[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/philosophy free-digital-society.it.html fre...
|
From: |
GNUN |
|
Subject: |
www/philosophy free-digital-society.it.html fre... |
|
Date: |
Thu, 18 Jul 2019 12:59:26 -0400 (EDT) |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: GNUN <gnun> 19/07/18 12:59:26
Modified files:
philosophy : free-digital-society.it.html
freedom-or-copyright.nl.html
ough-interview.de.html
the-danger-of-ebooks.de.html
the-danger-of-ebooks.it.html
the-danger-of-ebooks.pl.html
the-danger-of-ebooks.zh-tw.html
philosophy/po : the-danger-of-ebooks.pl-diff.html
Added files:
philosophy/po : free-digital-society.it-diff.html
freedom-or-copyright.nl-diff.html
ough-interview.de-diff.html
the-danger-of-ebooks.de-diff.html
the-danger-of-ebooks.it-diff.html
the-danger-of-ebooks.zh-tw-diff.html
Log message:
Automatic update by GNUnited Nations.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/free-digital-society.it.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.30&r2=1.31
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/freedom-or-copyright.nl.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.3&r2=1.4
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/ough-interview.de.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.21&r2=1.22
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/the-danger-of-ebooks.de.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.58&r2=1.59
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/the-danger-of-ebooks.it.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.10&r2=1.11
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/the-danger-of-ebooks.pl.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.34&r2=1.35
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/the-danger-of-ebooks.zh-tw.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.2&r2=1.3
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/the-danger-of-ebooks.pl-diff.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.3&r2=1.4
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/free-digital-society.it-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/freedom-or-copyright.nl-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/ough-interview.de-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/the-danger-of-ebooks.de-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/the-danger-of-ebooks.it-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/the-danger-of-ebooks.zh-tw-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
Patches:
Index: free-digital-society.it.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/free-digital-society.it.html,v
retrieving revision 1.30
retrieving revision 1.31
diff -u -b -r1.30 -r1.31
--- free-digital-society.it.html 15 Dec 2018 14:46:27 -0000 1.30
+++ free-digital-society.it.html 18 Jul 2019 16:59:25 -0000 1.31
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/free-digital-society.en.html"
-->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/free-digital-society.it.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/free-digital-society.it.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/free-digital-society.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE"
value="/philosophy/po/free-digital-society.it-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2019-05-19" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/free-digital-society.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.it.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.86 -->
@@ -9,6 +14,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/free-digital-society.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.it.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.it.html" -->
<h2>Una società digitale libera - Cosa rende buona o cattiva l'inclusione
digitale?</h2>
@@ -1176,7 +1182,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Ultimo aggiornamento:
-$Date: 2018/12/15 14:46:27 $
+$Date: 2019/07/18 16:59:25 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: freedom-or-copyright.nl.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/freedom-or-copyright.nl.html,v
retrieving revision 1.3
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -u -b -r1.3 -r1.4
--- freedom-or-copyright.nl.html 13 Jan 2017 20:28:38 -0000 1.3
+++ freedom-or-copyright.nl.html 18 Jul 2019 16:59:25 -0000 1.4
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/freedom-or-copyright.en.html"
-->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/freedom-or-copyright.nl.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/freedom-or-copyright.nl.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/freedom-or-copyright.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE"
value="/philosophy/po/freedom-or-copyright.nl-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2019-05-19" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/freedom-or-copyright.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.nl.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
@@ -8,6 +13,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/freedom-or-copyright.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.nl.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.nl.html" -->
<h2>Vrijheid—of auteursrecht?</h2>
<p>
@@ -242,7 +248,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Bijgewerkt:
-$Date: 2017/01/13 20:28:38 $
+$Date: 2019/07/18 16:59:25 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: ough-interview.de.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/ough-interview.de.html,v
retrieving revision 1.21
retrieving revision 1.22
diff -u -b -r1.21 -r1.22
--- ough-interview.de.html 3 Dec 2016 23:45:10 -0000 1.21
+++ ough-interview.de.html 18 Jul 2019 16:59:25 -0000 1.22
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/ough-interview.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/ough-interview.de.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/ough-interview.de.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/ough-interview.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/ough-interview.de-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2019-05-19" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/ough-interview.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.de.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
@@ -9,6 +14,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/ough-interview.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.de.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.de.html" -->
<h2>Richard Stallman: Ein Interview für OUGH!</h2>
<blockquote><p>Transkript eines Interviews mit Richard Stallman, geführt von
Theodoros
@@ -1145,7 +1151,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Letzte Ãnderung:
-$Date: 2016/12/03 23:45:10 $
+$Date: 2019/07/18 16:59:25 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: the-danger-of-ebooks.de.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/the-danger-of-ebooks.de.html,v
retrieving revision 1.58
retrieving revision 1.59
diff -u -b -r1.58 -r1.59
--- the-danger-of-ebooks.de.html 3 Dec 2016 23:45:11 -0000 1.58
+++ the-danger-of-ebooks.de.html 18 Jul 2019 16:59:25 -0000 1.59
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/the-danger-of-ebooks.en.html"
-->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/the-danger-of-ebooks.de.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/the-danger-of-ebooks.de.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/the-danger-of-ebooks.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE"
value="/philosophy/po/the-danger-of-ebooks.de-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2019-05-19" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/the-danger-of-ebooks.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.de.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 -->
@@ -9,6 +14,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/the-danger-of-ebooks.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.de.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.de.html" -->
<h2>Die Gefahr von elektronischen Büchern</h2>
<blockquote class="announcement"><p>
@@ -186,7 +192,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Letzte Ãnderung:
-$Date: 2016/12/03 23:45:11 $
+$Date: 2019/07/18 16:59:25 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: the-danger-of-ebooks.it.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/the-danger-of-ebooks.it.html,v
retrieving revision 1.10
retrieving revision 1.11
diff -u -b -r1.10 -r1.11
--- the-danger-of-ebooks.it.html 18 Nov 2016 07:32:48 -0000 1.10
+++ the-danger-of-ebooks.it.html 18 Jul 2019 16:59:25 -0000 1.11
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/the-danger-of-ebooks.en.html"
-->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/the-danger-of-ebooks.it.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/the-danger-of-ebooks.it.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/the-danger-of-ebooks.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE"
value="/philosophy/po/the-danger-of-ebooks.it-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2019-05-19" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/the-danger-of-ebooks.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.it.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 -->
@@ -8,6 +13,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/the-danger-of-ebooks.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.it.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.it.html" -->
<h2>Il pericolo degli e-book</h2>
<blockquote class="announcement"><p>
@@ -166,7 +172,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Ultimo aggiornamento:
-$Date: 2016/11/18 07:32:48 $
+$Date: 2019/07/18 16:59:25 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: the-danger-of-ebooks.pl.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/the-danger-of-ebooks.pl.html,v
retrieving revision 1.34
retrieving revision 1.35
diff -u -b -r1.34 -r1.35
--- the-danger-of-ebooks.pl.html 18 Nov 2016 07:32:48 -0000 1.34
+++ the-danger-of-ebooks.pl.html 18 Jul 2019 16:59:25 -0000 1.35
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/the-danger-of-ebooks.en.html"
-->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/the-danger-of-ebooks.pl.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/the-danger-of-ebooks.pl.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/the-danger-of-ebooks.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE"
value="/philosophy/po/the-danger-of-ebooks.pl-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2019-05-19" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/the-danger-of-ebooks.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.pl.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 -->
@@ -8,6 +13,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/the-danger-of-ebooks.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.pl.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.pl.html" -->
<h2>NiebezpieczeÅstwo e-booków</h2>
<blockquote class="announcement"><p>
@@ -170,7 +176,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Aktualizowane:
-$Date: 2016/11/18 07:32:48 $
+$Date: 2019/07/18 16:59:25 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: the-danger-of-ebooks.zh-tw.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/the-danger-of-ebooks.zh-tw.html,v
retrieving revision 1.2
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -b -r1.2 -r1.3
--- the-danger-of-ebooks.zh-tw.html 19 Jan 2019 05:59:47 -0000 1.2
+++ the-danger-of-ebooks.zh-tw.html 18 Jul 2019 16:59:25 -0000 1.3
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/the-danger-of-ebooks.en.html"
-->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/the-danger-of-ebooks.zh-tw.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/the-danger-of-ebooks.zh-tw.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/the-danger-of-ebooks.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE"
value="/philosophy/po/the-danger-of-ebooks.zh-tw-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2019-05-19" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/the-danger-of-ebooks.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.zh-tw.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 -->
@@ -8,6 +13,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/the-danger-of-ebooks.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.zh-tw.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.zh-tw.html" -->
<h2>é»åæ¸çå±å®³</h2>
<blockquote class="announcement"><p>
@@ -133,7 +139,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
æ´æ°æé︰
-$Date: 2019/01/19 05:59:47 $
+$Date: 2019/07/18 16:59:25 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: po/the-danger-of-ebooks.pl-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/the-danger-of-ebooks.pl-diff.html,v
retrieving revision 1.3
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -u -b -r1.3 -r1.4
--- po/the-danger-of-ebooks.pl-diff.html 29 Feb 2016 22:58:30 -0000
1.3
+++ po/the-danger-of-ebooks.pl-diff.html 18 Jul 2019 16:59:25 -0000
1.4
@@ -11,18 +11,21 @@
</style></head>
<body><pre>
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
-<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 -->
<title>The Danger of E-Books
- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/the-danger-of-ebooks.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
<h2>The Danger of E-Books</h2>
-<blockquote class="note">
-<p><a href="http://defectivebydesign.org/ebooks.html">Join our
mailing list about the dangers of eBooks</a>.</p>
-</blockquote>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><blockquote
class="announcement"><p>
+<a href="http://defectivebydesign.org/ebooks.html">Join our mailing list
+about the dangers of eBooks</a>.
