annotate etc/WHY-FREE @ 72135:2bd7c2f5456f

Change callers of read_char.
author Chong Yidong <cyd@stupidchicken.com>
date Wed, 26 Jul 2006 18:15:08 +0000
parents 23a1cea22d13
children
Ignore whitespace changes - Everywhere: Within whitespace: At end of lines:
rev   line source
49600
23a1cea22d13 Trailing whitespace deleted.
Juanma Barranquero <lekktu@gmail.com>
parents: 25853
diff changeset
1 Why Software Should Not Have Owners
25853
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
2
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
3 by Richard Stallman
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
4
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
5 Digital information technology contributes to the world by making it
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
6 easier to copy and modify information. Computers promise to make this
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
7 easier for all of us.
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
8
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
9 Not everyone wants it to be easier. The system of copyright gives
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
10 software programs "owners", most of whom aim to withhold software's
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
11 potential benefit from the rest of the public. They would like to be
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
12 the only ones who can copy and modify the software that we use.
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
13
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
14 The copyright system grew up with printing--a technology for mass
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
15 production copying. Copyright fit in well with this technology
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
16 because it restricted only the mass producers of copies. It did not
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
17 take freedom away from readers of books. An ordinary reader, who did
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
18 not own a printing press, could copy books only with pen and ink, and
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
19 few readers were sued for that.
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
20
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
21 Digital technology is more flexible than the printing press: when
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
22 information has digital form, you can easily copy it to share it with
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
23 others. This very flexibility makes a bad fit with a system like
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
24 copyright. That's the reason for the increasingly nasty and draconian
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
25 measures now used to enforce software copyright. Consider these four
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
26 practices of the Software Publishers Association (SPA):
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
27
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
28 * Massive propaganda saying it is wrong to disobey the owners
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
29 to help your friend.
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
30
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
31 * Solicitation for stool pigeons to inform on their coworkers and
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
32 colleagues.
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
33
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
34 * Raids (with police help) on offices and schools, in which people are
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
35 told they must prove they are innocent of illegal copying.
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
36
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
37 * Prosecution (by the US government, at the SPA's request) of people
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
38 such as MIT's David LaMacchia, not for copying software (he is not
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
39 accused of copying any), but merely for leaving copying facilities
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
40 unguarded and failing to censor their use.
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
41
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
42 All four practices resemble those used in the former Soviet Union,
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
43 where every copying machine had a guard to prevent forbidden copying,
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
44 and where individuals had to copy information secretly and pass it
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
45 from hand to hand as "samizdat". There is of course a difference: the
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
46 motive for information control in the Soviet Union was political; in
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
47 the US the motive is profit. But it is the actions that affect us,
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
48 not the motive. Any attempt to block the sharing of information, no
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
49 matter why, leads to the same methods and the same harshness.
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
50
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
51 Owners make several kinds of arguments for giving them the power
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
52 to control how we use information:
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
53
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
54 * Name calling.
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
55
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
56 Owners use smear words such as "piracy" and "theft", as well as expert
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
57 terminology such as "intellectual property" and "damage", to suggest a
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
58 certain line of thinking to the public--a simplistic analogy between
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
59 programs and physical objects.
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
60
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
61 Our ideas and intuitions about property for material objects are about
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
62 whether it is right to *take an object away* from someone else. They
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
63 don't directly apply to *making a copy* of something. But the owners
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
64 ask us to apply them anyway.
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
65
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
66 * Exaggeration.
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
67
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
68 Owners say that they suffer "harm" or "economic loss" when users copy
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
69 programs themselves. But the copying has no direct effect on the
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
70 owner, and it harms no one. The owner can lose only if the person who
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
71 made the copy would otherwise have paid for one from the owner.
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
72
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
73 A little thought shows that most such people would not have bought
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
74 copies. Yet the owners compute their "losses" as if each and every
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
75 one would have bought a copy. That is exaggeration--to put it kindly.
