[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/philosophy linux-gnu-freedom.html
|
From: |
John Sullivan |
|
Subject: |
www/philosophy linux-gnu-freedom.html |
|
Date: |
Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:42:15 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: John Sullivan <johnsu01> 06/10/11 20:42:15
Modified files:
philosophy : linux-gnu-freedom.html
Log message:
Add note about bitkeeper not being used anymore, and fit page into
template. Closes 312940.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/linux-gnu-freedom.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.14&r2=1.15
Patches:
Index: linux-gnu-freedom.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/linux-gnu-freedom.html,v
retrieving revision 1.14
retrieving revision 1.15
diff -u -b -r1.14 -r1.15
--- linux-gnu-freedom.html 31 Aug 2005 06:45:08 -0000 1.14
+++ linux-gnu-freedom.html 11 Oct 2006 20:41:26 -0000 1.15
@@ -1,316 +1,294 @@
-<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
-<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
- "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
-<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en">
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
-<head>
<title>Linux, GNU, and freedom - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation
(FSF)</title>
-<meta http-equiv="content-type" content='text/html; charset=utf-8' />
-<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/gnu.css" />
-<link rev="made" href="mailto:address@hidden"; />
<meta http-equiv="Keywords"
content="GNU, FSF, Free Software Foundation, Linux, freedom, software, power,
rights, Richard Stallman, rms, SIGLINUX, Joe Barr" />
<meta http-equiv="Description" content="In this essay, Linux, GNU, and
freedom, Richard M. Stallman responds to Joe Barr's account of the FSF's
dealings with the Austin Linux users group." />
</head>
-<!-- This document is in XML, and xhtml 1.0 -->
-<!-- Please make sure to properly nest your tags -->
-<!-- and ensure that your final document validates -->
-<!-- consistent with W3C xhtml 1.0 and CSS standards -->
-<!-- See validator.w3.org -->
-
-<body>
-
-<p><a href="#translations">Translations</a> of this page</p>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
<h2>Linux, GNU, and freedom</h2>
<p>
-by <strong>Richard M. Stallman</strong></p>
+ by <strong>Richard M. Stallman</strong></p>
<p>
-<a href="/graphics/philosophical.html"><img
src="/graphics/philosophical-gnu-sm.jpg"
+ <a href="/graphics/philosophical.html"><img
src="/graphics/philosophical-gnu-sm.jpg"
alt=" [image of a Philosophical Gnu] "
width="160" height="200" /></a>
</p>
<!--
-<p>
-<cite>Richard Stallman's response to Joe Barr's account of the FSF's
-dealings with the Austin Linux users group.</cite></p>
--->
-
-<p>
-Since <a href="http://www.linuxworld.com/story/32755.htm";>Joe
-Barr's article</a> criticized my dealings with SIGLINUX, I would like
-to set the record straight about what actually occurred, and state my
-reasons.</p>
-<p>
-When SIGLINUX invited me to speak, it was a ``Linux User Group''; that
-is, a group for users of the GNU/Linux system which calls the whole
-system ``Linux''. So I replied politely that if they'd like someone
-from the GNU Project to give a speech for them, they ought to treat
-the GNU Project right, and call the system ``GNU/Linux''. The system
-is a variant of GNU, and the GNU Project is its principal developer,
-so social convention says to call it by the name we chose. Unless
-there are powerful reasons for an exception, I usually decline to give
-speeches for organizations that won't give GNU proper credit in this
-way. I respect their freedom of speech, but I also have the freedom
-not to give a speech.</p>
-<p>
-Subsequently, Jeff Strunk of SIGLINUX tried to change the group's
-policy, and asked the FSF to list his group in our page of GNU/Linux
-user groups. Our webmaster told him that we would not list it under
-the name ``SIGLINUX'' because that name implies that the group is
-about Linux. Strunk proposed to change the name to ``SIGFREE'', and
-our webmaster agreed that would be fine. (Barr's article said we
-rejected this proposal.) However, the group ultimately decided to
-stay with ``SIGLINUX''.</p>
-<p>
-At that point, the matter came to my attention again, and I suggested
-they consider other possible names. There are many names they could
-choose that would not call the system ``Linux'', and I hope they will
-come up with one they like. There the matter rests as far as I know.</p>
-<p>
-Is it true, as Barr writes, that some people see these actions as an
-``application of force'' comparable with Microsoft's monopoly power?
