A collection of a builder and various scripts creating the sites
git clone
Log | Files | README | LICENSE

commit: f6c89f7b57af7bf86148c4c7dd4426b4ee0dd419
parent: 9372c952c0a73afd0ba922f2a95b7b039c40b96e
author: Chris Noxz <>
date:   Fri, 7 Oct 2022 20:11:11 +0200
add new article with manifestos
12 files changed, 714 insertions(+)
diff --git a/ b/
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
diff --git a/ b/
diff --git a/ b/
@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+.ds YEAR    2022
+.ds MONTH   October
+.ds DAY     07
+.ds DATE    \*[MONTH] \*[DAY], \*[YEAR]
+.ds TITLE   SiC: Manifestos
+.ds AUTHOR  Chris Noxz
diff --git a/ b/
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
+open access
diff --git a/ b/
@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+Below is a list of manifestos I find to be important and critical to
+hacking, privacy, and information technologies. They are both directly and
+indirectly related to said topics.
+.LIURL "./manifestos/guerilla_open_access_manifesto.txt" \
+"Guerilla Open Access Manifesto"
+\(en by Aaron Swartz in July, 2008.
+.LIURL "./manifestos/a_cypherpunks_manifesto.txt" \
+"A Cypherpunk's Manifesto"
+\(en by Eric Hughes in March, 1993.
+.LIURL "./manifestos/the_crypto_anarchist_manifesto.txt" \
+"The Crypto Anarchist Manifesto"
+\(en by Timothy C. May in mid-1988.
+.LIURL "./manifestos/the_gnu_manifesto.txt" \
+"The GNU Manifesto"
+\(en by Richard Stallman in March, 1985.
diff --git a/ b/
@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
diff --git a/ b/
diff --git a/ b/
@@ -0,0 +1,87 @@
+A Cypherpunk's Manifesto
+by Eric Hughes
+Privacy is necessary for an open society in the electronic age. Privacy is not secrecy.
+A private matter is something one doesn't want the whole world to know, but a secret
+matter is something one doesn't want anybody to know. Privacy is the power to selectively
+reveal oneself to the world.
+If two parties have some sort of dealings, then each has a memory of their interaction.
+Each party can speak about their own memory of this; how could anyone prevent it? One
+could pass laws against it, but the freedom of speech, even more than privacy, is
+fundamental to an open society; we seek not to restrict any speech at all. If many
+parties speak together in the same forum, each can speak to all the others and aggregate
+together knowledge about individuals and other parties. The power of electronic
+communications has enabled such group speech, and it will not go away merely because
+we might want it to.
+Since we desire privacy, we must ensure that each party to a transaction have knowledge
+only of that which is directly necessary for that transaction. Since any information
+can be spoken of, we must ensure that we reveal as little as possible. In most cases
+personal identity is not salient. When I purchase a magazine at a store and hand
+cash to the clerk, there is no need to know who I am. When I ask my electronic mail
+provider to send and receive messages, my provider need not know to whom I am speaking
+or what I am saying or what others are saying to me; my provider only need know how
+to get the message there and how much I owe them in fees. When my identity is revealed
+by the underlying mechanism of the transaction, I have no privacy. I cannot here
+selectively reveal myself; I must always reveal myself.
+Therefore, privacy in an open society requires anonymous transaction systems. Until
+now, cash has been the primary such system. An anonymous transaction system is not
+a secret transaction system. An anonymous system empowers individuals to reveal their
+identity when desired and only when desired; this is the essence of privacy.
+Privacy in an open society also requires cryptography. If I say something, I want
+it heard only by those for whom I intend it. If the content of my speech is available
+to the world, I have no privacy. To encrypt is to indicate the desire for privacy,
+and to encrypt with weak cryptography is to indicate not too much desire for privacy.
+Furthermore, to reveal one's identity with assurance when the default is anonymity
+requires the cryptographic signature.
