[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Gsrc-commit] /srv/bzr/gsrc/trunk r1561: add some GNU documentation

From: Brandon Invergo
Subject: [Gsrc-commit] /srv/bzr/gsrc/trunk r1561: add some GNU documentation
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2013 12:03:00 +0100
User-agent: Bazaar (2.5.0)

revno: 1561
committer: Brandon Invergo <address@hidden>
branch nick: trunk
timestamp: Sun 2013-01-06 12:03:00 +0100
  add some GNU documentation
=== added directory 'doc/GNU'
=== added file 'doc/GNU/GNU'
--- a/doc/GNU/GNU       1970-01-01 00:00:00 +0000
+++ b/doc/GNU/GNU       2013-01-06 11:03:00 +0000
@@ -0,0 +1,544 @@
+Copyright (C) 1985, 1993, 2001-2012  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
+   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  For software tasks to work on, see
+  For other ways
+     to contribute, see
+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
+   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
+   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
+     "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
+   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
+   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
+     "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
+   People who have studied the issue of intellectual property rights(6)
+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
+   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(7), 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 raised most of its funds for 10
+years from a distribution service, although it is a charity rather
+than a company.
+   (5) A group of computer companies pooled funds around 1991 to
+support maintenance of the GNU C Compiler.
+   (6) In the 80s I had not yet realized how confusing it was to speak
+of "the issue" of "intellectual property".  That term is obviously
+biased; more subtle is the fact that it lumps together various
+disparate laws which raise very different issues.  Nowadays I urge
+people to reject the term "intellectual property" entirely, lest it
+lead others to suppose that those laws form one coherent issue.  The way to be
+clear is to discuss patents, copyrights, and trademarks separately.
+See for more explanation
+of how this term spreads confusion and bias.
+   (7) Subsequently we have learned to distinguish between "free
+software" and "freeware".  The term "freeware" means software you are
+free to redistribute, but usually you are not free to study and change
+the source code, so most of it is not free software.  See
+ for more

=== added file 'doc/GNU/LINUX-GNU'
--- a/doc/GNU/LINUX-GNU 1970-01-01 00:00:00 +0000
+++ b/doc/GNU/LINUX-GNU 2013-01-06 11:03:00 +0000
@@ -0,0 +1,147 @@
+                    Linux and the GNU system
+The GNU project started in 1984 with the goal of developing a complete
+free Unix-like operating system: GNU.  "Free" refers to freedom, not
+price; it means you are free to run, copy, distribute, study, change,
+and improve the software.
+A Unix-like system consists of many different programs.  We found some
+components already available as free software--for example, X Windows
+and TeX.  We obtained other components by helping to convince their
+developers to make them free--for example, the Berkeley network
+utilities.  This left many missing components that we had to write in
+order to produce GNU--for example, GNU Emacs, the GNU C compiler, the
+GNU C library, Bash, and Ghostscript.  The GNU system consists of all
+these components together.
+The GNU project is not just about developing and distributing some
+useful free software.  The heart of the GNU project is an idea: that
+software should be free, that software users should have freedom to
+participate in a community.  To run your computer, you need an
+operating system; if it is not free, your freedom has been denied.  To
+have freedom, you need a free operating system.  We therefore set out
+to write one.
+In the long run, though, we cannot expect to keep the free operating
+system free unless the users are aware of the freedom it gives them,
+and value that freedom.  People who do not appreciate their freedom
+will not keep it long.  If we want to make freedom last, we need to
+spread awareness of the freedoms they have in free software.
+The GNU project's method is that free software and the idea of users'
+freedom support each other.  We develop GNU software, and as people
+encounter GNU programs or the GNU system and start to use them, they
+also think about the GNU idea.  The software shows that the idea can
+work in practice.  Some of these people come to agree with the idea,
+and then they are more likely to write additional free software.
+Thus, the software embodies the idea, spreads the idea, and grows from
+the idea.
+Early on in the development of GNU, various parts of it became popular
+even though users needed proprietary systems to run them on.  Porting
+the system to many systems and maintaining them required a lot of
+work.  After that work, most GNU software is easily configured for a
+variety of different platforms.
+By 1991, we had found or written all of the essential major components
+of the system except the kernel, which we were writing.  (This kernel
+consists of the Mach microkernel plus the GNU HURD.  The first test
+release was made in 1996.  Now, in 2002, it is running well, and
+Hurd-based GNU systems are starting to be used.)
+That was the situation when Linux came into being.  Linux is a kernel,
+like the kernel of Unix; it was written by Linus Torvalds, who
+released it under the GNU General Public License.  He did not write
+this kernel for GNU, but it fit into the gap in GNU.  The combination
+of GNU and Linux included all the major essential components of a
+Unix-compatible operating system.  Other people, with some work made
+the combination into a usable system.  The principal use of Linux, the
+kernel, is as part of this combination.
+The popularity of the GNU/Linux combination is success, in the sense
+of popularity, for GNU.  Ironically, the popularity of GNU/Linux
+undermines our method of communicating the ideas of GNU to people who
+use GNU.
+When GNU programs were only usable individually on top of another
+operating system, installing and using them meant knowing and
+appreciating these programs, and thus being aware of GNU, which led
+people to think about the philosophical base of GNU.  Now users can
+install a unified operating system which is basically GNU, but they
+usually think these are "Linux systems".  At first impression, a
+"Linux system" sounds like something completely distinct from the "GNU
+system," and that is what most users think.
+This leads many users to identify themselves as a separate community
+of "Linux users", distinct from the GNU user community.  They use more
+than just some GNU programs, they use almost all of the GNU system,
+but they don't think of themselves as GNU users.  Often they never
+hear about the GNU idea; if they do, they may not think it relates to
+Most introductions to the "Linux system" acknowledge that GNU software
+components play a role in it, but they don't say that the system as a
+whole is a modified version of the GNU system that the GNU project has
+been developing and compiling since Linus Torvalds was in junior high
+school.  They don't say that the main reason this free operating
+exists is that the GNU Project worked persistently to achieve its goal
+of freedom.
+As a result, most users don't know these things.  They believe that
+the "Linux system" was developed by Linus Torvalds "just for fun", and
+that their freedom is a matter of good fortune rather than the
+dedicated pursuit of freedom.  This creates a danger that they will
+leave the survival of free software to fortune as well.
+Since human beings tend to correct their first impressions less than
+called for by additional information they learn later, these users
+will tend to continue to underestimate their connection to GNU even if
+they do learn the facts.
+When we began trying to support the GNU/Linux system, we found this
+widespread misinformation led to a practical problem--it hampered
+cooperation on software maintenance.  Normally when users change a GNU
+program to make it work better on a particular system, they send the
+change to the maintainer of that program; then they work with the
+maintainer, explaining the change, arguing for it, and sometimes
+rewriting it for the sake of the overall coherence and maintainability
+of the package, to get the patch installed.  But people who thought of
+themselves as "Linux users" showed a tendency to release a forked
+"Linux-only" version of the GNU program and consider the job done.  In
+some cases we had to redo their work in order to make GNU programs run
+as released in GNU/Linux systems.