-Probably so. Declining an invitation is not coercion, but people who
-are determined to believe that the entire system is ``Linux''
-sometimes develop amazingly distorted vision. To make that name
-appear justified, they must see molehills as mountains and mountains
-as molehills. If you can ignore the facts and believe that Linus
-Torvalds developed the whole system starting in 1991, or if you can
-ignore your ordinary principles of fairness and believe that Torvalds
-should get the sole credit even though he didn't do that, it's a small
-step to believe that I owe you a speech when you ask.</p>
-<p>
-Just consider: the GNU Project starts developing an operating system,
-and years later Linus Torvalds adds one important piece. The GNU
-Project says, ``Please give our project equal mention,'' but Linus
-says, ``Don't give them a share of the credit; call the whole thing
-after my name alone!'' Now envision the mindset of a person who can
-look at these events and accuse the GNU Project of egotism. It takes
-strong prejudice to misjudge so drastically.</p>
-<p>
-A person who is that prejudiced can say all sorts of unfair things
-about the GNU Project and think them justified; his fellows will
-support him, because they want each other's support in maintaining
-their prejudice. Dissenters can be reviled; thus, if I decline to
-participate in an activity under the rubric of ``Linux'', they may
-find that inexcusable, and hold me responsible for the ill will they
-feel afterwards. When so many people want me to call the system
-``Linux'', how can I, who merely launched its development, not comply?
-And forcibly denying them a speech is forcibly making them unhappy.
-That's coercion, as bad as Microsoft!</p>
-<p>
-Now, you might wonder why I don't just duck the issue and avoid all
-this grief. When SIGLINUX invited me to speak, I could simply have
-said ``No, sorry'' and the matter would have ended there. Why didn't
-I do that? I'm willing to take the risk of being abused personally in
-order to have a chance of correcting the error that undercuts the GNU
-Project's efforts.</p>
-<p>
-Calling this variant of the GNU system ``Linux'' plays into the hands
-of people who choose their software based only on technical advantage,
-not caring whether it respects their freedom. There are people like
-Barr, that want their software ``free from ideology'' and criticize
-anyone that says freedom matters. There are people like Torvalds that
-will pressure our community into use of a non-free program, and
-challenge anyone who complains to provide a (technically) better
-program immediately or shut up. There are people who say that
-technical decisions should not be ``politicized'' by consideration of
-their social consequences.</p>
-<p>
-In the 70s, computer users lost the freedoms to redistribute and
-change software because they didn't value their freedom. Computer
-users regained these freedoms in the 80s and 90s because a group of
-idealists, the GNU Project, believed that freedom is what makes a
-program better, and were willing to work for what we believed in.</p>
-<p>
-We have partial freedom today, but our freedom is not secure. It is
-threatened by the CBDTPA (formerly SSSCA), by the Broadcast
-``Protection'' Discussion Group (see <a
-href="http://www.eff.org/";>http://www.eff.org/</a>) which proposes to
-prohibit free software to access digital TV broadcasts, by software
-patents (Europe is now considering whether to have software patents),
-by Microsoft nondisclosure agreements for vital protocols, and by
-everyone who tempts us with a non-free program that is ``better''
-(technically) than available free programs. We can lose our freedom
-again just as we lost it the first time, if we don't care enough to
-protect it.</p>
-<p>
-Will enough of us care? That depends on many things; among them, how
-much influence the GNU Project has, and how much influence Linus
-Torvalds has. The GNU Project says, ``Value your freedom!''. Joe
-Barr says, ``Choose between non-free and free programs on technical
-grounds alone!''. If people credit Torvalds as the main developer of
-the GNU/Linux system, that's not just inaccurate, it also makes his
-message more influential--and that message says, ``Non-free software
-is ok; I use it and develop it myself.'' If they recognize our role,
-they will listen to us more, and the message we will give them is,
-``This system exists because of people who care about freedom. Join
-us, value your freedom, and together we can preserve it.'' See <a
-href="http://www.gnu.org/gnu/the-gnu-project.html";>http://www.gnu.org/gnu/the-gnu-project.html</a>
-for the history.</p>
-<p>
-When I ask people to call the system GNU/Linux, some of them respond
-with silly excuses and straw men. But we probably haven't lost
-anything, because they were probably unfriendly to begin with.
