Re: [DotGNU]The Manifesto lives on

[Stephen Compall]

Peter Minten wrote:
> > I did some editing on the DotGNU Manifesto. The result is attached. My parts are
> > marked with comments followed by -- PM.
>
> New version. I've added information on what webservices are, why .NET is bad and
> what DotGNU is. Many thanks to BioChem333 for proofreading and improving it.

Thank you to you both for resurrecting this document. I have made some 
changes attached in this patch. Worry not about the fact that the patch 
is bigger than the actual document; most of the "changes" are because of 
rewrapping (I change a single word, and the whole paragraph has to rewrap ;)

--
Stephen Compall
Also known as S11001001
DotGNU `Contributor' -- http://dotgnu.org

  ,           ,
 /             \
((__-^^-,-^^-__))
 `-_---' `---_-'
  `--|o` 'o|--'
     \  `  /
      ): :(
      :o_o:
       "-"
Copyright (C) 2001, Free Software Foundation, Inc.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this image
under the terms either:

    * the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software
      Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option)
      any later version, or

    * the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 or any later
      version published by the Free Software Foundation; with the no
      Invariant Sections, with no Front-Cover Texts and with no
      Back-Cover Texts.

This image is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
General Public License for more details.

You can find a copy of the GNU General Public License
(http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html) and the GNU Free Documentation
License (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) via the preceding
links. If you have trouble downloading it, write to the Free Software
Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307
USA.

--- dgmanifesto.texi    2002-10-21 13:21:55.000000000 -0500
+++ dgmanifesto-1s11.texi       2002-10-21 16:38:37.000000000 -0500
@@ -66,9 +66,11 @@
 <http://subscribe.dotgnu.org/pipermail/developers/2002-April/006639.html>
 
 It was enhanced with the help of Barry Fitzgerald, Stephen Compall,
-and Richard M. Stallman.
+Peter Minten, Rich Baumann, and Richard M. Stallman.
 @end ignore
 
address@hidden TODO: index entries with @cindex
+
 @c Mention here that DotGNU is part of the GNU project and follows Free
 @c Software ideals. Give a relatively brief (maybe 1 page) intro of Free
 @c Software ideals. Remember that this is a ``first'' document; as in the
@@ -102,66 +104,76 @@
 the software and users only buy the right to use the software under the
 terms specified by them.
 
-But those 'proprietary software producers' love to forget that software
-isn't something like a saw; when I sell you a saw I lose a saw. Instead
+But those who claim that ``right'', called @dfn{proprietary software}
+producers, love to forget that software isn't something like a
+sandwich; when I sell you a sandwich I lose a sandwich. Instead
 software is like a joke; when I tell you a joke I don't lose
 anything. It would appear weird if I would tell you a joke and then
-would forbid you and threaten you with lawyers to tell the same joke to
-others. But that's exactly what the proprietary software producers do.
-
-Faced with this reality that software can be shared without damage to
-the producer the proprietary software producers have come up with a
-legal trick called intellectual property. Intellectual property is the
-idea that you can own an idea. But that's completely nuts! If I were
-Pythagoras, and were therefore the first to discover c^2 = a^2 + b^2,
-that wouldn't mean I would have the right to demand payment from anybody
-wanting to use that formula. That's however what intellectual property
-means.
-
-Of course the basic idea behind intellectual property, inventing
-something requires time and work and thus a user has a certain moral
-obligation to reward the author. However as Richard Stallman pointed
-out, in his essay "Why Software Should Be Free"
-(http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html), when one turns the
-obligation into into a requirement, the basis for that obligation is
-destroyed.
address@hidden "right to be rewarded" is a poor choice of words...
address@hidden extreme care should be taken when implying a "creator" has 
"rights"...
address@hidden this is the best alternative I could come up with... the English 
language seems
address@hidden to equate deserving something with having a right to it... there 
seems to be no
address@hidden appropriate word which takes into account the moral effect of 
demanding...
address@hidden privilege comes closest, but seems to conflict with "thus 
deserves a reward"
+would forbid you and threaten you with lawyers to tell the same joke
+to others. But that's exactly what the proprietary software producers
+do.
+
address@hidden intellectual property
+Faced with this reality, that software can be shared without damage to
+the producer, the proprietary software producers have come up with a
+legal trick called intellectual property. @dfn{Intellectual property}
+is the idea that you can own an idea. But that's completely nuts! If I
+were Pythagoras, and were therefore the first to discover @math{c^2 =
+a^2 + b^2}, that wouldn't mean I would have the right to demand
+control of anybody wanting to use that formula. But that's what
+``intellectual property'' means.
+
+Of course the basic idea behind ``intellectual property'' is that
+``inventing something requires time and work and thus a user has a
+certain moral obligation to reward the author''. However as Richard
+Stallman pointed out, in his essay
address@hidden://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html, ``Why Software
+Should Be Free''}, when one turns the obligation into into a
+requirement, the basis for that obligation is destroyed.
address@hidden "right to be rewarded" is a poor choice of words...  extreme care
address@hidden should be taken when implying a "creator" has "rights"...  this 
is the
address@hidden best alternative I could come up with... the English language 
seems to
address@hidden equate deserving something with having a right to it... there 
seems to
address@hidden be no appropriate word which takes into account the moral effect 
of
address@hidden demanding...  privilege comes closest, but seems to conflict with
address@hidden "thus deserves a reward"
 @c -- Rich
address@hidden I've used the same term (obligation) as RMS in "Why Software 
Should be Free" 
address@hidden now, hopefully that fixes it.
+
address@hidden I've used the same term (obligation) as RMS in "Why Software 
Should be
address@hidden Free" now, hopefully that fixes it.
 @c -- Peter
 