+How should the GNU project encourage its users to cooperate?  How
+should we spread the idea that freedom for computer users is
+We must continue to talk about the freedom to share and change
+software--and to teach other users to value these freedoms.  If we
+value having a free operating system, it makes sense to think about
+preserving those freedoms for the long term.  If we value having a
+variety of free software, it makes sense to think about encouraging
+others to write free software, instead of proprietary software.
+However, it is not enough just to talk about freedom; we must also
+make sure people know the reasons it is worth listening to what we
+Long explanations such as our philosophical articles are one way of
+informing the public, but you may not want to spend so much time on
+the matter.  The most effective way you can help with a small amount
+of work is simply by using the terms "Linux-based GNU system" or
+"GNU/Linux system", instead of "Linux system," when you write about or
+mention such a system.  Seeing these terms will show many people the
+reason to pay attention to our philosophical articles.
+The system as a whole is more GNU than Linux; the name "GNU/Linux" is
+fair.  When you are choosing the name of a distribution or a user
+group, a name with "GNU/Linux" will reflect both roots of the combined
+system, and will bring users into connection with both--including the
+spirit of freedom and community that is the basis and purpose of GNU.
+Copyright 1996, 2002 Richard Stallman
+Verbatim copying and redistribution is permitted
+without royalty as long as this notice is preserved.

=== added file 'doc/GNU/THE-GNU-PROJECT'
--- a/doc/GNU/THE-GNU-PROJECT   1970-01-01 00:00:00 +0000
+++ b/doc/GNU/THE-GNU-PROJECT   2013-01-06 11:03:00 +0000
@@ -0,0 +1,903 @@
+  The GNU Project
+   by Richard Stallman
+   originally published in the book "Open Sources"
+  The first software-sharing community
+   When I started working at the MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab in 1971,
+   I became part of a software-sharing community that had existed for many
+   years. Sharing of software was not limited to our particular community;
+   it is as old as computers, just as sharing of recipes is as old as
+   cooking. But we did it more than most.
+   The AI Lab used a timesharing operating system called ITS (the
+   Incompatible Timesharing System) that the lab's staff hackers (1) had
+   designed and written in assembler language for the Digital PDP-10, one
+   of the large computers of the era. As a member of this community, an AI
+   lab staff system hacker, my job was to improve this system.
+   We did not call our software "free software", because that term did not
+   yet exist; but that is what it was. Whenever people from another
+   university or a company wanted to port and use a program, we gladly let
+   them. If you saw someone using an unfamiliar and interesting program,
+   you could always ask to see the source code, so that you could read it,
+   change it, or cannibalize parts of it to make a new program.
+   (1) The use of "hacker" to mean "security breaker" is a confusion on
+   the part of the mass media. We hackers refuse to recognize that
+   meaning, and continue using the word to mean, "Someone who loves to
+   program and enjoys being clever about it."
+  The collapse of the community
+   The situation changed drastically in the early 1980s when Digital
+   discontinued the PDP-10 series. Its architecture, elegant and powerful
+   in the 60s, could not extend naturally to the larger address spaces
+   that were becoming feasible in the 80s. This meant that nearly all of
+   the programs composing ITS were obsolete.
+   The AI lab hacker community had already collapsed, not long before. In
+   1981, the spin-off company Symbolics had hired away nearly all of the
+   hackers from the AI lab, and the depopulated community was unable to
+   maintain itself. (The book Hackers, by Steve Levy, describes these
+   events, as well as giving a clear picture of this community in its
+   prime.) When the AI lab bought a new PDP-10 in 1982, its administrators
+   decided to use Digital's non-free timesharing system instead of ITS.
+   The modern computers of the era, such as the VAX or the 68020, had
+   their own operating systems, but none of them were free software: you
+   had to sign a nondisclosure agreement even to get an executable copy.
+   This meant that the first step in using a computer was to promise not
+   to help your neighbor. A cooperating community was forbidden. The rule
+   made by the owners of proprietary software was, "If you share with your
+   neighbor, you are a pirate. If you want any changes, beg us to make
+   them."
+   The idea that the proprietary-software social system--the system that
+   says you are not allowed to share or change software--is antisocial,
+   that it is unethical, that it is simply wrong, may come as a surprise
+   to some readers. But what else could we say about a system based on
+   dividing the public and keeping users helpless? Readers who find the
+   idea surprising may have taken proprietary-software social system as
+   given, or judged it on the terms suggested by proprietary software
+   businesses. Software publishers have worked long and hard to convince
+   people that there is only one way to look at the issue.
+   When software publishers talk about "enforcing" their "rights" or
+   "stopping piracy", what they actually *say* is secondary. The real
+   message of these statements is in the unstated assumptions they take
+   for granted; the public is supposed to accept them uncritically. So
+   let's examine them.
+   One assumption is that software companies have an unquestionable
+   natural right to own software and thus have power over all its users.
+   (If this were a natural right, then no matter how much harm it does to
+   the public, we could not object.) Interestingly, the US Constitution
+   and legal tradition reject this view; copyright is not a natural right,
+   but an artificial government-imposed monopoly that limits the users'
+   natural right to copy.
+   Another unstated assumption is that the only important thing about
+   software is what jobs it allows you to do--that we computer users
+   should not care what kind of society we are allowed to have.
+   A third assumption is that we would have no usable software (or would
+   never have a program to do this or that particular job) if we did not
+   offer a company power over the users of the program. This assumption
+   may have seemed plausible, before the free software movement
+   demonstrated that we can make plenty of useful software without putting
+   chains on it.
+   If we decline to accept these assumptions, and judge these issues based
+   on ordinary common-sense morality while placing the users first, we
+   arrive at very different conclusions. Computer users should be free to
+   modify programs to fit their needs, and free to share software, because
+   helping other people is the basis of society.
+   There is no room here for an extensive statement of the reasoning
+   behind this conclusion, so I refer the reader to the web page,
+  A stark moral choice.
+   With my community gone, to continue as before was impossible. Instead,
+   I faced a stark moral choice.
+   The easy choice was to join the proprietary software world, signing
+   nondisclosure agreements and promising not to help my fellow hacker.
+   Most likely I would also be developing software that was released under
+   nondisclosure agreements, thus adding to the pressure on other people
+   to betray their fellows too.
+   I could have made money this way, and perhaps amused myself writing
+   code. But I knew that at the end of my career, I would look back on
+   years of building walls to divide people, and feel I had spent my life
+   making the world a worse place.
+   I had already experienced being on the receiving end of a nondisclosure
+   agreement, when someone refused to give me and the MIT AI lab the
+   source code for the control program for our printer. (The lack of
+   certain features in this program made use of the printer extremely
+   frustrating.) So I could not tell myself that nondisclosure agreements
+   were innocent. I was very angry when he refused to share with us; I
+   could not turn around and do the same thing to everyone else.
