first

1 files changed, 132 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/docs/x.md b/docs/x.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1d4fd4f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/x.md
@@ -0,0 +1,132 @@
+---
+Generator: 'texi2html 1.82'
+description: Untitled Document
+distribution: global
+keywords: Untitled Document
+resource-type: document
+title: Untitled Document
+...
+
+1. The X Window System Trap {#the-x-window-system-trap .chapter}
+===========================
+
+@firstcopyingnotice{{Copyright © 1998, 1999, 2009 Richard Stallman\
+ {This essay was originally published on <http://gnu.org>, in 1998. This
+version is part of @fsfsthreecite} To copyleft or not to copyleft? That
+is one of the major controversies in the free software community. The
+idea of copyleft is that we should fight fire with fire—that we should
+use copyright to make sure our code stays free. The GNU General Public
+License (GNU GPL) is one example of a copyleft license.
+
+Some free software developers prefer noncopyleft distribution.
+Noncopyleft licenses such as the XFree86 and BSD licenses are based on
+the idea of never saying no to anyone—not even to someone who seeks to
+use your work as the basis for restricting other people. Noncopyleft
+licensing does nothing wrong, but it misses the opportunity to actively
+protect our freedom to change and redistribute software. For that, we
+need copyleft.
+
+For many years, the X Consortium was the chief opponent of copyleft. It
+exerted both moral suasion and pressure to discourage free software
+developers from copylefting their programs. It used moral suasion by
+suggesting that it is not nice to say no. It used pressure through its
+rule that copylefted software could not be in the X Distribution.
+
+Why did the X Consortium adopt this policy? It had to do with their
+conception of success. The X Consortium defined success as
+popularity—specifically, getting computer companies to use the X Window
+System. This definition put the computer companies in the driver’s seat:
+whatever they wanted, the X Consortium had to help them get it.
+
+Computer companies normally distribute proprietary software. They wanted
+free software developers to donate their work for such use. If they had
+asked for this directly, people would have laughed. But the X
+Consortium, fronting for them, could present this request as an
+unselfish one. “Join us in donating our work to proprietary software
+developers,” they said, suggesting that this is a noble form of
+self-sacrifice. “Join us in achieving popularity,” they said, suggesting
+that it was not even a sacrifice.
+
+But self-sacrifice is not the issue: tossing away the defense that
+copyleft provides, which protects the freedom of the whole community, is
+sacrificing more than yourself. Those who granted the X Consortium’s
+request entrusted the community’s future to the goodwill of the X
+Consortium.
+
+This trust was misplaced. In its last year, the X Consortium made a plan
+to restrict the forthcoming X11R6.4 release so that it would not be free
+software. They decided to start saying no, not only to proprietary
+software developers, but to our community as well.
+
+There is an irony here. If you said yes when the X Consortium asked you
+not to use copyleft, you put the X Consortium in a position to license
+and restrict its version of your program, along with the code for the
+core of X.
+
+The X Consortium did not carry out this plan. Instead it closed down and
+transferred X development to the Open Group, whose staff are now
+carrying out a similar plan. To give them credit, when I asked them to
+release X11R6.4 under the GNU GPL in parallel with their planned
+restrictive license, they were willing to consider the idea. (They were
+firmly against staying with the old X11 distribution terms.) Before they
+said yes or no to this proposal, it had already failed for another
+reason: the XFree86 group followed the X Consortium’s old policy, and
+will not accept copylefted software.
+
+In September 1998, several months after X11R6.4 was released with
+nonfree distribution terms, the Open Group reversed its decision and
+rereleased it under the same noncopyleft free software license that was
+used for X11R6.3. Thus, the Open Group therefore eventually did what was
+right, but that does not alter the general issue.
+
+Even if the X Consortium and the Open Group had never planned to
+restrict X, someone else could have done it. Noncopylefted software is
+vulnerable from all directions; it lets anyone make a nonfree version
+dominant, if he will invest sufficient resources to add significantly
+important features using proprietary code. Users who choose software
+based on technical characteristics, rather than on freedom, could easily
+be lured to the nonfree version for short-term convenience.
+
+The X Consortium and Open Group can no longer exert moral suasion by
+saying that it is wrong to say no. This will make it easier to decide to
+copyleft your X-related software.
+
+When you work on the core of X, on programs such as the X server, Xlib,
+and Xt, there is a practical reason not to use copyleft. The X.org group
+does an important job for the community in maintaining these programs,
+and the benefit of copylefting our changes would be less than the harm
+done by a fork in development. So it is better to work with them, and
+not copyleft our changes on these programs. Likewise for utilities such
+as `xset` and `xrdb`, which are close to the core of X and do not need
+major improvements. At least we know that the X.org group has a firm
+commitment to developing these programs as free software.
+
+The issue is different for programs outside the core of X: applications,
+window managers, and additional libraries and widgets. There is no
+reason not to copyleft them, and we should copyleft them.
+
+In case anyone feels the pressure exerted by the criteria for inclusion
+in the X distributions, the GNU Project will undertake to publicize
+copylefted packages that work with X. If you would like to copyleft
+something, and you worry that its omission from the X distribution will
+impede its popularity, please ask us to help.
+
+At the same time, it is better if we do not feel too much need for
+popularity. When a businessman tempts you with “more popularity,” he may
+try to convince you that his use of your program is crucial to its
+success. Don’t believe it! If your program is good, it will find many
+users anyway; you don’t need to feel desperate for any particular users,
+and you will be stronger if you do not. You can get an indescribable
+sense of joy and freedom by responding, “Take it or leave it—that’s no
+skin off my back.” Often the businessman will turn around and accept the
+program with copyleft, once you call the bluff.
+
+Friends, free software developers, don’t repeat old mistakes! If we do
+not copyleft our software, we put its future at the mercy of anyone
+equipped with more resources than scruples. With copyleft, we can defend
+freedom, not just for ourselves, but for our whole community.
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using
+[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\