Programa manifesto

On July 1, 1906, the last issue of the Regeneration newspaper was published and it included the National Manifesto of the Liberal Mexican Party. This document detailed the ideology and actions of the organization, which was headed by the brothers, Ricardo and Enrique Flores Magón, Juan Sarabia, Antonio I.

Villarreal, Librado Riviera, Manuel Sarabia and Rosalío Bustamante. The document stated the need to topple the government of Porfirio Diaz, suppress re-election, as well as eliminate all restrictions on freedom of press and end the privilege of the clergy.

It advocated for a more secular and compulsory education, as well as granting basic benefits for the growing working class. The Archivo General de la Nación protects one of the 250 thousand copies that the Regeneration newspaper published. This copy stands out since it has anonymous annotations made in English that criticize the government of the General Porfirio Diaz, and evoke the importance of freedom and independence for the Mexican people.

Sign the Manifesto! One Democratic State Campaign Manifesto Preamble In recent years, the idea of a one democratic state in all of historic Palestine as the programa manifesto solution to the conflict has re-emerged.

It started gaining increased support in the public domain. It is not a new idea. The Palestinian liberation movement, before the catastrophe of 1948 (the Nakba) and after it, had adopted this vision, including the Palestinian Liberation Organization. The PLO abandoned this idea in the framework of the diplomatic negotiations at the late eighties that led to the Oslo agreement of 1993.

The Palestinian leadership hoped that this agreement would enable the building of an independent Palestinian state on the territories that Israel occupied in 1967. Programa manifesto on the ground Israel has strengthened its colonial control, fragmenting the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza into isolated cantons, separated from one another by settlements, checkpoints, military bases and fences. The two-state solution, which is basically an unfair solution, is clearly dead.

Israel buried it deep under its colonial settlement policies in the territories that were supposed to become the independent Palestinian state.

Israel has imposed a single repressive regime that extends over all the Palestinians who live in historic Palestine, including those with Israeli citizenship. In view of these dangerous developments, and, more important, based on the values of justice, freedom and democracy, we contend that the only way to achieve justice and permanent peace is dismantling the colonial apartheid regime in historic Palestine and the establishment of a new political system based on full civil equality, and on full implementation of the Palestinian refugees’ Right of Return, and the building of the required mechanisms to correct the historical grievances of the Palestinian people as a result of the Zionist colonialist project.

On this background, many activists and groups, Palestinians and Israelis, have recently initiated the revival of the one-state idea, proposing differing models of such a state, such as a bi-national state, a liberal democratic state and a socialist state.

They are all united, however, in their programa manifesto to the establishment of a single democratic state in all of historic Palestine, as an alternative to the colonial apartheid regime that Israel has imposed over the country from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River.

A similar regime was toppled by the joint struggle of black and white South Africans under the leadership of the ANC in 1994. The goal of this political program, as formulated by the One Democratic State Campaign (ODSC), is to widen the support for this solution programa manifesto the local populations, Palestinian and Israeli alike, as well as among the international public.

We call on all those in the world who struggle for freedom and justice to join and support our struggle against this apartheid regime and for the establishment of a democratic state programa manifesto of occupation and colonialism, based on justice and equality, which guarantees a better future for the next generations and real peace in all of historic Palestine. The Political Program • A Single Constitutional Democracy.

One Democratic State shall be programa manifesto between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River as a state belonging to all its citizens, including the Palestinian refugees. All citizens will enjoy equal rights, freedom and security. The State shall be a constitutional democracy, the authority to govern and make laws emanating from the will of the people.

All its citizens shall enjoy equal rights to vote, nominate candidates for any post and take part in the country’s governance. • Right of Return, of Restoration and of Reintegration into Society. The single democratic state will fully implement the Right of Return of all Palestinian refugees and their descendants, those who were expelled programa manifesto 1948 and thereafter, whether living in exile abroad or currently living in historic Palestine, including those with Israeli citizenship.

The State will aid them in returning to their country and to the places from which they were expelled. It will help them rebuild their personal lives and to be fully reintegrated into the country’s society, economy and polity. The State will do everything in its power to restore to the refugees their private and communal property and/or compensate them.

• Individual Rights. No State law, institution or practices shall discriminate among its citizens on the basis of ethnic identity, national or cultural belonging, or on the basis of color, gender, language, religion, political opinion, property or sexual orientation. The state will grant all its citizens the right to freedom of movement and the right to reside anywhere in the country. The state will guarantee to all the citizens equal rights in all levels and institutions and will guarantee free thought and freedom of opinion.

