www/philosophy free-digital-society.html

[James Turner]

CVSROOT:        /web/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     James Turner <jturner>  11/11/22 02:06:18

Added files:
        philosophy     : free-digital-society.html 

Log message:
        A Free Digital Society Transcript RT #715411

CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/free-digital-society.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1

Patches:
Index: free-digital-society.html
===================================================================
RCS file: free-digital-society.html
diff -N free-digital-society.html
--- /dev/null   1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ free-digital-society.html   22 Nov 2011 02:06:13 -0000      1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,1088 @@
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.61 -->
+
+<title>A Free Digital Society
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<!--#set var="article_name" value="/server/standards/boilerplate" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/gnun/initial-translations-list.html" -->
+
+<h2>A Free Digital Society</h2>
+<p>by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/";>Richard Stallman</a></p>
+
+<p>This is the <a
+href="http://www.libertesnumeriques.net/evenements/stallman-19octobre2011/a-free-digital-society";>transcription</a>
+of Richard Stallman's lecture at Sciences Po, Paris on October 19,
+2011.</p>
+
+<p>Projects with the goal of digital inclusion are making a big
+assumption. They are assuming that participating in a digital society
+is good; but that's not necessarily true. Being in a digital society
+can be good or bad, depending on whether that digital society is just
+or unjust. There are many ways in which our freedom is being attacked
+by digital technology. Digital technology can make things worse,
+and it will, unless we fight to prevent it.</p>
+
+<p>Therefore, if we have an unjust digital society, we should cancel
+these projects for digital inclusion and launch projects for digital
+extraction. We have to extract people from digital society if it
+doesn't respect their freedom; or we have to make it respect their
+freedom.</p>
+
+<h3>[Surveillance]</h3>
+
+<p>What are the threats? First, surveillance. Computers are Stalin's
+dream: they are ideal tools for surveillance, because anything we
+do with computers, the computers can record. They can record the
+information in a perfectly indexed searchable form in a central
+database, ideal for any tyrant who wants to crush opposition.</p>
+
+<p>Surveillance is sometimes done with our own computers. For instance,
+if you have a computer that's running Microsoft Windows, that system
+is doing surveillance. There are features in Windows that send data
+to some server. Data about the use of the computer. A surveillance
+feature was discovered in the iPhone a few months ago, and people
+started calling it the &ldquo;spy-phone.&rdquo; Flash player has a
+surveillance feature too, and so does the Amazon &ldquo;Swindle.&rdquo;
+They call it the Kindle, but I call it the Swindle (l'escroc) because
+it's meant to swindle users out of their freedom. It makes people
+identify themselves whenever they buy a book, and that means Amazon
+has a giant list of all the books each user has read. Such a list
+must not exist anywhere.</p>
+
+<p>Most portable phones will transmit their location, computed using
+GPS, on remote command. The phone company is accumulating a giant list
+of places that the user has been. A German MP in the Green Party asked
+the phone company to give him the data it had about where he was. He
+had to sue, he had to go to court to get this information. And when he
+got it, he received forty-four thousand location points for a period
+of six months! That's more than two hundred per day! What that means
+is someone could form a very good picture of his activities just by
+looking at that data.</p>
+
+<p>We can stop our own computers from doing surveillance on us if
+we have control of the software that they run. But the software
+these people are running, they don't have control over. It's
+non-free software, and that's why it has malicious features, such as
+surveillance. However, the surveillance is not always done with our own
+computers, it's also done at one remove. For instance ISPs in Europe
+are required to keep data about the user's internet communications
+for a long time, in case the State decides to investigate that person
+later for whatever imaginable reason.</p>
+
+<p>With a portable phone&mdash;even if you can stop the phone from
+transmitting your GPS location, the system can determine the phone's
+location approximately, by comparing the time when the signals arrive
+at different towers. So the phone system can do surveillance even
+without special cooperation from the phone itself.</p>
+
+<p>Likewise, the bicycles that people rent in Paris. Of course the
+system knows where you get the bicycle and it knows where you return
+the bicycle, and I've heard reports that it tracks the bicycles as
+they are moving around as well. So they are not something we can
+really trust.</p>
+
+<p>But there are also systems that have nothing to do with us that
+exist only for tracking. For instance, in the UK all car travel is
+monitored.  Every car's movements are being recorded in real time and
+can be tracked by the State in real time. This is done with cameras
+on the side of the road.</p>
+
+<p>Now, the only way we can prevent surveillance that's done at one
+remove or by unrelated systems is through political action against
+increased government power to track and monitor everyone, which means
+of course we have to reject whatever excuse they come up with. For
+doing such systems, no excuse is valid&mdash;to monitor everyone.</p>
+
+<p>In a free society, when you go out in public, you are not
+guaranteed anonymity. It's possible for someone to recognize you
+and remember. And later that person could say that he saw you at a
+certain place. But that information is diffuse. It's not conveniently
+assembled to track everybody and investigate what they did. To collect
+that information is a lot of work, so it's only done in special cases
+when it's necessary.</p>
+
+<p>But computerized surveillance makes it possible to centralize and
+index all this information so that an unjust regime can find it all,
+and find out all about everyone. If a dictator takes power, which
+could happen anywhere, people realize this and they recognize that they
+should not communicate with other dissidents in a way that the State
+could find out about. But if the dictator has several years of stored
+records, of who talks with whom, it's too late to take any precautions
+then. Because he already has everything he needs to realize: &ldquo;OK
+this guy is a dissident, and he spoke with him. Maybe he is a dissident
+too. Maybe we should grab him and torture him.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p>So we need to campaign to put an end to digital surveillance
+now. You can't wait until there is a dictator and it would really
+matter. And besides, it doesn't take an outright dictatorship to
+start attacking human rights.</p>
+
+<p>I wouldn't quite call the government of the UK a dictatorship. It's
+not very democratic, and one way it crushes democracy is using
+surveillance. A few years ago, people believed to be on their way to
+a protest; they were going to protest. They were arrested before they
+could get there, because their car was tracked through this universal
+car tracking system.</p>
+
+<h3>[Censorship]</h3>
+
+<p>The second threat is censorship. Censorship is not new, it
+existed long before computers. But 15 years ago, we thought that
+the Internet would protect us from censorship, that it would defeat
+censorship. Then, China and some other obvious tyrannies went to
+great lengths to impose censorship on the Internet, and we said:
+&ldquo;well that's not surprising, what else would governments like
+that do?&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p>But today we see censorship imposed in countries that are not
+normally thought of as dictatorships, such as for instance the UK,
+France, Spain, Italy, Denmark&hellip;</p>
+
+<p>They all have systems of blocking access to some websites. Denmark
+established a system that blocks access to a long list of webpages,
+which was secret. The citizens were not supposed to know how the
+government was censoring them, but the list was leaked, and posted
+on WikiLeaks. At that point, Denmark added the WikiLeaks page to its
+censorship list.</p>
+
+<p>So, the whole rest of the world can find out how Danes are being
+censored, but Danes are not supposed to know.</p>
+
+<p>A few months ago, Turkey, which claims to respect some human rights,
+announced that every Internet user would have to choose between
+censorship and more censorship. Four different levels of censorship
+they get to choose! But freedom is not one of the options.</p>
+
+<p>Australia wanted to impose filtering on the Internet, but that
+was blocked. However Australia has a different kind of censorship:
+it has censorship of links. That is, if a website in Australia has
+a link to some censored site outside Australia, the one in Australia
+can be punished.</p>
+
+<p>Electronic Frontier Australia, that is an organization that defends
+human rights in the digital domain in Australia, posted a link to a
+foreign political website. It was ordered to delete the link or face a
+penalty of $11,000 a day. So they deleted it, what else could they do?
