diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'info/emacs-15')
| -rw-r--r-- | info/emacs-15 | 503 |
1 files changed, 503 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/info/emacs-15 b/info/emacs-15 new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..c8d46c939ba --- /dev/null +++ b/info/emacs-15 @@ -0,0 +1,503 @@ +This is Info file ../info/emacs, produced by Makeinfo-1.49 from the +input file emacs.texi. + + This file documents the GNU Emacs editor. + + Copyright (C) 1985, 1986, 1988, 1992 Richard M. Stallman. + + Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of this +manual provided the copyright notice and this permission notice are +preserved on all copies. + + Permission is granted to copy and distribute modified versions of +this manual under the conditions for verbatim copying, provided also +that the sections entitled "The GNU Manifesto", "Distribution" and "GNU +General Public License" are included exactly as in the original, and +provided that the entire resulting derived work is distributed under the +terms of a permission notice identical to this one. + + Permission is granted to copy and distribute translations of this +manual into another language, under the above conditions for modified +versions, except that the sections entitled "The GNU Manifesto", +"Distribution" and "GNU General Public License" may be included in a +translation approved by the author instead of in the original English. + + +File: emacs, Node: Manifesto, Prev: Version 19, Up: Top + +The GNU Manifesto +***************** + + By Richard M. Stallman, 1986 + +What's GNU? Gnu's Not Unix! +============================ + + GNU, which stands for Gnu's Not Unix, is the name for the complete +Unix-compatible software system which I am writing so that I can give it +away free to everyone who can use it. Several other volunteers are +helping me. Contributions of time, money, programs and equipment are +greatly needed. + + So far we have an Emacs text editor with Lisp for writing editor +commands, a source level debugger, a yacc-compatible parser generator, +a linker, and around 35 utilities. A shell (command interpreter) is +nearly completed. A new portable optimizing C compiler has compiled +itself and may be released this year. An initial kernel exists but +many more features are needed to emulate Unix. When the kernel and +compiler are finished, it will be possible to distribute a GNU system +suitable for program development. We will use TeX as our text +formatter, but an nroff is being worked on. We will use the free, +portable X window system as well. After this we will add a portable +Common Lisp, an Empire game, a spreadsheet, and hundreds of other +things, plus on-line documentation. We hope to supply, eventually, +everything useful that normally comes with a Unix system, and more. + + GNU will be able to run Unix programs, but will not be identical to +Unix. We will make all improvements that are convenient, based on our +experience with other operating systems. In particular, we plan to +have longer filenames, file version numbers, a crashproof file system, +filename completion perhaps, terminal-independent display support, and +perhaps eventually a Lisp-based window system through which several +Lisp programs and ordinary Unix programs can share a screen. Both C +and Lisp will be available as system programming languages. We will +try to support UUCP, MIT Chaosnet, and Internet protocols for +communication. + + GNU is aimed initially at machines in the 68000/16000 class with +virtual memory, because they are the easiest machines to make it run +on. The extra effort to make it run on smaller machines will be left +to someone who wants to use it on them. + + To avoid horrible confusion, please pronounce the `G' in the word +`GNU' when it is the name of this project. + +Why I Must Write GNU +==================== + + I consider that the golden rule requires that if I like a program I +must share it with other people who like it. Software sellers want to +divide the users and conquer them, making each user agree not to share +with others. I refuse to break solidarity with other users in this +way. I cannot in good conscience sign a nondisclosure agreement or a +software license agreement. For years I worked within the Artificial +Intelligence Lab to resist such tendencies and other inhospitalities, +but eventually they had gone too far: I could not remain in an +institution where such things are done for me against my will. + + So that I can continue to use computers without dishonor, I have +decided to put together a sufficient body of free software so that I +will be able to get along without any software that is not free. I +have resigned from the AI lab to deny MIT any legal excuse to prevent +me from giving GNU away. + +Why GNU Will Be Compatible with Unix +==================================== + + Unix is not my ideal system, but it is not too bad. The essential +features of Unix seem to be good ones, and I think I can fill in what +Unix lacks without spoiling them. And a system compatible with Unix +would be convenient for many other people to adopt. + +How GNU Will Be Available +========================= + + GNU is not in the public domain. Everyone will be permitted to +modify and redistribute GNU, but no distributor will be allowed to +restrict its further redistribution. That is to say, proprietary +modifications will not be allowed. I want to make sure that all +versions of GNU remain free. + +Why Many Other Programmers Want to Help +======================================= + + I have found many other programmers who are excited about GNU and +want to help. + + Many programmers are unhappy about the commercialization of system +software. It may enable them to make more money, but it requires them +to feel in conflict with other programmers in general rather than feel +as comrades. The fundamental act of friendship among programmers is the +sharing of programs; marketing arrangements now typically used +essentially forbid programmers to treat others as friends. The +purchaser of software must choose between friendship and obeying the +law. Naturally, many decide that friendship is more important. But +those who believe in law