C!T ROM 3/ct-rom iiib.zip/ct-rom iiib/WINDOWS/DIVERSEN/WINE02BX/EMACS.14

Text File | 1993-03-28 | 43KB | 923 lines

Info file ../info/emacs, produced by Makeinfo, -*- Text -*- from input
file lemacs.tex.

   This file documents the GNU Emacs editor.

   Copyright (C) 1985, 1986, 1988 Richard M. Stallman.  Copyright (C)
1991, 1992 Lucid, Inc.

   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: Quitting,  Next: Lossage,  Prev: Customization,  Up: Top

Quitting and Aborting
=====================

`C-g'
     Quit.  Cancel running or partially typed command.

`C-]'
     Abort innermost recursive editing level and cancel the command
     which invoked it (`abort-recursive-edit').

`M-x top-level'
     Abort all recursive editing levels that are currently executing.

`C-x u'
     Cancel an already-executed command, usually (`undo').

   There are two ways of cancelling commands which are not finished
executing: "quitting" with `C-g', and "aborting" with `C-]' or `M-x
top-level'.  Quitting is cancelling a partially typed command or one
which is already running.  Aborting is getting out of a recursive
editing level and cancelling the command that invoked the recursive
edit.

   Quitting with `C-g' is used for getting rid of a partially typed
command, or a numeric argument that you don't want.  It also stops a
running command in the middle in a relatively safe way, so you can use
it if you accidentally start executing a command that takes a long
time.  In particular, it is safe to quit out of killing; either your
text will ALL still be there, or it will ALL be in the kill ring (or
maybe both).  Quitting an incremental search does special things
documented under searching; in general, it may take two successive
`C-g' characters to get out of a search.  `C-g' works by setting the
variable `quit-flag' to `t' the instant `C-g' is typed; Emacs Lisp
checks this variable frequently and quits if it is non-`nil'.  `C-g'
is only actually executed as a command if it is typed while Emacs is
waiting for input.

   If you quit twice in a row before the first `C-g' is recognized, you
activate the "emergency escape" feature and return to the shell.
*Note Emergency Escape::.

   You can use `C-]' (`abort-recursive-edit') to get out of a
recursive editing level and cancel the command which invoked it.
Quitting with `C-g' does not do this, and could not do this, because it
is used to cancel a partially typed command within the recursive
editing level.  Both operations are useful.  For example, if you are
in the Emacs debugger (*note Lisp Debug::.) and have typed `C-u 8' to
enter a numeric argument, you can cancel that argument with `C-g' and
remain in the debugger.

   The command `M-x top-level' is equivalent to "enough" `C-]'
commands to get you out of all the levels of recursive edits that you
are in.  `C-]' only gets you out one level at a time, but `M-x
top-level' goes out all levels at once.  Both `C-]' and `M-x
top-level' are like all other commands, and unlike `C-g', in that they
are effective only when Emacs is ready for a command.  `C-]' is an
ordinary key and has its meaning only because of its binding in the
keymap.  *Note Recursive Edit::.

   `C-x u' (`undo') is not strictly speaking a way of cancelling a
command, but you can think of it as cancelling a command already
finished executing.  *Note Undo::.


File: emacs,  Node: Lossage,  Next: Bugs,  Prev: Quitting,  Up: Top

Dealing with Emacs Trouble
==========================

   This section describes various conditions in which Emacs fails to
work, and how to recognize them and correct them.

* Menu:

* Stuck Recursive::    `[...]' in mode line around the parentheses
* Screen Garbled::     Garbage on the screen
* Text Garbled::       Garbage in the text
* Unasked-for Search:: Spontaneous entry to incremental search
* Emergency Escape::   Emergency escape--
                        What to do if Emacs stops responding
* Total Frustration::  When you are at your wits' end.


File: emacs,  Node: Stuck Recursive,  Next: Screen Garbled,  Prev: Lossage,  Up: Lossage

Recursive Editing Levels
------------------------

   Recursive editing levels are important and useful features of
Emacs, but they can seem like malfunctions to the user who does not
understand them.