+This is a very harsh system of censorship.</p>
+
+<p>In Spain, the censorship that was adopted earlier this year allows
+officials to arbitrarily shut down an Internet site in Spain, or impose
+filtering to block access to a site outside of Spain. And they can do
+this without any kind of trial. This was one of the motivations for
+the <em>Indignados</em>, who have been protesting in the street.</p>
+
+<p>There were protests in the street in Turkey as well, after that
+announcement, but the government refused to change its policy.</p>
+
+<p>We must recognize that a country that imposes censorship on the
+Internet is not a free country. And is not a legitimate government
+either.</p>
+
+<h3>[Restricted data formats]</h3>
+
+<p>The next threat to our freedom comes from data formats that restrict
+the users.</p>
+
+<p>Sometimes it's because the format is secret. There are many
+application programs that save the user's data in a secret format,
+which is meant to prevent the user from taking that data and using it
+with some other program. The goal is to prevent interoperability.</p>
+
+<p>Now, evidently, if the program implements a secret format, that's
+because the program is not free software. So this is another kind of
+malicious feature. Surveillance is one kind of malicious feature that
+you find in some non-free programs; using secret formats to restrict
+the users is another kind of malicious feature that you also find in
+some non-free programs.</p>
+
+<p>But if you have a free program that handles a certain format,
+<em>ipso facto</em> that format is not secret. This kind of malicious
+feature can only exist in a non-free program. Surveillance features
+could theoretically exist in a free program but you don't find them
+happening. Because the users would fix it. The users wouldn't like
+this, so they would fix it.</p>
+
+<p>In any case, we also find secret data formats in use for publication
+of works. You find secret data formats in use for audio, such as music,
+for video, for books&hellip; And these secret formats are known as
+Digital Restrictions Management, or DRM, or digital handcuffs (les
+menottes num&eacute;riques).</p>
+
+<p>So, the works are published in secret formats so that only
+proprietary programs can play them, so that these proprietary programs
+can have the malicious feature of restricting the users, stopping
+them from doing something that would be natural to do.</p>
+
+<p>And this is used even by public entities to communicate with the
+people. For instance Italian public television makes its programs
+available on the net in a format called VC-1, which is a standard
+supposedly, but it's a secret standard.</p>
+
+<p>Now I can't imagine how any publicly supported entity could justify
+using a secret format to communicate with the public. This should be
+illegal. In fact I think all use of Digital Restrictions Management
+should be illegal. No company should be allowed to do this.</p>
+
+<p>There are also formats that are not secret but almost might as
+well be secret, for instance Flash. Flash is not actually secret
+but Adobe keeps making new versions, which are different, faster
+than anyone can keep up and make free software to play those files;
+so it has almost the same effect as being secret.</p>
+
+<p>Then there are the patented formats, such as MP3 for audio. It's bad
+to distribute audio in MP3 format! There is free software to handle
+MP3 format, to play it and to generate it, but because it's patented
+in many countries, many distributors of free software don't dare
+include those programs; so if they distribute the GNU+Linux system,
+their system doesn't include a player for MP3.</p>
+
+<p>As a result if anyone distributes some music in MP3 that's putting
+pressure on people not to use GNU/Linux. Sure, if you're an expert
+you can find a free software and install it, but there are lots of
+non experts, and they might see that they installed a version of
+GNU/Linux which doesn't have that software, and it won't play MP3
+files, and they think it's the system's fault. They don't realize
+it's MP3's fault. But this is the fact.</p>
+
+<p>Therefore, if you want to support freedom, don't distribute
+MP3 files. That's why I say if you're recording my speech and you
+want to distribute copies, don't do it in a patented format such as
+MPEG-2, or MPEG-4, or MP3. Use a format friendly to free software,
+such as the Ogg format or WebM. And by the way, if you are going to
+distribute copies of the recording, please put on it the Creative
+Commons-No derivatives license. This is a statement of my personal
+views. If it were a lecture for a course, if it were didactic, then
+it ought to be free, but statements of opinion are different.</p>
+
+<h3>[Software that isn't free]</h3>
+
+<p>Now this leads me to the next threat which comes from software
+that the users don't have control over. In other words: software
+that isn't free, that is not &ldquo;libre&rdquo;. In this particular
+point French is clearer than English. The English word free means
+&lsquo;libre&rsquo; and &lsquo;gratuit&rsquo;, but what I mean when
+I say free software is &lsquo;logiciel libre&rsquo;. I don't mean
+&lsquo;gratuit&rsquo;. I'm not talking about price. Price is a side
+issue, just a detail, because it does'nt matter ethically. You know
+if i have a copy of a program and I sell it to you for one euro or a
+hundred euros, who cares? Why should anyone think that that's good or
+bad? Or suppose I gave it to you &lsquo;gratuitement&rsquo;&hellip;
+still, who cares? But whether this program respects your freedom,
+that's important!</p>
+
+<p>So free software is software that respects users' freedom. What does
+this mean? Ultimately there are just two possibilities with software:
+either the users control the program or the program controls the users.