+   Another choice, straightforward but unpleasant, was to leave the
+   computer field. That way my skills would not be misused, but they would
+   still be wasted. I would not be culpable for dividing and restricting
+   computer users, but it would happen nonetheless.
+   So I looked for a way that a programmer could do something for the
+   good. I asked myself, was there a program or programs that I could
+   write, so as to make a community possible once again?
+   The answer was clear: what was needed first was an operating system.
+   That is the crucial software for starting to use a computer. With an
+   operating system, you can do many things; without one, you cannot run
+   the computer at all. With a free operating system, we could again have
+   a community of cooperating hackers--and invite anyone to join. And
+   anyone would be able to use a computer without starting out by
+   conspiring to deprive his or her friends.
+   As an operating system developer, I had the right skills for this job.
+   So even though I could not take success for granted, I realized that I
+   was elected to do the job. I chose to make the system compatible with
+   Unix so that it would be portable, and so that Unix users could easily
+   switch to it. The name GNU was chosen following a hacker tradition, as
+   a recursive acronym for "GNU's Not Unix."
+   An operating system does not mean just a kernel, barely enough to run
+   other programs. In the 1970s, every operating system worthy of the name
+   included command processors, assemblers, compilers, interpreters,
+   debuggers, text editors, mailers, and much more. ITS had them, Multics
+   had them, VMS had them, and Unix had them. The GNU operating system
+   would include them too.
+   Later I heard these words, attributed to Hillel (1):
+     If I am not for myself, who will be for me?
+     If I am only for myself, what am I?
+     If not now, when?
+   The decision to start the GNU project was based on a similar spirit.
+   (1) As an Atheist, I don't follow any religious leaders, but I
+   sometimes find I admire something one of them has said.
+  Free as in freedom
+   The term "free software" is sometimes misunderstood--it has nothing to
+   do with price. It is about freedom. Here, therefore, is the definition
+   of free software: a program is free software, for you, a particular
+   user, if:
+     * You have the freedom to run the program, for any purpose.
+     * You have the freedom to modify the program to suit your needs. (To
+       make this freedom effective in practice, you must have access to
+       the source code, since making changes in a program without having
+       the source code is exceedingly difficult.)
+     * You have the freedom to redistribute copies, either gratis or for a
+       fee.
+     * You have the freedom to distribute modified versions of the
+       program, so that the community can benefit from your improvements.
+   Since "free" refers to freedom, not to price, there is no contradiction
+   between selling copies and free software. In fact, the freedom to sell
+   copies is crucial: collections of free software sold on CD-ROMs are
+   important for the community, and selling them is an important way to
+   raise funds for free software development. Therefore, a program which
+   people are not free to include on these collections is not free
+   software.
+   Because of the ambiguity of "free", people have long looked for
+   alternatives, but no one has found a suitable alternative. The English
+   Language has more words and nuances than any other, but it lacks a
+   simple, unambiguous, word that means "free", as in
+   freedom--"unfettered" being the word that comes closest in meaning.
+   Such alternatives as "liberated", "freedom", and "open" have either the
+   wrong meaning or some other disadvantage.
+  GNU software and the GNU system
+   Developing a whole system is a very large project. To bring it into
+   reach, I decided to adapt and use existing pieces of free software
+   wherever that was possible. For example, I decided at the very
+   beginning to use TeX as the principal text formatter; a few years
+   later, I decided to use the X Window System rather than writing another
+   window system for GNU.
+   Because of this decision, the GNU system is not the same as the
+   collection of all GNU software. The GNU system includes programs that
+   are not GNU software, programs that were developed by other people and
+   projects for their own purposes, but which we can use because they are
+   free software.
+  Commencing the project
+   In January 1984 I quit my job at MIT and began writing GNU software.
+   Leaving MIT was necessary so that MIT would not be able to interfere
+   with distributing GNU as free software. If I had remained on the staff,
+   MIT could have claimed to own the work, and could have imposed their
+   own distribution terms, or even turned the work into a proprietary
+   software package. I had no intention of doing a large amount of work
+   only to see it become useless for its intended purpose: creating a new
+   software-sharing community.
+   However, Professor Winston, then the head of the MIT AI Lab, kindly
+   invited me to keep using the lab's facilities.
+  The first steps
+   Shortly before beginning the GNU project, I heard about the Free
+   University Compiler Kit, also known as VUCK. (The Dutch word for "free"
+   is written with a V.) This was a compiler designed to handle multiple
+   languages, including C and Pascal, and to support multiple target
+   machines. I wrote to its author asking if GNU could use it.
+   He responded derisively, stating that the university was free but the
+   compiler was not. I therefore decided that my first program for the GNU
+   project would be a multi-language, multi-platform compiler.
+   Hoping to avoid the need to write the whole compiler myself, I obtained
+   the source code for the Pastel compiler, which was a multi-platform
+   compiler developed at Lawrence Livermore Lab. It supported, and was
+   written in, an extended version of Pascal, designed to be a
+   system-programming language. I added a C front end, and began porting
+   it to the Motorola 68000 computer. But I had to give that up when I
+   discovered that the compiler needed many megabytes of stack space, and
+   the available 68000 Unix system would only allow 64k.
+   I then realized that the Pastel compiler functioned by parsing the
+   entire input file into a syntax tree, converting the whole syntax tree
+   into a chain of "instructions", and then generating the whole output
+   file, without ever freeing any storage. At this point, I concluded I
+   would have to write a new compiler from scratch. That new compiler is
+   now known as GCC; none of the Pastel compiler is used in it, but I
+   managed to adapt and use the C front end that I had written. But that
+   was some years later; first, I worked on GNU Emacs.
+  GNU Emacs
+   I began work on GNU Emacs in September 1984, and in early 1985 it was
+   beginning to be usable. This enabled me to begin using Unix systems to
+   do editing; having no interest in learning to use vi or ed, I had done
+   my editing on other kinds of machines until then.
+   At this point, people began wanting to use GNU Emacs, which raised the
+   question of how to distribute it. Of course, I put it on the anonymous
+   ftp server on the MIT computer that I used. (This computer,
+, thus became the principal GNU ftp distribution site;
+   when it was decommissioned a few years later, we transferred the name
+   to our new ftp server.) But at that time, many of the interested people
+   were not on the Internet and could not get a copy by ftp. So the
+   question was, what would I say to them?
+   I could have said, "Find a friend who is on the net and who will make a
+   copy for you." Or I could have done what I did with the original PDP-10
+   Emacs: tell them, "Mail me a tape and a SASE, and I will mail it back
+   with Emacs on it." But I had no job, and I was looking for ways to make
+   money from free software. So I announced that I would mail a tape to
+   whoever wanted one, for a fee of $150. In this way, I started a free
+   software distribution business, the precursor of the companies that
+   today distribute entire Linux-based GNU systems.
+  Is a program free for every user?
+   If a program is free software when it leaves the hands of its author,
+   this does not necessarily mean it will be free software for everyone
+   who has a copy of it. For example, public domain software (software
+   that is not copyrighted) is free software; but anyone can make a
+   proprietary modified version of it. Likewise, many free programs are
+   copyrighted but distributed under simple permissive licenses which
+   allow proprietary modified versions.