Alongside religious marriage the State will provide civil marriage. • Collective Rights. Within the framework of a single democratic state, the Constitution will also protect collective rights and the freedom of association, whether national, ethnic, religious, class or gender. Constitutional guarantees will ensure that all languages, arts and cultures can flourish and develop freely. No group or collectivity will have any privileges, nor will any group or collectivity have any control or domination over others.

The Constitution will deny the Parliament the authority to enact any laws that discriminate against any community, be it ethnic, national, religious, cultural or class. • Immigration: Normal procedures of obtaining citizenship will be extended to those willing to immigrate to the country. • Constructing a Shared Civil Society. The Stateshall nurture a vital civil society comprised of common civil institutions, in particular educational, cultural and economic.

• Economy and Economic Justice. Our vision seeks to achieve social and economic justice. Economic policy must address the decades of exploitation and discrimination which have sown deep socioeconomic gaps among the people living in the country.

The income distribution in Israel/Palestine is more unequal than in any country in the world. A State seeking justice must develop a creative and long-term redistributive economic policy to ensure that all citizens have equal opportunity to attain education, productive employment, economic security and a dignified standard of living.

• Commitment to Human Rights, Justice and Peace. The Stateshall uphold international law and seek the peaceful resolution of programa manifesto through negotiation and collective security in accordance with the United Nations Charter. The State will sign and ratify all international treaties on human rights and its people shall reject racism and promote social, cultural and political rights as set out in relevant United Nations covenants. • Our Role programa manifesto the Region.

The ODS Campaign will programa manifesto with all progressive forces in the Arab world struggling for democracy, social justice and egalitarian societies free from tyranny and foreign domination.

The State shall seek democracy and freedom in the Middle East, so that the rights of the region’s peoples and citizens will be guaranteed and its many communities, religions, traditions and ideologies shall be respected. That should include respect for the peoples’ right to struggle for equality and freedom of thought. Achieving justice in Palestine will contribute measurably toward these goals and the aspirations of the region’s peoples. • International responsibility.

On a global level, the ODS Campaign views itself as a part of the democratic and progressive forces striving for an alternative global order that shall be pluralistic and sustainable, more just, egalitarian and humanistic and free of exploitation, racism, intolerance, oppression, wars, colonialism and imperialism. This new world programa manifesto will be based on human dignity and respect for the people’s rights to freedom and just distribution of resources and will provide a healthy and sustainable environment.
Web icon An illustration of a computer application window Wayback Machine Texts icon An illustration of an open book.

Books Video icon An illustration of two cells of a film strip. Video Audio programa manifesto An illustration of an audio speaker. Audio Software icon An illustration of a 3.5" floppy disk. Software Images icon An illustration of two photographs.

Images Donate icon An illustration of a heart shape Donate Ellipses icon An illustration of text ellipses. More Hamburger icon An icon used to represent a menu that can be toggled by interacting with this icon. Manifesto for Programa manifesto Software Development Manifesto for Agile Software Development We are uncovering programa manifesto ways of developing software by doing it and helping others do it.

Through this work we have come to value: Individuals and interactions over processes and tools Working software over comprehensive documentation Customer collaboration over contract negotiation Responding to change over following a plan That is, while there is value in the items on the right, we value the items on the left more. Kent Beck Mike Beedle Arie van Bennekum Alistair Cockburn Ward Cunningham Martin Fowler James Grenning Jim Highsmith Andrew Hunt Ron Jeffries Jon Kern Brian Marick Robert C.

Martin Steve Mellor Ken Schwaber Jeff Sutherland Dave Thomas © 2001, the above authors this declaration may be freely copied in any form, but only in its entirety through this notice. Twelve Principles of Agile Software View Signatories About the Authors About the Manifesto Programa manifesto Albanian Amharic عربي Azərbaycanca Беларуская Bosanski Български Català Česky Deutsch Dansk Ελληνικά English Español Eesti Euskara Suomi Français Gaeilge Gàidhlig Galician Galego ქართული עברית हिंदी Croatian/Hrvatski Hungarian/Magyar Bahasa Indonesia Íslenska Italiano 日本語 ខ្មែរ 한국어 Latviešu Lietuvių Македонски/Macedonian Bahasa Melayu မြန်မာစာ नेपाली Nederlands Norsk ଓଡ଼ିଆ ਪੰਜਾਬੀ Polski فارسی Português Brasileiro Português Portugal Română Русский සිංහල Slovenščina Slovensky संस्कृत Srpski Svenska Swahili தமிழ் తెలుగు ภาษาไทย Filipino Türkçe Xitsonga Українська اردو Yoruba 繁體中文 简体中文 site design and artwork © 2001, Ward Cunningham
Typescript sent to The Washington Post Industrial Society and Its Future, widely called the Unabomber Manifesto, is a 35,000-word essay by Theodore John Kaczynski, published in 1995.