often do not feel at ease with either choice. +They become cynical and think that programming is just a way of making +money. + + By working on and using GNU rather than proprietary programs, we can +be hospitable to everyone and obey the law. In addition, GNU serves as +an example to inspire and a banner to rally others to join us in +sharing. This can give us a feeling of harmony which is impossible if +we use software that is not free. For about half the programmers I +talk to, this is an important happiness that money cannot replace. + +How You Can Contribute +====================== + + I am asking computer manufacturers for donations of machines and +money. I'm asking individuals for donations of programs and work. + + One consequence you can expect if you donate machines is that GNU +will run on them at an early date. The machines should be complete, +ready to use systems, approved for use in a residential area, and not +in need of sophisticated cooling or power. + + I have found very many programmers eager to contribute part-time +work for GNU. For most projects, such part-time distributed work would +be very hard to coordinate; the independently-written parts would not +work together. But for the particular task of replacing Unix, this +problem is absent. A complete Unix system contains hundreds of utility +programs, each of which is documented separately. Most interface +specifications are fixed by Unix compatibility. If each contributor +can write a compatible replacement for a single Unix utility, and make +it work properly in place of the original on a Unix system, then these +utilities will work right when put together. Even allowing for Murphy +to create a few unexpected problems, assembling these components will +be a feasible task. (The kernel will require closer communication and +will be worked on by a small, tight group.) + + If I get donations of money, I may be able to hire a few people full +or part time. The salary won't be high by programmers' standards, but +I'm looking for people for whom building community spirit is as +important as making money. I view this as a way of enabling dedicated +people to devote their full energies to working on GNU by sparing them +the need to make a living in another way. + +Why All Computer Users Will Benefit +=================================== + + Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain good system +software free, just like air. + + This means much more than just saving everyone the price of a Unix +license. It means that much wasteful duplication of system programming +effort will be avoided. This effort can go instead into advancing the +state of the art. + + Complete system sources will be available to everyone. As a result, +a user who needs changes in the system will always be free to make them +himself, or hire any available programmer or company to make them for +him. Users will no longer be at the mercy of one programmer or company +which owns the sources and is in sole position to make changes. + + Schools will be able to provide a much more educational environment +by encouraging all students to study and improve the system code. +Harvard's computer lab used to have the policy that no program could be +installed on the system if its sources were not on public display, and +upheld it by actually refusing to install certain programs. I was very +much inspired by this. + + Finally, the overhead of considering who owns the system software +and what one is or is not entitled to do with it will be lifted. + + Arrangements to make people pay for using a program, including +licensing of copies, always incur a tremendous cost to society through +the cumbersome mechanisms necessary to figure out how much (that is, +which programs) a person must pay for. And only a police state can +force everyone to obey them. Consider a space station where air must +be manufactured at great cost: charging each breather per liter of air +may be fair, but wearing the metered gas mask all day and all night is +intolerable even if everyone can afford to pay the air bill. And the +TV cameras everywhere to see if you ever take the mask off are +outrageous. It's better to support the air plant with a head tax and +chuck the masks. + + Copying all or parts of a program is as natural to a programmer as +breathing, and as productive. It ought to be as free. + +Some Easily Rebutted Objections to GNU's Goals +============================================== + + "Nobody will use it if it is free, because that means they can't + rely on any support." + + "You have to charge for the program to pay for providing the + support." + + If people would rather pay for GNU plus service than get GNU free +without service, a company to provide just service to people who have +obtained GNU free ought to be profitable. + + We must distinguish between support in the form of real programming +work and mere handholding. The former is something one cannot rely on +from a software vendor. If your problem is not shared by enough +people, the vendor will tell you to get lost. + + If your business needs to be able to rely on support, the only way +is to have all the necessary sources and tools. Then you can hire any +available person to fix your problem; you are not at the mercy of any +individual. With Unix, the price of sources puts this out of +consideration for most businesses. With GNU this will be easy. It is +still possible for there to be no available competent person, but this +problem cannot be blamed on distribution arrangements. GNU does not +eliminate all the world's problems, only some of them. + + Meanwhile, the users who know nothing about computers need +handholding: doing things for them which they could easily do +themselves but don't know how. + + Such services could be provided by companies that sell just +hand-holding and repair service. If it is true that users would rather +spend money and get a product with service, they will also be willing +to buy the service having got the product free. The service companies +will compete in quality and price; users will not be tied to any +particular one. Meanwhile, those of us who don't need the service +should be able to use the program without paying