+   The paradigmatic example of this problem is the X Window System.
+   Developed at MIT, and released as free software with a permissive
+   license, it was soon adopted by various computer companies. They added
+   X to their proprietary Unix systems, in binary form only, and covered
+   by the same nondisclosure agreement. These copies of X were no more
+   free software than Unix was.
+   The developers of the X Window System did not consider this a
+   problem--they expected and intended this to happen. Their goal was not
+   freedom, just "success", defined as "having many users." They did not
+   care whether these users had freedom, only that they should be
+   numerous.
+   This led to a paradoxical situation where two different ways of
+   counting the amount of freedom gave different answers to the question,
+   "Is this program free?" If you judged based on the freedom provided by
+   the distribution terms of the MIT release, you would say that X was
+   free software. But if you measured the freedom of the average user of
+   X, you would have to say it was proprietary software. Most X users were
+   running the proprietary versions that came with Unix systems, not the
+   free version.
+  Copyleft and the GNU GPL
+   The goal of GNU was to give users freedom, not just to be popular. So
+   we needed to use distribution terms that would prevent GNU software
+   from being turned into proprietary software. The method we use is
+   called "copyleft".(1)
+   Copyleft uses copyright law, but flips it over to serve the opposite of
+   its usual purpose: instead of a means of privatizing software, it
+   becomes a means of keeping software free.
+   The central idea of copyleft is that we give everyone permission to run
+   the program, copy the program, modify the program, and distribute
+   modified versions--but not permission to add restrictions of their own.
+   Thus, the crucial freedoms that define "free software" are guaranteed
+   to everyone who has a copy; they become inalienable rights.
+   For an effective copyleft, modified versions must also be free. This
+   ensures that work based on ours becomes available to our community if
+   it is published. When programmers who have jobs as programmers
+   volunteer to improve GNU software, it is copyleft that prevents their
+   employers from saying, "You can't share those changes, because we are
+   going to use them to make our proprietary version of the program."
+   The requirement that changes must be free is essential if we want to
+   ensure freedom for every user of the program. The companies that
+   privatized the X Window System usually made some changes to port it to
+   their systems and hardware. These changes were small compared with the
+   great extent of X, but they were not trivial. If making changes were an
+   excuse to deny the users freedom, it would be easy for anyone to take
+   advantage of the excuse.
+   A related issue concerns combining a free program with non-free code.
+   Such a combination would inevitably be non-free; whichever freedoms are
+   lacking for the non-free part would be lacking for the whole as well.
+   To permit such combinations would open a hole big enough to sink a
+   ship. Therefore, a crucial requirement for copyleft is to plug this
+   hole: anything added to or combined with a copylefted program must be
+   such that the larger combined version is also free and copylefted.
+   The specific implementation of copyleft that we use for most GNU
+   software is the GNU General Public License, or GNU GPL for short. We
+   have other kinds of copyleft that are used in specific circumstances.
+   GNU manuals are copylefted also, but use a much simpler kind of
+   copyleft, because the complexity of the GNU GPL is not necessary for
+   manuals.(2)
+   (1) In 1984 or 1985, Don Hopkins (a very imaginative fellow) mailed me
+   a letter. On the envelope he had written several amusing sayings,
+   including this one: "Copyleft--all rights reversed." I used the word
+   "copyleft" to name the distribution concept I was developing at the
+   time.
+   (2) We now use the GNU Free Documentation License for documentation.
+  The Free Software Foundation
+   As interest in using Emacs was growing, other people became involved in
+   the GNU project, and we decided that it was time to seek funding once
+   again. So in 1985 we created the Free Software Foundation, a tax-exempt
+   charity for free software development. The FSF also took over the Emacs
+   tape distribution business; later it extended this by adding other free
+   software (both GNU and non-GNU) to the tape, and by selling free
+   manuals as well.
+   The FSF accepts donations, but most of its income has always come from
+   sales--of copies of free software, and of other related services. Today
+   it sells CD-ROMs of source code, CD-ROMs with binaries, nicely printed
+   manuals (all with freedom to redistribute and modify), and Deluxe
+   Distributions (where we build the whole collection of software for your
+   choice of platform).
+   Free Software Foundation employees have written and maintained a number
+   of GNU software packages. Two notable ones are the C library and the
+   shell. The GNU C library is what every program running on a GNU/Linux
+   system uses to communicate with Linux. It was developed by a member of
+   the Free Software Foundation staff, Roland McGrath. The shell used on
+   most GNU/Linux systems is BASH, the Bourne Again Shell(1), which was
+   developed by FSF employee Brian Fox.
+   We funded development of these programs because the GNU project was not
+   just about tools or a development environment. Our goal was a complete
+   operating system, and these programs were needed for that goal.
+   (1) "Bourne again Shell" is a joke on the name ``Bourne Shell'', which
+   was the usual shell on Unix.
+  Free software support
+   The free software philosophy rejects a specific widespread business
+   practice, but it is not against business. When businesses respect the
+   users' freedom, we wish them success.
+   Selling copies of Emacs demonstrates one kind of free software
+   business. When the FSF took over that business, I needed another way to
+   make a living. I found it in selling services relating to the free
+   software I had developed. This included teaching, for subjects such as
+   how to program GNU Emacs and how to customize GCC, and software
+   development, mostly porting GCC to new platforms.
+   Today each of these kinds of free software business is practiced by a
+   number of corporations. Some distribute free software collections on
+   CD-ROM; others sell support at levels ranging from answering user
+   questions, to fixing bugs, to adding major new features. We are even
+   beginning to see free software companies based on launching new free
+   software products.
+   Watch out, though--a number of companies that associate themselves with
+   the term "open source" actually base their business on non-free
+   software that works with free software. These are not free software
+   companies, they are proprietary software companies whose products tempt
+   users away from freedom. They call these "value added", which reflects
+   the values they would like us to adopt: convenience above freedom. If
+   we value freedom more, we should call them "freedom subtracted"
+   products.
+  Technical goals
+   The principal goal of GNU was to be free software. Even if GNU had no
+   technical advantage over Unix, it would have a social advantage,
+   allowing users to cooperate, and an ethical advantage, respecting the
+   user's freedom.
+   But it was natural to apply the known standards of good practice to the
+   work--for example, dynamically allocating data structures to avoid
+   arbitrary fixed size limits, and handling all the possible 8-bit codes
+   wherever that made sense.
+   In addition, we rejected the Unix focus on small memory size, by
+   deciding not to support 16-bit machines (it was clear that 32-bit
+   machines would be the norm by the time the GNU system was finished),
+   and to make no effort to reduce memory usage unless it exceeded a
+   megabyte. In programs for which handling very large files was not
+   crucial, we encouraged programmers to read an entire input file into
+   core, then scan its contents without having to worry about I/O.
+   These decisions enabled many GNU programs to surpass their Unix
+   counterparts in reliability and speed.