+</p></blockquote>
-<p>In an age where business dominates our governments and writes our
laws,
+<p>In</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p class="comment">In</em></ins></span>
an age where business dominates our governments and writes our laws,
every technological advance offers business an opportunity to impose new
restrictions on the public. Technologies that could have empowered us are
used to chain us instead.</p>
@@ -61,7 +64,7 @@
</ul>
<p>Even one of these infringements makes e-books a step backward from
-printed books. We must reject e-books until they respect our freedom.</p>
+printed books. We must reject e-books until they respect our <span
class="removed"><del><strong>freedom.</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>freedom [<a
href="#footnote2">2</a>].</p></em></ins></span>
<p>The e-book companies say denying our traditional freedoms is
necessary to continue to pay authors. The current copyright system
@@ -72,20 +75,23 @@
<ul>
<li>To distribute tax funds to authors based on the cube root of each
-author's <span class="removed"><del><strong>popularity. See
-<a href="http://stallman.org/articles/internet-sharing-license.en.html">
-http://stallman.org/articles/internet-sharing-license.en.html</a>.</li></strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>popularity.<a
href="#footnote1">[1]</a></li></em></ins></span>
+author's <span class="removed"><del><strong>popularity.<a
href="#footnote1">[1]</a></li></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>popularity [<a
href="#footnote1">1</a>].</li></em></ins></span>
<li>To design players so users can send authors anonymous voluntary
payments.</li>
</ul>
<p>E-books need not attack our freedom (Project Gutenberg's e-books
don't),
but they will if companies get to decide. It's up to us to stop them.</p>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><blockquote
class="announcement"></em></ins></span>
<p>Join the fight: sign up
at <a href="http://DefectiveByDesign.org/ebooks.html">
http://DefectiveByDesign.org/ebooks.html</a>.</p>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><h4>Footnotes</h4>
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong><h4>Footnotes</h4></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></blockquote>
+
+<div class="column-limit"></div>
+<h3 style="font-size: 1.2em">Footnotes</h3></em></ins></span>
<ol>
<li id="footnote1">See both my speech
<a href="/philosophy/copyright-versus-community.html">“Copyright
@@ -93,7 +99,10 @@
and <a
href="http://stallman.org/articles/internet-sharing-license.en.html">my
2012 open letter to the President of the Brazilian Senate</a>, Senator
José Sarney, for more on this.</li>
-</ol></em></ins></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><li id="footnote2">[2019] To show our
rejection of Amazon's e-book reader,
+we call it <a href="/philosophy/why-call-it-the-swindle.html">the
+Swindle</a>.</li></em></ins></span>
+</ol>
</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
@@ -127,7 +136,7 @@
<!-- 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 <span class="removed"><del><strong>3.0
US.</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>4.0.</em></ins></span> Please do NOT change or
remove this
+ 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
@@ -142,18 +151,17 @@
There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
-<p>Copyright © <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2011</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2011, 2014, 2015, 2016</em></ins></span> Richard
Stallman</p>
+<p>Copyright © 2011, 2014, 2015, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2016</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2016, 2019</em></ins></span> Richard
Stallman</p>
<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
-<span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative</strong></del></span>
-<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative</em></ins></span>
-Commons <span class="removed"><del><strong>Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United
States</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0
International</em></ins></span> License</a>.</p>
+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: 2016/02/29 22:58:30 $
+$Date: 2019/07/18 16:59:25 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
Index: po/free-digital-society.it-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/free-digital-society.it-diff.html
diff -N po/free-digital-society.it-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/free-digital-society.it-diff.html 18 Jul 2019 16:59:25 -0000
1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,1159 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/philosophy/free-digital-society.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.86 -->
+<title>A Free Digital Society - What Makes Digital Inclusion Good or
+Bad? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/free-digital-society.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+
+<h2>A Free Digital Society - What Makes Digital Inclusion Good or
Bad?</h2>
+
+<p <span class="removed"><del><strong>class="center">
<em>Transcription</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>class="byline">by Richard Stallman</p>
+
+<p><em>Transcription</em></ins></span> of a lecture <span
class="removed"><del><strong>by Richard M. Stallman<br
/></strong></del></span> at Sciences Po <span
class="removed"><del><strong>in</strong></del></span> Paris, October 19, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2011.</em></p>
+
+<p>(A <a
href="http://audio-video.gnu.org/video/stallman-sciencespo-freesociety.webm">
+video</a> of this lecture is available.)</p>
+
+<p><strong>Table</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2011</em> (<a
+href="http://audio-video.gnu.org/video/stallman-sciencespo-freesociety.webm">video</a>)</p>
+<hr class="thin" />
+
+<div class="summary" style="margin-top: 1em">
+<h3 class="no-display">Table</em></ins></span> of <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Contents</strong></p></strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>Contents</h3></em></ins></span>
+<ul>
+ <li><a href="#intro">Introduction</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#surveillance">Surveillance</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#censorship">Censorship</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#formats">Restricted data
formats</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#proprietary">Software that isn't
free</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#four-freedoms">The four freedoms of free
software</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#gnu">The GNU Project and the Free Software
movement</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#education">Free software and
education</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#services">Internet services</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#voting">Computers for voting</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#sharing">The war on sharing</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#arts">Supporting the arts</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#rights">Rights in cyberspace</a></li>
+</ul>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><hr class="no-display" />
+</div></em></ins></span>
+
+<h3 id="intro">Introduction</h3>
+
+<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 id="surveillance">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 “spy-phone.” Flash player has a surveillance feature
+too, and so does the Amazon <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“Swindle.”</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Swindle.”</em></ins></span> They call it the
Kindle, but
+I call it <span class="removed"><del><strong>“the
Swindle,”</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“<a
href="/philosophy/why-call-it-the-swindle.html">the
+Swindle</a>,”</em></ins></span> <em>l'escroc</em>,
+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
+[correction: Malte Spitz is on the staff of the Green Party, not an
+elected official] 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 <em>we</em> have control of the software that they run. But the
+software these people are running, they don't have control over. It's
+nonfree 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… 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—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: “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.”</p>
+
+<p>So we need to campaign to put an end to digital surveillance
+<em>now</em>. 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 id="censorship">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: “Well that's not
+surprising, what else would governments like that do?”</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…</p>
+
+<p>They all have systems of blocking access to some websites. Denmark
+established a system that blocks access to a long list of web pages,
+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. 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. Electronic Frontiers 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
+<cite>Indignados</cite>, 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 id="formats">Restricted data formats</h3>
+
+<p>The next threat to our freedom comes from data formats that restrict
+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 a 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 nonfree programs; using secret formats to restrict the
+users is another kind of malicious feature that you also find in some
+nonfree 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 nonfree program. Surveillance features,
+well, theoretically they could exist in a free program but you don't
+find them happening. Because the users would fix it, you see. 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… And these secret formats are known as
+Digital Restrictions Management, or DRM, or digital handcuffs <em>(les
+menottes numériques)</em>.</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. 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<a href="#f1"><sup>1</sup></a> 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. 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 formats 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 id="proprietary">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 <cite>libre</cite>. In this particular point
French
+is clearer than English. The English word “free” means
+<cite>libre</cite> and <cite>gratuit</cite>, but what
I mean when I say
+“free software” is <cite>logiciel libre</cite>. I
don't mean
+<cite>gratuit</cite>. I'm not talking about price. Price is a side
+issue, just a detail, because it doesn't 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? Right? Why should anyone think that's good or
+bad? Or suppose I gave it to you <cite>gratuitement</cite>…
+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 <em>they</em>
control
+the program, and those freedoms are the criterion for free software. But
+if the users <em>don't</em> 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 nonfree 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 nonfree software <cite>(les logiciels privateurs,
+qui privent de la liberté)</cite>, 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 Swindle, sort of. 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 Swindle,
+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 Swindle. The Amazon Swindle has
+a backdoor that can delete books, 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 obtained 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 George Orwell. [laughter] 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 Swindle. [laughter]</p>
+
+<p>Anyway, malicious features are present in the most widely used
+nonfree 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 id="four-freedoms">The four freedoms of free software</h3>
+
+<p>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 “this is free for academic
+use,” 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>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 <em>if
+you wish</em>.</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 the 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 will 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 <em>your</em> version, not just the freedom to make
some
+source code that won't run.</p>
+
+<h3 id="gnu">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
<em>very</em>
+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
+“GNU's Not Unix,” so G.N.U.: GNU's Not Unix. So the G in
+GNU stands for GNU.</p>
+
+<p>In fact this 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. 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 could 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 “Linux.” 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, he 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—it's the GNU
+operating system plus Linux the kernel—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—there's always
+going to be a Sarkozy to take it away—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 doesn't want to discuss these ideas of
+freedom because they don't say <cite>logiciel libre</cite>. They
don't
+say <cite>libre</cite>, they say “open source.” 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 <cite>libre</cite>. 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
+<cite>libre</cite>!</p>
+
+<h3 id="education">Free software and education</h3>
+
+<p>The most important point about free software is that schools
+<em>must</em> 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 of
+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: “Inject this into your
+students, the first dose is gratis. 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: “Let's have the school teach both proprietary
+software and free software, so the students become familiar with
+both.” That's like saying: “For the lunch let's give the
+kids spinach and tobacco, so that they become accustomed to both.”
