.

3 files changed, 7 insertions, 268 deletions

diff --git a/doc/.cvsignore b/doc/.cvsignore
index f3c7a7c..4b630f8 100644
--- a/doc/.cvsignore
+++ b/doc/.cvsignore
@@ -1 +1,2 @@
 Makefile
+fontu.info*
diff --git a/doc/ChangeLog b/doc/ChangeLog
index 7e409bb..b119633 100644
--- a/doc/ChangeLog
+++ b/doc/ChangeLog
@@ -1,3 +1,9 @@
+2004-06-24  Karl Berry  <karl@gnu.org>
+
+	* *.texi: remove node pointers.
+	* freedom.texi: old info, remove (sadly).
+	* fontu.texi: remove @include of freedom.
+
 Mon Apr  8 08:32:57 1996  Kathy Hargreaves  <letters@cs.umb.edu>
 
         * overview.texi: added direction to CCC arrow.
diff --git a/doc/freedom.texi b/doc/freedom.texi
deleted file mode 100644
index c8a09b7..0000000
--- a/doc/freedom.texi
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,268 +0,0 @@
-@c Copyright (C) 1992 Karl Berry.
-@c For copying conditions, see the file copying.texi.
-
-@node Freedom, Index, Copying, Top
-@appendix Regain your programming freedom
-
-@cindex freedom, programming
-Until a few years ago, programmers in the United States could write any
-program they wished.  This freedom has now been taken away by two
-developments: software patents, which grant the patent holder an
-absolute monopoly on some programming technique, and user interface
-copyright, which forbid compatible implementations of an existing user
-interface.
-
-In Europe, especially through the GATT treaty, things are rapidly
-approaching the same pass.
-
-@menu
-* Software patents::            Algorithm monopolies.
-* User interface copyright::    Forbidding upward-compatibility.
-* What to do?::                 What to do?
-@end menu
-
-
-@node Software patents, User interface copyright,  , Freedom
-@section Software patents
-
-@cindex patents, software
-@cindex software patents
-
-The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has granted numerous software
-patents on software techniques.  Patents are an absolute
-monopoly---independent reinvention is precluded.  This monopoly lasts
-for seventeen years, i.e., forever (with respect to computer science).
-
-One patent relevant to @TeX{} is patent 4,956,809, issued to the Mark
-Williams company on September 11, 1990, applied for in 1982, which
-covers (among other things)
-@quotation
-representing in a standardized order
-consisting of a standard binary structure file stored on auxiliary
-memory or transported on a communications means, said standardized
-order being different from a different order used on at least one
-of the different computers;
-
-Converting in each of the different computers binary data read from an
-auxiliary data storage or communications means from the standardized
-order to the natural order of the respective host computer after said
-binary data are read from said auxiliary data storage or
-communications means and before said binary data are used by the
-respective host computer; and
-
-Converting in each of the different computers binary data written into
-auxiliary data storage or communications means from the natural order
-of the respective host computer to the standardized order prior to
-said writing.
-@end quotation
-
-@noindent @dots{} in other words, storing data on disk in
-a machine-independent order, as the DVI, TFM, GF, and PK file formats
-specify.  Even though @TeX{} is ``prior art'' in this respect, the
-patent was granted (the patent examiners not being computer scientists,
-even less computer typographers).  Since there is a strong presumption
-in the courts of a patent's validity once it has been granted, there is
-a good chance that users or implementors of @TeX{} could be successfully
-sued on the issue.
-
-As another example, the X window system, which was intended to be able
-to be used freely by everyone, is now being threatened by two patents:
-4,197,590 on the use of exclusive-or to redraw cursors, held by Cadtrak,
-a litigation company (this has been upheld twice in court); and
-4,555,775, held by AT&T, on the use of backing store to redraw windows
-quickly.
-
-Here is one excerpt from a recent mailing by the League for Programming
-Freedom (@pxref{What to do?}) which I feel sums up the situation rather
-well.  It comes from an article in @cite{Think} magazine, issue #5,
-1990.  The comments after the quote were written by Richard Stallman.
-
-@quotation
-    ``You get value from patents in two ways,'' says Roger Smith, IBM
-    Assistant General Counsel, intellectual property law.  ``Through fees,
-    and through licensing negotiations that give IBM access to other
-    patents.
-
-    ``The IBM patent portfolio gains us the freedom to do what we need to
-    do through cross-licensing---it gives us access to the inventions of
-    others that are the key to rapid innovation.  Access is far more
-    valuable to IBM than the fees it receives from its 9,000 active
-    patents.  There's no direct calculation of this value, but it's many
-    times larger than the fee income, perhaps an order of magnitude
-    larger.''
-@end quotation
-
-This information should dispel the belief that the patent system will
-``protect'' a small software developer from competition from IBM.  IBM
-can always find patents in its collection which the small developer is
-infringing, and thus obtain a cross-license.
-
-However, the patent system does cause trouble for the smaller
-companies which, like IBM, need access to patented techniques in order
-to do useful work in software.  Unlike IBM, the smaller companies do
-not have 9,000 patents and cannot usually get a cross-license.  No
-matter how hard they try, they cannot have enough patents to do this.
-
-Only the elimination of patents from the software field can enable
-most software developers to continue with their work.
-
-The value IBM gets from cross-licensing is a measure of the amount of
