diff etc/GNU @ 26119:6b5aacec5ace

*** empty log message ***

--- /dev/null	Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/etc/GNU	Wed Oct 20 10:41:43 1999 +0000
@@ -0,0 +1,532 @@
+Copyright (C) 1985, 1993 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+
+   Permission is granted to anyone to make or distribute verbatim copies
+of this document, in any medium, provided that the copyright notice and
+permission notice are preserved, and that the distributor grants the
+recipient permission for further redistribution as permitted by this
+notice.
+
+   Modified versions may not be made.
+
+The GNU Manifesto
+*****************
+
+     The GNU Manifesto which appears below was written by Richard
+     Stallman at the beginning of the GNU project, to ask for
+     participation and support.  For the first few years, it was
+     updated in minor ways to account for developments, but now it
+     seems best to leave it unchanged as most people have seen it.
+
+     Since that time, we have learned about certain common
+     misunderstandings that different wording could help avoid.
+     Footnotes added in 1993 help clarify these points.
+
+     For up-to-date information about the available GNU software,
+     please see the latest issue of the GNU's Bulletin.  The list is
+     much too long to include here.
+
+What's GNU?  Gnu's Not Unix!
+============================
+
+   GNU, which stands for Gnu's Not Unix, is the name for the complete
+Unix-compatible software system which I am writing so that I can give it
+away free to everyone who can use it.(1) Several other volunteers are
+helping me.  Contributions of time, money, programs and equipment are
+greatly needed.
+
+   So far we have an Emacs text editor with Lisp for writing editor
+commands, a source level debugger, a yacc-compatible parser generator,
+a linker, and around 35 utilities.  A shell (command interpreter) is
+nearly completed.  A new portable optimizing C compiler has compiled
+itself and may be released this year.  An initial kernel exists but
+many more features are needed to emulate Unix.  When the kernel and
+compiler are finished, it will be possible to distribute a GNU system
+suitable for program development.  We will use TeX as our text
+formatter, but an nroff is being worked on.  We will use the free,
+portable X window system as well.  After this we will add a portable
+Common Lisp, an Empire game, a spreadsheet, and hundreds of other
+things, plus on-line documentation.  We hope to supply, eventually,
+everything useful that normally comes with a Unix system, and more.
+
+   GNU will be able to run Unix programs, but will not be identical to
+Unix.  We will make all improvements that are convenient, based on our
+experience with other operating systems.  In particular, we plan to
+have longer file names, file version numbers, a crashproof file system,
+file name completion perhaps, terminal-independent display support, and
+perhaps eventually a Lisp-based window system through which several
+Lisp programs and ordinary Unix programs can share a screen.  Both C
+and Lisp will be available as system programming languages.  We will
+try to support UUCP, MIT Chaosnet, and Internet protocols for
+communication.
+
+   GNU is aimed initially at machines in the 68000/16000 class with
+virtual memory, because they are the easiest machines to make it run
+on.  The extra effort to make it run on smaller machines will be left
+to someone who wants to use it on them.
+
+   To avoid horrible confusion, please pronounce the `G' in the word
+`GNU' when it is the name of this project.
+
+Why I Must Write GNU
+====================
+
+   I consider that the golden rule requires that if I like a program I
+must share it with other people who like it.  Software sellers want to
+divide the users and conquer them, making each user agree not to share
+with others.  I refuse to break solidarity with other users in this
+way.  I cannot in good conscience sign a nondisclosure agreement or a
+software license agreement.  For years I worked within the Artificial
+Intelligence Lab to resist such tendencies and other inhospitalities,
+but eventually they had gone too far: I could not remain in an
+institution where such things are done for me against my will.
+
+   So that I can continue to use computers without dishonor, I have
+decided to put together a sufficient body of free software so that I
+will be able to get along without any software that is not free.  I
+have resigned from the AI lab to deny MIT any legal excuse to prevent
+me from giving GNU away.
+
+Why GNU Will Be Compatible with Unix
+====================================
+
+   Unix is not my ideal system, but it is not too bad.  The essential
+features of Unix seem to be good ones, and I think I can fill in what
+Unix lacks without spoiling them.  And a system compatible with Unix
+would be convenient for many other people to adopt.