+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: “How does it do this?” But when they ask the teacher,
+if it's proprietary, the teacher has to say: “I'm sorry, it's a
+secret, we can't find out.” 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: “Read it and
+you'll understand everything.” 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. Well, 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 <em>not</em> 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:
+“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.” 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
<em>your</em>
+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! 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:
+“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.” So don't get distracted with those secondary
+issues, and ignore what really matters!</p>
+
+<h3 id="services">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
<em>knowingly</em>
+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 “no,” that may not really work. After all, if you say
+“some other people can see this piece of information,”
+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 “mark this as only to your so-called
+friends,” it should say “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.” 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 data about people's activities on the
+net through various methods of surveillance. But that's the first
+menace. For now I am talking about the data that people
<em>know</em>
+they are giving to these sites.</p>
+
+<p>Now, 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. But in any case, if you can get the data
+back, then you could track whether they have altered it. And they're 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's 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're directly dealing with may be in
+Europe, but if it's owned by a US company, you've got the same problem
+to deal with.</p>
+
+<p>However, this is mainly of concern when the data you're 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 published 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—things that you should do in 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 nonfree program.</p>
+
+<p>Two different scenarios, but they lead to the same problem. If you
+do your computing with a nonfree program… well, the users don't
+control the nonfree 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… 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, 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,
+<em>you don't!</em> 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 “Software as a Service.” 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 a Service
+and it's really running on a server belonging to some company. Well,
+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>
+
+<h3 id="voting">Computers for voting</h3>
+
+<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.</p>
+
+<p>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 a 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.</p>
+
+<p>How can you tell if a voting machine will 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 people vote? Maybe
+it's been changed.</p>
+
+<p>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. And there
+are accusations that this was done in the US within 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… of course if
+you've got a good enough memory you'll 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 used 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? So, 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>
+
+<h4>Speaker's note, added subsequently</h4>
+
+<p>Remote voting by internet has an inherent social danger, that your
+boss might tell you, “I want you to vote for candidate C, and do it
+from the computer in my office while I watch you.” He does not need
+to say out loud that you might be fired if you do not comply. This
+danger is not based on a technical flaw, so it can't be fixed by
+fixing the technology.</p>
+
+
+<h3 id="sharing">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, and 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. So 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 OK 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
+I believe, 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. [laughter]</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
+Swindle 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: “You can listen as much as you like.” And then
+they said: “Oh, no! You can only listen a certain number of hours
+a month.” 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 <em>own</em> 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,
+Colombia 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 Colombia on behalf of the
Empire.</p>
+
+<p>In France, since the Constitutional Council objected to explicitly
+giving people punishment without trial, they invented a kind of trial
+which is not a real trial, it's 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 to “protect” the “creators.” Now those are
+both propaganda terms. I am 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 though, 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: “Oh, we'll give you
+what you want.” But for any other artist they say: “You
+don't matter, we can treat you any way we like.”</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 date they were supposed to go on sale. And people
+came into the store and said: “Oh, I want that!” And they
+bought it and took away their copies. And then, they discovered the
+mistake, so they 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. [laughter] I leave it to
+Rowling to tell people not to read the books. As far as I am concerned,
+if you borrow the book and read it, that's OK. [laughter] 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 Swindle. 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 id="arts">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? Well,
+we have to measure popularity. You see, the current system supposedly
+supports artists based on their popularity. So I'm saying: let's keep
+that, let's continue in this system to support them based on their
+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>OK, we get a raw popularity figure for each artist, how do we convert
+that into an amount of money? Well, 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. You see, it's easy for a star A to be a thousand times as popular
+as a fairly successful artist B. And 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>Well, 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. So 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. And 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 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 id="rights">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 <em>do</em> 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 “distributed denial
+of service attack” (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: “Cut off service for WikiLeaks.”
+And it did, arbitrarily. And then, Amazon had certain domain names such
+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: “Stop transferring money to WikiLeaks or we'll make life
+difficult for you.” 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 accounts 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. And 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 a 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>
+
+<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. […] There is also the Free Software
+Foundation of Europe fsfe.org. You can join FSF Europe also.
[…]</p>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div
class="column-limit"></div></em></ins></span>
+<h3 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>id="footnotes">Footnotes</h3></strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>id="footnotes" style="font-size:
1.2em">Footnotes</h3></em></ins></span>
+
+<ol>
+ <li id="f1">As of 2017 the patents on playing MP3 files have
+ reportedly expired.</li>
+</ol>
+
+</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 & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></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"><address@hidden></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">
+ <address@hidden></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 © 2011, 2017, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2018</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2018, 2019</em></ins></span> Richard
Stallman</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: 2019/07/18 16:59:25 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include -->
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: po/freedom-or-copyright.nl-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/freedom-or-copyright.nl-diff.html
diff -N po/freedom-or-copyright.nl-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/freedom-or-copyright.nl-diff.html 18 Jul 2019 16:59:25 -0000
1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,259 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/philosophy/freedom-or-copyright.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+<title>Freedom or Copyright?
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/freedom-or-copyright.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>Freedom—or Copyright?</h2>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>
+ by <strong>Richard M. Stallman</strong>
+</p></strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p class="byline">by Richard
Stallman</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<p><em>This essay addresses how the principles of software freedom
+apply in some cases to other works of authorship and art. It's
+included here since it involves the application of the ideas of free
+software.</em></p>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><hr class="thin" /></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>
+Copyright was established in the age of the printing press as an
+industrial regulation on the business of writing and publishing. The
+aim was to encourage the publication of a diversity of written works.
+The means was to require publishers to get the author's permission to
+publish recent writings. This enabled authors to get income from
+publishers, which facilitated and encouraged writing. The general
+reading public received the benefit of this, while losing little:
+copyright restricted only publication, not the things an ordinary
+reader could do. That made copyright arguably a beneficial system for
+the public, and therefore arguably legitimate.</p>
+
+<p>
+Well and good—back then.</p>
+
+<p>
+Now we have a new way of distributing
+information: computers and networks. Their benefit is that they
+facilitate copying and
+manipulating information, including software, musical recordings,
+books, and movies. They offer the possibility of unlimited access to
+all sorts of data—an information utopia.</p>
+
+<p>
+One obstacle stood in the way: copyright. Readers and listeners who
+made use of their new ability to copy and share published information
+were technically copyright infringers. The same law which had
+formerly acted as a beneficial industrial regulation on publishers had
+become a restriction on the public it was meant to serve.</p>
+
+<p>
+In a democracy, a law that prohibits a popular and useful activity is
+usually soon relaxed. Not so where corporations have political power.
+The publishers' lobby was determined to prevent the public from taking
+advantage of the power of their computers, and found copyright a
+handy weapon. Under their influence, rather than relaxing copyright
+rules to suit the new circumstances, governments made them stricter than
+ever, imposing harsh penalties on the practice of sharing. The latest
+fashion in supporting the publishers against the citizens, known as
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>``three strikes'',</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“three strikes,”</em></ins></span>
is to cut off people's Internet connections if
+they share.</p>
+
+<p>
+But that wasn't the worst of it. Computers can be powerful tools of
+domination when software suppliers deny users the control of the
+software they run. The
+publishers realized that by publishing works in encrypted format,
+which only specially authorized software could view, they could gain
+unprecedented power: they could compel readers to pay, and identify
+themselves, every time they read a book, listen to a song, or watch a
+video. That is the publishers' dream: a pay-per-view universe.</p>
+
+<p>
+The publishers gained US government support for their dream with the
+Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. This law gave publishers
+power to write their own copyright rules, by implementing them in the
+code of the authorized player software. Under this practice, called
+Digital Restrictions Management, or DRM, even reading or listening
+without authorization is forbidden.</p>
+
+<p>
+We still have the same old freedoms in using paper books and other
+analog media. But if e-books replace printed books, those freedoms
+will not transfer. Imagine: no more used book stores; no more lending
+a book to your friend; no more borrowing one from the public
+library—no more “leaks” that might give someone a
+chance to read without paying. No more purchasing a book anonymously with
+cash—you can only buy an e-book with a credit card. That is
+the world the publishers want to impose on us. If you buy the Amazon
+Kindle (we call it <span class="removed"><del><strong>the
Swindle)</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em><a
+href="/philosophy/why-call-it-the-swindle.html">the
Swindle</a>)</em></ins></span>
+or the Sony Reader (we
+call it the Shreader for what it threatens to do to books), you pay to
+establish that world.</p>
+
+<p>
+The Swindle even has an Orwellian back door that can be used to erase
+books remotely. Amazon demonstrated this capability by erasing
+copies, purchased from Amazon, of Orwell's book 1984. Evidently
+Amazon's name for this product reflects the intention to burn our
+books.</p>
+
+<p>
+Public anger against DRM is slowly growing, held back because
+propaganda expressions such
+as <span class="removed"><del><strong><a
href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html">“protect
+authors”</a>
+and <a href="/philosophy/not-ipr.html">“intellectual
+property”</a></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“<a
href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html">protect
+authors</a>”
+and “<a href="/philosophy/not-ipr.html">intellectual
+property</a>”</em></ins></span> have convinced readers that their
rights do not
+count. These terms implicitly assume that publishers deserve special
+power in the name of the authors, that we are morally obliged to bow
+to them, and that we have wronged someone if we see or hear
+anything without paying for permission.</p>
+
+<p>
+The organizations that profit most from copyright legally exercise it
+in the name of the authors (most of whom gain little). They would
+have you believe that copyright is a natural right of authors, and
+that we the public must suffer it no matter how painful it is. They
+call sharing “piracy”, equating helping your neighbor with
+attacking a ship.</p>
+
+<p>
+They also tell us that a War on Sharing is the only way to keep
+art alive. Even if true, it would not justify the policy; but it
+isn't true. Public sharing of copies is likely to increase the sales of
+most works, and decrease sales only for big hits.</p>
+
+<p>
+Bestsellers can still do well without forbidding sharing. Stephen
+King got hundreds of thousands of dollars selling an unencrypted
+e-book serial with no obstacle to copying and sharing. (He was
+dissatisfied with that amount and called the experiment a failure, but it looks
+like a success to me.) Radiohead made millions in 2007 by inviting
+fans to copy an album and pay what they wished, while it was also
+shared on peer-to-peer networks. In
+2008, <a
href="http://www.boingboing.net/2008/03/05/nine-inch-nails-made.html">
+Nine Inch Nails released an album with permission to share copies</a>
+and made $750,000 in a few days.</p>
+
+<p>
+The possibility of success without oppression is not limited to
+bestsellers. Many artists of various levels of fame now make an
+adequate living through <a
href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091119/1634117011.shtml">voluntary
+support</a>: donations and merchandise purchases of their fans.
+Kevin Kelly estimates the artist need only find around
+<a
href="http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/03/1000_true_fans.php">
+1,000 true fans</a>.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+When computer networks provide an easy anonymous method for sending
+someone a small amount of money, without a credit card, it will be
+easy to set up a much better system to support the arts. When you
+view a work, there will be a button you can press saying, “Click
+here to send the artist one dollar”. Wouldn't you press it, at
+least once a week?</p>
+
+<p>
+Another good way to support music and the arts is with
+<a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="dat.html">tax</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="/philosophy/dat.html">tax</em></ins></span>
funds</a>—perhaps a tax on blank media
+or on Internet connectivity. The state should
+distribute the tax money entirely to the artists, not
+waste it on corporate executives. But the state should not distribute
+it in linear proportion to popularity, because that would give most of
+it to a few superstars, leaving little to support all the other
+artists. I therefore recommend using a cube-root function or
+something similar. With linear proportion, superstar A with 1,000
+times the popularity of a successful artist B will get 1,000 times as
+much money as B. With the cube root, A will get 10 times as much as
+B. Thus, each superstar gets a larger share than a less popular
+artist, but most of the funds go to the artists who really need this
+support. This system will use our tax money efficiently to support
+the arts.</p>
+
+<p>
+The <a
+href="http://stallman.org/mecenat/global-patronage.html">Global
+Patronage</a> proposal combines aspects of those two systems,
+incorporating mandatory payments with voluntary allocation among
+artists.</p>
+
+<!--
+<p>
+In Spain, this tax system should replace the SGAE and its canon,
+which could be eliminated.</p> -->
+
+<p>
+To make copyright fit the network age, we should legalize the
+noncommercial copying and sharing of all published works, and prohibit
+DRM. But until we win this battle, you must protect yourself: don't
+buy any products with DRM unless you personally have the means to
+break the DRM. Never use a product designed to attack your freedom
+unless you can nullify the attack.</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 & GNU inquiries to <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></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"><address@hidden></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">
+ <address@hidden></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>
+
+<p>Copyright © 2008, 2010, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2011</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2011, 2019</em></ins></span> Richard M.