+  Donated computers
+   As the GNU project's reputation grew, people began offering to donate
+   machines running UNIX to the project. These were very useful, because
+   the easiest way to develop components of GNU was to do it on a UNIX
+   system, and replace the components of that system one by one. But they
+   raised an ethical issue: whether it was right for us to have a copy of
+   UNIX at all.
+   UNIX was (and is) proprietary software, and the GNU project's
+   philosophy said that we should not use proprietary software. But,
+   applying the same reasoning that leads to the conclusion that violence
+   in self defense is justified, I concluded that it was legitimate to use
+   a proprietary package when that was crucial for developing a free
+   replacement that would help others stop using the proprietary package.
+   But, even if this was a justifiable evil, it was still an evil. Today
+   we no longer have any copies of Unix, because we have replaced them
+   with free operating systems. If we could not replace a machine's
+   operating system with a free one, we replaced the machine instead.
+  The GNU Task List
+   As the GNU project proceeded, and increasing numbers of system
+   components were found or developed, eventually it became useful to make
+   a list of the remaining gaps. We used it to recruit developers to write
+   the missing pieces. This list became known as the GNU task list. In
+   addition to missing Unix components, we listed added various other
+   useful software and documentation projects that, we thought, a truly
+   complete system ought to have.
+   Today, hardly any Unix components are left in the GNU task list--those
+   jobs have been done, aside from a few inessential ones. But the list is
+   full of projects that some might call "applications". Any program that
+   appeals to more than a narrow class of users would be a useful thing to
+   add to an operating system.
+   Even games are included in the task list--and have been since the
+   beginning. Unix included games, so naturally GNU should too. But
+   compatibility was not an issue for games, so we did not follow the list
+   of games that Unix had. Instead, we listed a spectrum of different
+   kinds of games that users might like.
+  The GNU Library GPL
+   The GNU C library uses a special kind of copyleft called the GNU
+   Library General Public License(1), which gives permission to link
+   proprietary software with the library. Why make this exception?
+   It is not a matter of principle; there is no principle that says
+   proprietary software products are entitled to include our code. (Why
+   contribute to a project predicated on refusing to share with us?) Using
+   the LGPL for the C library, or for any library, is a matter of
+   strategy.
+   The C library does a generic job; every proprietary system or compiler
+   comes with a C library. Therefore, to make our C library available only
+   to free software would not have given free software any advantage--it
+   would only have discouraged use of our library.
+   One system is an exception to this: on the GNU system (and this
+   includes GNU/Linux), the GNU C library is the only C library. So the
+   distribution terms of the GNU C library determine whether it is
+   possible to compile a proprietary program for the GNU system. There is
+   no ethical reason to allow proprietary applications on the GNU system,
+   but strategically it seems that disallowing them would do more to
+   discourage use of the GNU system than to encourage development of free
+   applications.
+   That is why using the Library GPL is a good strategy for the C library.
+   For other libraries, the strategic decision needs to be considered on a
+   case-by-case basis. When a library does a special job that can help
+   write certain kinds of programs, then releasing it under the GPL,
+   limiting it to free programs only, is a way of helping other free
+   software developers, giving them an advantage against proprietary
+   software.
+   Consider GNU Readline, a library that was developed to provide
+   command-line editing for BASH. Readline is released under the ordinary
+   GNU GPL, not the Library GPL. This probably does reduce the amount
+   Readline is used, but that is no loss for us. Meanwhile, at least one
+   useful application has been made free software specifically so it could
+   use Readline, and that is a real gain for the community.
+   Proprietary software developers have the advantages money provides;
+   free software developers need to make advantages for each other. I hope
+   some day we will have a large collection of GPL-covered libraries that
+   have no parallel available to proprietary software, providing useful
+   modules to serve as building blocks in new free software, and adding up
+   to a major advantage for further free software development.
+   (1) This license is now called the GNU Lesser General Public License,
+   to avoid giving the idea that all libraries ought to use it.
+   See
+  Scratching an itch?
+   Eric Raymond says that "Every good work of software starts by
+   scratching a developer's personal itch." Maybe that happens sometimes,
+   but many essential pieces of GNU software were developed in order to
+   have a complete free operating system. They come from a vision and a
+   plan, not from impulse.
+   For example, we developed the GNU C library because a Unix-like system
+   needs a C library, the Bourne-Again Shell (bash) because a Unix-like
+   system needs a shell, and GNU tar because a Unix-like system needs a
+   tar program. The same is true for my own programs--the GNU C compiler,
+   GNU Emacs, GDB and GNU Make.
+   Some GNU programs were developed to cope with specific threats to our
+   freedom. Thus, we developed gzip to replace the Compress program, which
+   had been lost to the community because of the LZW patents. We found
+   people to develop LessTif, and more recently started GNOME and Harmony,
+   to address the problems caused by certain proprietary libraries (see
+   below). We are developing the GNU Privacy Guard to replace popular
+   non-free encryption software, because users should not have to choose
+   between privacy and freedom.
+   Of course, the people writing these programs became interested in the
+   work, and many features were added to them by various people for the
+   sake of their own needs and interests. But that is not why the programs
+   exist.
+  Unexpected developments
+   At the beginning of the GNU project, I imagined that we would develop
+   the whole GNU system, then release it as a whole. That is not how it
+   happened.
+   Since each component of the GNU system was implemented on a Unix
+   system, each component could run on Unix systems, long before a
+   complete GNU system existed. Some of these programs became popular, and
+   users began extending them and porting them---to the various
+   incompatible versions of Unix, and sometimes to other systems as well.
+   The process made these programs much more powerful, and attracted both
+   funds and contributors to the GNU project. But it probably also delayed
+   completion of a minimal working system by several years, as GNU
+   developers' time was put into maintaining these ports and adding
+   features to the existing components, rather than moving on to write one
+   missing component after another.
+  The GNU Hurd
+   By 1990, the GNU system was almost complete; the only major missing
+   component was the kernel. We had decided to implement our kernel as a
+   collection of server processes running on top of Mach. Mach is a
+   microkernel developed at Carnegie Mellon University and then at the
+   University of Utah; the GNU HURD is a collection of servers (or ``herd
+   of gnus'') that run on top of Mach, and do the various jobs of the Unix
+   kernel. The start of development was delayed as we waited for Mach to
+   be released as free software, as had been promised.
+   One reason for choosing this design was to avoid what seemed to be the
+   hardest part of the job: debugging a kernel program without a
+   source-level debugger to do it with. This part of the job had been done
+   already, in Mach, and we expected to debug the HURD servers as user
+   programs, with GDB. But it took a long time to make that possible, and
+   the multi-threaded servers that send messages to each other have turned
+   out to be very hard to debug. Making the HURD work solidly has
+   stretched on for many years.
+  Alix
+   The GNU kernel was not originally supposed to be called the HURD. Its
+   original name was Alix--named after the woman who was my sweetheart at
+   the time. She, a Unix system administrator, had pointed out how her
+   name would fit a common naming pattern for Unix system versions; as a
+   joke, she told her friends, "Someone should name a kernel after me." I
+   said nothing, but decided to surprise her with a kernel named Alix.
