[Emacs-diffs] Changes to emacs/man/gnu.texi [lexbind]

[Miles Bader]

Index: emacs/man/gnu.texi
diff -c /dev/null emacs/man/gnu.texi:1.3.16.1
*** /dev/null   Tue Oct 14 18:56:32 2003
--- emacs/man/gnu.texi  Tue Oct 14 18:56:23 2003
***************
*** 0 ****
--- 1,548 ----
+ @c This is part of the Emacs manual.
+ @c Copyright (C) 1985, 1986, 1987, 1993, 1995 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+ @ifclear justgnu
+ @node Manifesto,, MS-DOS, Top
+ @unnumbered The GNU Manifesto
+ @end ifclear
+ @ifset justgnu
+ Copyright (C) 1985, 1993, 2001 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+ 
+ Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
+ under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 or
+ any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no
+ Invariant Sections, with the Front-Cover texts being ``A GNU
+ Manual'', and with the Back-Cover Texts as in (a) below.  A copy of the
+ license is included in the section entitled ``GNU Free Documentation
+ License'' in the Emacs manual.
+ 
+ (a) The FSF's Back-Cover Text is: ``You have freedom to copy and modify
+ this GNU Manual, like GNU software.  Copies published by the Free
+ Software Foundation raise funds for GNU development.''
+ 
+ This document is part of a collection distributed under the GNU Free
+ Documentation License.  If you want to distribute this document
+ separately from the collection, you can do so by adding a copy of the
+ license to the document, as described in section 6 of the license.
+ 
+ @node Top
+ @top The GNU Manifesto
+ @end ifset
+ 
+ @quotation
+ The GNU Manifesto which appears below was written by Richard Stallman at
+ the beginning of the GNU project, to ask for participation and support.
+ For the first few years, it was updated in minor ways to account for
+ developments, but now it seems best to leave it unchanged as most people
+ have seen it.
+ 
+ Since that time, we have learned about certain common misunderstandings
+ that different wording could help avoid.  Footnotes added in 1993 help
+ clarify these points.
+ 
+ For up-to-date information about the available GNU software, please see
+ the latest issue of the GNU's Bulletin.  The list is much too long to
+ include here.
+ @end quotation
+ 
+ @unnumberedsec 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 address@hidden wording here was
+ careless.  The intention was that nobody would have to pay for
+ @emph{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.} Several other volunteers are helping
+ me.  Contributions of time, money, programs and equipment are greatly
+ needed.
+ 
+ So far we have an Emacs text editor with Lisp for writing editor commands,
+ a source level debugger, a yacc-compatible parser generator, a linker, and
+ around 35 utilities.  A shell (command interpreter) is nearly completed.  A
+ new portable optimizing C compiler has compiled itself and may be released
+ this year.  An initial kernel exists but many more features are needed to
+ emulate Unix.  When the kernel and compiler are finished, it will be
+ possible to distribute a GNU system suitable for program development.  We
+ will use @TeX{} as our text formatter, but an nroff is being worked on.  We
+ will use the free, portable X window system as well.  After this we will
+ add a portable Common Lisp, an Empire game, a spreadsheet, and hundreds of
+ other things, plus on-line documentation.  We hope to supply, eventually,
+ everything useful that normally comes with a Unix system, and more.
+ 
+ GNU will be able to run Unix programs, but will not be identical to Unix.
+ We will make all improvements that are convenient, based on our experience
+ with other operating systems.  In particular, we plan to have longer
+ file names, file version numbers, a crashproof file system, file name
+ completion perhaps, terminal-independent display support, and perhaps
+ eventually a Lisp-based window system through which several Lisp programs
+ and ordinary Unix programs can share a screen.  Both C and Lisp will be
+ available as system programming languages.  We will try to support UUCP,
+ MIT Chaosnet, and Internet protocols for communication.
+ 
+ GNU is aimed initially at machines in the 68000/16000 class with virtual
+ memory, because they are the easiest machines to make it run on.  The extra
+ effort to make it run on smaller machines will be left to someone who wants
+ to use it on them.
+ 
+ To avoid horrible confusion, please pronounce the `G' in the word `GNU'
+ when it is the name of this project.
+ 
+ @unnumberedsec 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.
+ 
+ @unnumberedsec 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.
+ 
+ @unnumberedsec 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.