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
76
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
77 * The law.
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
78
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
79 Owners often describe the current state of the law, and the harsh
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
80 penalties they can threaten us with. Implicit in this approach is the
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
81 suggestion that today's law reflects an unquestionable view of
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
82 morality--yet at the same time, we are urged to regard these penalties
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
83 as facts of nature that can't be blamed on anyone.
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
84
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
85 This line of persuasion isn't designed to stand up to critical
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
86 thinking; it's intended to reinforce a habitual mental pathway.
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
87
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
88 It's elemental that laws don't decide right and wrong. Every American
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
89 should know that, forty years ago, it was against the law in many
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
90 states for a black person to sit in the front of a bus; but only
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
91 racists would say sitting there was wrong.
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
92
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
93 * Natural rights.
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
94
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
95 Authors often claim a special connection with programs they have
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
96 written, and go on to assert that, as a result, their desires and
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
97 interests concerning the program simply outweigh those of anyone
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
98 else--or even those of the whole rest of the world. (Typically
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
99 companies, not authors, hold the copyrights on software, but we are
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
100 expected to ignore this discrepancy.)
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
101
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
102 To those who propose this as an ethical axiom--the author is more
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
103 important than you--I can only say that I, a notable software author
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
104 myself, call it bunk.
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
105
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
106 But people in general are only likely to feel any sympathy with the
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
107 natural rights claims for two reasons.
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
108
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
109 One reason is an overstretched analogy with material objects. When I
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
110 cook spaghetti, I do object if someone else takes it and stops me from
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
111 eating it. In this case, that person and I have the same material
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
112 interests at stake, and it's a zero-sum game. The smallest
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
113 distinction between us is enough to tip the ethical balance.
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
114
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
115 But whether you run or change a program I wrote affects you directly
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
116 and me only indirectly. Whether you give a copy to your friend
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
117 affects you and your friend much more than it affects me. I shouldn't
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
118 have the power to tell you not to do these things. No one should.
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
119
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
120 The second reason is that people have been told that natural rights
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
121 for authors is the accepted and unquestioned tradition of our society.
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
122
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
123 As a matter of history, the opposite is true. The idea of natural
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
124 rights of authors was proposed and decisively rejected when the US
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
125 Constitution was drawn up. That's why the Constitution only *permits*
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
126 a system of copyright and does not *require* one; that's why it says
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
127 that copyright must be temporary. It also states that the purpose of
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
128 copyright is to promote progress--not to reward authors. Copyright
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
129 does reward authors somewhat, and publishers more, but that is
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
130 intended as a means of modifying their behavior.
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
131
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
132 The real established tradition of our society is that copyright cuts
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
133 into the natural rights of the public--and that this can only be
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
134 justified for the public's sake.
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
135
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
136 * Economics.
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
137
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
138 The final argument made for having owners of software is that this
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
139 leads to production of more software.
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
140
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
141 Unlike the others, this argument at least takes a legitimate approach
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
142 to the subject. It is based on a valid goal--satisfying the users of
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
143 software. And it is empirically clear that people will produce more of
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
144 something if they are well paid for doing so.
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
145
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
146 But the economic argument has a flaw: it is based on the assumption
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
147 that the difference is only a matter of how much money we have to pay.
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
148 It assumes that "production of software" is what we want, whether the
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
149 software has owners or not.
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
150
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
151 People readily accept this assumption because it accords with our
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
152 experiences with material objects. Consider a sandwich, for instance.
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
153 You might well be able to get an equivalent sandwich either free or
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
154 for a price. If so, the amount you pay is the only difference.
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
155 Whether or not you have to buy it, the sandwich has the same taste,
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
156 the same nutritional value, and in either case you can only eat it
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
157 once. Whether you get the sandwich from an owner or not cannot
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
158 directly affect anything but the amount of money you have afterwards.