The essay contends that the Industrial Revolution began programa manifesto harmful process of technology destroying nature, while forcing humans to adapt to machines, and creating a sociopolitical order that suppresses human freedom and programa manifesto.

The manifesto formed the ideological foundation of Kaczynski's 1978–1995 mail bomb campaign, designed to protect wilderness by hastening the collapse of industrial society. It was originally printed in a supplement to The Washington Post after Kaczynski offered to end his bombing campaign for national exposure. Attorney General Janet Reno authorized the printing to help the FBI identify the author. The printings and publicity around them eclipsed the bombings in notoriety, and led to Kaczynski's identification by his brother, David Kaczynski.

The manifesto argues against accepting individual technological advancements as purely positive without accounting for their overall effect, which includes the fall of programa manifesto living, and the rise of uninhabitable cities. Programa manifesto originally regarded as a thoughtful critique of modern society, with roots in the work of academic authors such as Jacques Ellul, Desmond Morris, and Martin Seligman, [1] Kaczynski's 1996 trial polarised public opinion around the essay, as his court-appointed lawyers tried to justify their insanity defense around characterizing the manifesto as the work of programa manifesto madman, and the prosecution lawyers rested their case on it being produced by a lucid mind.

While Kaczynski's violence was generally condemned, his manifesto expressed ideas that continue to be commonly shared among the American public. [2] A 2017 Rolling Stone article stated that Kaczynski was an early adopter of the concept that: "We give up a piece of ourselves whenever we adjust to conform to society's standards. That, and we're too plugged in. We're letting technology take over our lives, willingly." [3] The Labadie Collection of the University of Michigan houses a copy of Industrial Society and its Future, which has been translated into French, remains on college reading lists, and was updated in Kaczynski's 2016 Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How, which defends his political philosophy in greater depth.

Handwritten draft of the manifesto Between 1978 and 1995, Ted Kaczynski engaged in a mail bomb campaign [4] against people involved with modern technology. [5] His targets were universities and airlines, which the FBI shortened as UNABOM. In June programa manifesto, Kaczynski offered to end his campaign if one of several publications (the Washington Post, New York Times, or Programa manifesto would publish his critique of technology, titled Industrial Society and Its Future, which became widely known as the "Unabomber Manifesto".

[6] Kaczynski believed that his violence, as direct action when words were insufficient, would draw others to pay attention to his critique. [7] He wanted his ideas to be taken seriously.

[8] The media debated the ethics of publishing the manifesto under duress. [9] [6] The United States Attorney General Janet Reno advocated for the essay to be shared such that a reader could recognize its author. [6] During that summer, the FBI worked with literature scholars to compare the Unabomber's oeuvre against the works of Joseph Conrad, including The Secret Agent, based on their shared themes.

[10] [11] The Washington Post published the manifesto in full within a supplement on September 19, 1995, splitting the cost with The New York Times.

According to a statement, the Post had the "mechanical ability to distribute a separate section in all copies of its daily newspaper." [12] [13] A Berkeley-based chess book publisher began publishing copies in paperback the next month without Kaczynski's consent.

[14] Kaczynski had drafted an essay of the ideas that would become the programa manifesto in 1971: that technological progress would extinguish individual liberty and that proselytizing libertarian philosophy would be insufficient without direct action. [8] The original, handwritten manifesto sold for $20,053 in a 2011 auction of Kaczynski's assets, along with typewritten editions and their typewriters, to raise restitution for his victims.

[15] [16] Contents [ edit ] Ted Kaczynski after his 1996 arrest At 35,000 words, Industrial Society and Its Future lays very detailed blame on technology for destroying human-scale programa manifesto. [6] Programa manifesto contends that the Industrial Revolution harmed the human race by developing into a sociopolitical order that subjugates human needs beneath its own. This system, he wrote, destroys nature and suppresses individual freedom.

In short, humans adapt to machines rather than vice versa, resulting in a society hostile to human potential. [8] Kaczynski indicts technological progress with the destruction of small human communities and rise of uninhabitable cities controlled by an unaccountable state. He contends that this relentless technological progress will not dissipate on programa manifesto own programa manifesto individual technological advancements are seen as good despite the sum effects of this progress.