-Meanwhile, other people recognize the reasons I give, and use that
-name. By doing so, they help make other people aware of why the
-GNU/Linux system really exists, and that increases our ability to
-spread the idea that freedom is an important value.</p>
-<p>
-This is why I keep butting my head against bias, calumny, and grief.
-They hurt my feelings, but when successful, this effort helps the GNU
-Project campaign for freedom.</p>
-<p>
-Since this came up in the context of Linux (the kernel) and Bitkeeper,
-the non-free version control system that Linus Torvalds now uses, I'd
-like to address that issue as well.</p>
+ <p>
+ <cite>Richard Stallman's response to Joe Barr's account of the FSF's
+ dealings with the Austin Linux users group.</cite></p>
+ -->
+
+<p>
+ Since <a href="http://www.linuxworld.com/story/32755.htm";>Joe
+ Barr's article</a> criticized my dealings with SIGLINUX, I would like
+ to set the record straight about what actually occurred, and state my
+ reasons.</p>
+<p>
+ When SIGLINUX invited me to speak, it was a ``Linux User Group''; that
+ is, a group for users of the GNU/Linux system which calls the whole
+ system ``Linux''. So I replied politely that if they'd like someone
+ from the GNU Project to give a speech for them, they ought to treat
+ the GNU Project right, and call the system ``GNU/Linux''. The system
+ is a variant of GNU, and the GNU Project is its principal developer,
+ so social convention says to call it by the name we chose. Unless
+ there are powerful reasons for an exception, I usually decline to give
+ speeches for organizations that won't give GNU proper credit in this
+ way. I respect their freedom of speech, but I also have the freedom
+ not to give a speech.</p>
+<p>
+ Subsequently, Jeff Strunk of SIGLINUX tried to change the group's
+ policy, and asked the FSF to list his group in our page of GNU/Linux
+ user groups. Our webmaster told him that we would not list it under
+ the name ``SIGLINUX'' because that name implies that the group is
+ about Linux. Strunk proposed to change the name to ``SIGFREE'', and
+ our webmaster agreed that would be fine. (Barr's article said we
+ rejected this proposal.) However, the group ultimately decided to
+ stay with ``SIGLINUX''.</p>
+<p>
+ At that point, the matter came to my attention again, and I suggested
+ they consider other possible names. There are many names they could
+ choose that would not call the system ``Linux'', and I hope they will
+ come up with one they like. There the matter rests as far as I know.</p>
+<p>
+ Is it true, as Barr writes, that some people see these actions as an
+ ``application of force'' comparable with Microsoft's monopoly power?
+ Probably so. Declining an invitation is not coercion, but people who
+ are determined to believe that the entire system is ``Linux''
+ sometimes develop amazingly distorted vision. To make that name
+ appear justified, they must see molehills as mountains and mountains
+ as molehills. If you can ignore the facts and believe that Linus
+ Torvalds developed the whole system starting in 1991, or if you can
+ ignore your ordinary principles of fairness and believe that Torvalds
+ should get the sole credit even though he didn't do that, it's a small
+ step to believe that I owe you a speech when you ask.</p>
+<p>
+ Just consider: the GNU Project starts developing an operating system,
+ and years later Linus Torvalds adds one important piece. The GNU
+ Project says, ``Please give our project equal mention,'' but Linus
+ says, ``Don't give them a share of the credit; call the whole thing
+ after my name alone!'' Now envision the mindset of a person who can
+ look at these events and accuse the GNU Project of egotism. It takes
+ strong prejudice to misjudge so drastically.</p>
+<p>
+ A person who is that prejudiced can say all sorts of unfair things
+ about the GNU Project and think them justified; his fellows will
+ support him, because they want each other's support in maintaining
+ their prejudice. Dissenters can be reviled; thus, if I decline to
+ participate in an activity under the rubric of ``Linux'', they may
+ find that inexcusable, and hold me responsible for the ill will they
+ feel afterwards. When so many people want me to call the system
+ ``Linux'', how can I, who merely launched its development, not comply?