   If the mode line has square brackets `[...]' around the parentheses
that contain the names of the major and minor modes, you have entered a
recursive editing level.  If you did not do this on purpose, or if you
don't understand what that means, you should just get out of the
recursive editing level.  To do so, type `M-x top-level'.  This is
called getting back to top level.  *Note Recursive Edit::.


File: emacs,  Node: Screen Garbled,  Next: Text Garbled,  Prev: Stuck Recursive,  Up: Lossage

Garbage on the Screen
---------------------

   If the data on the screen looks wrong, the first thing to do is see
whether the text is actually wrong.  Type `C-l', to redisplay the
entire screen.  If the text appears correct after this, the problem was
entirely in the previous screen update.

   Display updating problems often result from an incorrect termcap
entry for the terminal you are using.  The file `etc/TERMS' in the
Emacs distribution gives the fixes for known problems of this sort.
`INSTALL' contains general advice for these problems in one of its
sections.  Very likely there is simply insufficient padding for certain
display operations.  To investigate the possibility that you have this
sort of problem, try Emacs on another terminal made by a different
manufacturer.  If problems happen frequently on one kind of terminal
but not another kind, the real problem is likely to be a bad termcap
entry, though it could also be due to a bug in Emacs that appears for
terminals that have or that lack specific features.


File: emacs,  Node: Text Garbled,  Next: Unasked-for Search,  Prev: Screen Garbled,  Up: Lossage

Garbage in the Text
-------------------

   If `C-l' shows that the text is wrong, try undoing the changes to it
using `C-x u' until it gets back to a state you consider correct.  Also
try `C-h l' to find out what command you typed to produce the observed
results.

   If a large portion of text appears to be missing at the beginning or
end of the buffer, check for the word `Narrow' in the mode line.  If
it appears, the text is still present, but marked off-limits.  To make
it visible again, type `C-x w'.  *Note Narrowing::.


File: emacs,  Node: Unasked-for Search,  Next: Emergency Escape,  Prev: Text Garbled,  Up: Lossage

Spontaneous Entry to Incremental Search
---------------------------------------

   If Emacs spontaneously displays `I-search:' at the bottom of the
screen, it means that the terminal is sending `C-s' and `C-q'
according to the poorly designed xon/xoff "flow control" protocol.  You
should try to prevent this by putting the terminal in a mode where it
will not use flow control or by giving it enough padding that it will
never send a `C-s'.  If that cannot be done, you must tell Emacs to
expect flow control to be used, until you can get a properly designed
terminal.

   Information on how to do these things can be found in the file
`INSTALL' in the Emacs distribution.


File: emacs,  Node: Emergency Escape,  Next: Total Frustration,  Prev: Unasked-for Search,  Up: Lossage

Emergency Escape
----------------

   Because at times there have been bugs causing Emacs to loop without
checking `quit-flag', a special feature causes Emacs to be suspended
immediately if you type a second `C-g' while the flag is already set,
so you can always get out of GNU Emacs.  Normally Emacs recognizes and
clears `quit-flag' (and quits!) quickly enough to prevent this from
happening.

   When you resume Emacs after a suspension caused by multiple `C-g',
it asks two questions before going back to what it had been doing:

     Auto-save? (y or n)
     Abort (and dump core)? (y or n)

Answer each one with `y' or `n' followed by RET.

   Saying `y' to `Auto-save?' causes immediate auto-saving of all
modified buffers in which auto-saving is enabled.

   Saying `y' to `Abort (and dump core)?' causes an illegal
instruction to be executed, dumping core.  This is to enable a wizard
to figure out why Emacs was failing to quit in the first place.
Execution does not continue after a core dump.  If you answer `n',
execution does continue.  With luck, Emacs will ultimately check
`quit-flag' and quit normally.  If not, and you type another `C-g', it
is suspended again.

   If Emacs is not really hung, just slow, you may invoke the double
`C-g' feature without really meaning to.  Then just resume and answer
`n' to both questions, and you will arrive at your former state.
Presumably the quit you requested will happen soon.

   The double-`C-g' feature may be turned off when Emacs is running
under a window system, since the window system always enables you to
kill Emacs or to create another window and run another program.