+   It did not stay that way. Michael Bushnell (now Thomas), the main
+   developer of the kernel, preferred the name HURD, and redefined Alix to
+   refer to a certain part of the kernel--the part that would trap system
+   calls and handle them by sending messages to HURD servers.
+   Ultimately, Alix and I broke up, and she changed her name;
+   independently, the HURD design was changed so that the C library would
+   send messages directly to servers, and this made the Alix component
+   disappear from the design.
+   But before these things happened, a friend of hers came across the name
+   Alix in the HURD source code, and mentioned the name to her. So the
+   name did its job.
+  Linux and GNU/Linux
+   The GNU Hurd is not ready for production use. Fortunately, another
+   kernel is available. In 1991, Linus Torvalds developed a
+   Unix-compatible kernel and called it Linux. Around 1992, combining
+   Linux with the not-quite-complete GNU system resulted in a complete
+   free operating system. (Combining them was a substantial job in itself,
+   of course.) It is due to Linux that we can actually run a version of
+   the GNU system today.
+   We call this system version GNU/Linux, to express its composition as a
+   combination of the GNU system with Linux as the kernel.
+  Challenges in our future
+   We have proved our ability to develop a broad spectrum of free
+   software. This does not mean we are invincible and unstoppable. Several
+   challenges make the future of free software uncertain; meeting them
+   will require steadfast effort and endurance, sometimes lasting for
+   years. It will require the kind of determination that people display
+   when they value their freedom and will not let anyone take it away.
+   The following four sections discuss these challenges.
+  Secret hardware
+   Hardware manufacturers increasingly tend to keep hardware
+   specifications secret. This makes it difficult to write free drivers so
+   that Linux and XFree86 can support new hardware. We have complete free
+   systems today, but we will not have them tomorrow if we cannot support
+   tomorrow's computers.
+   There are two ways to cope with this problem. Programmers can do
+   reverse engineering to figure out how to support the hardware. The rest
+   of us can choose the hardware that is supported by free software; as
+   our numbers increase, secrecy of specifications will become a
+   self-defeating policy.
+   Reverse engineering is a big job; will we have programmers with
+   sufficient determination to undertake it? Yes--if we have built up a
+   strong feeling that free software is a matter of principle, and
+   non-free drivers are intolerable. And will large numbers of us spend
+   extra money, or even a little extra time, so we can use free drivers?
+   Yes, if the determination to have freedom is widespread.
+  Non-free libraries
+   A non-free library that runs on free operating systems acts as a trap
+   for free software developers. The library's attractive features are the
+   bait; if you use the library, you fall into the trap, because your
+   program cannot usefully be part of a free operating system. (Strictly
+   speaking, we could include your program, but it won't run with the
+   library missing.) Even worse, if a program that uses the proprietary
+   library becomes popular, it can lure other unsuspecting programmers
+   into the trap.
+   The first instance of this problem was the Motif toolkit, back in the
+   80s. Although there were as yet no free operating systems, it was clear
+   what problem Motif would cause for them later on. The GNU Project
+   responded in two ways: by asking individual free software projects to
+   support the free X toolkit widgets as well as Motif, and by asking for
+   someone to write a free replacement for Motif. The job took many years;
+   LessTif, developed by the Hungry Programmers, became powerful enough to
+   support most Motif applications only in 1997.
+   Between 1996 and 1998, another non-free GUI toolkit library, called Qt,
+   was used in a substantial collection of free software, the desktop KDE.
+   Free GNU/Linux systems were unable to use KDE, because we could not use
+   the library. However, some commercial distributors of GNU/Linux systems
+   who were not strict about sticking with free software added KDE to
+   their systems--producing a system with more capabilities, but less
+   freedom. The KDE group was actively encouraging more programmers to use
+   Qt, and millions of new "Linux users" had never been exposed to the
+   idea that there was a problem in this. The situation appeared grim.
+   The free software community responded to the problem in two ways: GNOME
+   and Harmony.
+   GNOME, the GNU Network Object Model Environment, is GNU's desktop
+   project. Started in 1997 by Miguel de Icaza, and developed with the
+   support of Red Hat Software, GNOME set out to provide similar desktop
+   facilities, but using free software exclusively. It has technical
+   advantages as well, such as supporting a variety of languages, not just
+   C++. But its main purpose was freedom: not to require the use of any
+   non-free software.
+   Harmony is a compatible replacement library, designed to make it
+   possible to run KDE software without using Qt.
+   In November 1998, the developers of Qt announced a change of license
+   which, when carried out, should make Qt free software. There is no way
+   to be sure, but I think that this was partly due to the community's
+   firm response to the problem that Qt posed when it was non-free. (The
+   new license is inconvenient and inequitable, so it remains desirable to
+   avoid using Qt.)
+   [Subsequent note: in September 2000, Qt was rereleased under the GNU
+   GPL, which essentially solved this problem.]
+   How will we respond to the next tempting non-free library? Will the
+   whole community understand the need to stay out of the trap? Or will
+   many of us give up freedom for convenience, and produce a major
+   problem? Our future depends on our philosophy.
+  Software patents
+   The worst threat we face comes from software patents, which can put
+   algorithms and features off limits to free software for up to twenty
+   years. The LZW compression algorithm patents were applied for in 1983,
+   and we still cannot release free software to produce proper compressed
+   GIFs. In 1998, a free program to produce MP3 compressed audio was
+   removed from distribution under threat of a patent suit.
+   There are ways to cope with patents: we can search for evidence that a
+   patent is invalid, and we can look for alternative ways to do a job.
+   But each of these methods works only sometimes; when both fail, a
+   patent may force all free software to lack some feature that users
+   want. What will we do when this happens?
+   Those of us who value free software for freedom's sake will stay with
+   free software anyway. We will manage to get work done without the
+   patented features. But those who value free software because they
+   expect it to be technically superior are likely to call it a failure
+   when a patent holds it back. Thus, while it is useful to talk about the
+   practical effectiveness of the "cathedral" model of development (1),
+   and the reliability and power of some free software, we must not stop
+   there. We must talk about freedom and principle.
+   (1) It would have been clearer to write `of the "bazaar" model', since
+   that was the alternative that was new and initially controversial.
+  Free documentation
+   The biggest deficiency in our free operating systems is not in the
+   software--it is the lack of good free manuals that we can include in
+   our systems. Documentation is an essential part of any software
+   package; when an important free software package does not come with a
+   good free manual, that is a major gap. We have many such gaps today.
+   Free documentation, like free software, is a matter of freedom, not
+   price. The criterion for a free manual is pretty much the same as for
+   free software: it is a matter of giving all users certain freedoms.
+   Redistribution (including commercial sale) must be permitted, on-line
+   and on paper, so that the manual can accompany every copy of the
+   program.