+If the users have certain essential freedoms, then they control the
+program, and those freedoms are the criterion for free software. But
+if the users don't fully have the essential freedoms, then the program
+controls the users. But somebody controls that program and, through
+it, has <em>power</em> over the users. </p>
+
+<p>So, a non-free program is an instrument to give somebody
+<em>power</em> over a lot of other people and this is unjust
+power that nobody should ever have. This is why non-free software
+(les logiciels privateurs, qui privent de la libert&eacute;), why
+proprietary software is an injustice and should not exist; because
+it leaves the users without freedom.</p>
+
+<p>Now, the developer who has control of the program often feels
+tempted to introduce malicious features to <em>further</em> exploit or
+abuse those users.  He feels a temptation because he knows he can get
+away with it: because his program controls the users and the users do
+not have control of the program, if he puts in a malicious feature,
+the users can't fix it; they can't remove the malicious feature.</p>
+
+<p>I've already told you about two kinds of malicious features:
+surveillance features, such as are found in Windows, and the Iphone
+and Flash player, and the &ldquo;Swindle&rdquo;. And there are also
+features to restrict users, which work with secret data formats,
+and those are found in Windows, Macintosh, the Iphone, Flash player,
+the Amazon &ldquo;Swindle&rdquo;, the Playstation 3 and lots and lots
+of other programs.</p>
+
+<p>The other kind of malicious feature is the backdoor. That means
+something in that program is listening for remote commands and obeying
+them, and those commands can mistreat the user. We know of backdoors
+in Windows, in the Iphone, in the Amazon &ldquo;Swindle&rdquo;. The
+Amazon &ldquo;Swindle&rdquo; has a backdoor that can remotely delete
+books. We know this by observation, because Amazon did it: in 2009
+Amazon remotely deleted thousands of copies of a particular book. Those
+were authorized copies, people had obtain them directly from Amazon,
+and thus Amazon knew exactly where they were, which is how Amazon
+knew where to send the commands to delete those books. You know which
+book Amazon deleted?  <em>1984</em> by Georges Orwell. It's a book
+everyone should read, because it discusses a totalitarian state that
+did things like delete books it didn't like. Everybody should read it,
+but not on the Amazon &ldquo;Swindle&rdquo;.</p>
+
+<p>Anyway, malicious features are present in the most widely used
+non-free programs, but they are rare in free software, because
+with free software the users have control: they can read the source
+code and they can change it. So, if there were a malicious feature,
+somebody would sooner or later spot it and fix it. This means that
+somebody who is considering introducing a malicious feature does not
+find it so tempting, because he knows he might get away with it for
+a while but somebody will spot it, will fix it, and everybody will
+loose trust in the perpetrator. It's not so tempting when you know
+you're going to fail. And that's why we find that malicious features
+are rare in free software, and common in proprietary software.</p>
+
+<h3>[The 4 freedoms of free software]</h3>
+
+<p>Now the essential freedoms are four:</p>
+
+<ul>
+    <li>Freedom 0 is the freedom to run the program as you wish.</li>
+    <li>Freedom 1 is the freedom to study the source code and
+    change it,
+so the program does your computing the way you wish.</li>
+    <li>Freedom 2 is the freedom to help others. That's the freedom to
+make exact copies and redistribute them when you wish.</li>
+    <li>Freedom 3 is the freedom to contribute to your
+    community. That's
+the freedom to make copies of your modified versions, if you have
+made any, and then distribute them to others when you wish.</li> </ul>
+
+<p>These freedoms, in order to be adequate, must apply to all
+activities of life. For instance if it says: &ldquo;This is free for
+academic use,&rdquo; it's not free. Because that's too limited. It
+doesn't apply to all areas of life. In particular, if a program is
+free, that means it can be modified and distributed commercially,
+because commerce is an area of life, an activity in life. And this
+freedom has to apply to all activities.</p>
+
+<p>Now however, it's not obligatory to do any of these things. The
+point is you're free to do them if you wish, when you wish. But you
+never have to do them. You don't have to do any of them. You don't
+have to run the program. You don't have to study or change the source
+code. You don't have to make any copies. You don't have to distribute
+your modified versions. The point is you should be free to do those
+things if you wish.</p>
+
+<p>Now, freedom number 1, the freedom to study and change the source
+code to make the program do your computing as you wish, includes
+something that might not be obvious at first. If the program comes
+in a product, and a developer can provide an upgrade that will run,
+then you have to be able to make your version run in that product. If
+the product would only run the developer's versions, and refuses to
+run yours, the executable in that product is not free software. Even
+if it was compiled from free source code, it's not free because you
+don't have the freedom to make the program do your computing the way
+you wish. So, freedom 1 has to be real, not just theoretical. It has
+to include the freedom to use your version, not just the freedom to
+make some source code that won't run.</p>
+
+<h3>[The GNU project and the free software movement]</h3>
+
+<p>I launched the free software movement in 1983, when I announced the
+plan to develop a free software operating system whose name is GNU. Now
+GNU, the name GNU, is a joke; because part of the hacker's spirit is
+to have fun even when you're doing something very serious. Now I can't
+think of anything more seriously important than defending freedom.</p>
+
+<p>But that didn't mean I couldn't give my system a name that's a joke.