+ And forcibly denying them a speech is forcibly making them unhappy.
+ That's coercion, as bad as Microsoft!</p>
+<p>
+ Now, you might wonder why I don't just duck the issue and avoid all
+ this grief. When SIGLINUX invited me to speak, I could simply have
+ said ``No, sorry'' and the matter would have ended there. Why didn't
+ I do that? I'm willing to take the risk of being abused personally in
+ order to have a chance of correcting the error that undercuts the GNU
+ Project's efforts.</p>
+<p>
+ Calling this variant of the GNU system ``Linux'' plays into the hands
+ of people who choose their software based only on technical advantage,
+ not caring whether it respects their freedom. There are people like
+ Barr, that want their software ``free from ideology'' and criticize
+ anyone that says freedom matters. There are people like Torvalds that
+ will pressure our community into use of a non-free program, and
+ challenge anyone who complains to provide a (technically) better
+ program immediately or shut up. There are people who say that
+ technical decisions should not be ``politicized'' by consideration of
+ their social consequences.</p>
+<p>
+ In the 70s, computer users lost the freedoms to redistribute and
+ change software because they didn't value their freedom. Computer
+ users regained these freedoms in the 80s and 90s because a group of
+ idealists, the GNU Project, believed that freedom is what makes a
+ program better, and were willing to work for what we believed in.</p>
+<p>
+ We have partial freedom today, but our freedom is not secure. It is
+ threatened by the CBDTPA (formerly SSSCA), by the Broadcast
+ ``Protection'' Discussion Group (see <a
+
href="http://www.eff.org/";>http://www.eff.org/</a>) which proposes to
+ prohibit free software to access digital TV broadcasts, by software
+ patents (Europe is now considering whether to have software patents),
+ by Microsoft nondisclosure agreements for vital protocols, and by
+ everyone who tempts us with a non-free program that is ``better''
+ (technically) than available free programs. We can lose our freedom
+ again just as we lost it the first time, if we don't care enough to
+ protect it.</p>
+<p>
+ Will enough of us care? That depends on many things; among them, how
+ much influence the GNU Project has, and how much influence Linus
+ Torvalds has. The GNU Project says, ``Value your freedom!''. Joe
+ Barr says, ``Choose between non-free and free programs on technical
+ grounds alone!''. If people credit Torvalds as the main developer of
+ the GNU/Linux system, that's not just inaccurate, it also makes his
+ message more influential--and that message says, ``Non-free software
+ is ok; I use it and develop it myself.'' If they recognize our role,
+ they will listen to us more, and the message we will give them is,
+ ``This system exists because of people who care about freedom. Join
+ us, value your freedom, and together we can preserve it.'' See <a
+
href="http://www.gnu.org/gnu/the-gnu-project.html";>http://www.gnu.org/gnu/the-gnu-project.html</a>
+ for the history.</p>
+<p>
+ When I ask people to call the system GNU/Linux, some of them respond
+ with silly excuses and straw men. But we probably haven't lost
+ anything, because they were probably unfriendly to begin with.
+ Meanwhile, other people recognize the reasons I give, and use that
+ name. By doing so, they help make other people aware of why the
+ GNU/Linux system really exists, and that increases our ability to
+ spread the idea that freedom is an important value.</p>
+<p>
+ This is why I keep butting my head against bias, calumny, and grief.
+ They hurt my feelings, but when successful, this effort helps the GNU
+ Project campaign for freedom.</p>
+<p>
+ Since this came up in the context of Linux (the kernel) and Bitkeeper,
+ the non-free version control system that Linus Torvalds now uses, I'd
+ like to address that issue as well.</p>
<h3>Bitkeeper issue</h3>
<p>
-The use of Bitkeeper for the Linux sources has a grave effect on the
-free software community, because anyone who wants to closely track
-patches to Linux can only do it by installing that non-free program.