Kaczynski describes modern society as defending this order against dissent, in which individuals are adjusted to fit the system and those outside it are seen as bad. This tendency, he says, gives rise to expansive police powers, mind-numbing mass media, and indiscriminate promotion of drugs.

[8] He criticizes both big government and big business as the programa manifesto result of industrialization, [6] and holds scientists and "technophiles" responsible for recklessly pursuing power through technological advancements.

[8] He argues that this industrialized system's collapse will be devastating and that quickening the collapse will mitigate the devastation's impact. He justifies the trade-offs that come with losing industrial society as being worth the cost.

[8] Kaczynski's ideal revolution seeks not to overthrow government but the economic and technological foundation of modern society. [17] He seeks to destroy existing society and protect the wilderness, the antithesis of technology. [8] Criticism [ edit ] The scholar George Michael of Vanderbilt University press accused Kaczynski of "collecting philosophical and environmental clichés to reinforce common American concerns". [6] Influences [ edit ] Industrial Society and Its Future echoed contemporary critics of technology and industrialization such as John Zerzan, Jacques Ellul, [18] Rachel Carson, Lewis Mumford, and E.

F. Schumacher. [19] Its idea of the "disruption of the power process" similarly echoed social critics emphasizing the lack of meaningful work as a primary cause of social problems, including Programa manifesto, Paul Goodman, and Eric Hoffer. [19] Aldous Huxley addressed its general theme in Brave New World, to which Kaczynski refers in his text. Kaczynski's ideas of " oversocialization" and "surrogate activities" recall Sigmund Freud's Civilization and Its Discontents and its theories of rationalization and programa manifesto (a term which Kaczynski uses three times to describe "surrogate activities").

[20] However, a 2021 study by Sean Fleming shows that many of these similarities are coincidental. [21] Kaczynski had not read Lewis Mumford, Paul Programa manifesto, or John Zerzan until after he submitted Industrial Society and Its Future to The New York Times and The Washington Post. There is no evidence that he read Freud, Carson, or Schumacher.

Instead, Fleming argues, Industrial Society and Its Future "is a synthesis of ideas from [.] French philosopher Jacques Ellul, British zoologist Desmond Morris, and American psychologist Martin Seligman." [21] Kaczynski's understanding of technology, his idea of maladaptation, and his critique of leftism are largely derived from Ellul's 1954 book, The Technological Society.

Kaczynski's concept of “surrogate activities” comes from Desmond Morris's concept of “survival-substitute activities,” while his concept of “the power process” combines Morris's concept of “the Stimulus Struggle” with Seligman's concept of learned helplessness.

Fleming's study relies on archival material from the Labadie Collection at the University of Michigan, including a "secret" set of footnotes that Kaczynski did not include in the Washington Post version of Industrial Society and Its Future. [21] Aftermath [ edit ] Kaczynski had intended for his mail bombing campaign to raise awareness for the message in Industrial Society and Its Future, which he wanted to be seriously regarded. [8] With its initial publication in 1995, the manifesto was received as intellectually deep and sane.

Writers described the manifesto's sentiment as familiar.

To Kirkpatrick Sale, the Unabomber was "a rational man" with reasonable beliefs about technology. He recommended the manifesto's opening sentence for the forefront of American politics.

Cynthia Ozick likened the work to an American Raskolnikov (of Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment), as a "philosophical criminal of exceptional intelligence and humanitarian purpose . driven to commit murder programa manifesto of an uncompromising idealism". [8] Numerous websites engaging with the manifesto's message appeared online.

[8] While Kaczynski's effort to publish his manifesto, more so than the bombings themselves, brought him into the American news, [22] and the manifesto was widely spread via newspapers, book reprints, and the Internet, ultimately, the ideas in the manifesto were eclipsed by reaction to the violence of the bombings, and did not spark the serious public consideration he was looking for.

[22] [23] Reading the manifesto, David Kaczynski suspected his brother's authorship and notified the FBI. [8] Effect of the trial [ edit ] After Ted Kaczynski's April 1996 arrest, he wanted to use the trial to disseminate his views, [6] but the judge denied him permission to represent himself. Instead, his court-appointed lawyers planned an insanity defense that would discredit Industrial Society and Its Future against his will.

The prosecution's psychiatrists counter-cited the manifesto as evidence of the Unabomber's lucidity, and Kaczynski's sanity was tried in court and in the media.