-Faced with the madness of proprietary software (as the work of
-proprietary software producers is called) a large number of people are
-working on an alternative. This alternative is software that you can
-share freely without any intellectual property strings attached. We call
-that software Free Software where the Free always reminds us of the
-freedom that accompanies the software.
-
-Free Software gives you more freedoms than just the freedom to copy and
-distribute.  It also gives you the freedom to study the way the software
-works by giving you the blueprint of the software, the so called source
-code. And it even gives you the freedom to change that source code and
-distribute your changes.
-
-Copyright law does not give you these freedoms if not explicitly stated,
-so a couple of legal texts have been created to give you the
-freedoms. These texts are known as the copyleft licenses. The most
-important copyleft licenses are the General Public License (GPL), which
-gives you all of the above freedoms on the condition that you distribute
-(changed) copies of the software under the same terms (which effectively
-means you have to distribute them under the GPL too).  The GPL does not
-allow linking to the program by non-GPL software however and there are
-rare cases where this would be appreciated. For that situation there is
-the Lesser General Public License (LGPL), it's called lesser because it
-does lesser to protect your freedoms. The LGPL allows linking to a
-program by non-GPL software, actually the LGPL is seldom used for
-programs but mostly for libraries.
+Faced with the madness of proprietary software, a large number of
+people are working on an alternative. This alternative is software
+that you can share freely without any ``intellectual property''
+strings attached. We call that software Free Software where the Free
+always reminds us of the freedom that accompanies the software.
+
+Free Software gives you more freedoms than just the @strong{freedom to
+copy and distribute}, whether @dfn{gratis} (without address@hidden
+the word ``free'' in the English language is ambiguous for our
+purposes (refers to either freedom or price), and we have a specific
+word for free-as-in-price (gratis), we prefer to reserve the word
+``free'' for the former meaning.}) or for a fee.  It also gives you
+the @strong{freedom to study the way the software works} by giving you
+the blueprint of the software, the so called @dfn{source code}. And it
+even gives you the @strong{freedom to change that source code and
+distribute your changes}.
+
+Copyright law does not give you these freedoms if not explicitly
+stated, so a couple of legal texts have been created to give you the
+freedoms. These texts are known as the @dfn{copyleft licenses}. The
+most important copyleft licenses are the General Public License (GPL),
+which gives you all of the above freedoms on the condition that you
+distribute (changed) copies of the software under the same terms
+(which effectively means you have to distribute them under the GPL
+too).  The GPL does not allow linking to the program by non-GPL
+software however and there are rare cases where this is useful for the
+spread of free software. For that situation there is the Lesser
+General Public License (LGPL), it's called lesser because it does
+lesser to protect your freedoms. The LGPL allows linking to a program
+by non-GPL software, actually the LGPL is seldom used for programs but
+mostly for libraries.
 