+
+How GNU Will Be Available
+=========================
+
+   GNU is not in the public domain.  Everyone will be permitted to
+modify and redistribute GNU, but no distributor will be allowed to
+restrict its further redistribution.  That is to say, proprietary
+modifications will not be allowed.  I want to make sure that all
+versions of GNU remain free.
+
+Why Many Other Programmers Want to Help
+=======================================
+
+   I have found many other programmers who are excited about GNU and
+want to help.
+
+   Many programmers are unhappy about the commercialization of system
+software.  It may enable them to make more money, but it requires them
+to feel in conflict with other programmers in general rather than feel
+as comrades.  The fundamental act of friendship among programmers is the
+sharing of programs; marketing arrangements now typically used
+essentially forbid programmers to treat others as friends.  The
+purchaser of software must choose between friendship and obeying the
+law.  Naturally, many decide that friendship is more important.  But
+those who believe in law often do not feel at ease with either choice.
+They become cynical and think that programming is just a way of making
+money.
+
+   By working on and using GNU rather than proprietary programs, we can
+be hospitable to everyone and obey the law.  In addition, GNU serves as
+an example to inspire and a banner to rally others to join us in
+sharing.  This can give us a feeling of harmony which is impossible if
+we use software that is not free.  For about half the programmers I
+talk to, this is an important happiness that money cannot replace.
+
+How You Can Contribute
+======================
+
+   I am asking computer manufacturers for donations of machines and
+money.  I'm asking individuals for donations of programs and work.
+
+   One consequence you can expect if you donate machines is that GNU
+will run on them at an early date.  The machines should be complete,
+ready to use systems, approved for use in a residential area, and not
+in need of sophisticated cooling or power.
+
+   I have found very many programmers eager to contribute part-time
+work for GNU.  For most projects, such part-time distributed work would
+be very hard to coordinate; the independently-written parts would not
+work together.  But for the particular task of replacing Unix, this
+problem is absent.  A complete Unix system contains hundreds of utility
+programs, each of which is documented separately.  Most interface
+specifications are fixed by Unix compatibility.  If each contributor
+can write a compatible replacement for a single Unix utility, and make
+it work properly in place of the original on a Unix system, then these
+utilities will work right when put together.  Even allowing for Murphy
+to create a few unexpected problems, assembling these components will
+be a feasible task.  (The kernel will require closer communication and
+will be worked on by a small, tight group.)
+
+   If I get donations of money, I may be able to hire a few people full
+or part time.  The salary won't be high by programmers' standards, but
+I'm looking for people for whom building community spirit is as
+important as making money.  I view this as a way of enabling dedicated
+people to devote their full energies to working on GNU by sparing them
+the need to make a living in another way.
+
+Why All Computer Users Will Benefit
+===================================
+
+   Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain good system
+software free, just like air.(2)
+
+   This means much more than just saving everyone the price of a Unix
+license.  It means that much wasteful duplication of system programming
+effort will be avoided.  This effort can go instead into advancing the
+state of the art.
+
+   Complete system sources will be available to everyone.  As a result,
+a user who needs changes in the system will always be free to make them
+himself, or hire any available programmer or company to make them for
+him.  Users will no longer be at the mercy of one programmer or company
+which owns the sources and is in sole position to make changes.
+
+   Schools will be able to provide a much more educational environment
+by encouraging all students to study and improve the system code.
+Harvard's computer lab used to have the policy that no program could be
+installed on the system if its sources were not on public display, and
+upheld it by actually refusing to install certain programs.  I was very
+much inspired by this.
+
+   Finally, the overhead of considering who owns the system software
+and what one is or is not entitled to do with it will be lifted.
+
+   Arrangements to make people pay for using a program, including
+licensing of copies, always incur a tremendous cost to society through
+the cumbersome mechanisms necessary to figure out how much (that is,
+which programs) a person must pay for.  And only a police state can
+force everyone to obey them.  Consider a space station where air must
+be manufactured at great cost: charging each breather per liter of air
+may be fair, but wearing the metered gas mask all day and all night is
+intolerable even if everyone can afford to pay the air bill.  And the
+TV cameras everywhere to see if you ever take the mask off are
+outrageous.  It's better to support the air plant with a head tax and
+chuck the masks.
+
+   Copying all or parts of a program is as natural to a programmer as
+breathing, and as productive.  It ought to be as free.
+
+Some Easily Rebutted Objections to GNU's Goals
+==============================================
+
+     "Nobody will use it if it is free, because that means they can't
+     rely on any support."