Kaczynski responded by taking a plea bargain for life imprisonment without parole in May 1998. Programa manifesto biographer argued that the public should look beyond this "genius-or-madman debate", and view the manifesto as reflecting normal, common, unexceptional ideas shared by Americans, sharing their distrust over the direction of civilization.

While most Americans abhorred his violence, adherents to his anti-technology message have celebrated his call to question technology and preserve wilderness. [8] From his Colorado maximum security prison, [8] he continues to clarify his philosophy with other writers by letter.

[6] Legacy [ edit ] Part of Kaczynski's manifesto was cited by the inventor and author Raymond Kurzweil in his book The Age of Spiritual Machines, and then mentioned in the article " Why the Future Doesn't Need Us" by computer scientist Bill Joy. In the autumn of 1998, Joy recalls, "Ray and I were both speakers at George Gilder's Telecosm conference, and I encountered him by chance in the bar of the hotel after both our sessions were over.

I was sitting with John Searle, a Berkeley philosopher who studies consciousness. While we were talking, Ray approached and a conversation began, the subject of which haunts me to this day." As of 2000, Industrial Society and Its Future remained on college reading lists and the green anarchist and eco-extremist movements came to hold Kaczynski's writing in high regard, with the manifesto finding a niche audience among critics of technology, such as the speculative science fiction and anarcho-primitivist communities.

[24] [8] [25] It has since been translated into French by Jean-Marie Apostolidès. [26] Since 2000, the Labadie Collection houses a copy of the manifesto programa manifesto with the Unabomber's other writings, letters and papers after he officially designated the University of Michigan to receive them.

Programa manifesto have since become one of the most popular archives in their special collections. [27] In 2017, an article in Rolling Stone stated that Kaczynski was an early adopter of the idea that: "We give up a piece of ourselves whenever we adjust to conform to society's standards. That, and we're too plugged in.

We're letting technology take over our lives, willingly." [3] In 2018, New York magazine stated that the manifesto generated later interest from neoconservatives, environmentalists, and anarcho-primitivists. [28] In December 2020, a man who was arrested at Charleston International Airport on a charge of "conveying false information regarding attempted use of a destructive device," after he falsely threatened that he had a bomb was found to have carried the Unabomber manifesto.

[29] [30] Reprints and further work [ edit ] Feral House republished the manifesto in Kaczynski's first programa manifesto, the 2010 Technological Slavery, alongside correspondence and an interview. [31] [32] Kaczynski was unsatisfied with the book and his lack of control in its publication. [33] Kaczynski's 2016 Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How updates his 1995 manifesto with more relevant references and defends his political philosophy in greater depth.

[33] [34] See also [ edit ] • Accelerationism • Anarchism and violence • Anarcho-primitivism • Criticism of technology • Eco-terrorism • Green anarchism • Neo-Luddism • Propaganda of the deed • How to Blow Up a Pipeline References [ edit ] • ^ Fleming, Sean (May 7, 2021).

"The Unabomber and the origins of anti-tech radicalism". Journal of Political Ideologies: 1–19. doi: 10.1080/13569317.2021.1921940. Programa manifesto 1356-9317. • ^ Kelman 2017, p. fn4. • ^ a b Diamond, Jason (August 17, 2017). "Flashback: Unabomber Publishes His 'Manifesto' ". Rolling Stone. Archived from the original on Programa manifesto 13, 2021. Retrieved May 11, 2021. • ^ Michael 2012, p. 75. • ^ Kovaleski, Serge F. (January 22, 2007).

"Unabomber Wages Legal Battle to Halt the Sale of Papers".

The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on April 24, 2009. Retrieved February 16, 2022. • ^ a b c d e f g h Michael 2012, p. 76. • ^ Simmons 1999, p. 688. • ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n Chase 2000. • ^ Campbell, W. Joseph (September 21, 2015). "Defying critics to publish the Unabomber 'Manifesto' ". Poynter. Archived from the original on April 19, 2021. Retrieved February 15, 2021.

• ^ Kovaleski programa manifesto. • ^ Kelman 2017, p. 186. • ^ Graham, Donald E.; Sulzberger Jr., Arthur O. (September 19, 1995). "Statement by Papers' Publishers". The Washington Post. p. A07. Archived from the original on May 4, 2011.

Retrieved July 5, 2021. • ^ "Post, Times publish Unabomber manifesto". CNN. September 19, 1995. Archived from the original on July 9, 2021. Retrieved July 5, 2021. • ^ "Unabomber Manifesto Programa manifesto in Paperback; 3,000 Copies Sold".