-There must be dozens or even hundreds of kernel hackers who have done
-this. Most of them are gradually convincing themselves that it is ok
-to use non-free software, in order to avoid a sense of cognitive
-dissonance about the presence of Bitkeeper on their machines. What
-can be done about this?</p>
-<p>
-One solution is to set up another repository for the Linux sources,
-using CVS or another free version control system, and arranging to
-load new versions into it automatically. This could use Bitkeeper to
-access the latest revisions, then install the new revisions into CVS.
-That update process could run automatically and frequently.</p>
-<p>
-The FSF cannot do this, because we cannot install Bitkeeper on our
-machines. We have no non-free systems or applications on them now,
-and our principles say we must keep it that way. Operating this
-repository would have to be done by someone else who is willing to
-have Bitkeeper on his machine, unless someone can find or make a way
-to do it using free software.</p>
-<p>
-The Linux sources themselves have an even more serious problem with
-non-free software: they actually contain some. Quite a few device
-drivers contain series of numbers that represent firmware programs to
-be installed in the device. These programs are not free software. A
-few numbers to be deposited into device registers are one thing; a
-substantial program in binary is another.</p>
-<p>
-The presence of these binary-only programs in ``source'' files of
-Linux creates a secondary problem: it calls into question whether
-Linux binaries can legally be redistributed at all. The GPL requires
-``complete corresponding source code,'' and a sequence of integers is
-not the source code. By the same token, adding such a binary to the
-Linux sources violates the GPL.</p>
-<p>
-The Linux developers have a plan to move these firmware programs into
-separate files; it will take a few years to mature, but when completed
-it will solve the secondary problem; we could make a ``free Linux''
-version that doesn't have the non-free firmware files. That by itself
-won't do much good if most people use the non-free ``official''
-version of Linux. That may well occur, because on many platforms the
-free version won't run without the non-free firmware. The ``free
-Linux'' project will have to figure out what the firmware does and
-write source code for it, perhaps in assembler language for whatever
-embedded processor it runs on. It's a daunting job. It would be less
-daunting if we had done it little by little over the years, rather
-than letting it mount up. In recruiting people to do this job, we
-will have to overcome the idea, spread by some Linux developers, that
-the job is not necessary.</p>
-<p>
-Linux, the kernel, is often thought of as the flagship of free
-software, yet its current version is partially non-free. How did this
-happen? This problem, like the decision to use Bitkeeper, reflects
-the attitude of the original developer of Linux, a person who thinks
-that ``technically better'' is more important than freedom.</p>
-<p>
-Value your freedom, or you will lose it, teaches history. ``Don't
-bother us with politics,'' respond those who don't want to learn.</p>
-
-
-<hr />
-<h4><a href="/philosophy/philosophy.html">Other Texts to Read</a></h4>
-<hr />
-
-<!-- All pages on the GNU web server should have the section about -->
-<!-- verbatim copying. Please do NOT remove this without talking -->
-<!-- with the webmasters first. -->
-<!-- Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the document -->
-<!-- and that it is like this "2001, 2002" not this "2001-2002." -->
-
-<div class="translations">
-<p><a id="translations"></a>
-<b>Translations of this page</b>:<br />
-
-<!-- Please keep this list alphabetical, and in the original -->
-<!-- language if possible, otherwise default to English -->
-<!-- If you do not have it English, please comment what the -->
-<!-- English is. If you add a new language here, please -->
-<!-- advise address@hidden and add it to -->
-<!-- - in /home/www/bin/nightly-vars either TAGSLANG or WEBLANG -->
-<!-- - in /home/www/html/server/standards/README.translations.html -->
-<!-- one of the lists under the section "Translations Underway" -->
-<!-- - if there is a translation team, you also have to add an alias -->
-<!-- to mail.gnu.org:/com/mailer/aliases -->
-<!-- Please also check you have the 2 letter language code right versus -->
-<!-- http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/ert/iso639.htm -->