-harm that the patent system would do to IBM if IBM could not avoid it.
-IBM's estimate is that the trouble could easily be ten times the good
-one can expect from one's own patents---even for a company with 9,000
-of them.
-
-
-@node User interface copyright, What to do?, Software patents, Freedom
-@section User interface copyright
-
-@cindex rms
-@cindex user interface copyright
-@cindex interface copyright
-(This section is copied from the GCC manual, by Richard Stallman.)
-
-@quotation
-@i{This section is a political message from the League for Programming
-Freedom to the users of the GNU font utilities.  It is included here as
-an expression of support for the League on my part.}
-@end quotation
-
-Apple, Lotus and Xerox are trying to create a new form of
-legal monopoly: a copyright on a class of user interfaces.  These
-monopolies would cause serious problems for users and developers of
-computer software and systems.
-
-Until a few years ago, the law seemed clear: no one could restrict
-others from using a user interface; programmers were free to implement
-any interface they chose.  Imitating interfaces, sometimes with changes,
-was standard practice in the computer field.  The interfaces we know
-evolved gradually in this way; for example, the Macintosh user interface
-drew ideas from the Xerox interface, which in turn drew on work done at
-Stanford and SRI.  1-2-3 imitated VisiCalc, and dBase imitated a
-database program from JPL.
-
-Most computer companies, and nearly all computer users, were happy with
-this state of affairs.  The companies that are suing say it does not
-offer ``enough incentive'' to develop their products, but they must have
-considered it ``enough'' when they made their decision to do so.  It
-seems they are not satisfied with the opportunity to continue to compete
-in the marketplace---not even with a head start.
-
-If Xerox, Lotus, and Apple are permitted to make law through
-the courts, the precedent will hobble the software industry:
-
-@itemize @bullet
-@item
-Gratuitous incompatibilities will burden users.  Imagine if each
-car manufacturer had to arrange the pedals in a different order.
-
-@item
-Software will become and remain more expensive.  Users will be
-``locked in'' to proprietary interfaces, for which there is no real
-competition.
-
-@item
-Large companies have an unfair advantage wherever lawsuits become
-commonplace.  Since they can easily afford to sue, they can intimidate
-small companies with threats even when they don't really have a case.
-
-@item
-User interface improvements will come slower, since incremental
-evolution through creative imitation will no longer be permitted.
-
-@item
-Even Apple, etc., will find it harder to make improvements if
-they can no longer adapt the good ideas that others introduce, for
-fear of weakening their own legal positions.  Some users suggest that
-this stagnation may already have started.
-
-@item
-If you use GNU software, you might find it of some concern that user
-interface copyright will make it hard for the Free Software Foundation
-to develop programs compatible with the interfaces that you already
-know.
-@end itemize
-
-
-@node What to do?,  , User interface copyright, Freedom
-@section What to do?
-
-(This section is copied from the GCC manual, by Richard Stallman.)
-
-To protect our freedom from lawsuits like these, a group of programmers
-and users have formed a new grass-roots political organization, the
-League for Programming Freedom.
-
-The purpose of the League is to oppose new monopolistic practices such
-as user-interface copyright and software patents; it calls for a return
-to the legal policies of the recent past, in which these practices were
-not allowed.  The League is not concerned with free software as an
-issue, and not affiliated with the Free Software Foundation.
-
-The League's membership rolls include John McCarthy, inventor of Lisp,
-Marvin Minsky, founder of the Artificial Intelligence lab, Guy L.
-Steele, Jr., author of well-known books on Lisp and C, as well as
-Richard Stallman, the developer of GNU CC.  Please join and add your
-name to the list.  Membership dues in the League are $42 per year for
-programmers, managers and professionals; $10.50 for students; $21 for
-others.
-
-The League needs both activist members and members who only pay their
-dues.
-
-To join, or for more information, phone (617) 492-0023 or write to:
-
-@display
-League for Programming Freedom
-1 Kendall Square #143
-P.O. Box 9171
-Cambridge, MA 02139
-@end display
-
-You can also send electronic mail to @code{league@@prep.ai.mit.edu}.
-
-Here are some suggestions from the League for things you can do to
-protect your freedom to write programs:
-
-@itemize @bullet
-@item
-Don't buy from Xerox, Lotus or Apple.  Buy from their competitors or
-from the defendants they are suing.
-
-@item
-Don't develop software to work with the systems made by these companies.
-
-@item
-Port your existing software to competing systems, so that you encourage
-users to switch.
-
-@item
-Write letters to company presidents to let them know their conduct
-is unacceptable.
-
-@item
-Tell your friends and colleagues about this issue and how it threatens
-to ruin the computer industry.
-
-@item
-Above all, don't work for the look-and-feel plaintiffs, and don't
-accept contracts from them.
-
-@item
-Write to Congress to explain the importance of this issue.
-
-@display
-House Subcommittee on Intellectual Property
-2137 Rayburn Bldg
-Washington, DC 20515
-
-Senate Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights
-United States Senate
-Washington, DC 20510
-@end display
-
-(These committees have received lots of mail already; let's give them
-even more.)
-@end itemize
-
-Express your opinion!  You can make a difference.