Los Angeles Daily News. Associated Press. October 14, 1995. p. 10. ProQuest 281557917. • ^ "Unabomber auction nets $190,000". NBC News. Associated Press. June 2, 2011.

Archived from the original on March 9, 2021. Retrieved February 15, 2021. • ^ "Feds to auction Unabomber's manifesto". NBC News. May 13, 2011. Archived from the original on April 18, 2021. Retrieved February 15, 2021. • ^ Kelman 2017, p. fn1. • ^ Kaczynski, Ted. "Progress vs. Liberty (aka '1971 Essay')". Wild Will Project. Archived from the original on January 17, 2018. Retrieved May 29, 2018. • ^ a b Sale, Kirkpatrick (September 25, 1995).

"Unabomber's Secret Treatise". Electronic Frontier Foundation. Archived from the original on May 2, 2009.

Programa manifesto April 23, 2009. • ^ Wright, Robert (August 28, 1995). "The Evolution of Despair". Time. Archived from the original on December 5, 2008.

Retrieved July 6, 2008. • ^ a b c Fleming 2021. • ^ a b Simmons 1999, p. 675. • ^ Richardson, Chris (2020). Violence in American Society: An Encyclopedia of Trends, Problems, and Perspectives. ABC-CLIO. p. 502. ISBN 978-1-4408-5468-2. Archived from the original on February 16, 2022.

Retrieved January 23, 2021. • ^ Tan & Snow 2015, p. programa manifesto. • ^ John H. Richardson (December 11, 2018).

"Children of Ted Two decades after his last deadly act of ecoterrorism, the Unabomber has become an unlikely prophet to a new generation of acolytes". NYMAG. Archived from the original on February 9, 2021. Retrieved February 8, 2021. • ^ Hawkins, Kayla (August 1, 2017). "What Is The Unabomber Manifesto? The Document Helped End The 'Manhunt' For Ted Kaczynski".

Bustle. Archived from the original on April 22, 2021. Retrieved February 15, 2021. • ^ Jeffrey R. Young (May 20, 2012).

"The Unabomber's Pen Pal". www.chronicle.com. Archived from the original on February 28, 2021. Retrieved March 7, 2021.

• ^ Richardson, John H. (December 11, 2018). "The Unlikely New Generation of Unabomber Acolytes". Intelligencer. Archived from the original on February 9, 2021. Retrieved March 7, 2021. • ^ Renaud, Tim (December 9, 2020).

"Man charged in airport bomb scare had razor blade in his shoe, Unabomber programa manifesto. Wayback Machine. Archived from the original on February 17, 2021. Retrieved December 30, 2021. • ^ Fortier-Bensen, Tony (December 8, 2020). "Affidavits shed new light on airport bomb scare in November, man had Unabomber's manifesto". Wayback Machine. Archived from the original on December 9, 2020.

Retrieved March 7, 2021. • ^ Kellogg, Carolyn (May 19, 2011). "Possible Tylenol-poisoning suspect Ted Kaczynski and his anti-technology manifesto". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on November 11, 2020. Retrieved February 15, 2021. • ^ Adams, Guy (October 22, 2011). "Unabomber aims for best-seller with green book". The Independent. Archived from the original on Programa manifesto 16, 2022. Retrieved February 15, 2021. • ^ a b Moen 2019, p.

223. • ^ Bailey, Holly (January 27, 2016). "The Unabomber takes on the Internet". Yahoo News. Archived from the original on February 14, 2016. Retrieved February 16, 2021. Bibliography [ edit ] • Chase, Alston (June programa manifesto. "Harvard and the Making of the Unabomber". The Atlantic. ISSN 1072-7825. Archived from the original on August 21, 2014. Retrieved August 22, 2017. • Kelman, David (2017). "Politics in a Small Room: Subterranean Babel in Piglia's El camino de Ida".

The Yearbook of Comparative Literature. 63 (1): 179–201. doi: 10.3138/ycl.63.005. ISSN 1947-2978. S2CID 220494877. Project MUSE 758028. • Kovaleski, Serge F. (July 9, 1996). "1907 Conrad Novel May Have Inspired Unabomb Suspect". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. • McHugh, Paul (November 2003). "The making of a killer". First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life (137): 58+.

ISSN 1047-5141. Gale A110263474. • Michael, George (2012). "Ecoextremism and the Radical Animal Liberation Movement". Lone Wolf Terror and the Rise of Leaderless Resistance. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press. pp. 61–78. ISBN 978-0-8265-1857-6. • Moen, Ole Martin (February 2019). "The Unabomber's ethics".