Stallman</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative</strong></del></span>
+<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative</em></ins></span>
+Commons <span class="removed"><del><strong>Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United
States</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0
International</em></ins></span> License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2019/07/18 16:59:25 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: po/ough-interview.de-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/ough-interview.de-diff.html
diff -N po/ough-interview.de-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/ough-interview.de-diff.html 18 Jul 2019 16:59:25 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,1097 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/philosophy/ough-interview.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+<title>An interview for OUGH!
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/ough-interview.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>An interview for OUGH!</h2>
+
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong><blockquote><p>This</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p><em>This</em></ins></span> is a
transcript of an interview with Richard
+Stallman conducted by Theodoros <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Papatheodorou</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Papatheodorou [<a
href="#f1">1</a>]</em></ins></span>
+in May,
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong>2012.</p></blockquote></strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>2012.</em></p>
+<hr class="thin" /></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>Richard Stallman, the free software activist and software
+developer, maintains a legendary status in the computing community. He
+addresses all our questions in an interview of epic proportions that he
+gave to OUGH! in two parts.</p>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><h3>Part
one</h3></strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><h3>PART ONE</h3></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>While working as a “system hacker” in MIT's AI Lab (i.e.
+a member of the team developing the Lab's own operating system) he
+experienced the profound change that overtook the software industry. Up
+until that point the general practice was for people to freely share,
+modify and reuse operating system software developed for the machines of
+the day. In the 1970's the software industry stopped distributing the
+source code of these programs, making it impossible for computer users
+to study and modify them. Furthermore new copyright laws made it
+illegal to do so.</p>
+
+<p>The change struck him as unethical, and it affected him personally as
+the hacker community in which he thrived was broken up as two competing
+companies hired most of the talent in the Lab to develop nonfree
+products. Stallman went against the trend and decided to devote his
+life to the development of free software, where the user has the right
+to use the program in any way he sees fit, study the source code, modify
+it and even redistribute his modified versions to others. In 1984 he
+quit the MIT AI Lab and started developing GNU, the first free operating
+system which today, with the addition of a piece of software developed
+by a young Finish student, Linus Torvalds, forms GNU/Linux.</p>
+
+<p>Today, it is run on the majority of servers on the Internet, academic
+institutions, large enterprises, the military, and on desktops of
+millions of people around the world who have rejected software licenses
+that come with Windows and Mac OS. They choose to run a system that was
+started by Stallman and further developed by thousands of others over
+the Internet. GNU/Linux is superior to proprietary software from a
+technical point of view, and it's available gratis, but Stallman insists
+that these are welcome, but secondary features. Freedom is the key. We
+start the conversation talking about electronic rights.</p>
+
+<dl>
+<dt>You've said “in the Internet age we have less rights that in
+the physical world.”</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Yes. For instance in The US, Internet service providers can
+disconnect you without going to court, they don't have to prove that
+there is a reason. And as a result they can censor you. If you want to
+print papers and stand on the street handing them out you can do that,
+you don't have to beg some company to “please cooperate” so
+that you can do it. But to do this on the Internet you need the
+cooperation of an ISP and a domain name registrar and maybe a hosting
+service, and if they don't like what you're doing or somebody threatens
+them who has a lot of power and doesn't like what you're doing, then they
+can just terminate your service and censor you.</p>
+
+<p>People should have a legal right to continued service of any of these
+kinds as long as they fulfill their side of the bargain. I believe it's
+the case in the US that the phone company can't arbitrarily disconnect
+your phone line as long as you continue paying your bill and so on, then
+they have to keep giving you phone service, it's not their choice. It
+should be the same with Internet connectivity. It shouldn't be their
+choice, they shouldn't be allowed to set their own conditions for
+continuing to give you service.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>They should provide the service as a public utility?</dt>
+
+<dd><p>Exactly.</p></dd>
+
+<dt>This dependence on a corporation also extends to financial
transactions.</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>That's the other aspect in which the digital world gives us less
+rights than the physical world. Suppose in addition to handing out
+papers on the street, you'd like to ask people to give money to the
+cause. They can give cash, and you can accept the cash, and you don't
+need the cooperation of any company in order to do so. Once you receive
+the cash, it's valid money, and you can spend it. But, to do the same
+thing in the digital world you need the services of a payment company,
+and those companies might arbitrarily disconnect you also.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>This is what happened with <em>WikiLeaks</em>. After it
released information
+that embarrassed the US government (among others),
<em>MasterCard</em>
+and <em>Visa</em> stop accepting donations for the site.</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Exactly. <em>WikiLeaks</em> showed all these
vulnerabilities
+because the US government decided to silence them and did everything
+they could to do so. It has caused a lot of harm although you can still
+access the <em>WikiLeaks</em> pages if you use the right domain
name.
+They did manage to cut off most of the donations to
<em>WikiLeaks</em>,
+and now it's having trouble operating.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>The organization has received a lot of bad publicity in the US.
+What's your view?</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p><em>WikiLeaks</em> is doing something heroic. A lot of
the press in
+the US is subservient to the government, this is true in a lot of
+countries. Or you might better say that it's subservient to business,
+but the US government works for business, so business wants to say good
+things about it. I think we need laws stopping the payment companies
+from disconnecting anybody's service, except when they prove that they
+have cause.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>Technology has spawned new forms of control, but it has also
+resulted in new ways of protest, self-organization, and dissent.
+<em>Anonymous</em> stands out as an example of
hacktivists.</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p><em>Anonymous</em> does various different things. Most
often
+<em>Anonymous</em> has a lot of people go to the door of an
+organization's website, they're a crowd, and so they may get in
+somebody's way. This is comparable to protesting in front of the
+organization's building in the physical world. And that we recognize as
+democratic political activity. So <em>Anonymous</em>' web
protests are
+also democratic political activity. Of course, the forces of oppression
+want to define this as a crime rather than a protest, and they're using
+the change in technology as an opportunity effectively to criminalize
+protests.</p>
+
+<p>Another thing that I think maybe <em>Anonymous</em>'
members have
+done, is changing the text in the websites so as to criticize the
+organization whose site it is. This is the virtual equivalent of
+writing a critical slogan on a poster, which is pretty normal democratic
+political activity, but they call it “attacking” the site.
+The word “attack” is meant to give people the idea that this
+is something other than a political protest and put people in prison for
+protesting.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>Among hackers the term “hacker” means something
+completely different than what it means to the general public. Could
+you explain that difference?</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Starting from 40 years ago, when I joined the hacker community at
+MIT, I've been proud to call myself a hacker. I was hired by MIT to be
+a system hacker, meaning to make the system better. At the time, we
+used an operating system called ITS, the Incompatible Timesharing
+System, which had been developed by the team of hackers at the
+Artificial Intelligence Lab; and then they hired me to be part of the
+team. My job was to make the system better. Hacking had a more general
+meaning, which meant basically being playfully clever and pushing the
+limits of what was possible.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>Hacking doesn't even have to involve computers.</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Hacking was not limited in improving the operating system. You could
+hack in any media, it didn't have to involve computers. Hacking, as a
+general concept, is an attitude towards life. What's fun for you? If
+finding playful clever ways that were thought impossible is fun then
+you're a hacker. One thing that was supposed to be impossible was
+breaking the security on computers. So some people who were inclined to
+be hackers got into that medium of breaking security. Then journalists
+found about hackers around 1981, misunderstood them, and they thought
+hacking was breaking security. That's not generally true: first of all,
+there are many ways of hacking that have nothing to do with security,
+and second, breaking security is not necessarily hacking. It's only
+hacking if you're being playfully clever about it.</p>
+</dd>
+</dl>
+
+<h4>Software Patents</h4>
+
+<dl>
+
+<dt>Apart from electronic rights you are also a campaigner against
+software patents. Companies like Amazon, Google, and Apple, to name a
+few, are currently engaged in heated patent wars.</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Patents are like land mines for software developers. It doesn't
+surprise me that a product such as an <em>Android</em> phone is
accused
+of violating a tremendous number of patents, because it's a complicated
+software system. Any such complicated software system is going to have
+thousands of ideas in it, and if 10% of these ideas are patented that
+means hundreds of those ideas are patented. So any large program is
+likely to run afoul of hundreds of patents, and a system that's a
+combination of many programs is likely to run afoul of thousands of
+patents or more.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>As the law stands, these patents have an expiration date of 20 years
+from the moment they were filed.</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>This is a very long time in the software field. Keep in mind that
+any time the technological context changes, then we need to adapt our
+way of doing many things to fit the new context. Which means they will
+all need new ideas, and if those new ideas are patented it's yet another
+disaster.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>What's special about software that you think it should not have the
+patent system apply to it?</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Software is not the usual kind of case for patents. Let's look at
+the usual case: patents for something that's made in a factory. Those
+patents only affect the companies that have the factories and make the
+products. If they can all live with the patent system the rest of us
+have no reason to care. But with software, the problem is that it is
+much more complicated than anything else. The reason is software is
+inherently easier to design than physical products.</p>
+
+<p>Software is simply mathematics, whereas physical products have to
+cope with the perversity of matter. And lots of unexpected things will
+happen, we have models to try to predict what will happen with physical
+systems, but they're not guaranteed to be right.</p>
+
+<p>With software you're using mathematical constructs, and they do what
+they're defined to do, and if they don't then you go to the compiler
+developer, and you say, “There's a bug in your compiler. Fix it
+so that this construct does what is supposed to do.”</p>
+
+<p>You can't do that to the physical world, but you can do that to the
+compiler developer. Because of this it's easier to design software, but
+people push every ability to its limit. So you give people an easier
+kind of design, and they make bigger systems.</p>
+
+<p>So with software, a few people in a few years can design something
+that has a million elements in its design. That would be a mega-project
+if it had to be made with physical matter. So you make the system so
+complicated, and it's going to have lots of ideas in it, and that means
+that it's going to infringe lots of patents or at least be accused of
+infringing lots of patents.</p>
+
+<p>In other words, the burden of the patent system on software is much
+higher that it is on anything else. All software developers are in
+danger, and what you see with the patent wars that have broken out in
+the past year or so is if you develop a big complicated software package
+you're going to be sued.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>How is it different, say, to the patent for a drug?</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Patents on medicine are another special case. Because when you force
+poor countries to have patents on medicines, which is what the World
+Trade Organization does, that makes medicine so expensive that people
+can't afford it and they die.</p>
+
+<p>The people who founded the WTO and its executives should be sent to
+the Hague to be tried for mass murder. We should organize to demand
+that our governments stop their support for the WTO; there are thousands
+of reasons for that. That organization's purpose is to give business
+more power to turn democracy into a sham.</p>
+
+<p>All so-called “free trade treaties” are actually aimed to
+weaken democracy and transfer political power to business. Therefore in
+the name of democracy we must abolish those treaties. There are good
+arguments that international trade can make both countries wealthier,
+and if these countries are democratic enough that the wealth will spread
+to everyone in both countries then they really are better off. However,
+the so-called “free trade treaties” are designed to make the
+countries less democratic and ensure that the wealth won't spread
+around.</p>
+
+<p>That means that they cancel out whatever benefit they might produce
+<em>even if the GNP of both countries increases</em>. What good
is that
+if the increases all go to the rich, which is what they've done in the
+US <em>at least</em> since 1980.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>These patent wars have seen companies buying up an arsenal of
+software patents just to protect themselves from litigation…</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>You know they might be, but it could be that
<em>Google</em> has
+fewer patents because it hasn't existed so long. This may be one case
+where they're not all in the same position and not all interdependent,
+and if so, that would be unfortunate, because after all <em>
+Android</em> is the only smartphone operating system still in use that
+is mostly free software, and that at least gives us a starting point to
+try to run phones without proprietary software.</p>
+
+<p>If <em>Android</em> becomes dangerous and is crushed by
patents, then
+we might never be able to run smartphones with free software.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>Google is about to buy Motorola, which is not doing great
+financially, just in order to get access to its patents.</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>This shows how the patent system becomes an obstruction to progress.