+ 
+ @unnumberedsec Why Many Other Programmers Want to Help
+ 
+ I have found many other programmers who are excited about GNU and want to
+ help.
+ 
+ Many programmers are unhappy about the commercialization of system
+ software.  It may enable them to make more money, but it requires them to
+ feel in conflict with other programmers in general rather than feel as
+ comrades.  The fundamental act of friendship among programmers is the
+ sharing of programs; marketing arrangements now typically used essentially
+ forbid programmers to treat others as friends.  The purchaser of software
+ must choose between friendship and obeying the law.  Naturally, many decide
+ that friendship is more important.  But those who believe in law often do
+ not feel at ease with either choice.  They become cynical and think that
+ programming is just a way of making money.
+ 
+ By working on and using GNU rather than proprietary programs, we can be
+ hospitable to everyone and obey the law.  In addition, GNU serves as an
+ example to inspire and a banner to rally others to join us in sharing.
+ This can give us a feeling of harmony which is impossible if we use
+ software that is not free.  For about half the programmers I talk to, this
+ is an important happiness that money cannot replace.
+ 
+ @unnumberedsec 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.
+ 
+ @unnumberedsec Why All Computer Users Will Benefit
+ 
+ Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain good system
+ software free, just like address@hidden 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.}
+ 
+ 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.
+ 
+ @unnumberedsec Some Easily Rebutted Objections to GNU's Goals
+ 
+ @quotation
+ ``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.''
+ @end quotation
+ 
+ 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 address@hidden such companies now exist.}
+ 
+ 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.
+ 
+ @quotation
+ ``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.''
+ @end quotation
+ 
+ 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 address@hidden Free Software
+ Foundation raises most of its funds from a distribution service,
+ although it is a charity rather than a company.  If @emph{no one}
+ chooses to obtain copies by ordering from the FSF, it will be unable
+ to do its work.  But this does not mean that proprietary restrictions
+ are justified to force every user to pay.  If a small fraction of all
+ the users order copies from the FSF, that is sufficient to keep the FSF
+ afloat.  So we ask users to choose to support us in this way.  Have you
+ done your part?}
+ 
+ @quotation
+ ``My company needs a proprietary operating system
+ to get a competitive edge.''
+ @end quotation
+ 
+ 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 address@hidden group of
+ computer companies recently pooled funds to support maintenance of the
+ GNU C Compiler.}
+ 
+ @quotation
+ ``Don't programmers deserve a reward for their creativity?''
+ @end quotation
+ 
+ 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.
+ 
+ @quotation
+ ``Shouldn't a programmer be able to ask for a reward for his creativity?''
+ @end quotation
+ 
+ There is nothing wrong with wanting pay for work, or seeking to maximize
+ one's income, as long as one does not use means that are destructive.  But
+ the means customary in the field of software today are based on
+ destruction.
+ 
+ Extracting money from users of a program by restricting their use of it is
+ destructive because the restrictions reduce the amount and the ways that
+ the program can be used.  This reduces the amount of wealth that humanity
+ derives from the program.  When there is a deliberate choice to restrict,
+ the harmful consequences are deliberate destruction.
+ 
+ The reason a good citizen does not use such destructive means to become
+ wealthier is that, if everyone did so, we would all become poorer from the
+ mutual destructiveness.  This is Kantian ethics; or, the Golden Rule.
+ Since I do not like the consequences that result if everyone hoards
+ information, I am required to consider it wrong for one to do so.
+ Specifically, the desire to be rewarded for one's creativity does not
+ justify depriving the world in general of all or part of that creativity.
+ 
+ @quotation
+ ``Won't programmers starve?''
+ @end quotation
+ 
+ I could answer that nobody is forced to be a programmer.  Most of us cannot
+ manage to get any money for standing on the street and making faces.  But
+ we are not, as a result, condemned to spend our lives standing on the
+ street making faces, and starving.  We do something else.
+ 
+ But that is the wrong answer because it accepts the questioner's implicit
+ assumption: that without ownership of software, programmers cannot possibly
+ be paid a cent.  Supposedly it is all or nothing.
+ 
+ The real reason programmers will not starve is that it will still be
+ possible for them to get paid for programming; just not paid as much as
+ now.
+ 
+ Restricting copying is not the only basis for business in software.  It is
+ the most common basis because it brings in the most money.  If it were
+ prohibited, or rejected by the customer, software business would move to
+ other bases of organization which are now used less often.  There are
+ always numerous ways to organize any kind of business.