for the service. + + "You cannot reach many people without advertising, and you must + charge for the program to support that." + + "It's no use advertising a program people can get free." + + There are various forms of free or very cheap publicity that can be +used to inform numbers of computer users about something like GNU. But +it may be true that one can reach more microcomputer users with +advertising. If this is really so, a business which advertises the +service of copying and mailing GNU for a fee ought to be successful +enough to pay for its advertising and more. This way, only the users +who benefit from the advertising pay for it. + + On the other hand, if many people get GNU from their friends, and +such companies don't succeed, this will show that advertising was not +really necessary to spread GNU. Why is it that free market advocates +don't want to let the free market decide this? + + "My company needs a proprietary operating system to get a + competitive edge." + + GNU will remove operating system software from the realm of +competition. You will not be able to get an edge in this area, but +neither will your competitors be able to get an edge over you. You and +they will compete in other areas, while benefitting mutually in this +one. If your business is selling an operating system, you will not +like GNU, but that's tough on you. If your business is something else, +GNU can save you from being pushed into the expensive business of +selling operating systems. + + I would like to see GNU development supported by gifts from many +manufacturers and users, reducing the cost to each. + + "Don't programmers deserve a reward for their creativity?" + + If anything deserves a reward, it is social contribution. +Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society +is free to use the results. If programmers deserve to be rewarded for +creating innovative programs, by the same token they deserve to be +punished if they restrict the use of these programs. + + "Shouldn't a programmer be able to ask for a reward for his + creativity?" + + There is nothing wrong with wanting pay for work, or seeking to +maximize one's income, as long as one does not use means that are +destructive. But the means customary in the field of software today +are based on destruction. + + Extracting money from users of a program by restricting their use of +it is destructive because the restrictions reduce the amount and the +ways that the program can be used. This reduces the amount of wealth +that humanity derives from the program. When there is a deliberate +choice to restrict, the harmful consequences are deliberate destruction. + + The reason a good citizen does not use such destructive means to +become wealthier is that, if everyone did so, we would all become +poorer from the mutual destructiveness. This is Kantian ethics; or, +the Golden Rule. Since I do not like the consequences that result if +everyone hoards information, I am required to consider it wrong for one +to do so. Specifically, the desire to be rewarded for one's creativity +does not justify depriving the world in general of all or part of that +creativity. + + "Won't programmers starve?" + + I could answer that nobody is forced to be a programmer. Most of us +cannot manage to get any money for standing on the street and making +faces. But we are not, as a result, condemned to spend our lives +standing on the street making faces, and starving. We do something +else. + + But that is the wrong answer because it accepts the questioner's +implicit assumption: that without ownership of software, programmers +cannot possibly be paid a cent. Supposedly it is all or nothing. + + The real reason programmers will not starve is that it will still be +possible for them to get paid for programming; just not paid as much as +now. + + Restricting copying is not the only basis for business in software. +It is the most common basis because it brings in the most money. If it +were prohibited, or rejected by the customer, software business would +move to other bases of organization which are now used less often. +There are always numerous ways to organize any kind of business. + + Probably programming will not be as lucrative on the new basis as it +is now. But that is not an argument against the change. It is not +considered an injustice that sales clerks make the salaries that they +now do. If programmers made the same, that would not be an injustice +either. (In practice they would still make considerably more than +that.) + + "Don't people have a right to control how their creativity is + used?" + + "Control over the use of one's ideas" really constitutes control over +other people's lives; and it is usually used to make their lives more +difficult. + + People who have studied the issue of intellectual property rights +carefully (such as lawyers) say that there is no intrinsic right to +intellectual property. The kinds of supposed intellectual property +rights that the government recognizes were created by specific acts of +legislation for specific purposes. + + For example, the patent system was established to encourage +inventors to disclose the details of their inventions. Its purpose was +to help society rather than to help inventors. At the time, the life +span of 17 years for a patent was short compared with the rate of +advance of the state of the art. Since patents are an issue only among +manufacturers, for whom the cost and effort of a license agreement are +small compared with setting up production, the patents often do not do +much harm. They do not obstruct most individuals who use patented +products. + + The idea of copyright did not exist in ancient times, when authors +frequently copied other authors at length in works of non-fiction. This +practice was useful, and is the only way many authors' works have +survived even in part. The copyright system was created expressly for +the purpose of encouraging authorship. In the domain for which it was +invented--books, which could be copied economically only on a printing +press--it did little harm, and did not obstruct most of the individuals +who read the books. + + All intellectual property rights are just licenses granted by