+   Permission for modification is crucial too. As a general rule, I don't
+   believe that it is essential for people to have permission to modify
+   all sorts of articles and books. For example, I don't think you or I
+   are obliged to give permission to modify articles like this one, which
+   describe our actions and our views.
+   But there is a particular reason why the freedom to modify is crucial
+   for documentation for free software. When people exercise their right
+   to modify the software, and add or change its features, if they are
+   conscientious they will change the manual too--so they can provide
+   accurate and usable documentation with the modified program. A manual
+   which does not allow programmers to be conscientious and finish the
+   job, does not fill our community's needs.
+   Some kinds of limits on how modifications are done pose no problem. For
+   example, requirements to preserve the original author's copyright
+   notice, the distribution terms, or the list of authors, are ok. It is
+   also no problem to require modified versions to include notice that
+   they were modified, even to have entire sections that may not be
+   deleted or changed, as long as these sections deal with nontechnical
+   topics. These kinds of restrictions are not a problem because they
+   don't stop the conscientious programmer from adapting the manual to fit
+   the modified program. In other words, they don't block the free
+   software community from making full use of the manual.
+   However, it must be possible to modify all the *technical* content of
+   the manual, and then distribute the result in all the usual media,
+   through all the usual channels; otherwise, the restrictions do obstruct
+   the community, the manual is not free, and we need another manual.
+   Will free software developers have the awareness and determination to
+   produce a full spectrum of free manuals? Once again, our future depends
+   on philosophy.
+  We must talk about freedom
+   Estimates today are that there are ten million users of GNU/Linux
+   systems such as Debian GNU/Linux and Red Hat Linux. Free software has
+   developed such practical advantages that users are flocking to it for
+   purely practical reasons.
+   The good consequences of this are evident: more interest in developing
+   free software, more customers for free software businesses, and more
+   ability to encourage companies to develop commercial free software
+   instead of proprietary software products.
+   But interest in the software is growing faster than awareness of the
+   philosophy it is based on, and this leads to trouble. Our ability to
+   meet the challenges and threats described above depends on the will to
+   stand firm for freedom. To make sure our community has this will, we
+   need to spread the idea to the new users as they come into the
+   community.
+   But we are failing to do so: the efforts to attract new users into our
+   community are far outstripping the efforts to teach them the civics of
+   our community. We need to do both, and we need to keep the two efforts
+   in balance.
+  "Open Source"
+   Teaching new users about freedom became more difficult in 1998, when a
+   part of the community decided to stop using the term "free software"
+   and say "open source software" instead.
+   Some who favored this term aimed to avoid the confusion of "free" with
+   "gratis"--a valid goal. Others, however, aimed to set aside the spirit
+   of principle that had motivated the free software movement and the GNU
+   project, and to appeal instead to executives and business users, many
+   of whom hold an ideology that places profit above freedom, above
+   community, above principle. Thus, the rhetoric of "open source" focuses
+   on the potential to make high quality, powerful software, but shuns the
+   ideas of freedom, community, and principle.
+   The "Linux" magazines are a clear example of this--they are filled with
+   advertisements for proprietary software that works with GNU/Linux. When
+   the next Motif or Qt appears, will these magazines warn programmers to
+   stay away from it, or will they run ads for it?
+   The support of business can contribute to the community in many ways;
+   all else being equal, it is useful. But winning their support by
+   speaking even less about freedom and principle can be disastrous; it
+   makes the previous imbalance between outreach and civics education even
+   worse.
+   "Free software" and "open source" describe the same category of
+   software, more or less, but say different things about the software,
+   and about values. The GNU Project continues to use the term "free
+   software", to express the idea that freedom, not just technology, is
+   important.
+  Try!
+   Yoda's philosophy ("There is no `try'") sounds neat, but it doesn't
+   work for me. I have done most of my work while anxious about whether I
+   could do the job, and unsure that it would be enough to achieve the
+   goal if I did. But I tried anyway, because there was no one but me
+   between the enemy and my city. Surprising myself, I have sometimes
+   succeeded.
+   Sometimes I failed; some of my cities have fallen. Then I found another
+   threatened city, and got ready for another battle. Over time, I've
+   learned to look for threats and put myself between them and my city,
+   calling on other hackers to come and join me.
+   Nowadays, often I'm not the only one. It is a relief and a joy when I
+   see a regiment of hackers digging in to hold the line, and I realize,
+   this city may survive--for now. But the dangers are greater each year,
+   and now Microsoft has explicitly targeted our community. We can't take
+   the future of freedom for granted. Don't take it for granted! If you
+   want to keep your freedom, you must be prepared to defend it.
+  Copyright (C) 1998 Richard Stallman
+  Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted
+  in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.

=== added file 'doc/GNU/WHY-FREE'
--- a/doc/GNU/WHY-FREE  1970-01-01 00:00:00 +0000
+++ b/doc/GNU/WHY-FREE  2013-01-06 11:03:00 +0000
@@ -0,0 +1,244 @@
+                  Why Software Should Not Have Owners
+                         by Richard Stallman
+Digital information technology contributes to the world by making it
+easier to copy and modify information.  Computers promise to make this
+easier for all of us.
+Not everyone wants it to be easier.  The system of copyright gives
+software programs "owners", most of whom aim to withhold software's
+potential benefit from the rest of the public.  They would like to be
+the only ones who can copy and modify the software that we use.
+The copyright system grew up with printing--a technology for mass
+production copying.  Copyright fit in well with this technology
+because it restricted only the mass producers of copies.  It did not
+take freedom away from readers of books.  An ordinary reader, who did
+not own a printing press, could copy books only with pen and ink, and
+few readers were sued for that.
+Digital technology is more flexible than the printing press: when
+information has digital form, you can easily copy it to share it with
+others.  This very flexibility makes a bad fit with a system like
+copyright.  That's the reason for the increasingly nasty and draconian
+measures now used to enforce software copyright.  Consider these four
+practices of the Software Publishers Association (SPA):
+* Massive propaganda saying it is wrong to disobey the owners
+to help your friend.
+* Solicitation for stool pigeons to inform on their coworkers and
+* Raids (with police help) on offices and schools, in which people are
+told they must prove they are innocent of illegal copying.
+* Prosecution (by the US government, at the SPA's request) of people
+such as MIT's David LaMacchia, not for copying software (he is not
+accused of copying any), but merely for leaving copying facilities
+unguarded and failing to censor their use.
+All four practices resemble those used in the former Soviet Union,
+where every copying machine had a guard to prevent forbidden copying,
+and where individuals had to copy information secretly and pass it
+from hand to hand as "samizdat".  There is of course a difference: the
+motive for information control in the Soviet Union was political; in
+the US the motive is profit.  But it is the actions that affect us,
+not the motive.  Any attempt to block the sharing of information, no
+matter why, leads to the same methods and the same harshness.
+Owners make several kinds of arguments for giving them the power
+to control how we use information:
+* Name calling.
+Owners use smear words such as "piracy" and "theft", as well as expert
+terminology such as "intellectual property" and "damage", to suggest a
+certain line of thinking to the public--a simplistic analogy between
+programs and physical objects.
