www/gnu gnu.html why-programs-should-be-shared....

[rsiddharth]

CVSROOT:        /web/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     rsiddharth <rsd>        15/12/30 21:32:52

Modified files:
        gnu            : gnu.html 
Added files:
        gnu            : why-programs-should-be-shared.html 

Log message:
        [#1073683] Added new article /gnu/why-programs-should-be-shared.html

CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/gnu/gnu.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.67&r2=1.68
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/gnu/why-programs-should-be-shared.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1

Patches:
Index: gnu.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/gnu/gnu.html,v
retrieving revision 1.67
retrieving revision 1.68
diff -u -b -r1.67 -r1.68
--- gnu.html    13 Apr 2014 18:47:23 -0000      1.67
+++ gnu.html    30 Dec 2015 21:32:51 -0000      1.68
@@ -63,6 +63,8 @@
       System.</li>
   <li><a href="/philosophy/15-years-of-free-software.html">15 Years
        of Free Software</a> (1999)</li>
+  <li><a href="/gnu/why-programs-should-be-shared.html">Why Programs
+  Should be Shared</a> (1983)</li>
 </ul>
 
 
@@ -143,7 +145,7 @@
 
 <p class="unprintable">Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2014/04/13 18:47:23 $
+$Date: 2015/12/30 21:32:51 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>

Index: why-programs-should-be-shared.html
===================================================================
RCS file: why-programs-should-be-shared.html
diff -N why-programs-should-be-shared.html
--- /dev/null   1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ why-programs-should-be-shared.html  30 Dec 2015 21:32:51 -0000      1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,126 @@
+<!--#include virtual="/server/html5-header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.78 -->
+<title>Why Programs Should be Shared
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/gnun/initial-translations-list.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>Why Programs Should be Shared</h2>
+
+<p><strong>by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/";>Richard 
Stallman</a></strong></p>
+
+  <blockquote>
+    <p>Richard Stallman wrote this text, which was found in a file dated May
+      1983, though it is not clear whether they were written then or earlier.
+      In May 1983 he was privately considering plans to develop a
+      free operating system, but he may not yet have decided to make it a
+      Unix-like system rather than something like the MIT Lisp Machine.</p>
+
+    <p>He had not yet conceptually distinguished the two meanings of
+      "free"; these messages are formulated in terms of gratis copies, but
+      take for granted that this means users also have freedom.</p>
+  </blockquote>
+
+<p>Five years ago one could take for granted that any useful program
+written at SAIL, MIT, CMU, etc. would be shared.  Since then, these
+universities have started acting just like software houses--everything
+useful will be sold for an arm and a leg (usually after being written
+at gov't expense).</p>
+
+<p>People find all sorts of excuses why it's harmful to give away
+software. These supposed problems never bothered us back when we
+WANTED to share, and haven't affected EMACS, so I suspect they are
+bogus.</p>
+
+<p>For example, people say that companies will &ldquo;steal&rdquo; it
+and sell it.  If so, that would be no worse than Stanford selling it!
+At least people would have the choice of getting a free copy.  Users
+want to buy maintained software? Then let people sell service
+contracts-- but give the software itself free.</p>
+
+<p>I think I can dispose of any reasons you may think exist
+for not sharing software. But more important is the reason
+why we SHOULD share:</p>
+
+<p>We would get more done with the same amount of work, if
+artificial obstacles were removed. And we would feel
+more in harmony with everyone else.</p>
+
+<p>Sharing software is the form that scientific cooperation
+takes in the field of computer science. Universities used
+to defend the principle of scientific cooperation.
+Is it right for them to throw it over for profit?</p>
+
+<p>Should we let them?</p>
+
+<p>Right now graduate students here are working on programming
+projects that are specifically intended for sale. But if
+we create a climate of opinion like that of five years ago,
+the university wouldn't dare to do this. And if you start
+sharing, other people might start sharing with you.</p>
+
+<p>So let's start sharing again.</p>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<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.  Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to <a href="mailto:address@hidden";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+        replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+        We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+        translations.  However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+        Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+        to <a href="mailto:address@hidden";>
+        &lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>.</p>
+
+        <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+        our web pages, see <a
+        href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+        README</a>. -->
+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>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+     files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+     be under CC BY-ND 4.0.  Please do NOT change or remove this
+     without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+     Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+     document.  For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+     document was modified, or published.
+     
+     If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+     Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+     years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+     year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+     being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+     
+     There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+     Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
+
+<p>Copyright &copy; 2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/";>Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2015/12/30 21:32:51 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>