+So GNU is a joke because it's a recursive acronym, it stands for
+&ldquo;GNU is Not Unix&rdquo;, so G.N.U.: GNU's Not Unix. So the G
+in GNU stands for GNU.</p>
+
+<p>Now in fact that was a tradition at the time. The tradition was:
+if there was an existing program and you wrote something similar to
+it, inspired by it, you could give credit by giving your program a
+name that's a recursive acronym saying it's not the other one.</p>
+
+<p>So I gave credit to Unix for the technical ideas of Unix, but
+with the name GNU, because I decided to make GNU a Unix-like system,
+with the same commands, the same system calls, so that it would be
+compatible, so that people who used Unix can switch over easily.</p>
+
+<p>But the reason for developing GNU, that was unique. GNU is the
+only operating system, as far as I know, ever developed for the
+purpose of freedom. Not for technical motivations, not for commercial
+motivations.  GNU was written for <em>your</em> freedom. Because
+without a free operating system, it's impossible to have freedom
+and use a computer. And there were none, and I wanted people to have
+freedom, so it was up to me to write one.</p>
+
+<p>Nowadays there are millions of users of the GNU operating
+system and most of them don't <em>know</em> they are using the
+GNU operating system, because there is a widespread practice which
+is not nice. People call the system &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;. Many do,
+but some people don't, and I hope you'll be one of them. Please,
+since we started this, since we wrote the biggest piece of the code,
+please give us equal mention, please call the system GNU+Linux,
+or GNU/Linux. It's not much to ask!<p>
+
+<p>But there is another reason to do this. It turns out that the
+person who wrote Linux, which is one component of the system as we
+use it today, doesn't agree with the free software movement. And so
+if you call the whole system Linux, in effect you're steering people
+towards his ideas, and away from our ideas. Because he's not gonna
+say to them that they deserve freedom. He's going to say to them that
+he likes convenient, reliable, powerful software. He's going to tell
+people that those are the important values.</p>
+
+<p>But if you tell them the system is GNU+Linux&mdash;the GNU
+operating system plus Linux the kernel&mdash;then they'll know about
+us, and then they might listen to what we say. You deserve freedom,
+and since freedom will be lost if we don't defend it&mdash;there's
+always going to be a Sarkozy to take it away&mdash;we need above all
+to teach people to demand freedom, to be ready to stand up for their
+freedom the next time someone threatens to take it away.</p>
+
+<p>Nowadays, you can tell who does'nt want to discuss these ideas
+of freedom because they don't say &ldquo;logiciel libre&rdquo;. They
+don't say &ldquo;libre&rdquo;, they say &ldquo;open source&rdquo;. That
+term was coined by the people like Mr Torvalds who would prefer that
+these ethical issues don't get raised. And so the way you can help
+us raise them is by saying libre. You know, it's up to you where you
+stand, you're free to say what you think. If you agree with them,
+you can say open source. If you agree with us, show it: say libre!</p>
+
+<h3>[Free software and education]</h3>
+
+<p>Now the most important point about free software is that schools
+must teach exclusively free software. All levels of schools from
+kindergarten to university, it's their moral responsibility to teach
+only free software in their education, and all other educational
+activities as well, including those that say that they're spreading
+digital literacy.  A lot of those activities teach Windows, which
+means they're teaching <em>dependence</em>. To teach people the
+use proprietary software is to teach dependence, and educational
+activities must never do that because it's the opposite of their
+mission. Educational activities have a social mission to educate
+good citizens of a strong, capable, cooperating, independent and
+free society. And in the area of computing, that means: teach free
+software. Never teach a proprietary program because that's inculcating
+dependence.</p>
+
+<p>Why do you think some proprietary developers offer gratis copies
+to schools? They want the schools to make the children dependent. And
+then, when they graduate, they're still dependent and you know the
+company is not going to offer them gratis copies. And some of them
+get jobs and go to work for companies. Not many of them anymore, but
+some of them. And those companies are not going to be offered gratis
+copies. Oh no! The idea is if the school directs the students down
+the path of permanent dependence, they can drag the rest of society
+with them into dependence.  That's the plan! It's just like giving the
+school gratis needles full of addicting drugs, saying &ldquo;inject
+this into your students, the first dose is gratis.&rdquo; Once you're
+dependent, then you have to pay. Well, the school would reject the
+drugs because it isn't right to teach the students to use addictive
+drugs and it's got to reject the proprietary software also. </p>
+
+<p>Some people say &ldquo;let's have the school teach both proprietary
+software and free software, so the students become familiar with
+both.&rdquo; That's like saying &ldquo;for the lunch lets give
+the kids spinach and tabacco, so that they become accustomed to
+both.&rdquo; No! The schools are only supposed to teach good habits,
+not bad ones! So there should be no Windows in a school, no Macintosh,
+nothing proprietary in the education.</p>
+
+<p>But also, for the sake of educating the programmers. You see,
+some people have a talent for programming. At ten to thirteen years
+old, typically, they're fascinated, and if they use a program, they
+want to know &ldquo;how does it do this?&rdquo; But when they ask
+the teacher, if it's proprietary, the teacher has to say &ldquo;I'm
+sorry, it's a secret, we can't find out.&rdquo; Which means education
+is forbidden. A proprietary program is the enemy of the spirit of
+education. It's knowledge withheld, so it should not be tolerated in
+a school, even though there may be plenty of people in the school
+who don't care about programming, don't want to learn this. Still,
+because it's the enemy of the spirit of education, it shouldn't be
+there in the school. </p>
+
+<p>But if the program is free, the teacher can explain what he knows,
+and then give out copies of the source code, saying: &ldquo;read it
+and you'll understand everything.&rdquo; And those who are really
+fascinated, they will read it! And this gives them an opportunity to
+start to learn how to be good programmers.</p>
+
+<p>To learn to be a good programmer, you'll need to recognize that
+certain ways of writing code, even if they make sense to you and they
+are correct, they're not good because other people will have trouble
+understanding them. Good code is clear code, that others will have
+an easy time working on when they need to make further changes.</p>
+
+<p>How do you learn to write good clear code? You do it by reading