+We cannot expect governments, corporations, or other large, faceless organizations
+to grant us privacy out of their beneficence. It is to their advantage to speak of
+us, and we should expect that they will speak. To try to prevent their speech is
+to fight against the realities of information. Information does not just want to be
+free, it longs to be free. Information expands to fill the available storage space.
+Information is Rumor's younger, stronger cousin; Information is fleeter of foot,
+has more eyes, knows more, and understands less than Rumor.
+We must defend our own privacy if we expect to have any. We must come together and
+create systems which allow anonymous transactions to take place. People have been
+defending their own privacy for centuries with whispers, darkness, envelopes, closed
+doors, secret handshakes, and couriers. The technologies of the past did not allow
+for strong privacy, but electronic technologies do.
+We the Cypherpunks are dedicated to building anonymous systems. We are defending
+our privacy with cryptography, with anonymous mail forwarding systems, with digital
+signatures, and with electronic money.
+Cypherpunks write code. We know that someone has to write software to defend privacy,
+and since we can't get privacy unless we all do, we're going to write it. We publish
+our code so that our fellow Cypherpunks may practice and play with it. Our code is
+free for all to use, worldwide. We don't much care if you don't approve of the software
+we write. We know that software can't be destroyed and that a widely dispersed system
+can't be shut down.
+Cypherpunks deplore regulations on cryptography, for encryption is fundamentally a
+private act. The act of encryption, in fact, removes information from the public
+realm. Even laws against cryptography reach only so far as a nation's border and
+the arm of its violence. Cryptography will ineluctably spread over the whole globe,
+and with it the anonymous transactions systems that it makes possible.
+For privacy to be widespread it must be part of a social contract. People must come
+and together deploy these systems for the common good. Privacy only extends so far
+as the cooperation of one's fellows in society. We the Cypherpunks seek your questions
+and your concerns and hope we may engage you so that we do not deceive ourselves. We
+will not, however, be moved out of our course because some may disagree with our
+The Cypherpunks are actively engaged in making the networks safer for privacy. Let
+us proceed together apace.
+Eric Hughes <>
+9 March 1993
diff --git a/ b/
@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+Guerilla Open Access Manifesto
+Information is power. But like all power, there are those who want to keep it for
+themselves. The world's entire scientific and cultural heritage, published over centuries
+in books and journals, is increasingly being digitized and locked up by a handful of
+private corporations. Want to read the papers featuring the most famous results of the
+sciences? You'll need to send enormous amounts to publishers like Reed Elsevier.
+There are those struggling to change this. The Open Access Movement has fought
+valiantly to ensure that scientists do not sign their copyrights away but instead ensure
+their work is published on the Internet, under terms that allow anyone to access it. But
+even under the best scenarios, their work will only apply to things published in the future.
+Everything up until now will have been lost.
+That is too high a price to pay. Forcing academics to pay money to read the work of their
+colleagues? Scanning entire libraries but only allowing the folks at Google to read them?
+Providing scientific articles to those at elite universities in the First World, but not to
+children in the Global South? It's outrageous and unacceptable.
+"I agree," many say, "but what can we do? The companies hold the copyrights, they
+make enormous amounts of money by charging for access, and it's perfectly legal --
+there's nothing we can do to stop them." But there is something we can, something that's
+already being done: we can fight back.
+Those with access to these resources -- students, librarians, scientists -- you have been
+given a privilege. You get to feed at this banquet of knowledge while the rest of the world
+is locked out. But you need not -- indeed, morally, you cannot -- keep this privilege for
+yourselves. You have a duty to share it with the world. And you have: trading passwords
+with colleagues, filling download requests for friends.
+Meanwhile, those who have been locked out are not standing idly by. You have been
+sneaking through holes and climbing over fences, liberating the information locked up by
+the publishers and sharing them with your friends.