+When there are enough patents applying to one product it becomes hard to
+cope with the patent system at all. I hope that they (Google) succeed
+that way, in protecting themselves, because by doing so they are to some
+extent sheltering the free software community as well.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>Do you believe in the complete abolition of software
patents?</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Right, patents should not apply to software. Keep in mind that you
+can't always classify patents as either software patents or non-software
+patents. Sometimes the same patent will apply both to programs and to
+circuits. What I recommend is to change the law to say “by
+definition, if it's a program, it does not infringe any
+patents.”</p>
+</dd>
+</dl>
+
+<h4>P2P File Sharing and the Music/Film Industry</h4>
+
+<dl>
+<dt>You've often spoken against the use of the word
+“piracy”.</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>It's a smear term! They want to say that sharing is the moral
+equivalent of attacking ships. I don't agree with that position, so I
+don't call sharing “piracy”. I call it
+“sharing”.</p>
+
+<p>I am not against profit in general. I'm against mistreating people.
+Any given way of doing business may or may not involve mistreating
+people.</p>
+
+<p>The example of the struggling artist is a ridiculous example because
+the existing system does very little for struggling artists. It's
+lousy. And if we just legalize sharing it won't make any difference to
+struggling artists. It might even help them.</p>
+
+<p>I think artists should release music with licenses that explicitly
+permit sharing, and some of them do. The point is that this argument
+against sharing is bogus.</p>
+
+<p>These giant multinational companies want more money for themselves,
+and they use the artist as an excuse. Little bit trickles down to the
+artists, and then there are few stars that get treated very well. But
+we don't need to make them richer.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>People should have the right to non-commercially share and
+redistribute music?</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Music and any published work. Because sharing is good, sharing
+builds community, so sharing must be legal, now that sharing is feasible
+and easy.</p>
+
+<p>Fifty years ago making copies and redistributing them
+non-commercially was so hard that it didn't matter whether it was legal
+or not. But now that it's so easy, to stop people from doing it can
+only be achieved using nasty, draconian measures, and even those don't
+always work.</p>
+
+<p>But, I guess, when they get nasty enough they may work, but why
+should we tolerate such nastiness?</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>The music and film industry campaigned very hard on PIPA, SOPA, and
+ACTA.</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>They want unjust laws all around the world, and in some countries
+they've succeeded getting them. I read that Ireland adopted a law
+similar to SOPA, at least described that way, but I don't know any
+details yet.</p>
+
+<p>These laws are an injustice. They are meant to subject people more
+to the media companies, so of course they're wrong, of course people
+hate them. The only question is; is there enough democracy left in any
+given country for people to be able to stop them?</p>
+
+<p>European citizens should take action and organize with others so as
+to get your country not to ratify ACTA and convince the European
+Parliament to vote it down. Save the world from that injustice.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>Recently government agencies acted to shut down a few sites, such as
+Mega-Upload.</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>I don't know whether Mega-Upload ultimately would deserve to be shut
+down. Remember Mega-Upload is a business, not an example of sharing.
+Sharing means non-commercial redistribution of exact copies. So I don't
+have a conclusion about Mega-Upload in particular.</p>
+
+<p>I do think there was something outrageous about the way it was shut
+down, before a court got to decide whether it's legal or not. But
+meanwhile there's been a law suit against (I guess it's called) Hotfile
+and the plaintiffs are claiming that “this has to be bad because
+it's similar to Mega-Upload which we shut down.” Which is a
+swindle because no court has decided whether Mega-Upload was legal. So
+they're citing this premature shutdown as proof that it's bad.</p>
+
+<p>I don't know, maybe it is bad. That's not the issue I'm strongly
+concerned with. I'm more concerned with peer-to-peer sharing because
+that's clearly good.</p>
+</dd>
+</dl>
+
+<h4>On Privacy</h4>
+
+<dl>
+<dt>What about services like Facebook and Gmail?</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>There are many issues of freedom in life, and having control of your
+computing is my contribution—I hope—to the idea of what
+human rights are. There are many other human rights people deserve, and
+many of them that apply in other areas of life carry over to the virtual
+world.</p>
+
+<p>So for instance, what are the bad things about Facebook? Well, it
+gives people a false impression of privacy. It lets you think that you
+can designate something as to be seen only by your friends, not
+realizing that it's actually to be seen by your Facebook friends and not
+your actual friends. And any of them could publish it, so it could be
+seen by anybody; it could be published in the newspaper. Facebook can't
+prevent that.</p>
+
+<p>What it could do is warn the users every time they start a session
+“Watch out, anything you post here—even if you say that only
+certain people should see it—it could get published due to events
+beyond your control. So think twice about anything you are going to
+post here. And remember that, the next time you try to apply for a job,
+the company might demand that you show everything in your account. Your
+school might also demand this. And if you really want your
+communication to be private, do not send it this way.” That's one
+thing that they should do.</p>
+
+<p>Facebook is a surveillance engine and collects tremendous amounts of
+personal data, and its business model is to abuse that data. So you
+shouldn't use Facebook at all.</p>
+
+<p>And worse than that, Facebook even does surveillance on people that
+don't have Facebook accounts. If you see a “Like” button in
+a page then Facebook knows that your computer visited that page. And
+it's not the only company that's doing this; I believe that Twitter does
+this and Google+ does this, so it's a practice that's being imitated.
+And it's wrong no matter who does it.</p>
+
+<p>The other thing that Facebook does, is that it uses people's pictures
+in commercial advertisement and gives them no way to refuse.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>Eric Schmidt of Google fame said a couple of years ago that if you
+have something you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be
+doing it.</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>That's ridiculous. What kind of things would you not anyone to
+know?</p>
+
+<p>Maybe you are planning a protest. It is common nowadays for
+governments to label dissidents as terrorists and use electronic
+surveillance on them to sabotage their protests in order to effectively
+sabotage democracy.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>These social media also claim that they have had a very strong,
+subversive role in the Middle-East uprisings.</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Maybe they do, but remember that these are not located in these
+Middle-Eastern countries so they have no strong motive to care to those
+governments.</p>
+
+<p>When, say, the US government wants to crush dissent these companies
+are likely to volunteer to help. If they don't, they will be compelled
+to anyway.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>You're also known to not use a mobile phone in order to protect your
+privacy.</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Of course. Every mobile phone is a tracking and surveillance device.
+You could stop your phone from transmitting your GPS location if you've
+got a phone that's controlled by free software, although those are very
+few. Still the system can determine pretty accurately where the phone
+is even without any active cooperation from the phone.</p>
+
+<p>The US government says it should be able to collect all that
+information without even a warrant. Not even a court order, that is.