+lots of code, and writing lots of code. And only free software offers
+the chance to read the code of large programs that we really use. And
+then you have to write lots of code, which means you have to write
+changes in large programs.</p>
+
+<p>How do you learn to write good code for the large programs? You
+have to start small, which does not mean small program, oh no! The
+challenges of the code for large programs don't even begin to appear
+in small programs. So the way you start small at writing code for
+large programs is by writing small changes in large programs. And
+only free software gives you the chance to do that!</p>
+
+<p>So, if a school wants to offer the possibility of learning to be
+a good programmer, it needs to be a free software school.</p>
+
+<p>But there is an even deeper reason, and that is for the sake of
+moral education, education in citizenship. It's not enough for a school
+to teach facts and skills, it has to teach the spirit of goodwill,
+the habit of helping others. Therefore, every class should have this
+rule: &ldquo;Students, if you bring software to class, you may not
+keep it for yourself, you must share copies with the rest of the class,
+including the source code in case anyone here wants to learn! Because
+this class is a place where we share our knowledge. Therefore, bringing
+a proprietary program to class is not permitted.&rdquo; The school
+must follow its own rule to set a good example. Therefore, the school
+must bring only free software to class, and share copies, including
+the source code, with anyone in the class that wants copies.</p>
+
+<p>Those of you who have a connection with a school, it's your duty
+to campaign and pressure that school to move to free software. And
+you have to be firm. It may take years, but you can succeed as long
+as you never give up. Keep seeking more allies among the students,
+the faculty, the staff, the parents, anyone!</p>
+
+<p>And always bring it up as an ethical issue. If someone else
+wants to sidetrack the discussion into this practical advantage and
+this practical disadvantage, which means they're ignoring the most
+important question, then you have to say: &ldquo;this is not about
+how to do the best job of educating, this is about how to do a good
+education instead of an evil one. It's how to do education right
+instead of wrong, not just how to make it a little more effective,
+or less.&rdquo; So don't get distracted with those secondary issues,
+and ignore what really matters!</p>
+
+<h3>[Internet services]</h3>
+
+<p>So, moving on to the next menace. There are two issues that arise
+from the use of internet services. One of them is that the server
+could abuse your data, and another is that it could take control of
+your computing.</p>
+
+<p>The first issue, people already know about. They are aware that,
+if you upload data to an internet service, there is a question of what
+it will do with that data. It might do things that mistreat you. What
+could it do? It could lose the data, it could change the data, it
+could refuse to let you get the data back. And it could also show
+the data to someone else you don't want to show it to. Four different
+possible things.</p>
+
+<p>Now, here, I'm talking about the data that you knowingly gave to
+that site. Of course, many of those services do <em>surveillance</em>
+as well.</p>
+
+<p>For instance, consider Facebook. Users send lots of data to
+Facebook, and one of the bad things about Facebook is that it shows a
+lot of that data to lots of other people, and even if it offers them
+a setting to say &ldquo;no!&rdquo;, that may not really work. After
+all, if you say &ldquo;some other people can see this piece of
+information,&rdquo; one of them might publish it. Now, that's not
+Facebook's fault, there is nothing they could do to prevent that, but
+it ought to warn people. Instead of saying &ldquo;mark this as only to
+your so-called friends,&rdquo; it should say &ldquo;keep in mind that
+your so-called friends are not really your friends, and if they want
+to make trouble for you, they could publish this.&rdquo; Every time,
+it should say that, if they want to deal with people ethically.</p>
+
+<p>As well as all the data users of Facebook voluntarily give to
+Facebook, Facebook is collecting through data about people's activities
+on the net through various methods of surveillance. But for now I am
+talking about the data that people <em>know</em> they are giving to
+these sites.</p>
+
+<p>Losing data is something that could always happen by accident. That
+possibility is always there, no matter how careful someone is.
+Therefore, you need to keep multiple copies of data that matters. If
+you do that, then, even if someone decided to delete your data
+intentionally, it wouldn't hurt you that much, because you'd have
+other copies of it.</p>
+
+<p>So, as long as you are maintaining multiple copies, you don't have
+to worry too much about someone's losing your data. What about whether
+you can get it back. Well, some services make it possible to get
+back all the data that you sent, and some don't. Google services will
+let the user get back the data the user has put into them. Facebook,
+famously, does not.</p>
+
+<p>Of course in the case of Google, this only applies to the data
+the user <em>knows</em> Google has. Google does lots of surveillance,
+too, and that data is not included.</p>
+
+<p>But in any case, if you can get the data back, then you could track
+whether they have altered it. And they are not very likely to start
+altering people's data if the people can tell. So maybe we can keep
+a track on that particular kind of abuse.</p>
+
+<p>But the abuse of showing the data to someone you don't want it to
+be shown to is very common and almost impossible for you to prevent,
+especially if it's a US company. You see, the most hypocritically
+named law in US history, the so-called USA Patriot Act, says that Big
+Brother's police can collect just about all the data that companies
+maintain about individuals. Not just companies, but other organizations
+too, like public libraries. The police can get this massively, without
+even going to court. Now, in a country that was founded on an idea of
+freedom, there is nothing more unpatriotic than this. But this is what
+they did. So you mustn't ever trust any of your data to a US company.
+And they say that foreign subsidiaries of US companies are subject to
+this as well, so the company you are directly dealing with may be in
+Europe, but if it's owned by a US company, you got the same problem
+to deal with.</p>
+
+<p>However, this is mainly a concern when the data you are sending to
+the service is not for publication. There are some services where you
+publish things. Of course, if you publish something, you know everybody
+is gonna be able to see it. So, there is no way they can hurt you by
+showing it to somebody who wasn't supposed to see it. There is nobody
+who wasn't supposed to see it if you publish it. So in that case the
+problem doesn't exist.</p>
+
+<p>So these are four sub-issues of this one threat of abusing our data.