+But all of this action goes on in the dark, hidden underground. It's called stealing or
+piracy, as if sharing a wealth of knowledge were the moral equivalent of plundering a
+ship and murdering its crew. But sharing isn't immoral -- it's a moral imperative. Only
+those blinded by greed would refuse to let a friend make a copy.
+Large corporations, of course, are blinded by greed. The laws under which they operate
+require it -- their shareholders would revolt at anything less. And the politicians they
+have bought off back them, passing laws giving them the exclusive power to decide who
+can make copies.
+There is no justice in following unjust laws. It's time to come into the light and, in the
+grand tradition of civil disobedience, declare our opposition to this private theft of public
+We need to take information, wherever it is stored, make our copies and share them with
+the world. We need to take stuff that's out of copyright and add it to the archive. We need
+to buy secret databases and put them on the Web. We need to download scientific
+journals and upload them to file sharing networks. We need to fight for Guerilla Open
+With enough of us, around the world, we'll not just send a strong message opposing the
+privatization of knowledge -- we'll make it a thing of the past. Will you join us?
+Aaron Swartz
+July 2008, Eremo, Italy
diff --git a/ b/
@@ -0,0 +1,52 @@
+The Crypto Anarchist Manifesto
+Timothy C. May
+A specter is haunting the modern world, the specter of crypto anarchy.
+Computer technology is on the verge of providing the ability for individuals and
+groups to communicate and interact with each other in a totally anonymous manner.
+Two persons may exchange messages, conduct business, and negotiate electronic contracts
+without ever knowing the True Name, or legal identity, of the other. Interactions
+over networks will be untraceable, via extensive re-routing of encrypted packets and
+tamper-proof boxes which implement cryptographic protocols with nearly perfect assurance
+against any tampering. Reputations will be of central importance, far more important
+in dealings than even the credit ratings of today. These developments will alter
+completely the nature of government regulation, the ability to tax and control economic
+interactions, the ability to keep information secret, and will even alter the nature
+of trust and reputation.
+The technology for this revolution -- and it surely will be both a social and economic
+revolution -- has existed in theory for the past decade. The methods are based upon
+public-key encryption, zero-knowledge interactive proof systems, and various software
+protocols for interaction, authentication, and verification. The focus has until now
+been on academic conferences in Europe and the U.S., conferences monitored closely
+by the National Security Agency. But only recently have computer networks and personal
+computers attained sufficient speed to make the ideas practically realizable. And the
+next ten years will bring enough additional speed to make the ideas economically
+feasible and essentially unstoppable. High-speed networks, ISDN, tamper-proof boxes,
+smart cards, satellites, Ku-band transmitters, multi-MIPS personal computers, and
+encryption chips now under development will be some of the enabling technologies.
+The State will of course try to slow or halt the spread of this technology, citing
+national security concerns, use of the technology by drug dealers and tax evaders,
+and fears of societal disintegration. Many of these concerns will be valid; crypto
+anarchy will allow national secrets to be trade freely and will allow illicit and
+stolen materials to be traded. An anonymous computerized market will even make possible
+abhorrent markets for assassinations and extortion. Various criminal and foreign
+elements will be active users of CryptoNet. But this will not halt the spread of
+crypto anarchy.
+Just as the technology of printing altered and reduced the power of medieval guilds
+and the social power structure, so too will cryptologic methods fundamentally alter
+the nature of corporations and of government interference in economic transactions.
+Combined with emerging information markets, crypto anarchy will create a liquid market
+for any and all material which can be put into words and pictures. And just as a seemingly
+minor invention like barbed wire made possible the fencing-off of vast ranches and
+farms, thus altering forever the concepts of land and property rights in the frontier
+West, so too will the seemingly minor discovery out of an arcane branch of mathematics
+come to be the wire clippers which dismantle the barbed wire around intellectual
+Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!
diff --git a/ b/
@@ -0,0 +1,471 @@
+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 [1]. 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 online 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 file names, file version numbers, a
+crashproof file system, file name 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 [2].
