally understood
that no one would program except for a high rate of pay. People have
forgotten what they knew fifteen years ago.
When it is true at a given time that most people will work in a
certain field only for high pay, it need not remain true. The dynamic
of change can run in reverse, if society provides an impetus. If we
take away the possibility of great wealth, then after a while, when the
people have readjusted their attitudes, they will once again be eager
to work in the field for the joy of accomplishment.
The question, "How can we pay programmers?", becomes an easier
question when we realize that it's not a matter of paying them a
fortune. A mere living is easier to raise.
Funding Free Software
=====================
Institutions that pay programmers do not have to be software houses.
Many other institutions already exist which can do this.
Hardware manufacturers find it essential to support software
development even if they cannot control the use of the software. In
1970, much of their software was free because they did not consider
restricting it. Today, their increasing willingness to join
consortiums shows their realization that owning the software is not
what is really important for them.
Universities conduct many programming projects. Today, they often
sell the results, but in the 1970s, they did not. Is there any doubt
that universities would develop free software if they were not allowed
to sell software? These projects could be supported by the same
government contracts and grants which now support proprietary software
development.
It is common today for university researchers to get grants to
develop a system, develop it nearly to the point of completion and call
that "finished", and then start companies where they really finish the
project and make it usable. Sometimes they declare the unfinished
version "free"; if they are thoroughly corrupt, they instead get an
exclusive license from the university. This is not a secret; it is
openly admitted by everyone concerned. Yet if the researchers were not
exposed to the temptation to do these things, they would still do their
research.
Programmers writing free software can make their living by selling
services related to the software. I have been hired to port the GNU C
compiler to new hardware, and to make user-interface extensions to GNU
Emacs. (I offer these improvements to the public once they are done.)
I also teach classes for which I am paid.
I am not alone in working this way; there is now a successful,
growing corporation which does no other kind of work. Several other
companies also provide commercial support for the free software of the
GNU system. This is the beginning of the independent software support
industry-an industry that could become quite large if free software
becomes prevalent. It provides users with an option generally
unavailable for proprietary software, except to the very wealthy.
New institutions such as the Free Software Foundation can also fund
programmers. Most of the foundation's funds come from users buying
tapes through the mail. The software on the tapes is free, which means
that every user has the freedom to copy it and change it, but many
nonetheless pay to get copies. (Recall that "free software" refers to
freedom, not to price.) Some users order tapes who already have a copy,
as a way of making a contribution they feel we deserve. The Foundation
also receives sizable donations from computer manufacturers.
The Free Software Foundation is a charity, and its income is spent on
hiring as many programmers as possible. If it had been set up as a
business, distributing the same free software to the public for the same
fee, it would now provide a very good living for its founder.
Because the Foundation is a charity, programmers often work for the
Foundation for half of what they could make elsewhere. They do this
because we are free of bureaucracy, and because they feel satisfaction
in knowing that their work will not be obstructed from use. Most of
all, they do it because programming is fun. In addition, volunteers
have written many useful programs for us. (Recently even technical
writers have begun to volunteer.)
This confirms that programming is among the most fascinating of all
fields, along with music and art. We don't have to fear that no one
will want to program.
What Do Users Owe to Developers?
================================
There is a good reason for users of software to feel a moral
obligation to contribute to its support. Developers of free software
are contributing to the users' activities, and it is both fair and in
the long term interest of the users to give them funds to continue.
However, this does not apply to proprietary software developers,
since obstructionism deserves a punishment rather than a reward.
We thus have a paradox: the developer of useful software is entitled
to the support of the users, but any attempt to turn this moral
obligation into a requirement destroys the basis for the obligation. A
developer can either deserve a reward or demand it, but not both.
I believe that an ethical developer faced with this paradox must act
so as to deserve the reward, but should also entreat the users for
voluntary donations. Eventually the users will learn to support
developers without coercion, just as they have learned to support public
radio and television stations.
What Is Software Productivity?
******************************
If software were free, there would still be programmers, but perhaps
fewer of them. Would this be bad for society?
Not necessarily. Today the advanced nations have fewer farmers than
in 1900, but we do not think this is bad for society, because the few
deliver more food to the consumers than the many used to do. We call
this improved productivity. Free software would require far fewer
programmers to satisfy the demand, because of increased software
productivity at all levels:
* Wider use of each program that is developed.
* The ability to adapt existing programs for customization instead
of starting from scratch.
* Better education of programmers.
* The elimination of duplicate development effort.
Those who object to cooperation because it would result in the
employment of fewer programmers, are actually objecting to increased
productivity. Yet these people usually accept the widely-held belief
that the software industry needs increased productivity. How is this?
"Software productivity" can mean two different things: the overall
productivity of all software development, or the productivity of
individual projects. Overall productivity is what society would like to
improve, and the most straightforward way to do this is to eliminate the
artificial obstacles to cooperation which reduce it. But researchers
who study the field of "software productivity" focus only on the
second, limited, sense of the term, where improvement requires difficult
technological advances.
Is Competition Inevitable?
**************************
Is it inevitable that people will try to compete, to surpass their
rivals in society? Perhaps it is. But competition itself is not
harmful; the harmful thing is *combat*.
There are many ways to compete. Competition can consist of trying to
achieve ever more, to outdo what others have done. For example, in the
old days, there was competition among programming wizards--competition
for who could make the computer do the most amazing thing, or for who
could make the shortest or fastest program for a given task. This kind
of competition can benefit everyone, *as long as* the spirit of good
sportsmanship is maintained.