+
+     "You have to charge for the program to pay for providing the
+     support."
+
+   If people would rather pay for GNU plus service than get GNU free
+without service, a company to provide just service to people who have
+obtained GNU free ought to be profitable.(3)
+
+   We must distinguish between support in the form of real programming
+work and mere handholding.  The former is something one cannot rely on
+from a software vendor.  If your problem is not shared by enough
+people, the vendor will tell you to get lost.
+
+   If your business needs to be able to rely on support, the only way
+is to have all the necessary sources and tools.  Then you can hire any
+available person to fix your problem; you are not at the mercy of any
+individual.  With Unix, the price of sources puts this out of
+consideration for most businesses.  With GNU this will be easy.  It is
+still possible for there to be no available competent person, but this
+problem cannot be blamed on distribution arrangements.  GNU does not
+eliminate all the world's problems, only some of them.
+
+   Meanwhile, the users who know nothing about computers need
+handholding: doing things for them which they could easily do
+themselves but don't know how.
+
+   Such services could be provided by companies that sell just
+hand-holding and repair service.  If it is true that users would rather
+spend money and get a product with service, they will also be willing
+to buy the service having got the product free.  The service companies
+will compete in quality and price; users will not be tied to any
+particular one.  Meanwhile, those of us who don't need the service
+should be able to use the program without paying for the service.
+
+     "You cannot reach many people without advertising, and you must
+     charge for the program to support that."
+
+     "It's no use advertising a program people can get free."
+
+   There are various forms of free or very cheap publicity that can be
+used to inform numbers of computer users about something like GNU.  But
+it may be true that one can reach more microcomputer users with
+advertising.  If this is really so, a business which advertises the
+service of copying and mailing GNU for a fee ought to be successful
+enough to pay for its advertising and more.  This way, only the users
+who benefit from the advertising pay for it.
+
+   On the other hand, if many people get GNU from their friends, and
+such companies don't succeed, this will show that advertising was not
+really necessary to spread GNU.  Why is it that free market advocates
+don't want to let the free market decide this?(4)
+
+     "My company needs a proprietary operating system to get a
+     competitive edge."
+
+   GNU will remove operating system software from the realm of
+competition.  You will not be able to get an edge in this area, but
+neither will your competitors be able to get an edge over you.  You and
+they will compete in other areas, while benefiting mutually in this
+one.  If your business is selling an operating system, you will not
+like GNU, but that's tough on you.  If your business is something else,
+GNU can save you from being pushed into the expensive business of
+selling operating systems.
+
+   I would like to see GNU development supported by gifts from many
+manufacturers and users, reducing the cost to each.(5)
+
+     "Don't programmers deserve a reward for their creativity?"
+
+   If anything deserves a reward, it is social contribution.
+Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society
+is free to use the results.  If programmers deserve to be rewarded for
+creating innovative programs, by the same token they deserve to be
+punished if they restrict the use of these programs.
+
+     "Shouldn't a programmer be able to ask for a reward for his
+     creativity?"
+
+   There is nothing wrong with wanting pay for work, or seeking to
+maximize one's income, as long as one does not use means that are
+destructive.  But the means customary in the field of software today
+are based on destruction.
+
+   Extracting money from users of a program by restricting their use of
+it is destructive because the restrictions reduce the amount and the
+ways that the program can be used.  This reduces the amount of wealth
+that humanity derives from the program.  When there is a deliberate
+choice to restrict, the harmful consequences are deliberate destruction.
+
+   The reason a good citizen does not use such destructive means to
+become wealthier is that, if everyone did so, we would all become
+poorer from the mutual destructiveness.  This is Kantian ethics; or,
+the Golden Rule.  Since I do not like the consequences that result if
+everyone hoards information, I am required to consider it wrong for one
+to do so.  Specifically, the desire to be rewarded for one's creativity
+does not justify depriving the world in general of all or part of that
+creativity.
+
+     "Won't programmers starve?"
+
+   I could answer that nobody is forced to be a programmer.  Most of us
+cannot manage to get any money for standing on the street and making
+faces.  But we are not, as a result, condemned to spend our lives
+standing on the street making faces, and starving.  We do something
+else.
+
+   But that is the wrong answer because it accepts the questioner's
+implicit assumption: that without ownership of software, programmers
+cannot possibly be paid a cent.  Supposedly it is all or nothing.