society +because it was thought, rightly or wrongly, that society as a whole +would benefit by granting them. But in any particular situation, we +have to ask: are we really better off granting such license? What kind +of act are we licensing a person to do? + + The case of programs today is very different from that of books a +hundred years ago. The fact that the easiest way to copy a program is +from one neighbor to another, the fact that a program has both source +code and object code which are distinct, and the fact that a program is +used rather than read and enjoyed, combine to create a situation in +which a person who enforces a copyright is harming society as a whole +both materially and spiritually; in which a person should not do so +regardless of whether the law enables him to. + + "Competition makes things get done better." + + The paradigm of competition is a race: by rewarding the winner, we +encourage everyone to run faster. When capitalism really works this +way, it does a good job; but its defenders are wrong in assuming it +always works this way. If the runners forget why the reward is offered +and become intent on winning, no matter how, they may find other +strategies--such as, attacking other runners. If the runners get into +a fist fight, they will all finish late. + + Proprietary and secret software is the moral equivalent of runners +in a fist fight. Sad to say, the only referee we've got does not seem +to object to fights; he just regulates them ("For every ten yards you +run, you can fire one shot"). He really ought to break them up, and +penalize runners for even trying to fight. + + "Won't everyone stop programming without a monetary incentive?" + + Actually, many people will program with absolutely no monetary +incentive. Programming has an irresistible fascination for some people, +usually the people who are best at it. There is no shortage of +professional musicians who keep at it even though they have no hope of +making a living that way. + + But really this question, though commonly asked, is not appropriate +to the situation. Pay for programmers will not disappear, only become +less. So the right question is, will anyone program with a reduced +monetary incentive? My experience shows that they will. + + For more than ten years, many of the world's best programmers worked +at the Artificial Intelligence Lab for far less money than they could +have had anywhere else. They got many kinds of non-monetary rewards: +fame and appreciation, for example. And creativity is also fun, a +reward in itself. + + Then most of them left when offered a chance to do the same +interesting work for a lot of money. + + What the facts show is that people will program for reasons other +than riches; but if given a chance to make a lot of money as well, they +will come to expect and demand it. Low-paying organizations do poorly +in competition with high-paying ones, but they do not have to do badly +if the high-paying ones are banned. + + "We need the programmers desperately. If they demand that we stop + helping our neighbors, we have to obey." + + You're never so desperate that you have to obey this sort of demand. +Remember: millions for defense, but not a cent for tribute! + + "Programmers need to make a living somehow." + + In the short run, this is true. However, there are plenty of ways +that programmers could make a living without selling the right to use a +program. This way is customary now because it brings programmers and +businessmen the most money, not because it is the only way to make a +living. It is easy to find other ways if you want to find them. Here +are a number of examples. + + A manufacturer introducing a new computer will pay for the porting of +operating systems onto the new hardware. + + The sale of teaching, hand-holding and maintenance services could +also employ programmers. + + People with new ideas could distribute programs as freeware, asking +for donations from satisfied users, or selling hand-holding services. +I have met people who are already working this way successfully. + + Users with related needs can form users' groups, and pay dues. A +group would contract with programming companies to write programs that +the group's members would like to use. + + All sorts of development can be funded with a Software Tax: + + Suppose everyone who buys a computer has to pay x percent of the + price as a software tax. The government gives this to an agency + like the NSF to spend on software development. + + But if the computer buyer makes a donation to software development + himself, he can take a credit against the tax. He can donate to + the project of his own choosing--often, chosen because he hopes to + use the results when it is done. He can take a credit for any + amount of donation up to the total tax he had to pay. + + The total tax rate could be decided by a vote of the payers of the + tax, weighted according to the amount they will be taxed on. + + The consequences: + + * The computer-using community supports software development. + + * This community decides what level of support is needed. + + * Users who care which projects their share is spent on can + choose this for themselves. + + In the long run, making programs free is a step toward the +post-scarcity world, where nobody will have to work very hard just to +make a living. People will be free to devote themselves to activities +that are fun, such as programming, after spending the necessary ten +hours a week on required tasks such as legislation, family counseling, +robot repair and asteroid prospecting. There will be no need to be +able to make a living from programming. + + We have already greatly reduced the amount of work that the whole +society must do for its actual productivity, but only a little of this +has translated itself into leisure for workers because much +nonproductive activity is required to accompany productive activity. +The main causes of this are bureaucracy and isometric struggles against +competition. Free software will greatly reduce these drains in the +area of software production. We must do this, in order for technical +gains in productivity to translate into less work for us. + +
\ No newline at end of file |