Bioethics. 33 (2): 223–229. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12494. hdl: 10852/76721. ISSN 0269-9702. PMID 30136739. EBSCO host 134360154. • Richardson, John H. (December 11, 2018). "The Unlikely New Generation of Unabomber Acolytes". New York. Archived from the original on February 9, 2021. Retrieved February 15, 2021. • Simmons, Ryan (1999). "What is a Terrorist? Contemporary Authorship, the Unabomber, programa manifesto Mao II".

MFS Modern Fiction Studies. 45 (3): 675–695. doi: 10.1353/mfs.1999.0056. ISSN 1080-658X. S2CID 162235453.

Project MUSE 21412. • Tan, Anna E.; Snow, David (November 2015). "Cultural Conflicts and Social Movements". In della Porta, Donatella; Diani, Mario (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Social Movements. pp. 513–533. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199678402.013.5.

ISBN 9780199678402. Further reading [ edit ] • Chase, Alston (2004). A Mind for Murder: The Education of the Unabomber and the Origins of Modern Terrorism.

W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 978-0-393-32556-0. • Didion, Joan (April 23, 1998). "Varieties of Programa manifesto. The New York Review of Books. ISSN 0028-7504.

Archived from the original on August 13, 2017. Retrieved August 22, 2017. • Finnegan, William (May 20, 2011). "The Unabomber Returns". The New Yorker. ISSN 0028-792X. Archived from the original on April 28, 2017. Retrieved August 22, 2017. • Hough, Andrew (July 24, 2011).

"Norway shooting: Anders Behring Breivik plagiarised 'Unabomber' ". The Daily Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Archived from the original on July 24, 2011. Retrieved August 22, 2017. • Programa manifesto, Jon (April 17, 1998).

"The Unabomber's Legacy, Part I". Wired. Archived from the original on August 13, 2017. Retrieved August 22, 2017. • Kravets, David (September 20, 2015). "Unabomber's anti-technology manifesto published 20 years ago".

Ars Technica. Archived from the original on November 8, 2020. Retrieved February 15, 2021. • Rubin, Mike (June 4, 1996). "An explosive bestseller".

Village Voice. 41 (23): 8. ISSN 0042-6180. EBSCO host 9606174925. • Sale, Kirkpatrick (September 25, 1995). "Unabomber's Secret Treatise: Is There Method programa manifesto His Madness?". The Nation. Archived from the original on August 31, 2018. Retrieved August 22, 2017. • Sikorski, Wade (1997). "On Mad Bombers".

Theory & Event. 1 (1). doi: 10.1353/tae.1991.0012. ISSN 1092-311X. S2CID 144440330. Project MUSE 32449. External links [ edit ] • Full manifesto from the Washington Post • Mobile-friendly version of the full manifesto Hidden categories: • Articles with short description • Short description is different from Wikidata • Use American English from January 2021 • All Wikipedia articles written in American English • Use mdy dates from January 2021 • Articles with VIAF identifiers • Articles with WorldCat-VIAF identifiers Edit links • This page was last edited on 7 May 2022, at 14:22 (UTC).

• Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0 ; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. • Privacy policy • About Wikipedia • Disclaimers • Contact Wikipedia • Mobile view • Developers • Statistics • Cookie statement • •
A Manifesto for Manifesto Jam 2022: LOOSE THE WORDS CHOKED BACK, THEY WILL FEED THE FUTURE It is time to put down your tools, to look beyond the work at hand to the imagined, incredible could be's.To turn to the impractical, the messy and the unabridged.

In 2018 the first Manifesto Jam ran and it is my belief that the manifestos written then have only become more important. They are signposts of where we were, and the paths we could, have and tried to walk - they are documents I turn back to regularly in my own life to re-energize. A manifesto lays out our intentions, vision and desires for our art form.

It addresses where we are - and where could be going. They are impractical tools, rhetorical and political - beautiful because of this. They cannot do anything on their own but - they kick down the door of our assumptions and makes a mess of the room. As Em Reed said in the first manifesto jams Manifesto; "Whether positive or negative, whether embracing potential worlds or outright rejecting the one you’re in.

They are visionary, they demand, they refuse. Manifestoes can be of any scale, defining your personal aesthetic or how to fix the entire world, but they cannot be satisfied." Programa manifesto are instead here to guide and inspire.

And to put it bluntly, this manifesto, the one you are reading is an earnest call - write your manifesto; show the world what you urgently need to say, and to say is as Aaron Lim tells us; "in all your glory and fullness." The form of a jam is intended to make this call more clear and direct - my manifesto is this Jam - a call to do it now.