+
+   The real reason programmers will not starve is that it will still be
+possible for them to get paid for programming; just not paid as much as
+now.
+
+   Restricting copying is not the only basis for business in software.
+It is the most common basis because it brings in the most money.  If it
+were prohibited, or rejected by the customer, software business would
+move to other bases of organization which are now used less often.
+There are always numerous ways to organize any kind of business.
+
+   Probably programming will not be as lucrative on the new basis as it
+is now.  But that is not an argument against the change.  It is not
+considered an injustice that sales clerks make the salaries that they
+now do.  If programmers made the same, that would not be an injustice
+either.  (In practice they would still make considerably more than
+that.)
+
+     "Don't people have a right to control how their creativity is
+     used?"
+
+   "Control over the use of one's ideas" really constitutes control over
+other people's lives; and it is usually used to make their lives more
+difficult.
+
+   People who have studied the issue of intellectual property rights
+carefully (such as lawyers) say that there is no intrinsic right to
+intellectual property.  The kinds of supposed intellectual property
+rights that the government recognizes were created by specific acts of
+legislation for specific purposes.
+
+   For example, the patent system was established to encourage
+inventors to disclose the details of their inventions.  Its purpose was
+to help society rather than to help inventors.  At the time, the life
+span of 17 years for a patent was short compared with the rate of
+advance of the state of the art.  Since patents are an issue only among
+manufacturers, for whom the cost and effort of a license agreement are
+small compared with setting up production, the patents often do not do
+much harm.  They do not obstruct most individuals who use patented
+products.
+
+   The idea of copyright did not exist in ancient times, when authors
+frequently copied other authors at length in works of non-fiction.  This
+practice was useful, and is the only way many authors' works have
+survived even in part.  The copyright system was created expressly for
+the purpose of encouraging authorship.  In the domain for which it was
+invented--books, which could be copied economically only on a printing
+press--it did little harm, and did not obstruct most of the individuals
+who read the books.
+
+   All intellectual property rights are just licenses granted by society
+because it was thought, rightly or wrongly, that society as a whole
+would benefit by granting them.  But in any particular situation, we
+have to ask: are we really better off granting such license?  What kind
+of act are we licensing a person to do?
+
+   The case of programs today is very different from that of books a
+hundred years ago.  The fact that the easiest way to copy a program is
+from one neighbor to another, the fact that a program has both source
+code and object code which are distinct, and the fact that a program is
+used rather than read and enjoyed, combine to create a situation in
+which a person who enforces a copyright is harming society as a whole
+both materially and spiritually; in which a person should not do so
+regardless of whether the law enables him to.
+
+     "Competition makes things get done better."
+
+   The paradigm of competition is a race: by rewarding the winner, we
+encourage everyone to run faster.  When capitalism really works this
+way, it does a good job; but its defenders are wrong in assuming it
+always works this way.  If the runners forget why the reward is offered
+and become intent on winning, no matter how, they may find other
+strategies--such as, attacking other runners.  If the runners get into
+a fist fight, they will all finish late.
+
+   Proprietary and secret software is the moral equivalent of runners
+in a fist fight.  Sad to say, the only referee we've got does not seem
+to object to fights; he just regulates them ("For every ten yards you
+run, you can fire one shot").  He really ought to break them up, and
+penalize runners for even trying to fight.
+
+     "Won't everyone stop programming without a monetary incentive?"
+
+   Actually, many people will program with absolutely no monetary
+incentive.  Programming has an irresistible fascination for some
+people, usually the people who are best at it.  There is no shortage of
+professional musicians who keep at it even though they have no hope of
+making a living that way.
+
+   But really this question, though commonly asked, is not appropriate
+to the situation.  Pay for programmers will not disappear, only become
+less.  So the right question is, will anyone program with a reduced
+monetary incentive?  My experience shows that they will.
+
+   For more than ten years, many of the world's best programmers worked
+at the Artificial Intelligence Lab for far less money than they could
+have had anywhere else.  They got many kinds of non-monetary rewards:
+fame and appreciation, for example.  And creativity is also fun, a
+reward in itself.
+
+   Then most of them left when offered a chance to do the same
+interesting work for a lot of money.