 @dgmanifesto-subsection{Introduction of webservices}
 
@@ -170,14 +182,16 @@
 that's great. The Internet has made it possible for software to be
 shared without any costs other than that of ones Internet connection.
 
-Since there is a demand for software to be shared and there is a way for
-software to be shared, software is shared. This angers many software
-manufacturers who don't see that it's only normal for software to be
-shared. Free Software manufacturers however aren't angry, for sharing is
-the nature of Free Software manufacturers.
-
-The situation that has resulted, the Internet as a sharing place for all
-kinds of software, has been stable for many years now. But it won't be
+Since there is a demand for software to be shared and there is a way
+for software to be shared, software is shared. This angers many
+software manufacturers who don't see that it's only normal for
+software to be shared (or do and prefer it not to happen). Free
+Software manufacturers however aren't angry, for sharing is the nature
+of Free Software manufacturers.
+
+This situation has resulted from the software-sharing attitude: the
+Internet has become a sharing place for all kinds of software, and has
+proven the power of this system for many years now. But it won't be
 for much longer. A new approach to software and the Internet is
 developing and it's called webservices.
 
@@ -185,73 +199,85 @@
 accessible over the Internet. They mostly behave just like normal
 applications installed on your computer, but they can run somewhere on
 the other side of the planet. Webservices also differ from normal apps
-in the sense that they can more easily cooperate with eachother. That's
-done by making it posssible for applications to call parts of other
-applications running miles away (this is known as remoting).
-
-The whole concept is pretty neat. But it carries some threats.. The
-biggest one is known as 'Microsoft .NET'. MS .NET is an implementation
-of a webservice supporting system. The problem with it is a) that it's
-propietary software (don't be fooled by any Shared Source talk, Shared
-Source is far away from Free Software or even Open Source), b) a part of
-it called Passport and c) vendor lock-in.
+in the sense that they can more easily cooperate with each
+other. That's done by making it possible for applications to call
+parts of other applications running miles away (this is known as
+remoting).
+
+The whole concept is pretty neat. But it carries some threats. The
+biggest one is known as ``Microsoft address@hidden''. MS address@hidden is
+an implementation of a webservice supporting system. There are some
+serious dangers to user freedom that come with this new framework:
+
address@hidden
address@hidden
+It's propietary software. Don't be fooled by any Shared Source talk,
+Shared Source is far away from Free Software or even Open
+Source. Plus, it doesn't even begin to address the freedoms that
+software users deserve: you can only get those with Free Software.
+
address@hidden
+a user authentication system, called Passport, that aims to centralize
+your network identity
+
address@hidden
+vendor lock-in.
address@hidden enumerate
 
 Passport is an authorization system. It's basically what it says: a
-passport. You can use it to ensure any .NET compatible webservice that
-you are who you say you are. So far so good. The problem however is that
-Passport stores your personal 'passport' on a central server. That's a
-major security risk. Anybody who can gain access to that server (for
-example a cracker [1]) can access your data. And you can also bet
-countries are going to pass legislation to access the Passport data, Big
-Brother is watching you.
+passport. You can use it to ensure any address@hidden compatible webservice 
that
+you are who you say you are. So far so good. The problem however is
+that Passport stores your personal ``passport'' on a central
+server. That's a major security risk. Anybody who can gain access to
+that server (for example a address@hidden cracker is somebody who
+breaks into computer systems. Don't confuse crackers with
+hackers. Hackers are people who love to program or something else
+intellectually challenging like solving tough math equations.}) can
+access your data. And you can also bet countries are going to pass
+legislation to access the Passport data. Big Brother is watching you.
 