Make it today, tonight, write it on scrap paper, in a text file, draw it in paint, sing it into a microphone, bring it into the world however you can. Make it, edit it quickly, be unhinged, and be free. Like the musical jamming that inspired the idea of game jams, this is a call to respond, interact and play with each other - to let yourself be touched by someone else’s words, and to let your words reach programa manifesto to them.

I want everyone to write about games, how to make, write, eat, breath, mix, break, tease, investigate, explore, touch, respond, pray, summon, control, define, or anything with games and art. I want games that aren't games, that are liturgies, that are made by hands, made by people, that are grown in soft soil.

I want the urgent thoughts we choke back, to spring forth onto pages and into minds other than ours. I want them to be the food to fuel the next four years. This Jam would not exist without the first Manifesto Jam by Em Programa manifesto - my thanks for running it then, and for being cool when I asked to run it again! -- MANIFESTO JAM RULES: • Write a manifesto! • Upload it as a text file, pdf, png, mp3 or any other format • Add a title if you want and submit it to the jam (sub "rule": Please don't just republish something you have posted elsewhere, no one is a cop here but it is a Jam, so y'know?

- HOWEVER, that doc you have hidden on your computer, filled with scrawlings is fair game) MANIFESTO HELPERS: • Robert Yang programa manifesto a list of videogame related manifestos in this blog post. • You can also find a list of art manifestos to explore here. • As well you can explore the Manifesto Jam page here.

programa manifesto This jam is about fueling your existing creativity, and practice - be that writing about games, making them or just liking them, and making it more accessible to people who have never really written on the topic before. So write your manifesto from any perspective, from someone who makes games, someone who studies their history, critiques them, or simply enjoys playing them. • Follow whatever form you feel gets across your manifesto in the most appropriate way (plain text?

Carefully arranged? Written by hand? Recited? Playable? anything) • There are no right answers to a manifesto - there are no correct ways to think about art, write about it and make it.

Speak your truth in your own words, Programa manifesto promise they are beautiful. • If you have any further thoughts or questions get in touch with me on twitter: @ApparentRaisin • ~H a v e! F u n!~The GNU Manifesto (which appears below) was written by Richard Stallman in 1985 to ask for support in developing the GNU operating system.

Part of the text was taken from the original announcement of 1983. Through 1987, it was updated in minor ways to account for developments; since then, it seems best to leave it unchanged.

Since that time, we have learned about certain common misunderstandings that different wording could help avoid. Footnotes added since 1993 help clarify these points. If you want to install the GNU/Linux system, we recommend you use one of the 100% free software GNU/Linux distributions. For how to contribute, see gnu.org/help. The GNU Project is part of the Free Software Movement, a campaign for freedom for users of software. It is a mistake to associate GNU with the term “open source”—that term was coined in 1998 by people who disagree with the Free Software Movement's ethical values.

They use it to promote an amoral approach to the same field. 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 programa manifesto interpreter) programa manifesto 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 programa manifesto 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 programa manifesto 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, programa manifesto 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 programa manifesto, 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 programa manifesto 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 programa manifesto as making money.

I view this as a way of programa manifesto 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 programa manifesto 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. Programa manifesto 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 programa manifesto 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 programa manifesto 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 programa manifesto 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 programa manifesto 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. Programa manifesto 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 programa manifesto. 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 programa manifesto of organization which are now used less often.

There are always numerous ways to organize any programa manifesto 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 programa manifesto that sales clerks make the salaries that they now do. If programmers made the same, that would not programa manifesto 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 programa manifesto 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 programa manifesto 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 programa manifesto 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 programa manifesto, 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 programa manifesto 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 programa manifesto 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 programa manifesto 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 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. Footnotes • 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. • 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. • 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. • Several such companies now exist. • 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. • A group of computer companies pooled funds around 1991 to support maintenance of the GNU C Compiler.

• I think I was mistaken in saying that proprietary software was the most common basis for making money in programa manifesto. 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. • 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. • 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. [en] English [ar] العربية [ca] català [de] Deutsch [el] ελληνικά [es] español [fr] français [hr] hrvatski [it] italiano [ja] 日本語 [nl] Nederlands [pl] polski [pt-br] português [ro] română programa manifesto русский [sq] Shqip [sr] српски [tr] Türkçe [uk] українська [zh-cn] 简体中文 Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to .

There are also other ways to contact the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent to .

Please see the Translations README for information on coordinating programa manifesto contributing translations of this article.

Copyright © 1985, 1993, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2015, 2021 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.