+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
+    (Nowadays, for software tasks to work on, see the High Priority Projects list
+    and the GNU Help Wanted list, the general task list for GNU software packages.
+    For other ways to help, see the guide to helping the GNU operating system.)
+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 [3].
+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 [4].
+  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 handholding 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? [5]
+"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 benefiting
+  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 [6].
+"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 [7] 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 [8] 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 nonfiction. 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 nonmonetary 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, handholding and maintenance services could also employ
+  programmers.
+  People with new ideas could distribute programs as freeware [9], asking for donations
+  from satisfied users, or selling handholding 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 postscarcity 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
+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.
+1. The wording here was careless. The intention was that nobody would have to pay
+   for permission to use the GNU system. But the words don't make this clear, and
+   people often interpret them as saying that copies of GNU should always be distributed
+   at little or no charge. That was never the intent; later on, the manifesto mentions
+   the possibility of companies providing the service of distribution for a profit.
+   Subsequently I have learned to distinguish carefully between "free" in the sense
+   of freedom and "free" in the sense of price. Free software is software that users
+   have the freedom to distribute and change. Some users may obtain copies at no charge,
+   while others pay to obtain copies -- and if the funds help support improving the
+   software, so much the better. The important thing is that everyone who has a copy
+   has the freedom to cooperate with others in using it.
+2. The expression "give away" is another indication that I had not yet clearly separated
+   the issue of price from that of freedom. We now recommend avoiding this expression
+   when talking about free software. See "Confusing Words and Phrases" for more explanation.
+3. This is another place I failed to distinguish carefully between the two different
+   meanings of "free." The statement as it stands is not false -- you can get copies
+   of GNU software at no charge, from your friends or over the net. But it does suggest
+   the wrong idea.
+4. Several such companies now exist.
+5. Although it is a charity rather than a company, the Free Software Foundation for
+   10 years raised most of its funds from its distribution service. You can order
+   things from the FSF to support its work.
+6. A group of computer companies pooled funds around 1991 to support maintenance of
+   the GNU C Compiler.
+7. I think I was mistaken in saying that proprietary software was the most common basis
+   for making money in software. It seems that actually the most common business model
+   was and is development of custom software. That does not offer the possibility of
+   collecting rents, so the business has to keep doing real work in order to keep
+   getting income. The custom software business would continue to exist, more or less
+   unchanged, in a free software world. Therefore, I no longer expect that most paid
+   programmers would earn less in a free software world.
+8. In the 1980s I had not yet realized how confusing it was to speak of "the issue"
+   of "intellectual property." That term is obviously biased; more subtle is the fact
+   that it lumps together various disparate laws which raise very different issues.
+   Nowadays I urge people to reject the term "intellectual property" entirely, lest
+   it lead others to suppose that those laws form one coherent issue. The way to be
+   clear is to discuss patents, copyrights, and trademarks separately. See further
+   explanation of how this term spreads confusion and bias.
+9. Subsequently we learned to distinguish between "free software" and "freeware."
+   The term "freeware" means software you are free to redistribute, but usually you
+   are not free to study and change the source code, so most of it is not free software.
+   See "Confusing Words and Phrases" for more explanation.
+Copyright (c) 1985, 1993, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2014 Free Software
+Foundation, Inc. Permission is granted to anyone to make or distribute verbatim copies
+of this document, in any medium, provided that the copyright notice and permission
+notice are preserved, and that the distributor grants the recipient permission for
+further redistribution as permitted by this notice.
+Modified versions may not be made.
diff --git a/ b/
@@ -43,6 +43,11 @@ All the source code for software I've created and published should be available
 If you cannot find the source code, please let me know as it should be
+I've also uploaded and shared what I find to be important and critical
+.URL // manifestos
+related to hacking,
+privacy, and information technologies.
 .HnS 1
 Encrypted messaging?