+The idea of the Freedom Box project is you have your own server in
+your own home, and when you want to do something remotely, you do
+it with your own server, and the police have to get a court order
+in order to search your server. So you have the same rights this way
+that you would have traditionally in the physical world.</p>
+
+<p>The point here and in so many other issues is: as we start doing
+things digitally instead of physically, we shouldn't lose any of our
+rights, because the general tendency is that we do lose rights.</p>
+
+<p>Basically, Stallman's law says that, in an epoch when governments
+work for the mega-corporations instead of reporting to their citizens,
+every technological change can be taken advantage of to reduce our
+freedom. Because reducing our freedom is what these governments want
+to do. So the question is: when do they get an opportunity? Well, any
+change that happens for some other reason is a possible opportunity,
+and they will take advantage of it if that's their general desire.</p>
+
+<p>But the other issue with internet services is that they can take
+control of your computing, and that's not so commonly known. But It's
+becoming more common. There are services that offer to do computing
+for you on data supplied by you&mdash;things that you should do on
+your own computer but they invite you to let somebody else's computer
+do that computing work for you. And the result is you lose control
+over it. It's just as if you used a non-free program.</p>
+
+<p>Two different scenarios but they lead to the same problem. If
+you do your computing with a non-free program&mdash;well, the users
+don't control the non-free program, it controls the users, which
+would include you. So you've lost control of the computing that's
+being done. But if you do your computing in his server&mdash;well,
+the programs that are doing it are the ones he chose. You can't touch
+them or see them, so you have no control over them. He has control
+over them&mdash;maybe.</p>
+
+<p>If they are free software and he installs them, then he has control
+over them. But even he might not have control. He might be running a
+proprietary program in his server, in which case it's somebody else
+who has control of the computing being done in his server. He doesn't
+control it and you don't.</p>
+
+<p>But suppose he installs a free program, then he has control over
+the computing being done in his computer, but you don't. So, either
+way, you don't! So the only way to have control over your computing
+is to do it with <em>your copy</em> of a free program.</p>
+
+<p>This practice is called &ldquo;Software as a Service&rdquo;. It
+means doing your computing with your data in somebody else's
+server. And I don't know of anything that can make this
+acceptable. It's always something that takes away your freedom,
+and the only solution I know of is to refuse. For instance, there
+are servers that will do translation or voice recognition, and you
+are letting them have control over this computing activity, which we
+shouldn't ever do.</p>
+
+<p>Of course, we are also giving them data about ourselves which they
+shouldn't have. Imagine if you had a conversation with somebody through
+a voice-recognition translation system that was Software as as Service
+and it's really running on a server belonging to some company. That
+company also gets to know what was said in the conversation, and if
+it's a US company that means Big Brother also gets to know. This is
+no good.  </p>
+
+<p>The next threat to our freedom in a digital society is using
+computers for voting. You can't trust computers for voting. Whoever
+controls the software in those computers has the power to commit
+undetectable fraud. Elections are special. Because there's nobody
+involved that we dare trust fully. Everybody has to be checked,
+crosschecked by others, so that nobody is in the position to falsify
+the results by himself. Because if anybody is in a position to do
+that, he might do it! So our traditional systems for voting were
+designed so that nobody was fully trusted, everybody was being
+checked by others. So that nobody could easily commit fraud. But
+once you introduce a program, this is impossible! How can you tell
+if a voting machine would honestly count the votes? You'd have to
+study the program that's running in it during the election, which
+of course nobody can do, and most people wouldn't even know how
+to do. But even the experts who might theoretically be capable of
+studying the program, they can't do it while people are voting. They'd
+have to do it in advance, and then how do they know that the program
+they studied is the one that's running while pople vote?  Maybe it's
+been changed. Now, if this program is proprietary, that means some
+company controls it. The election authority can't even tell what that
+program is doing. Well, this company then could rig the election.
+There are accusations that this was done in the US in the past ten
+years, that election results were falsified this way.</p>
+
+<p>But what if the program is free software? That means the election
+authority who owns this voting machine has control over the software
+in it, so the election authority could rig the election. You can't
+trust them either. You don't dare trust <em>anybody</em> in voting,
+and the reason is, there's no way that the voters can verify for
+themselves that their votes were correctly counted, nor that false
+votes were not added.</p>
+
+<p>In other activities of life, you can usually tell if somebody is
+trying to cheat you. Consider for instance buying something from a
+store. You order something, maybe you give a credit card number. If
+the product doesn't come, you can complain and you can&mdash;of course
+if you got a good enough memory you will&mdash;notice if that product
+doesn't come.  You're not just giving total blind trust to the store,
+because you can check. But in elections you can't check.</p>
+
+<p>I saw once a paper where someone described a theoretical system
+for voting which uses some sophisticated mathematics so that people
+could check that their votes had been counted, even though everybody's
+vote was secret, and they could also verify that false votes hadn't
+been added. It was very exciting, powerful mathematics; but even
+if that mathematics is correct, that doesn't mean the system would
+be acceptable to use in practice, because the vulnerabilities of
+a real system might be outside of that mathematics. For instance,
+suppose you're voting over the Internet and suppose you're using a
+machine that's a zombie. It might tell you that the vote was sent
+for A while actually sending a vote for B. Who knows whether you'd
+ever find out? In practice, the only way to see if these systems work
+and are honest is through years, in fact decades, of trying them and
+checking in other ways what happened.</p>
+
+<p>I wouldn't want my country to be the pioneer in this. So, use paper
+for voting. Make sure there are ballots that can be recounted.</p>
+
+<h3>[The war on sharing]</h3>
+
+<p>The next threat to our freedom in a digital society comes from
+the war on sharing.</p>
+
+<p>One of the tremendous benefits of digital technology is that
+it is easy to copy published works and share these copies with
+others. Sharing is good, and with digital technology, sharing is
+easy. So, millions of people share. Those who profit by having power
+over the distribution of these works don't want us to share. And
+since they are businesses, governments which have betrayed their
+people and work for the empire of mega-corporations try to serve
+those businesses, they are against their own people, they are for
+the businesses, for the publishers.</p>
+
+<p>Well, that's not good. And with the help of these governments,
+the companies have been waging <em>war</em> on sharing, and they've
+proposed a series of cruel draconian measures. Why do they propose
+cruel draconian measures? Because nothing less has a chance of success:
+when something is good and easy, people do it. The only way to stop
+them is by being very nasty. So of course, what they propose is nasty,
+nasty, and the next one is nastier. So they tried suing teenagers
+for hundreds of thousands of dollars — that was pretty nasty. And