+So that shows how much US government respects human rights.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>Some people have been using <em>TOR</em> and other
software to hide
+their identities online.</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p><em>TOR</em> is a very good thing. It helps protect
people from Big
+Brother. And by Big Brother I mean perhaps the government of Iran or
+Syria or the US or any other country that doesn't recognize human
+rights.</p>
+</dd>
+</dl>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><h3>Part
two</h3></strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><h3>PART TWO</h3></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>The second part of the interview is about free software and its
+functions.</p>
+
+<p>In the second part of the interview we started off by speaking about
+free software and asked for a definition.</p>
+
+<p>Free software means software that respects user's freedom and user's
+community. With software there are just two possibilities; either the
+user controls the program or the program controls the users.</p>
+
+<p>The first case is free software because, in order for the users to
+have effective control of the programs, we need certain freedoms. Those
+freedoms are the criteria of free software.</p>
+
+<p>If the users don't control the program, then the program controls the
+users, and the developer controls the program. That means that program
+is an instrument of unjust power.</p>
+
+<p>So free software is software that respects user's freedom, and the
+idea of the free software movement is: nonfree software is an injustice,
+let's put an end to it. First let's escape, and then let's help
+everyone else escape. Let's put an end to that injustice.</p>
+
+<dl>
+<dt>And by free of course, you don't just mean just
+“gratis”, you mean a lot more than that.</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>I mean “free” as in freedom.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>You mentioned that there are certain freedoms that a piece
+of software should respect in order to be called free. What are these
+freedoms?</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<dl>
+<dt>Freedom zero</dt>
+<dd>The freedom to run the program as you wish.</dd>
+
+<dt>Freedom one</dt>
+<dd>The Freedom to study the source code and change it to make the
+program do your computing the way you wish.</dd>
+
+<dt>Freedom two</dt>
+<dd>The freedom to help others, which means, redistribute exact copies
+when you wish.</dd>
+
+<dt>Freedom three</dt>
+<dd>The freedom to contribute to your community—the freedom to
+distribute copies of your modified versions when you wish. (That's
+assuming that you've made modified version, because not everybody does
+that.)</dd>
+</dl>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>And in order to support this you started a foundation, the Free
+Software Foundation.</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Well, remember the goal is not just theoretical. I wanted to make it
+possible to use a computer in freedom. That's impossible if you're
+required to use nonfree software, and when I started this in 1983 that
+was the only way you could make a computer run. It had to have an
+operating system, and all the operating systems were proprietary, so you
+had to have nonfree software. (Proprietary means nonfree; they're
+synonymous.)</p>
+
+<p>So to make freedom a real option it was necessary to develop a free
+software operating system. I wanted to make it a real possibility to
+use a computer and have freedom, and that meant launching a software
+developing project to develop all the software that you need to have,
+and that's an operating system called GNU. That's why there was actual
+work to be done. I wanted to go beyond simply stating a philosophical
+point in the abstract, and proceed to the practical work of making
+freedom a real possibility.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>And why do you feel that it's an inherent right of people to have
+access to the source code of a program?</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Why should people be free? There are people that don't believe in
+freedom, and you can't logically argue with them. There's a fundamental
+difference in values. Once you recognize that having control over your
+software is the only way to live in freedom and use computers, if you
+want freedom you've got to insist on free software.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>But why is software unlike other products? When a vendor sells a
+chair he expects… [Stallman interrupts]</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Software isn't like those things. Software does complicated things,
+and chairs don't. There's no way to design a chair to do things to you
+and control what you do. You normally sit on a chair and you control
+how you sit. The chair might be more or less comfortable, but it's not
+going to move you into a different building or dump you into the street
+or all sorts of other surprising things that you might not expect. It's
+not likely to have a needle hidden in it which would inject some kind of
+drug into you.</p>
+
+<p>Software, on the other hand, does things far more complicated than
+that, and proprietary software commonly has malicious features
+comparable to that needle. In Windows, people have found spy features.
+There are also back doors which allow those who know how to control them
+to do things to the user.</p>
+
+<p>In other words, Microsoft can do absolutely anything to the users of
+Windows: it has total control over their computers, it can take anything
+from them, it can sabotage them in any way at all. If you use nonfree
+programs you are defenseless against its developer, and the developers
+basically say “you should simply trust us because of course a big
+corporation like this would never hurt you.”</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>Apart from software, companies today try to interfere with what
+users can actually store in their devices. One of their tools for
+controlling the user is by using proprietary e-book formats.</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>These are attacks on the traditional freedoms of readers. The
+example I would use is the Amazon <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“swindle”</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“<a
+href="/philosophy/why-call-it-the-swindle.html">Swindle</a>”</em></ins></span>
+(a play on words
+on Amazon's e-book tablet, the “Kindle”) because that's the
+one I know the most facts about. I call it the “swindle”
+because it is set up so that it swindles readers out of the traditional
+freedoms of readers of books.</p>
+
+<p>For instance, there is the freedom to own a book, which Amazon says
+the users can't. They can only get a license to read the book under
+Amazon's choice of conditions. Then there's the freedom to acquire the
+book anonymously, which is basically impossible for most well-known
+books with the <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“swindle”.</p></strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“Swindle”.</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>They're only available from Amazon, and Amazon requires users to
+identify themselves, as it doesn't allow any way to pay anonymously with
+cash, the way you could buy a printed book. As a result Amazon
+maintains a database showing all the books that each user has ever read.
+That database is a threat to human rights. Then there's the freedom to
+give the book to someone else, perhaps after reading it, the freedom to
+lend the book to people when you wish, and the freedom to sell the book
+to a used book store.</p>
+
+<p>Amazon eliminates these freedoms, partially by means of digital
+handcuffs (malicious features in the software designed to restrict users
+so they can't do these things) and partially through having said that
+users can't own a book, because Amazon makes them sign a contract saying
+they won't give away, lend or sell the book. And then there's the
+freedom to keep the book as long as you wish.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>There was an Orwellian twist to the tale…</dt>
+<dd>
+<p>Yes, because they deleted thousands of copies of “1984”.
+That was in 2009. Those copies were authorized copies until the day
+Amazon decided to delete them. After this, there was a lot of
+criticism, and so Amazon promised it would never do this again unless
+ordered to by the state. I do not find that comforting.</p>
+
+<p>Any one of these makes the <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“swindle”—an</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“Swindle”—an</em></ins></span>
outrageous
+attack on our freedom and something that we must refuse to use. I don't
+know all the details about the competitors, but all of them share at
+least some of these unacceptable characteristics. Except for some where
+you can only install books that are in documented, non-secret
+formats.</p>
+
+<p>Some of them maybe you could buy with cash somewhere if the author is
+selling copies. But the problem is, for digital books in general, there
+is no way to buy them for cash, or anonymously, because of the fact that
+there is no anonymous payment system on the Internet.</p>
+
+<p>Bitcoin can be used for that, but Bitcoin is somewhat speculative
+because its value fluctuates. I don't think it has arrived at the point
+of being a convenient easy, anonymous, digital payment system.</p>
+
+<p>And it's not inherently anonymous. You can make a Bitcoin payment
+anonymously but you have to go to some extra trouble. I don't remember
+the details, but it was complicated enough that I didn't think I would
+do it. I would just continue not buying things online.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>There is another aspect to using nonfree software: you are being a
+bad neighbor as well.</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>When you are asked to promise not to share with other people, what
+does that mean? You are being asked to betray your community. Now,
+what's your community? It's the people you know, the people you
+normally cooperate with. These software licenses invite you to betray
+the people you normally cooperate with.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>People use the terms free & open source indiscriminately, but
+they are different things.</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>The term “open source” was coined in 1998 by people in
+the free software community. Remember that I started the free software
+movement in 1983. By 1998 we had already achieved a considerable
+amount, there were many people writing free software and many people
+using it.</p>
+
+<p>But not all of them agreed with the philosophy of the free software
+movement. Many of them, although they liked using and developing free
+software, considered our philosophy too radical and shocking. They
+coined a different term so that they could avoid any reference to our
+philosophy and avoid presenting the issue as a matter of justice versus
+injustice.</p>
+
+<p>So that's the purpose of the term “open source”. It's to
+talk about more or less the same category of software but without
+presenting it as an ethical issue. They don't say that if a program is
+not open source then it's an injustice and you must try to escape from
+it.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>You've said in the past that the “the agenda of the free
+software movement has been subverted and even nearly lost.” Are
+you referring to cases such as Android (the mobile phone operating
+system)?</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Android is just one example of the general tendency for most people
+in a community not to think of this in terms of freedom and justice.
+“Open source” is a large part of that too.</p>
+
+<p>And then look at the more than 1000 different distributions of the
+GNU/Linux OS: there around ten of them which are entirely free software,
+whose developers keep them free software as a matter of principle, and
+the other thousand-or-so include nonfree software or steer the user
+towards nonfree software, which in an instant grants legitimacy to the
+nonfree software and directly rejects the philosophy of the free
+software movement.</p>
+
+<p>And these speak a very loud voice. Most people coming into the
+community formulate their ideas of what it's all about based on those
+distributions and from other people who are happy with those, and
+basically only a minority of the free software community regards nonfree
+software as an injustice that we shouldn't tolerate. And these views,
+of course, propagate.</p>
+
+<p>Strictly speaking Android is free software but it's not complete: in
+order to actually run a phone you need other software which isn't free.