-
-[
- <a
href="/philosophy/linux-gnu-freedom.cn.html">简体中文</a>
<!-- Chinese(Simplified) -->
-| <a
href="/philosophy/linux-gnu-freedom.zh.html">繁體中文</a>
<!-- Chinese(Traditional) -->
-| <a href="/philosophy/linux-gnu-freedom.cs.html">Česky</a> <!--
Czech -->
-| <a href="/philosophy/linux-gnu-freedom.de.html">Deutsch</a> <!-- German -->
-| <a href="/philosophy/linux-gnu-freedom.html">English</a>
-| <a href="/philosophy/linux-gnu-freedom.es.html">Español</a> <!--
Spanish -->
-| <a href="/philosophy/linux-gnu-freedom.fr.html">French</a> <!-- French -->
-| <a
href="/philosophy/linux-gnu-freedom.he.html">עברית</a>
<!-- Hebrew -->
-| <a href="/philosophy/linux-gnu-freedom.pl.html">Polski</a> <!-- Polish -->
-| <a
href="/philosophy/linux-gnu-freedom.sr.html">Српски</a>
<!-- Serbian -->
-]
+ The use of Bitkeeper for the Linux sources has a grave effect on the
+ free software community, because anyone who wants to closely track
+ patches to Linux can only do it by installing that non-free program.
+ There must be dozens or even hundreds of kernel hackers who have done
+ this. Most of them are gradually convincing themselves that it is ok
+ to use non-free software, in order to avoid a sense of cognitive
+ dissonance about the presence of Bitkeeper on their machines. What
+ can be done about this?</p>
+<p>
+ One solution is to set up another repository for the Linux sources,
+ using CVS or another free version control system, and arranging to
+ load new versions into it automatically. This could use Bitkeeper to
+ access the latest revisions, then install the new revisions into CVS.
+ That update process could run automatically and frequently.</p>
+<p>
+ The FSF cannot do this, because we cannot install Bitkeeper on our
+ machines. We have no non-free systems or applications on them now,
+ and our principles say we must keep it that way. Operating this
+ repository would have to be done by someone else who is willing to
+ have Bitkeeper on his machine, unless someone can find or make a way
+ to do it using free software.</p>
+<p>
+ The Linux sources themselves have an even more serious problem with
+ non-free software: they actually contain some. Quite a few device
+ drivers contain series of numbers that represent firmware programs to
+ be installed in the device. These programs are not free software. A
+ few numbers to be deposited into device registers are one thing; a
+ substantial program in binary is another.</p>
+<p>
+ The presence of these binary-only programs in ``source'' files of
+ Linux creates a secondary problem: it calls into question whether
+ Linux binaries can legally be redistributed at all. The GPL requires
+ ``complete corresponding source code,'' and a sequence of integers is
+ not the source code. By the same token, adding such a binary to the
+ Linux sources violates the GPL.</p>
+<p>
+ The Linux developers have a plan to move these firmware programs into
+ separate files; it will take a few years to mature, but when completed
+ it will solve the secondary problem; we could make a ``free Linux''
+ version that doesn't have the non-free firmware files. That by itself
+ won't do much good if most people use the non-free ``official''
+ version of Linux. That may well occur, because on many platforms the
+ free version won't run without the non-free firmware. The ``free
+ Linux'' project will have to figure out what the firmware does and
+ write source code for it, perhaps in assembler language for whatever
+ embedded processor it runs on. It's a daunting job. It would be less
+ daunting if we had done it little by little over the years, rather
+ than letting it mount up. In recruiting people to do this job, we
+ will have to overcome the idea, spread by some Linux developers, that
+ the job is not necessary.</p>
+<p>
+ Linux, the kernel, is often thought of as the flagship of free
+ software, yet its current version is partially non-free. How did this
+ happen? This problem, like the decision to use Bitkeeper, reflects
+ the attitude of the original developer of Linux, a person who thinks
+ that ``technically better'' is more important than freedom.</p>
+<p>
+ Value your freedom, or you will lose it, teaches history. ``Don't
+ bother us with politics,'' respond those who don't want to learn.</p>
+
+<p>
+ <strong>Update:</strong> BitKeeper is no longer used to manage the Linux
kernel
+ source tree. RMS discusses the change in his
+ article, <a href="mcvoy.html">Thank You, Larry McVoy</a>.