Constructive competition is enough competition to motivate people to
great efforts. A number of people are competing to be the first to have
visited all the countries on Earth; some even spend fortunes trying to
do this. But they do not bribe ship captains to strand their rivals on
desert islands. They are content to let the best person win.
Competition becomes combat when the competitors begin trying to
impede each other instead of advancing themselves--when "Let the best
person win" gives way to "Let me win, best or not." Proprietary
software is harmful, not because it is a form of competition, but
because it is a form of combat among the citizens of our society.
Competition in business is not necessarily combat. For example, when
two grocery stores compete, their entire effort is to improve their own
operations, not to sabotage the rival. But this does not demonstrate a
special commitment to business ethics; rather, there is little scope for
combat in this line of business short of physical violence. Not all
areas of business share this characteristic. Withholding information
that could help everyone advance is a form of combat.
Business ideology does not prepare people to resist the temptation to
combat the competition. Some forms of combat have been made banned with
anti-trust laws, truth in advertising laws, and so on, but rather than
generalizing this to a principled rejection of combat in general,
executives invent other forms of combat which are not specifically
prohibited. Society's resources are squandered on the economic
equivalent of factional civil war.
"Why Don't You Move to Russia?"
*******************************
In the United States, any advocate of other than the most extreme
form of laissez-faire selfishness has often heard this accusation. For
example, it is leveled against the supporters of a national health care
system, such as is found in all the other industrialized nations of the
free world. It is leveled against the advocates of public support for
the arts, also universal in advanced nations. The idea that citizens
have any obligation to the public good is identified in America with
Communism. But how similar are these ideas?
Communism as was practiced in the Soviet Union was a system of
central control where all activity was regimented, supposedly for the
common good, but actually for the sake of the members of the Communist
party. And where copying equipment was closely guarded to prevent
illegal copying.
The American system of intellectual property exercises central
control over distribution of a program, and guards copying equipment
with automatic copying protection schemes to prevent illegal copying.
By contrast, I am working to build a system where people are free to
decide their own actions; in particular, free to help their neighbors,
and free to alter and improve the tools which they use in their daily
lives. A system based on voluntary cooperation, and decentralization.
Thus, if we are to judge views by their resemblance to Russian
Communism, it is the software owners who are the Communists.
The Question of Premises
************************
I make the assumption in this paper that a user of software is no
less important than an author, or even an author's employer. In other
words, their interests and needs have equal weight, when we decide
which course of action is best.
This premise is not universally accepted. Many maintain that an
author's employer is fundamentally more important than anyone else.
They say, for example, that the purpose of having owners of software is
to give the author's employer the advantage he deserves--regardless of
how this may affect the public.
It is no use trying to prove or disprove these premises. Proof
requires shared premises. So most of what I have to say is addressed
only to those who share the premises I use, or at least are interested
in what their consequences are. For those who believe that the owners
are more important than everyone else, this paper is simply irrelevant.
But why would a large number of Americans accept a premise which
elevates certain people in importance above everyone else? Partly
because of the belief that this premise is part of the legal traditions
of American society. Some people feel that doubting the premise means
challenging the basis of society.
It is important for these people to know that this premise is not
part of our legal tradition. It never has been.
Thus, the Constitution says that the purpose of copyright is to
"promote the progress of science and the useful arts." The Supreme
Court has elaborated on this, stating in `Fox Film vs. Doyal' that "The
sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring
the [copyright] monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the
public from the labors of authors."
We are not required to agree with the Constitution or the Supreme
Court. (At one time, they both condoned slavery.) So their positions
do not disprove the owner supremacy premise. But I hope that the
awareness that this is a radical right-wing assumption rather than a
traditionally recognized one will weaken its appeal.
Conclusion
**********
We like to think that our society encourages helping your neighbor;
but each time we reward someone for obstructionism, or admire them for
the wealth they have gained in this way, we are sending the opposite
message.
Software hoarding is one form of our general willingness to disregard
the welfare of society for personal gain. We can trace this disregard
from Ronald Reagan to Jim Bakker, from Ivan Boesky to Exxon, from
failing banks to failing schools. We can measure it with the size of
the homeless population and the prison population. The antisocial
spirit feeds on itself, because the more we see that other people will
not help us, the more it seems futile to help them. Thus society decays
into a jungle.
If we don't want to live in a jungle, we must change our attitudes.
We must start sending the message that a good citizen is one who
cooperates when appropriate, not one who is successful at taking from
others. I hope that the free software movement will contribute to
this: at least in one area, we will replace the jungle with a more
efficient system which encourages and runs on voluntary cooperation.
---------- Footnotes ----------
(1) The word "free" in "free software" refers to freedom, not to
price; the price paid for a copy of a free program may be zero, or
small, or (rarely) quite large.
(2) The issues of pollution and traffic congestion do not alter
this conclusion. If we wish to make driving more expensive to
discourage driving in general, it is disadvantageous to do this using
toll booths, which contribute to both pollution and congestion. A tax
on gasoline is much better. Likewise, a desire to enhance safety by
limiting maximum speed is not relevant; a free access road enhances the
average speed by avoiding stops and delays, for any given speed limit.
(3) One might regard a particular computer program as a harmful
thing that should not be available at all, like the Lotus Marketplace
database of personal information, which was withdrawn from sale due to
public disapproval. Most of what I say does not apply to this case,
but it makes little sense to argue for having an owner on the grounds
that the owner will make the program less available. The owner will
not make it *completely* unavailable, as one would wish in the case of
a program whose use is considered destructive.

5189
etc/publicsuffix.txt
View File

File diff suppressed because it is too large Load Diff