+Every Android phone needs some nonfree software too.</p>
+
+<p>In addition, many of those are “tyrant products” which
+don't allow users to replace the system. So the software in them may
+have been made from free source code, but if the user can't replace the
+software, then those executable programs are not free.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>Despite your technical achievements when it comes to coding, one of
+your greatest hacks was the inception of GNU GPL, a seminal license that
+influenced a lot of others.</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Well, it's better to say that most other free software licenses were
+written as reaction against the ideas of GNU GPL.</p>
+
+<p>You see, the GNU GPL is a copyleft license. Every free software
+license, in order to be one, has to give you the four freedoms. The
+only way to get these freedoms is if the work is released under a
+license that gives them to you.</p>
+
+<p>Copyright law today has been made too restricted, everything is
+copyrighted by default. Therefore the only way a program can be free is
+if the copyright holders put on a formal declaration that gives the four
+freedoms. This formal declaration is what we call a free software
+license.</p>
+
+<p>There are many ways to do that. Copyleft says that there is a
+condition placed on freedoms two and three (remember those were the
+freedoms to distribute exact copies and copies of your modified
+versions). The condition which is copyleft says that when you're
+distributing them, you have to do it respecting the same freedoms for
+the next person.</p>
+
+<p>So people who get copies from you, whether they're modified or not,
+must get the same four freedoms. If you put some of this code into
+another program with other code so that you've made changes, the
+conditions say that that entire program must give people the four
+freedoms, so you cannot convert the code into effectively proprietary with
+the excuse that you've made some changes in it. If you want to use any
+of this code in your program, you must make your whole program free.</p>
+
+<p>I did this because I realized that there was a choice: either people
+would be able to convert my code into nonfree software and use it to
+subjugate others, perhaps by making changes in it, or I would stop them
+from doing that.</p>
+
+<p>I realized then, if I didn't stop them, then my code would be
+converted to nonfree software, users would get my code, but they
+wouldn't get freedom, and that would be self defeating, it would defeat
+the whole purpose of writing the code, which was to make a system that
+they could use in freedom.</p>
+
+<p>So I invented a way to prevent that, and that way is
copyleft.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>And how do these ideas of copyleft translate in today's world of
+web services and so called “cloud computing”?</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>These issues apply to a program, which is a work you can have a copy
+of; but a service isn't something you get a copy of, so these issues
+don't apply to it.</p>
+
+<p>On the other hand, when you're doing your own computing you must not
+use any web service to do that, because if you do so you lose control of
+that computing. If your computing is done on somebody else's server, he
+controls it and you don't.</p>
+
+<p>So the general issue that the user should have control on their
+computing does apply to web services but in a different way.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>Despite it's practical advantages there isn't yet mass migration to
+free software in the public sector.</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Proprietary software developers have lots of money. They use that
+money to buy governments. There are two ways that they can use money to
+influence governments.</p>
+
+<p>One way is by bribing specific officials. That's typically illegal
+but in many countries they can do it anyway.</p>
+
+<p>The other way is bribing the state itself or some other jurisdiction,
+and that's not illegal, but it is equally corrupt.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>Despite being in dire financial straights, there is no national
+policy in Greece regarding the use of free software in the public
+sector.</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>I don't want to focus narrowly on the agendas of possibly saving
+money because that's a secondary reason. The real reason why the Greek
+and any other government should insist on using free software is to have
+control of its own computing, in other words, its information and
+computing sovereignty. And this is worth spending money for.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>Let's talk a bit about the role that free software should have in
+education. There's been a lot of debate recently.</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Schools must teach exclusively free software because schools have a
+social mission: to educate good citizens for a strong, capable,
+independent, cooperating and free society. In the computing field that
+means teaching people to be skilled free software users.</p>
+
+<p>Teaching the proprietary program is implanting dependence. Why do
+you think many software companies hand gratis copies of their nonfree
+programs to schools? Because they want schools to spread this
+dependence. That's the opposite of the social mission of schools, they
+shouldn't do it.</p>
+
+<p>It's like giving students addictive drugs. The companies that make
+these drugs would love the schools to do that, but it's the school's
+responsibility to refuse even if the drugs are gratis. But there is a
+deeper reason too: for education and citizenship.</p>
+
+<p>Schools are supposed to teach not just facts and skills, but also the
+spirit of good will. A habit of helping others. Every class should
+have this rule: “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 someone here wants to learn
+about that software. Which means bringing nonfree software to class is
+not permitted.” For the school to set a good example, it must
+follow its own rule: it should bring only free software and share copies
+with everyone in the class.</p>
+
+<p>There is also another reason, for the sake of education, specifically
+education of the best programmers. For natural born programmers to
+become good programmers, they need to read lots of code and write lots
+of code. Only free software gives you the chance to read the code of
+large programs that people really use. Then you have to write lots of
+code. Which means you've got to write code in large programs.</p>
+
+<p>You have to start small. That doesn't mean writing small programs,
+because small programs do not even start to present the difficulties of
+large programs. So the way you start small is by writing small changes
+in existing large programs, and only free software gives you the chance
+to do that.</p>
+
+<p>So, for several reasons, doing an ethical and good education means
+doing education with free software and only free software. There are
+many who say, “Let's give the children Windows and the GNU+Linux
+system so that they can learn both.” This is like saying
+“let's give children at lunchtime some whiskey or ouzo as well as
+water, so they can learn both.”</p>
+
+<p>The school is supposed to teach good habits, not addiction, not
+dependence. Microsoft knows that if you deliver computer with Windows
+and GNU+Linux, most of the kids in their families see Windows in use, so
+they are going to mostly use Windows.</p>
+
+<p>We need to change that, that's a bad habit of society, it's
+dependence. A school should actively put an end to that dependence.
+They should redirect society down to a path where people have
+freedom.</p>
+
+<p>But remember, the problem we want to correct is bigger than
+Microsoft. Apple is actually nastier than Microsoft, and it seems to be
+having a very disappointing success in the area of mobile devices with
+the iThings.</p>
+
+<p>And remember that the iThings pioneered a tyrannical practice that
+Microsoft only tried afterwards. That is designing products as jails,
+so that users can't even choose what applications to install freely,
+they can only install programs that have been approved by the
+dictator.</p>
+
+<p>And the horrible thing is that the evil genius Steve Jobs found a way
+to make lots of people clamor to be imprisoned by these products. He
+made jails and made them so shiny that people want to be locked up.</p>
+
+<p>There's been a tremendous PR industry keen to make him sound good,
+and Apple was working very hard to take advantage of his death. Of
+course Apple's PR worked while he was alive also, and there seem to be a
+lot of people in magazines and newspapers who want to direct the public
+attention away from these issues of freedom.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>Speaking of education, when you were part of the MIT AI Lab,
+you were part of a community. This was eventually broken up and you
+were the only one to go against the trend and not work for a big
+company developing proprietary software. What gave you the strength to
+fight, alone, like a guerrilla in the mountains?</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>I was alone already. The community I've been part of had already
+split up in a rather hostile fashion. So I was most definitely alone no
+matter what I was going to do.</p>
+
+<p>But the other thing was that the revulsion of my mind to the idea of
+using and developing proprietary software meant that that was even
+worse. I had no alternative that would lead to a life I wouldn't be
+ashamed of and disgusted with.</p> </dd>
+
+<dt>What were your major influences in your upbringing and education
+would you credit for influencing your belief system?</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>I don't know. I guess the ideas of free software were
+formulated from the community around me at MIT, because we practiced
+free software, and they were doing that before I joined them.</p>
+
+<p>What was different for me was that whereas the others liked doing
+free software, but they were willing to do nonfree software when that
+was somehow more convenient or satisfied other goals such as to make the
+software successful or whatever.</p>
+
+<p>For me that was the thing that made it good rather than bad, and it
+was useless to throw that away. But it took years for me to formulate
+those ideas, something like ten years. In the mid-70's, even late 70's,
+I still hadn't reached the conclusion that nonfree software was simply
+unjust.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>You've described yourself as a pessimist so I won't ask you to look
+into your crystal ball…</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>I wouldn't see anything, anyway. The future depends on you. If I
+could tell you what's going to happen then it would be futile for you to
+try to change it.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>So, what software projects or social movements are you excited to
+see emerging?</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>At the moment there isn't an existing software project that's making
+me excited, but I'm trying to convince someone to work on a particular,
+rather specialized piece of free software that is the last thing we need
+in order to make the use of ATI video accelerators possible in the Free
+World.</p>
+
+<p>As for social movements, I'm very excited by the Occupy movement, by
+the opposition to austerity in Greece and Spain, and the movements
+against corporate tax-evasion, and basically I'm excited to see more
+people fighting against the domination of society by the rich few.</p>
+</dd>
+</dl>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>Theodoros</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="column-limit"></div>
+<h3 style="font-size: 1.2em">Footnote</h3>
+<ol>
+ <li id="f1">Theodoros</em></ins></span> Papatheodorou <span
class="removed"><del><strong>(PhD of</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em><<a
+href="mailto:address@hidden">address@hidden</a>> holds a PhD
+in</em></ins></span> Computer <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Science)</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Science, and</em></ins></span> is teaching at the
Athens School of Fine <span class="removed"><del><strong>Arts (<a
+href="mailto:address@hidden">address@hidden</a>)</p></strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>Arts.</li>
+</ol></em></ins></span>
+
+</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 & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></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"><address@hidden></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">
+ <address@hidden></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 <span class="removed"><del><strong>3.0
US.</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>4.0.</em></ins></span> 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 © <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2012</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2012, 2019</em></ins></span> Richard Stallman,
Theodoros Papatheodorou</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative</strong></del></span>
+<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative</em></ins></span>
+Commons <span class="removed"><del><strong>Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United
States</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0
International</em></ins></span> License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2019/07/18 16:59:25 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: po/the-danger-of-ebooks.de-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/the-danger-of-ebooks.de-diff.html
diff -N po/the-danger-of-ebooks.de-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/the-danger-of-ebooks.de-diff.html 18 Jul 2019 16:59:25 -0000
1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,171 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/philosophy/the-danger-of-ebooks.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 -->
+<title>The Danger of E-Books
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/the-danger-of-ebooks.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>The Danger of E-Books</h2>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><blockquote
class="announcement"><p>
+<a href="http://defectivebydesign.org/ebooks.html">Join our mailing list
+about the dangers of eBooks</a>.
+</p></blockquote>
+
+<p>In</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p class="comment">In</em></ins></span>
an age where business dominates our governments and writes our laws,
+every technological advance offers business an opportunity to impose new
+restrictions on the public. Technologies that could have empowered us are
+used to chain us instead.</p>
+
+<p>With printed books,</p>
+<ul>
+<li>You can buy one with cash, anonymously.</li>
+<li>Then you own it.</li>
+<li>You are not required to sign a license that restricts your use of
it.</li>
+<li>The format is known, and no proprietary technology is needed to read
the
+book.</li>
+<li>You can give, lend or sell the book to another.</li>
+<li>You can, physically, scan and copy the book, and it's sometimes
lawful
+under copyright.</li>
+<li>Nobody has the power to destroy your book.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>Contrast that with Amazon e-books (fairly typical):</p>
+<ul>
+<li>Amazon requires users to identify themselves to get an
e-book.</li>
+<li>In some countries, including the US, Amazon says the user cannot
+own the e-book.</li>
+<li>Amazon requires the user to accept a restrictive license on use of
the
+e-book.</li>
+<li>The format is secret, and only proprietary user-restricting software
can
+read it at all.</li>
+<li>An ersatz “lending” is allowed for some books, for a
limited time, but
+only by specifying by name another user of the same system. No giving or
+selling.</li>
+<li>To copy the e-book is impossible due to
+<a href="/philosophy/right-to-read.html">Digital Restrictions
Management</a>
+in the player and prohibited by the license, which is more restrictive than
+copyright law.</li>
+<li>Amazon can remotely delete the e-book using a back door. It used
this
+back door in 2009 to delete thousands of copies of George Orwell's
1984.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>Even one of these infringements makes e-books a step backward from
+printed books. We must reject e-books until they respect our <span
class="removed"><del><strong>freedom.</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>freedom [<a
href="#footnote2">2</a>].</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>The e-book companies say denying our traditional freedoms is
+necessary to continue to pay authors. The current copyright system
+supports those companies handsomely and most authors badly. We can
+support authors better in other ways that don't require curtailing our
+freedom, and even legalize sharing. Two methods I've suggested
+are:</p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>To distribute tax funds to authors based on the cube root of each
+author's <span class="removed"><del><strong>popularity.<a
href="#footnote1">[1]</a></li></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>popularity [<a
href="#footnote1">1</a>].</li></em></ins></span>
+<li>To design players so users can send authors anonymous voluntary
payments.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>E-books need not attack our freedom (Project Gutenberg's e-books
don't),
+but they will if companies get to decide. It's up to us to stop them.</p>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><blockquote
class="announcement"></em></ins></span>
+<p>Join the fight: sign up
+at <a href="http://DefectiveByDesign.org/ebooks.html">
+http://DefectiveByDesign.org/ebooks.html</a>.</p>
+
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong><h4>Footnotes</h4></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></blockquote>
+
+<div class="column-limit"></div>
+<h3 style="font-size: 1.2em">Footnotes</h3></em></ins></span>
+<ol>
+<li id="footnote1">See both my speech
+<a href="/philosophy/copyright-versus-community.html">“Copyright
+versus Community in the Age of Computer Networks”</a>
+and <a
href="http://stallman.org/articles/internet-sharing-license.en.html">my
+2012 open letter to the President of the Brazilian Senate</a>, Senator
+José Sarney, for more on this.</li>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><li id="footnote2">[2019] To show our
rejection of Amazon's e-book reader,
+we call it <a href="/philosophy/why-call-it-the-swindle.html">the
+Swindle</a>.</li></em></ins></span>
+</ol>
+
+</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 & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></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"><address@hidden></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">
+ <address@hidden></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 © 2011, 2014, 2015, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2016</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2016, 2019</em></ins></span> Richard
Stallman</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: 2019/07/18 16:59:25 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: po/the-danger-of-ebooks.it-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/the-danger-of-ebooks.it-diff.html
diff -N po/the-danger-of-ebooks.it-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/the-danger-of-ebooks.it-diff.html 18 Jul 2019 16:59:25 -0000
1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,171 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/philosophy/the-danger-of-ebooks.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 -->
+<title>The Danger of E-Books
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/the-danger-of-ebooks.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>The Danger of E-Books</h2>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><blockquote
class="announcement"><p>
+<a href="http://defectivebydesign.org/ebooks.html">Join our mailing list
+about the dangers of eBooks</a>.