File: emacs,  Node: Total Frustration,  Prev: Emergency Escape,  Up: Lossage

Help for Total Frustration
--------------------------

   If using Emacs (or something else) becomes terribly frustrating and
none of the techniques described above solve the problem, Emacs can
still help you.

   First, if the Emacs you are using is not responding to commands,
type `C-g C-g' to get out of it and then start a new one.

   Second, type `M-x doctor RET'.

   The doctor will make you feel better.  Each time you say something
to the doctor, you must end it by typing RET RET.  This lets the
doctor know you are finished.


File: emacs,  Node: Bugs,  Next: Manifesto,  Prev: Lossage,  Up: Top

Reporting Bugs
==============

   Sometimes you will encounter a bug in Emacs.  Although we cannot
promise we can or will fix the bug, and we might not even agree that
it is a bug, we want to hear about bugs you encounter in case we do
want to fix them.

   To make it possible for us to fix a bug, you must report it.  In
order to do so effectively, you must know when and how to do it.

When Is There a Bug
-------------------

   If Emacs executes an illegal instruction, or dies with an operating
system error message that indicates a problem in the program (as
opposed to something like "disk full"), then it is certainly a bug.

   If Emacs updates the display in a way that does not correspond to
what is in the buffer, then it is certainly a bug.  If a command seems
to do the wrong thing but the problem corrects itself if you type
`C-l', it is a case of incorrect display updating.

   Taking forever to complete a command can be a bug, but you must make
certain that it was really Emacs's fault.  Some commands simply take a
long time.  Type `C-g' and then `C-h l' to see whether the input Emacs
received was what you intended to type; if the input was such that you
KNOW it should have been processed quickly, report a bug.  If you
don't know whether the command should take a long time, find out by
looking in the manual or by asking for assistance.

   If a command you are familiar with causes an Emacs error message in
a case where its usual definition ought to be reasonable, it is
probably a bug.

   If a command does the wrong thing, that is a bug.  But be sure you
know for certain what it ought to have done.  If you aren't familiar
with the command, or don't know for certain how the command is
supposed to work, then it might actually be working right.  Rather
than jumping to conclusions, show the problem to someone who knows for
certain.

   Finally, a command's intended definition may not be best for editing
with.  This is a very important sort of problem, but it is also a
matter of judgment.  Also, it is easy to come to such a conclusion out
of ignorance of some of the existing features.  It is probably best
not to complain about such a problem until you have checked the
documentation in the usual ways, feel confident that you understand
it, and know for certain that what you want is not available.  If you
are not sure what the command is supposed to do after a careful
reading of the manual, check the index and glossary for any terms that
may be unclear.  If you still do not understand, this indicates a bug
in the manual.  The manual's job is to make everything clear.  It is
just as important to report documentation bugs as program bugs.

   If the on-line documentation string of a function or variable
disagrees with the manual, one of them must be wrong, so report the
bug.

How to Report a Bug
-------------------

   When you decide that there is a bug, it is important to report it
and to report it in a way which is useful.  What is most useful is an
exact description of what commands you type, starting with the shell
command to run Emacs, until the problem happens.  Always include the
version number of Emacs that you are using; type `M-x emacs-version'
to print this.

   The most important principle in reporting a bug is to report FACTS,
not hypotheses or categorizations.  It is always easier to report the
facts, but people seem to prefer to strain to posit explanations and
report them instead.  If the explanations are based on guesses about
how Emacs is implemented, they will be useless; we will have to try to
figure out what the facts must have been to lead to such speculations.
 Sometimes this is impossible.  But in any case, it is unnecessary
work for us.

   For example, suppose that you type `C-x C-f /glorp/baz.ugh RET',
visiting a file which (you know) happens to be rather large, and Emacs
prints out `I feel pretty today'.  The best way to report the bug is
with a sentence like the preceding one, because it gives all the facts
and nothing but the facts.

   Do not assume that the problem is due to the size of the file and
say, "When I visit a large file, Emacs prints out `I feel pretty
today'." This is what we mean by "guessing explanations".  The problem
is just as likely to be due to the fact that there is a `z' in the
file name.  If this is so, then when we got your report, we would try
out the problem with some "large file", probably with no `z' in its
name, and not find anything wrong.  There is no way in the world that
we could guess that we should try visiting a file with a `z' in its
name.