</p>
-</div>
-<div class="copyright">
-<p>
-Return to the <a href="/home.html">GNU Project home page</a>.
-</p>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
-<p>
-Please send FSF & GNU inquiries to
-<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
-There are also <a href="/home.html#ContactInfo">other ways to contact</a>
-the FSF.
-<br />
-Please send broken links and other corrections (or suggestions) to
-<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
-</p>
+<div id="footer">
+ <p>
+ Please send FSF & GNU inquiries to
+ <a href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
+ There are also <a href="/home.html#ContactInfo">other ways to contact</a>
+ the FSF.
+ <br />
+ Please send broken links and other corrections (or suggestions) to
+ <a href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
+ </p>
+
+ <p>
+ Please see the
+ <a href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting
+ translations of this article.
+ </p>
+
+ <p>
+ Copyright © 2002 Richard M. Stallman
+ <br />
+ Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is
+ permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is
+ preserved.
+ </p>
+
+ <p>
+ Updated:
+ <!-- timestamp start -->
+ $Date: 2006/10/11 20:41:26 $ $Author: johnsu01 $
+ <!-- timestamp end -->
+ </p>
+</div>
-<p>
-Please see the
-<a href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
-README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting
-translations of this article.
-</p>
+<div id="translations">
+ <h4>Translations of this page</h4>
-<p>
-Copyright © 2002 Richard M. Stallman
-<br />
-Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is
-permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is
-preserved.
-</p>
+ <!-- Please keep this list alphabetical, and in the original -->
+ <!-- language if possible, otherwise default to English -->
+ <!-- If you do not have it English, please comment what the -->
+ <!-- English is. If you add a new language here, please -->
+ <!-- advise address@hidden and add it to -->
+ <!-- - in /home/www/bin/nightly-vars either TAGSLANG or WEBLANG -->
+ <!-- - in /home/www/html/server/standards/README.translations.html -->
+ <!-- one of the lists under the section "Translations Underway" -->
+ <!-- - if there is a translation team, you also have to add an alias -->
+ <!-- to mail.gnu.org:/com/mailer/aliases -->
+ <!-- Please also check you have the 2 letter language code right versus -->
+ <!-- http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/ert/iso639.htm -->
+
+ <ul class="translations-list">
+ <li><a
href="/philosophy/linux-gnu-freedom.cn.html">简体中文</a></li>
<!-- Chinese(Simplified) -->
+ <li><a
href="/philosophy/linux-gnu-freedom.zh.html">繁體中文</a></li>
<!-- Chinese(Traditional) -->
+ <li><a href="/philosophy/linux-gnu-freedom.cs.html">Česky</a></li>
<!-- Czech -->
+ <li><a href="/philosophy/linux-gnu-freedom.de.html">Deutsch</a>
</li><!-- German -->
+ <li><a href="/philosophy/linux-gnu-freedom.html">English</a></li>
+ <li><a
href="/philosophy/linux-gnu-freedom.es.html">Español</a></li>
<!-- Spanish -->
+ <li><a href="/philosophy/linux-gnu-freedom.fr.html">French</a></li>
<!-- French -->
+ <li><a
href="/philosophy/linux-gnu-freedom.he.html">עברית</a></li>
<!-- Hebrew -->
+ <li><a href="/philosophy/linux-gnu-freedom.pl.html">Polski</a></li>
<!-- Polish -->
+ <li><a
href="/philosophy/linux-gnu-freedom.sr.html">Српски</a></li>
<!-- Serbian -->
+ </ul>
-<p>
-Updated:
-<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2005/08/31 06:45:08 $ $Author: wkotwica $
-<!-- timestamp end -->
-</p>
+</div>
</div>
</body>
- www/philosophy linux-gnu-freedom.html,
John Sullivan <=