+
+   What the facts show is that people will program for reasons other
+than riches; but if given a chance to make a lot of money as well, they
+will come to expect and demand it.  Low-paying organizations do poorly
+in competition with high-paying ones, but they do not have to do badly
+if the high-paying ones are banned.
+
+     "We need the programmers desperately.  If they demand that we stop
+     helping our neighbors, we have to obey."
+
+   You're never so desperate that you have to obey this sort of demand.
+Remember: millions for defense, but not a cent for tribute!
+
+     "Programmers need to make a living somehow."
+
+   In the short run, this is true.  However, there are plenty of ways
+that programmers could make a living without selling the right to use a
+program.  This way is customary now because it brings programmers and
+businessmen the most money, not because it is the only way to make a
+living.  It is easy to find other ways if you want to find them.  Here
+are a number of examples.
+
+   A manufacturer introducing a new computer will pay for the porting of
+operating systems onto the new hardware.
+
+   The sale of teaching, hand-holding and maintenance services could
+also employ programmers.
+
+   People with new ideas could distribute programs as freeware, asking
+for donations from satisfied users, or selling hand-holding services.
+I have met people who are already working this way successfully.
+
+   Users with related needs can form users' groups, and pay dues.  A
+group would contract with programming companies to write programs that
+the group's members would like to use.
+
+   All sorts of development can be funded with a Software Tax:
+
+     Suppose everyone who buys a computer has to pay x percent of the
+     price as a software tax.  The government gives this to an agency
+     like the NSF to spend on software development.
+
+     But if the computer buyer makes a donation to software development
+     himself, he can take a credit against the tax.  He can donate to
+     the project of his own choosing--often, chosen because he hopes to
+     use the results when it is done.  He can take a credit for any
+     amount of donation up to the total tax he had to pay.
+
+     The total tax rate could be decided by a vote of the payers of the
+     tax, weighted according to the amount they will be taxed on.
+
+     The consequences:
+
+        * The computer-using community supports software development.
+
+        * This community decides what level of support is needed.
+
+        * Users who care which projects their share is spent on can
+          choose this for themselves.
+
+   In the long run, making programs free is a step toward the
+post-scarcity world, where nobody will have to work very hard just to
+make a living.  People will be free to devote themselves to activities
+that are fun, such as programming, after spending the necessary ten
+hours a week on required tasks such as legislation, family counseling,
+robot repair and asteroid prospecting.  There will be no need to be
+able to make a living from programming.
+
+   We have already greatly reduced the amount of work that the whole
+society must do for its actual productivity, but only a little of this
+has translated itself into leisure for workers because much
+nonproductive activity is required to accompany productive activity.
+The main causes of this are bureaucracy and isometric struggles against
+competition.  Free software will greatly reduce these drains in the
+area of software production.  We must do this, in order for technical
+gains in productivity to translate into less work for us.
+
+   ---------- Footnotes ----------
+
+   (1)  The wording here was careless.  The intention was that nobody
+would have to pay for *permission* to use the GNU system.  But the
+words don't make this clear, and people often interpret them as saying
+that copies of GNU should always be distributed at little or no charge.
+That was never the intent; later on, the manifesto mentions the
+possibility of companies providing the service of distribution for a
+profit.  Subsequently I have learned to distinguish carefully between
+"free" in the sense of freedom and "free" in the sense of price.  Free
+software is software that users have the freedom to distribute and
+change.  Some users may obtain copies at no charge, while others pay to
+obtain copies--and if the funds help support improving the software, so
+much the better.  The important thing is that everyone who has a copy
+has the freedom to cooperate with others in using it.
+
+   (2)  This is another place I failed to distinguish carefully between
+the two different meanings of "free".  The statement as it stands is
+not false--you can get copies of GNU software at no charge, from your
+friends or over the net.  But it does suggest the wrong idea.
+
+   (3)  Several such companies now exist.
+
+   (4)  The Free Software Foundation raises most of its funds from a
+distribution service, although it is a charity rather than a company.
+If *no one* chooses to obtain copies by ordering from the FSF, it
+will be unable to do its work.  But this does not mean that proprietary
+restrictions are justified to force every user to pay.  If a small
+fraction of all the users order copies from the FSF, that is sufficient
+to keep the FSF afloat.  So we ask users to choose to support us in
+this way.  Have you done your part?
+
+   (5)  A group of computer companies recently pooled funds to support
+maintenance of the GNU C Compiler.
+