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
159
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
160 This is true for any kind of material object--whether or not it has an
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
161 owner does not directly affect what it *is*, or what you can do with
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
162 it if you acquire it.
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
163
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
164 But if a program has an owner, this very much affects what it is, and
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
165 what you can do with a copy if you buy one. The difference is not
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
166 just a matter of money. The system of owners of software encourages
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
167 software owners to produce something--but not what society really
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
168 needs. And it causes intangible ethical pollution that affects us
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
169 all.
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
170
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
171 What does society need? It needs information that is truly available
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
172 to its citizens--for example, programs that people can read, fix,
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
173 adapt, and improve, not just operate. But what software owners
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
174 typically deliver is a black box that we can't study or change.
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
175
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
176 Society also needs freedom. When a program has an owner, the users
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
177 lose freedom to control part of their own lives.
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
178
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
179 And above all society needs to encourage the spirit of voluntary
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
180 cooperation in its citizens. When software owners tell us that
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
181 helping our neighbors in a natural way is "piracy", they pollute our
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
182 society's civic spirit.
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
183
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
184 This is why we say that free software is a matter of freedom, not
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
185 price.
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
186
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
187 The economic argument for owners is erroneous, but the economic issue
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
188 is real. Some people write useful software for the pleasure of
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
189 writing it or for admiration and love; but if we want more software
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
190 than those people write, we need to raise funds.
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
191
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
192 For ten years now, free software developers have tried various methods
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
193 of finding funds, with some success. There's no need to make anyone
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
194 rich; the median US family income, around $35k, proves to be enough
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
195 incentive for many jobs that are less satisfying than programming.
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
196
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
197 For years, until a fellowship made it unnecessary, I made a living
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
198 from custom enhancements of the free software I had written. Each
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
199 enhancement was added to the standard released version and thus
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
200 eventually became available to the general public. Clients paid me so
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
201 that I would work on the enhancements they wanted, rather than on the
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
202 features I would otherwise have considered highest priority.
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
203
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
204 The Free Software Foundation, a tax-exempt charity for free software
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
205 development, raises funds by selling CD-ROMs, tapes and manuals (all
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
206 of which users are free to copy and change), as well as from
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
207 donations. It now has a staff of five programmers, plus three
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
208 employees who handle mail orders.
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
209
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
210 Some free software developers make money by selling support services.
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
211 Cygnus Support, with around 50 employees, estimates that about 15 per
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
212 cent of its staff activity is free software development--a respectable
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
213 percentage for a software company.
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
214
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
215 Companies including Intel, Motorola, Texas Instruments and Analog
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
216 Devices have combined to fund the continued development of the free
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
217 GNU compiler for the language C. Meanwhile, the GNU compiler for the
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
218 Ada language is being funded by the US Air Force, which believes this
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
219 is the most cost-effective way to get a high quality compiler.
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
220
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
221 All these examples are small; the free software movement is still
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
222 small, and still young. But the example of listener-supported radio
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
223 in this country shows it's possible to support a large activity
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
224 without forcing each user to pay.
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
225
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
226 As a computer user today, you may find yourself using a proprietary
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
227 program. If your friend asks to make a copy, it would be wrong to
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
228 refuse. Cooperation is more important than copyright. But
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
229 underground, closet cooperation does not make for a good society. A
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
230 person should aspire to live an upright life openly with pride, and
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
231 this means saying "No" to proprietary software.
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
232
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
233 You deserve to be able to cooperate openly and freely with other
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
234 people who use software. You deserve to be able to learn how the
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
235 software works, and to teach your students with it. You deserve to be
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
236 able to hire your favorite programmer to fix it when it breaks.
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
237
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
238 You deserve free software.
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
239
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
240
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
241 Copyright 1994 Richard Stallman
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
242 Verbatim copying and redistribution is permitted
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
243 without royalty as long as this notice is preserved;
Dave Love <fx@gnu.org>
parents:
diff changeset
244 alteration is not permitted.