+they tried turning our technology against us, Digital Restrictions
+Management that means, digital handcuffs.</p>
+
+<p>But among the people there were clever programmers too and they
+found ways to break the handcuffs. For instance, DVDs were designed
+to have encrypted movies in a secret encryption format, and the idea
+was that all the programs to decrypt the video would be proprietary
+with digital handcuffs. They would all be designed to restrict the
+users. And their scheme worked okay for a while. But some people in
+Europe figured out the encryption and they released a free program
+that could actually play the video on a DVD.</p>
+
+<p>Well, the movie companies didn't leave it there. They went to
+the US congress and bought a law making that software illegal. The
+United States invented censorship of software in 1998, with the
+Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). So the distribution of
+that free program was forbidden in the United States. Unfortunately
+it didn't stop with the United States. The European Union adopted
+a directive in 2003 requiring such laws. The directive only says
+that commercial distribution has to be banned, but just about every
+country in the European Union has adopted a nastier law. In France,
+the mere possession of a copy of that program is an offense punished
+by imprisonment, thanks to Sarkozy. I believe that was done by the
+law DADVSI. I guess he hoped that with an unpronounceable name,
+people wouldn't be able to criticize it.</p>
+
+<p>So, elections are coming. Ask the candidates in the parties: will
+you repeal the DADVSI? And if not, don't support them. You mustn't
+give up lost moral territory forever. You've got to fight to win
+it back.</p>
+
+<p>So, we still are fighting against digital handcuffs. The Amazon
+&ldquo;Swindle&rdquo; has digital handcuffs to take away the
+traditional freedoms of readers to do things such as: give a book
+to someone else, or lend a book to someone else. That's a vitally
+important social act. That is what builds society among people who
+read: lending books. Amazon doesn't want to let people lend books
+freely. And then there is also selling a book, perhaps to a used
+bookstore. You can't do that either.</p>
+
+<p>It looked for a while as if DRM had disappeared on music, but now
+they're bringing it back with streaming services such as Spotify. These
+services all require proprietary client software, and the reason is
+so they can put digital handcuffs on the users. So, reject them! They
+already showed quite openly that you can't trust them, because first
+they said: &ldquo;you can listen as much as you like.&rdquo;, and
+then they said: &ldquo;Oh, no! You can only listen a certain number of
+hours a month.&rdquo; The issue is not whether that particular change
+was good or bad, just or unjust; the point is, they have the power to
+impose any change in policies. So don't let them have that power. You
+should have your own copy of any music you want to listen to.</p>
+
+<p>And then came the next assault on our freedom: HADOPI, basically
+punishment on accusation. It was started in France but it's been
+exported to many other countries. The United States now demand such
+unjust policies in its free exploitation treaties. A few months
+ago, Columbia adopted such a law under orders from its masters
+in Washington.  Of course, the ones in Washington are not the real
+masters, they're just the ones who control the United States on behalf
+of the Empire. But they're the ones who also dictate to Columbia on
+behalf of the Empire.</p>
+
+<p>In France, since the Constitutional Council objected to explicity
+giving people punishment without trial, they invented a kind of
+trial which is not a real trial, which is just a form of a trial, so
+they can <em>pretend</em> that people have a trial before they're
+punished. But in other countries they don't bother with that,
+it's explicit punishment on accusation only. Which means that for
+the sake of their war on sharing, they're prepared to abolish the
+basic principles of justice. It shows how thoroughly anti-freedom
+anti-justice they are. These are not legitimate governments.</p>
+
+<p>And I'm sure they'll come up with more nasty ideas because they're
+paid to defeat the people no matter what it takes. Now, when they
+do this, they always say that it's for the sake of the artists,
+that they have “protect” the “creators.” Now those are both
+propaganda terms. I ‘m convinced that the reason they love the word
+“creators“ is because it is a comparison with a deity. They want
+us to think of artists as super-human, and thus deserving special
+privileges and power over us, which is something I disagree with.</p>
+
+<p>In fact , the only artists that benefit very much from this system
+are the big stars. The other artists are getting crushed into the
+ground by the heels of these same companies. But they treat the
+stars very well, because the stars have a lot of clout. If a star
+threatens to move to another company, the company says: &ldquo;oh,
+we'll give you what you want.&rdquo; But for any other artist they say:
+&ldquo;you don't matter, we can treat you any way we like.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p>So the superstars have been corrupted by the millions of dollars
+or euros that they get, to the point where they'll do almost anything
+for more money. For instance, J. K. Rowling is a good example. J. K.
+Rowling, a few years ago, went to court in Canada and obtained an
+order that people who had bought her books must not read them. She
+got an order telling people not to read her books.</p>
+
+<p>Here's what happened. A bookstore put the books on display for
+sale too early, before the day they were supposed to go on sale. And
+people came into the store and said: &ldquo;oh, I want that!&rdquo;
+and they bought it and took away their copies. Then, they discovered
+the mistake and took the copies off of display. But Rowling wanted
+to crush any circulation of any information from those books, so she
+went to court, and the court ordered those people not to read the
+books that they now owned.</p>
+
+<p>In response, I call for a total boycott of Harry Potter. But I
+don't say you shouldn't read those books or watch the movies, I only
+say you shouldn't buy the books or pay for the movies. I leave it to
+Rowling to tell people not to read the books. As far as I'm concerned,
+if you borrow the book and read it, that's okay. Just don't give her
+any money!  But this happened with paper books. The court could make
+this order but it couldn't get the books back from the people who
+had bought them.  Imagine if they were ebooks. Imagine if they were
+ebooks on the &ldquo;Swindle&rdquo;. Amazon could send commands to
+erase them.</p>
+
+<p>So, I don't have much respect for stars who will go to such lengths
+for more money. But most artists aren't like that, they never got
+enough money to be corrupted. Because the current system of copyright
+supports most artists very badly. And so, when these companies demand
+to expand the war on sharing, supposedly for the sake of the artists,
+I'm against what they want but I would like to support the artists
+better. I appreciate their work and I realize if we want them to do
+more work we should support them.</p>
+
+<h3>[Supporting the arts]</h3>
+
+<p>I have two proposals for how to support artists, methods that
+are compatible with sharing. That would allow us to end the war on
+sharing and still support artists.</p>
+
+<p>One method uses tax money. We get a certain amount of public funds
+to distribute among artists. But, how much should each artist get? We
+have to measure popularity.</p>
+
+<p>The current system supposedly supports artists based on their
+popularity. So I'm saying let's keep that, let's continue on this
+system based on popularity. We can measure the popularity of all the
+artists with some kind of polling or sampling, so that we don't have
+to do surveillance. We can respect people's anonymity.</p>
+
+<p>We get a raw popularity figure for each artist, how do we convert
+that into an amount of money? The obvious way is: distribute the
+money in proportion to popularity. So if A is a thousand times as
+popular as B, A will get a thousand times as much money as B. That's