+ 
+ Probably programming will not be as lucrative on the new basis as it is
+ now.  But that is not an argument against the change.  It is not considered
+ an injustice that sales clerks make the salaries that they now do.  If
+ programmers made the same, that would not be an injustice either.  (In
+ practice they would still make considerably more than that.)
+ 
+ @quotation
+ ``Don't people have a right to control how their creativity is used?''
+ @end quotation
+ 
+ ``Control over the use of one's ideas'' really constitutes control over
+ other people's lives; and it is usually used to make their lives more
+ difficult.
+ 
+ People who have studied the issue of intellectual property rights carefully
+ (such as lawyers) say that there is no intrinsic right to intellectual
+ property.  The kinds of supposed intellectual property rights that the
+ government recognizes were created by specific acts of legislation for
+ specific purposes.
+ 
+ For example, the patent system was established to encourage inventors to
+ disclose the details of their inventions.  Its purpose was to help society
+ rather than to help inventors.  At the time, the life span of 17 years for
+ a patent was short compared with the rate of advance of the state of the
+ art.  Since patents are an issue only among manufacturers, for whom the
+ cost and effort of a license agreement are small compared with setting up
+ production, the patents often do not do much harm.  They do not obstruct
+ most individuals who use patented products.
+ 
+ The idea of copyright did not exist in ancient times, when authors
+ frequently copied other authors at length in works of non-fiction.  This
+ practice was useful, and is the only way many authors' works have survived
+ even in part.  The copyright system was created expressly for the purpose
+ of encouraging authorship.  In the domain for which it was
+ invented---books, which could be copied economically only on a printing
+ press---it did little harm, and did not obstruct most of the individuals
+ who read the books.
+ 
+ All intellectual property rights are just licenses granted by society
+ because it was thought, rightly or wrongly, that society as a whole would
+ benefit by granting them.  But in any particular situation, we have to ask:
+ are we really better off granting such license?  What kind of act are we
+ licensing a person to do?
+ 
+ The case of programs today is very different from that of books a hundred
+ years ago.  The fact that the easiest way to copy a program is from one
+ neighbor to another, the fact that a program has both source code and
+ object code which are distinct, and the fact that a program is used rather
+ than read and enjoyed, combine to create a situation in which a person who
+ enforces a copyright is harming society as a whole both materially and
+ spiritually; in which a person should not do so regardless of whether the
+ law enables him to.
+ 
+ @quotation
+ ``Competition makes things get done better.''
+ @end quotation
+ 
+ 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.
+ 
+ @quotation
+ ``Won't everyone stop programming without a monetary incentive?''
+ @end quotation
+ 
+ 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.
+ 
+ @quotation
+ ``We need the programmers desperately.  If they demand that we
+ stop helping our neighbors, we have to obey.''
+ @end quotation
+ 
+ You're never so desperate that you have to obey this sort of demand.
+ Remember: millions for defense, but not a cent for tribute!
+ 
+ @quotation
+ ``Programmers need to make a living somehow.''
+ @end quotation
+ 
+ In the short run, this is true.  However, there are plenty of ways that
+ programmers could make a living without selling the right to use a program.
+ This way is customary now because it brings programmers and businessmen the
+ most money, not because it is the only way to make a living.  It is easy to
+ find other ways if you want to find them.  Here are a number of examples.
+ 
+ A manufacturer introducing a new computer will pay for the porting of
+ operating systems onto the new hardware.
+ 
+ The sale of teaching, hand-holding and maintenance services could also
+ employ programmers.
+ 
+ People with new ideas could distribute programs as freeware, asking for
+ donations from satisfied users, or selling hand-holding services.  I have
+ met people who are already working this way successfully.
+ 
+ Users with related needs can form users' groups, and pay dues.  A group
+ would contract with programming companies to write programs that the
+ group's members would like to use.
+ 
+ All sorts of development can be funded with a Software Tax:
+ 
+ @quotation
+ 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:
+ 
+ @itemize @bullet
+ @item
+ The computer-using community supports software development.
+ @item
+ This community decides what level of support is needed.
+ @item
+ Users who care which projects their share is spent on
+ can choose this for themselves.
+ @end itemize
+ @end quotation
+ 
+ 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.
+ 
+ @ignore
+    arch-tag: 21eb38f8-6fa0-480a-91cd-f3dab7148542
+ @end ignore