   Alternatively, the problem might be due to the fact that the file
starts with exactly 25 spaces.  For this reason, you should make sure
that you inform us of the exact contents of any file that is needed to
reproduce the bug.  What if the problem only occurs when you have
typed the `C-x C-a' command previously?  This is why we ask you to
give the exact sequence of characters you typed since starting to use
Emacs.

   You should not even say "visit a file" instead of `C-x C-f' unless
you know that it makes no difference which visiting command is used.
Similarly, rather than saying "if I have three characters on the line,"
say "after I type `RET A B C RET C-p'," if that is the way you entered
the text.

   If you are not in Fundamental mode when the problem occurs, you
should say what mode you are in.

   If the manifestation of the bug is an Emacs error message, it is
important to report not just the text of the error message but a
backtrace showing how the Lisp program in Emacs arrived at the error.
To make the backtrace, you must execute the Lisp expression `(setq
debug-on-error t)' before the error happens (that is to say, you must
execute that expression and then make the bug happen).  This causes
the Lisp debugger to run (*note Lisp Debug::.).  The debugger's
backtrace can be copied as text into the bug report.  This use of the
debugger is possible only if you know how to make the bug happen
again.  Do note the error message the first time the bug happens, so
if you can't make it happen again, you can report at least that.

   Check whether any programs you have loaded into the Lisp world,
including your `.emacs' file, set any variables that may affect the
functioning of Emacs.  Also, see whether the problem happens in a
freshly started Emacs without loading your `.emacs' file (start Emacs
with the `-q' switch to prevent loading the init file.)  If the
problem does NOT occur then, it is essential that we know the contents
of any programs that you must load into the Lisp world in order to
cause the problem to occur.

   If the problem does depend on an init file or other Lisp programs
that are not part of the standard Emacs system, then you should make
sure it is not a bug in those programs by complaining to their
maintainers first.  After they verify that they are using Emacs in a
way that is supposed to work, they should report the bug.

   If you can tell us a way to cause the problem without visiting any
files, please do so.  This makes it much easier to debug.  If you do
need files, make sure you arrange for us to see their exact contents.
For example, it can often matter whether there are spaces at the ends
of lines, or a newline after the last line in the buffer (nothing
ought to care whether the last line is terminated, but tell that to
the bugs).

   The easy way to record the input to Emacs precisely is to to write a
dribble file; execute the Lisp expression

     (open-dribble-file "~/dribble")

using `Meta-ESC' or from the `*scratch*' buffer just after starting
Emacs.  From then on, all Emacs input will be written in the specified
dribble file until the Emacs process is killed.

   For possible display bugs, it is important to report the terminal
type (the value of environment variable `TERM'), the complete termcap
entry for the terminal from `/etc/termcap' (since that file is not
identical on all machines), and the output that Emacs actually sent to
the terminal.  The way to collect this output is to execute the Lisp
expression

     (open-termscript "~/termscript")

using `Meta-ESC' or from the `*scratch*' buffer just after starting
Emacs.  From then on, all output from Emacs to the terminal will be
written in the specified termscript file as well, until the Emacs
process is killed.  If the problem happens when Emacs starts up, put
this expression into your `.emacs' file so that the termscript file
will be open when Emacs displays the screen for the first time.  Be
warned: it is often difficult, and sometimes impossible, to fix a
terminal-dependent bug without access to a terminal of the type that
stimulates the bug.

   The address for reporting bugs is

GNU Emacs Bugs
Lucid, Inc.
707 Laurel Street
Menlo Park, CA 94025

or send email to `sun!edsel!hotline' (Usenet)

or `[e-mail]' (Internet).

   You can also call the Lucid hotline at the following numbers:

Phone:  [phone]
FAX:    [phone]

   Once again, we do not promise to fix the bug; but if the bug is
serious, or ugly, or easy to fix, chances are we will want to.


File: emacs,  Node: Manifesto,  Prev: Bugs,  Up: Top

The GNU Manifesto
*****************

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 distibution 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.