+</p></blockquote>
+
+<p>In</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p class="comment">In</em></ins></span>
an age where business dominates our governments and writes our laws,
+every technological advance offers business an opportunity to impose new
+restrictions on the public. Technologies that could have empowered us are
+used to chain us instead.</p>
+
+<p>With printed books,</p>
+<ul>
+<li>You can buy one with cash, anonymously.</li>
+<li>Then you own it.</li>
+<li>You are not required to sign a license that restricts your use of
it.</li>
+<li>The format is known, and no proprietary technology is needed to read
the
+book.</li>
+<li>You can give, lend or sell the book to another.</li>
+<li>You can, physically, scan and copy the book, and it's sometimes
lawful
+under copyright.</li>
+<li>Nobody has the power to destroy your book.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>Contrast that with Amazon e-books (fairly typical):</p>
+<ul>
+<li>Amazon requires users to identify themselves to get an
e-book.</li>
+<li>In some countries, including the US, Amazon says the user cannot
+own the e-book.</li>
+<li>Amazon requires the user to accept a restrictive license on use of
the
+e-book.</li>
+<li>The format is secret, and only proprietary user-restricting software
can
+read it at all.</li>
+<li>An ersatz “lending” is allowed for some books, for a
limited time, but
+only by specifying by name another user of the same system. No giving or
+selling.</li>
+<li>To copy the e-book is impossible due to
+<a href="/philosophy/right-to-read.html">Digital Restrictions
Management</a>
+in the player and prohibited by the license, which is more restrictive than
+copyright law.</li>
+<li>Amazon can remotely delete the e-book using a back door. It used
this
+back door in 2009 to delete thousands of copies of George Orwell's
1984.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>Even one of these infringements makes e-books a step backward from
+printed books. We must reject e-books until they respect our <span
class="removed"><del><strong>freedom.</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>freedom [<a
href="#footnote2">2</a>].</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>The e-book companies say denying our traditional freedoms is
+necessary to continue to pay authors. The current copyright system
+supports those companies handsomely and most authors badly. We can
+support authors better in other ways that don't require curtailing our
+freedom, and even legalize sharing. Two methods I've suggested
+are:</p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>To distribute tax funds to authors based on the cube root of each
+author's <span class="removed"><del><strong>popularity.<a
href="#footnote1">[1]</a></li></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>popularity [<a
href="#footnote1">1</a>].</li></em></ins></span>
+<li>To design players so users can send authors anonymous voluntary
payments.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>E-books need not attack our freedom (Project Gutenberg's e-books
don't),
+but they will if companies get to decide. It's up to us to stop them.</p>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><blockquote
class="announcement"></em></ins></span>
+<p>Join the fight: sign up
+at <a href="http://DefectiveByDesign.org/ebooks.html">
+http://DefectiveByDesign.org/ebooks.html</a>.</p>
+
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong><h4>Footnotes</h4></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></blockquote>
+
+<div class="column-limit"></div>
+<h3 style="font-size: 1.2em">Footnotes</h3></em></ins></span>
+<ol>
+<li id="footnote1">See both my speech
+<a href="/philosophy/copyright-versus-community.html">“Copyright
+versus Community in the Age of Computer Networks”</a>
+and <a
href="http://stallman.org/articles/internet-sharing-license.en.html">my
+2012 open letter to the President of the Brazilian Senate</a>, Senator
+José Sarney, for more on this.</li>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><li id="footnote2">[2019] To show our
rejection of Amazon's e-book reader,
+we call it <a href="/philosophy/why-call-it-the-swindle.html">the
+Swindle</a>.</li></em></ins></span>
+</ol>
+
+</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 & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></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"><address@hidden></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">
+ <address@hidden></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 © 2011, 2014, 2015, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2016</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2016, 2019</em></ins></span> Richard
Stallman</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: 2019/07/18 16:59:25 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: po/the-danger-of-ebooks.zh-tw-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/the-danger-of-ebooks.zh-tw-diff.html
diff -N po/the-danger-of-ebooks.zh-tw-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/the-danger-of-ebooks.zh-tw-diff.html 18 Jul 2019 16:59:25 -0000
1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,171 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/philosophy/the-danger-of-ebooks.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 -->
+<title>The Danger of E-Books
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/the-danger-of-ebooks.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>The Danger of E-Books</h2>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><blockquote
class="announcement"><p>
+<a href="http://defectivebydesign.org/ebooks.html">Join our mailing list
+about the dangers of eBooks</a>.
+</p></blockquote>
+
+<p>In</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p class="comment">In</em></ins></span>
an age where business dominates our governments and writes our laws,
+every technological advance offers business an opportunity to impose new
+restrictions on the public. Technologies that could have empowered us are
+used to chain us instead.</p>
+
+<p>With printed books,</p>
+<ul>
+<li>You can buy one with cash, anonymously.</li>
+<li>Then you own it.</li>
+<li>You are not required to sign a license that restricts your use of
it.</li>
+<li>The format is known, and no proprietary technology is needed to read
the
+book.</li>
+<li>You can give, lend or sell the book to another.</li>
+<li>You can, physically, scan and copy the book, and it's sometimes
lawful
+under copyright.</li>
+<li>Nobody has the power to destroy your book.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>Contrast that with Amazon e-books (fairly typical):</p>
+<ul>
+<li>Amazon requires users to identify themselves to get an
e-book.</li>
+<li>In some countries, including the US, Amazon says the user cannot
+own the e-book.</li>
+<li>Amazon requires the user to accept a restrictive license on use of
the
+e-book.</li>
+<li>The format is secret, and only proprietary user-restricting software
can
+read it at all.</li>
+<li>An ersatz “lending” is allowed for some books, for a
limited time, but
+only by specifying by name another user of the same system. No giving or
+selling.</li>
+<li>To copy the e-book is impossible due to
+<a href="/philosophy/right-to-read.html">Digital Restrictions
Management</a>
+in the player and prohibited by the license, which is more restrictive than
+copyright law.</li>
+<li>Amazon can remotely delete the e-book using a back door. It used
this
+back door in 2009 to delete thousands of copies of George Orwell's
1984.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>Even one of these infringements makes e-books a step backward from
+printed books. We must reject e-books until they respect our <span
class="removed"><del><strong>freedom.</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>freedom [<a
href="#footnote2">2</a>].</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>The e-book companies say denying our traditional freedoms is
+necessary to continue to pay authors. The current copyright system
+supports those companies handsomely and most authors badly. We can
+support authors better in other ways that don't require curtailing our
+freedom, and even legalize sharing. Two methods I've suggested
+are:</p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>To distribute tax funds to authors based on the cube root of each
+author's <span class="removed"><del><strong>popularity.<a
href="#footnote1">[1]</a></li></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>popularity [<a
href="#footnote1">1</a>].</li></em></ins></span>
+<li>To design players so users can send authors anonymous voluntary
payments.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>E-books need not attack our freedom (Project Gutenberg's e-books
don't),
+but they will if companies get to decide. It's up to us to stop them.</p>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><blockquote
class="announcement"></em></ins></span>
+<p>Join the fight: sign up
+at <a href="http://DefectiveByDesign.org/ebooks.html">
+http://DefectiveByDesign.org/ebooks.html</a>.</p>
+
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong><h4>Footnotes</h4></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></blockquote>
+
+<div class="column-limit"></div>
+<h3 style="font-size: 1.2em">Footnotes</h3></em></ins></span>
+<ol>
+<li id="footnote1">See both my speech
+<a href="/philosophy/copyright-versus-community.html">“Copyright
+versus Community in the Age of Computer Networks”</a>
+and <a
href="http://stallman.org/articles/internet-sharing-license.en.html">my
+2012 open letter to the President of the Brazilian Senate</a>, Senator
+José Sarney, for more on this.</li>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><li id="footnote2">[2019] To show our
rejection of Amazon's e-book reader,
+we call it <a href="/philosophy/why-call-it-the-swindle.html">the
+Swindle</a>.</li></em></ins></span>
+</ol>
+
+</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 & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></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"><address@hidden></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">
+ <address@hidden></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 © 2011, 2014, 2015, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2016</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2016, 2019</em></ins></span> Richard
Stallman</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: 2019/07/18 16:59:25 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- www/philosophy free-digital-society.it.html fre...,
GNUN <=