+not efficient distribution of the money. It's not putting the money to
+good use. It's easy for a star A to be a thousand times as popular as
+a fairly successful artist B. If we use linear proportion, we'll give
+A a thousand times as much money as we give B. And that means that,
+either we have to make A tremendously rich, or we are not supporting
+B enough.</p>
+
+<p>The money we use to make A tremendously rich is failing to do an
+effective job of supporting the arts; so, it's inefficient. Therefore
+I say: let's use the cube root. Cube root looks sort of like this. The
+point is: if A is a thousand times as popular as B, with the cube
+root A will get ten times as much as B, not a thousand times as much,
+just ten times as much. The use of the cube root shifts a lot of the
+money from the stars to the artists of moderate popularity. And that
+means, with less money we can adequately support a much larger number
+of artists.</p>
+
+<p>There are two reasons why this system would use less money than
+we pay now. First of all because it would be supporting artists but
+not companies, second because it would shift the money from the stars
+to the artists of moderate popularity. Now, it would remain the case
+that the more popular you are, the more money you get. So the star
+A would still get more than B, but not astronomically more.</p>
+
+<p>That's one method, and because it won't be so much money it doesn't
+matter so much how we get the money. It could be from a special tax
+on Internet connectivity, it could just be some of the general budget
+that gets allocated to this purpose. We won't care because it won't
+be so much money; much less than we're paying now.</p>
+
+<p>The other method I've proposed is voluntary payments. Suppose each
+player had a button you could use to send one euro. A lot of people
+would send it, after all it's not that much money. I think a lot of
+you might push that button every day, to give one euro to some artist
+who had made a work that you liked. But nothing would demand this,
+you wouldn't be required or ordered or pressured to send the money;
+you would do it because you felt like it. But there are some people
+who wouldn't do it because they're poor and they can't afford to
+give one euro. And it's good that they won't give it, we don't have
+to squeeze money out of poor people to support the artists. There
+are enough non poor people who'll be happy to do it. Why wouldn't
+you give one euro to some artists today, if you appreciated their
+work? It's too inconvenient to give it to them. So my proposal is to
+remove the inconvenience. If the only reason not to give that euro is
+[that] you would have one euro less, you would do it fairly often.</p>
+
+<p>So these are my two proposals for how to support artists, while
+encouraging sharing because sharing is good. Let's put an end to the
+war on sharing, laws like DADVSI and HADOPI, it's not just the methods
+that they propose that are evil, their purpose is evil. That's why they
+propose cruel and draconian measures. They're trying to do something
+that's nasty by nature. So let's support artists in other ways.</p>
+
+<h3>[Rights in cyberspace]</h3>
+
+<p>The last threat to our freedom in digital society is the fact that
+we don't have a firm right to do the things we do, in cyberspace. In
+the physical world, if you have certain views and you want to give
+people copies of a text that defends those views, you're free to
+do so. You could even buy a printer to print them, and you're free
+to hand them out on the street, or you're free to rent a store and
+hand them out there.  If you want to collect money to support your
+cause, you can just have a can and people could put money into the
+can. You don't need to get somebody else's approval or cooperation
+to do these things.</p>
+
+<p>But, in the Internet, you do need that. For instance if want to
+distribute a text on the Internet, you need companies to help you
+do it.  You can't do it by yourself. So if you want to have a website,
+you need the support of an ISP or a hosting company, and you need
+a domain name registrar. You need them to continue to let you do
+what you're doing. So you're doing it effectively on sufferance,
+not by right.</p>
+
+<p>And if you want to receive money, you can't just hold out a can. You
+need the cooperation of a payment company. And we saw that this makes
+all of our digital activities vulnerable to suppression. We learned
+this when the United States government launched a &ldquo;distributed
+denial of service attack&rdquo; (DDoS) against WikiLeaks. Now I'm
+making a bit of joke because the words “distributed denial of service
+attack” usually refer to a different kind of attack. But they fit
+perfectly with what the United States did. The United States went
+to the various kinds of network services that WikiLeaks depended on,
+and told them to cut off service to WikiLeaks. And they did.</p>
+
+<p>For instance, WikiLeaks had rented a virtual Amazon server, and the
+US government told Amazon: &ldquo;cut off service for WikiLeaks.&rdquo;
+And it did, arbitrarily. And then, Amazon had certain domain names
+such as as wikileaks.org, the US government tried to get all those
+domains shut off. But it didn't succeed, some of them were outside
+its control and were not shut off.</p>
+
+<p>Then, there were the payment companies. The US went to PayPal,
+and said: &ldquo;Stop transferring money to WikiLeaks or we'll make life
+difficult for you.&rdquo; And PayPal shut off payments to WikiLeaks. And
+then it went to Visa and Mastercard and got them to shut off payments
+to WikiLeaks.  Others started collecting money on WikiLeaks behalf and
+their account were shut off too. But in this case, maybe something can
+be done.  There's a company in Iceland which began collecting money on
+behalf of WikiLeaks, and so Visa and Mastercard shut off its account;
+it couldn't receive money from its customers either. Now, that business
+is suing Visa and Mastercard apparently, under European Union law,
+because Visa and Mastercard together have a near-monopoly. They're
+not allowed to arbitrarily deny service to anyone.</p>
+
+<p>Well, this is an example of how things need to be for all kinds of
+services that we use in the Internet. If you rented a store to hand
+out statements of what you think, or any other kind of information
+that you can lawfully distribute, the landlord couldn't kick you out
+just because he didn't like what you were saying. As long as you keep
+paying the rent, you have the right to continue in that store for a
+certain agreed-on period of time that you signed. So you have some
+rights that you can enforce. And they couldn't shut off your telephone
+line because the phone company doesn't like what you said or because
+some powerful entity didn't like what you said and threatened the
+phone company. No!  As long as you pay the bills and obey certain
+basic rules, they can't shut off your phone line. This is what it's
+like to have some rights!</p>
+
+<p>Well, if we move our activities from the physical world to the
+virtual world, then either we have the same rights in the virtual
+world, or we have been harmed. So, the precarity of all our Internet
+activities is the last of the menaces I wanted to mention.</p>
+
+Now I'd like to say that for more information about free software,
+look at GNU.org. Also look at fsf.org, which is the website of the
+Free Software Foundation. You can go there and find many ways you
+can help us, for instance. You can also become a member of the Free
+Software Foundation through that site. [&hellip;] There is also the
+Free Software Foundation of Europe fsfe.org. You can join FSF Europe
+also. [&hellip;]</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>.
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
+the FSF.<br />
+Please send broken links and other corrections or suggestions to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</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 &copy; 2011 Richard Stallman</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/";>Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>.</p>
+
+<p>Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2011/11/22 02:06:13 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>