+Our ideas and intuitions about property for material objects are about
+whether it is right to *take an object away* from someone else.  They
+don't directly apply to *making a copy* of something.  But the owners
+ask us to apply them anyway.
+* Exaggeration.
+Owners say that they suffer "harm" or "economic loss" when users copy
+programs themselves.  But the copying has no direct effect on the
+owner, and it harms no one.  The owner can lose only if the person who
+made the copy would otherwise have paid for one from the owner.
+A little thought shows that most such people would not have bought
+copies.  Yet the owners compute their "losses" as if each and every
+one would have bought a copy.  That is exaggeration--to put it kindly.
+* The law.
+Owners often describe the current state of the law, and the harsh
+penalties they can threaten us with.  Implicit in this approach is the
+suggestion that today's law reflects an unquestionable view of
+morality--yet at the same time, we are urged to regard these penalties
+as facts of nature that can't be blamed on anyone.
+This line of persuasion isn't designed to stand up to critical
+thinking; it's intended to reinforce a habitual mental pathway.
+It's elemental that laws don't decide right and wrong.  Every American
+should know that, forty years ago, it was against the law in many
+states for a black person to sit in the front of a bus; but only
+racists would say sitting there was wrong.
+* Natural rights.
+Authors often claim a special connection with programs they have
+written, and go on to assert that, as a result, their desires and
+interests concerning the program simply outweigh those of anyone
+else--or even those of the whole rest of the world.  (Typically
+companies, not authors, hold the copyrights on software, but we are
+expected to ignore this discrepancy.)
+To those who propose this as an ethical axiom--the author is more
+important than you--I can only say that I, a notable software author
+myself, call it bunk.
+But people in general are only likely to feel any sympathy with the
+natural rights claims for two reasons.
+One reason is an overstretched analogy with material objects.  When I
+cook spaghetti, I do object if someone else takes it and stops me from
+eating it.  In this case, that person and I have the same material
+interests at stake, and it's a zero-sum game.  The smallest
+distinction between us is enough to tip the ethical balance.
+But whether you run or change a program I wrote affects you directly
+and me only indirectly.  Whether you give a copy to your friend
+affects you and your friend much more than it affects me.  I shouldn't
+have the power to tell you not to do these things.  No one should.
+The second reason is that people have been told that natural rights
+for authors is the accepted and unquestioned tradition of our society.
+As a matter of history, the opposite is true.  The idea of natural
+rights of authors was proposed and decisively rejected when the US
+Constitution was drawn up.  That's why the Constitution only *permits*
+a system of copyright and does not *require* one; that's why it says
+that copyright must be temporary.  It also states that the purpose of
+copyright is to promote progress--not to reward authors.  Copyright
+does reward authors somewhat, and publishers more, but that is
+intended as a means of modifying their behavior.
+The real established tradition of our society is that copyright cuts
+into the natural rights of the public--and that this can only be
+justified for the public's sake.
+* Economics.
+The final argument made for having owners of software is that this
+leads to production of more software.
+Unlike the others, this argument at least takes a legitimate approach
+to the subject.  It is based on a valid goal--satisfying the users of
+software.  And it is empirically clear that people will produce more of
+something if they are well paid for doing so.
+But the economic argument has a flaw: it is based on the assumption
+that the difference is only a matter of how much money we have to pay.
+It assumes that "production of software" is what we want, whether the
+software has owners or not.
+People readily accept this assumption because it accords with our
+experiences with material objects.  Consider a sandwich, for instance.
+You might well be able to get an equivalent sandwich either free or
+for a price.  If so, the amount you pay is the only difference.
+Whether or not you have to buy it, the sandwich has the same taste,
+the same nutritional value, and in either case you can only eat it
+once.  Whether you get the sandwich from an owner or not cannot
+directly affect anything but the amount of money you have afterwards.
+This is true for any kind of material object--whether or not it has an
+owner does not directly affect what it *is*, or what you can do with
+it if you acquire it.
+But if a program has an owner, this very much affects what it is, and
+what you can do with a copy if you buy one.  The difference is not
+just a matter of money.  The system of owners of software encourages
+software owners to produce something--but not what society really
+needs.  And it causes intangible ethical pollution that affects us
+What does society need?  It needs information that is truly available
+to its citizens--for example, programs that people can read, fix,
+adapt, and improve, not just operate.  But what software owners
+typically deliver is a black box that we can't study or change.
+Society also needs freedom.  When a program has an owner, the users
+lose freedom to control part of their own lives.
+And above all society needs to encourage the spirit of voluntary
+cooperation in its citizens.  When software owners tell us that
+helping our neighbors in a natural way is "piracy", they pollute our
+society's civic spirit.
+This is why we say that free software is a matter of freedom, not
+The economic argument for owners is erroneous, but the economic issue
+is real.  Some people write useful software for the pleasure of
+writing it or for admiration and love; but if we want more software
+than those people write, we need to raise funds.
+For ten years now, free software developers have tried various methods
+of finding funds, with some success.  There's no need to make anyone
+rich; the median US family income, around $35k, proves to be enough
+incentive for many jobs that are less satisfying than programming.
+For years, until a fellowship made it unnecessary, I made a living
+from custom enhancements of the free software I had written.  Each
+enhancement was added to the standard released version and thus
+eventually became available to the general public.  Clients paid me so
+that I would work on the enhancements they wanted, rather than on the
+features I would otherwise have considered highest priority.
+The Free Software Foundation, a tax-exempt charity for free software
+development, raises funds by selling CD-ROMs, tapes and manuals (all
+of which users are free to copy and change), as well as from
+donations.  It now has a staff of five programmers, plus three
+employees who handle mail orders.
+Some free software developers make money by selling support services.
+Cygnus Support, with around 50 employees, estimates that about 15 per
+cent of its staff activity is free software development--a respectable
+percentage for a software company.
+Companies including Intel, Motorola, Texas Instruments and Analog
+Devices have combined to fund the continued development of the free
+GNU compiler for the language C.  Meanwhile, the GNU compiler for the
+Ada language is being funded by the US Air Force, which believes this
+is the most cost-effective way to get a high quality compiler.
+All these examples are small; the free software movement is still
+small, and still young.  But the example of listener-supported radio
+in this country shows it's possible to support a large activity
+without forcing each user to pay.
+As a computer user today, you may find yourself using a proprietary
+program.  If your friend asks to make a copy, it would be wrong to
+refuse.  Cooperation is more important than copyright.  But
+underground, closet cooperation does not make for a good society.  A
+person should aspire to live an upright life openly with pride, and
+this means saying "No" to proprietary software.
+You deserve to be able to cooperate openly and freely with other
+people who use software.  You deserve to be able to learn how the
+software works, and to teach your students with it.  You deserve to be
+able to hire your favorite programmer to fix it when it breaks.
+You deserve free software.
+Copyright 1994 Richard Stallman
+Verbatim copying and redistribution is permitted
+without royalty as long as this notice is preserved;
+alteration is not permitted.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]