-Vendor lock-in is a major problem with .NET compatible webservices (or
+Vendor lock-in is a major problem with address@hidden compatible webservices 
(or
 webservices compatible with webservice supporting systems of other
 vendors such as Sun's Java). It's what happens when you use the
-webservice of vendor A and after a while want to switch to the
-webservice of vendor B. Of course webservice A stores data in it's own
-format which webservice B doesn't understand so you have to keep using
-webservice A if you want to keep working with you old files. Vendor A
-effectively locks you in through your files.
-
-Footnotes
-
-[1] A cracker is somebody who breaks into computer systems. Don't
-confuse crackers with hackers. Hackers are people who love to program
-or something else intellectually challenging like solving tough math
-equations.
+webservice of vendor @var{a} and after a while want to switch to the
+webservice of vendor @var{b}. Of course webservice @var{a} stores data
+in its own format which webservice @var{b} doesn't understand so you
+have to keep using webservice @var{a} if you want to keep working with
+your old files. Vendor @var{a} effectively locks you in through your
+files.
 
 @dgmanifesto-subsection{Enter DotGNU}
 
-The concept of webservices carries threats, but the whole idea of
-webservices is too powerful to ignore. That's why there is there is
+The concept of webservices carries threats, but the advantages of
+webservices are too powerful to ignore. That's why there is there is
 DotGNU. DotGNU is a Free Software webservice supporting system. The
-central idea behind DotGNU is too protect the internet from the effects
+central idea behind DotGNU is to protect the internet from the effects
 of propietary central server systems like Passport and from the effect
 of closed file formats, because these things make interoperability
 between programs and between people a lot harder. In short DotGNU is
 about keeping the Internet open.
 
-We do that by providing a whole open Free Software platform on which
-webservices run and by providing support applications for webservices.
-For example we will create an open authorization application
-specification. In another words we put up a standard for authorization
-systems. We even deliver at least one such system.
-
-The core idea behind the DotGNU authorization system is that you should
-be free to store you virtual identity (our term for what in MS Passport
-is called a passport) anywhere you desire. You should be free to either
-subscribe to a commercial webservice to store your virtual identity or
-store it locally on your own computer or something else, we don't care
-as long as you have the freedom to decide. Of course you are also free
-to chose the application to manage your virtual identity with.
+We do that by providing a complete, open Free Software platform on
+which webservices run and by providing support applications for
+webservices.  For example we will create an open authorization
+application specification. In another words we put up a standard for
+authorization systems. We even deliver at least one such system.
+
+The core idea behind the DotGNU authorization system is that you
+should be free to store you virtual identity (our term for what in MS
+Passport is called a passport) anywhere you desire. You should be free
+to either subscribe to a commercial webservice to store your virtual
+identity or store it locally on your own computer or something else:
+we don't care as long as you have the freedom to decide. Of course you
+are also free to chose the application to manage your virtual identity
+with.
 
 The effect of this freedom is that you don't need to be as worried about
 crackers as when you were using a central server system together with
-many millions of people, Big Brother will have a hard time watching you.
+many millions of people. Big Brother will have a hard time watching you.
 
 We also have a solution for the pesky vendor lock-in problem. We do this
-by saying there is an 'owner of the data' for all files that a
+by saying there is an ``owner of the data'' for all files that a
 webservice acts on. An owner of the data has the right to download the
 entire set of data together with the webservice application.
 
@@ -260,8 +286,8 @@
 @dgmanifesto-subsection{What licenses we use and why we use them}
 
 One important element in defending the freedom of Free Software is to
-use a so-called @dfn{copyleft} license, such as the @GNU{} General
-Public License (@acronym{GPL}) and the @GNU{} Lesser General Public
+use a so-called @dfn{copyleft} license, such as the GNU General
+Public License (@acronym{GPL}) and the GNU Lesser General Public
 License (@acronym{LGPL}).  These licenses grant the user of the
 software very significant rights to redistribute the software, in
 original or modified form, but only under the condition that the
@@ -269,7 +295,7 @@
 
 The significance of copyleft is that it prevents any entity from just
 taking the software, making some changes, and then distributing it in
-a way that denies the users essential freedom rights.
+a way that denies the users essential freedoms.
 
 @c put discussion of non-copyleft FS licenses here
 
@@ -285,11 +311,6 @@
 
 Microsoft Corporation is now making such an attack.
 
address@hidden
-RMS: To some extent yes, but I think that is basically unrelated to
-.NET and thus not directly related to DotGNU.
address@hidden ignore
-
 This DotGNU Manifesto calls Free Software developers and Free Software
 users worldwide to understand the strategy behind this attack, and to
 help in preventing it from being successful.
@@ -304,13 +325,14 @@
 Free Software unless it is somehow made sure that the patent is in
 some way licensed so that everyone who receives a copy of the program
 will have rights to run it for any purpose, and to redistribute it in
-original or modified form.
+original or modified form; i.e., will have the the freedoms that are
+supposed to come with Free Software.
 
 Here is one way how Microsoft uses patents to specifically attack
-copyleft Free Software licenses, such as the @GNU{} General Public
+copyleft Free Software licenses, such as the GNU General Public
 License (@acronym{GPL}): In the recently-published ``Royalty-Free
 @acronym{CIFS} Technical Reference License Agreement'', Microsoft
-defines the @GNU{} @acronym{GPL} (and any other copyleft license) as
+defines the GNU @acronym{GPL} (and any other copyleft license) as
 an address@hidden Impairing License'' and requires companies not to
 distribute their implementations of the @acronym{CIFS} specification
 ``in any manner that would subject such Company Implementation to the
@@ -348,7 +370,7 @@
 Internet for anything that requires such authentication.
 
 Now how can Microsoft be prevented from taking control of the
-Internet, especially commercial use of the Internet which invariably
+Internet, especially commercial use of the Internet which often
 requires some form of authentication?
 
 @dgmanifesto-subsection{How You Can Help Defend the Freedom of the Internet}
@@ -403,16 +425,16 @@
 @end ignore
 
 @c moved to bottom per discussion
address@hidden short history of the @GNU{} Project---and why DotGNU has chosen 
to be a GNU Project}
address@hidden short history of the GNU Project---and why DotGNU has chosen to 
be a GNU Project}
 
-The @GNU{} project has taken a stand for the freedom of computer
+The GNU project has taken a stand for the freedom of computer
 users, and as a result has made a complete operating system
 available where every component is Free Software, so that its users
 can freely modify and share it.
 
 @ignore
 was:
-'The @GNU{} project has taken a stand for the freedom of computer
+'The GNU project has taken a stand for the freedom of computer
 users, by making a complete operating system available where every
 component is Free Software, so that its users can freely modify and
 share it.'
@@ -430,8 +452,8 @@
 
 To many people this goal seemed impossibly ambitious, and yet it has
 been reached.  In combination with the operating system kernel called
-Linux, the @GNU{} system now has millions of users. Also an alternative
-kernel named Hurd is under development.
+Linux, the GNU system now has millions of users. Also, the official
+GNU kernel, named ``the GNU Hurd'', is under development.
 
 @c was: 'An alternative kernel named Hurd is still under development.'
 
@@ -443,12 +465,12 @@
 @c Hopefully fixed -- PM
 
 While it has achieved its goal of creating a free operating system,
-the work of @GNU{} is far from finished. The freedom of computer
-users is still threatened, and there are many areas of computing
-still left where Free Software solutions either do not exist or are
-inadequate. Systems, protocols, and standards which are not free
-still trap many times more computer users than GNU has been able to
-free. DotGNU aims to bring freedom to the area of "webservices";
-an area where user freedom has been practically non-existent.
+the work of GNU is far from finished. The freedom of computer users
+is still threatened, and there are many areas of computing still left
+where Free Software solutions either do not exist or are
+inadequate. Systems, protocols, and standards which are not free still
+trap many times more computer users than GNU has been able to
+free. DotGNU aims to bring freedom to the area of ``webservices''; an
+area where user freedom has been practically non-existent.
 
 @c aieee! fix the dangling end left by moving #include <gnu> to end