v3: re-arranging, update, fixes

* re-arranging: mostly headers * update: mostly line breaks \\ instead of <br> * fixes: book index related; typos; add a couple of missing images, etc.
author: Ralph Amissah <ralph@amissah.com> 2012-12-12 10:22:32 -0500
committer: Ralph Amissah <ralph@amissah.com> 2012-12-12 10:22:32 -0500
commit: 1b5bf4d71a339d98ec97996920eb81b526f1d626 (patch)
tree: 7af9beabd4841dd670e018cb872fad765db8bb59 /data
parent: v3: markup samples, introduce branch to retain and allow for v4 samples (diff)
24 files changed, 489 insertions, 734 deletions
diff --git a/data/README b/data/README
index 29eb91c..2ca5e06 100644
--- a/data/README
+++ b/data/README
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 The markup samples in sisu-markup-samples are installed to
-/usr/share/doc/sisu/markup-samples-non-free/samples
+/usr/share/doc/markup-samples
 
 Output in multiple formats can be generated running SiSU against the markup
 samples, e.g.:
@@ -34,15 +34,27 @@ Debian Free Software Guideline license compatible, notably:
     invariant sections URL: <http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html>
   Markup: free_as_in_freedom_2.richard_stallman_and_the_free_software_revolution.sam_williams.richard_stallman.sst
 
+Output in multiple formats can be generated running SiSU against the markup
+samples, e.g.:
+
+sisu --html filename.sst
+sisu --html --epub --pdf filename.sst
+
+Online a few sample marked up documents, and their resulting outputs, can be
+found at:
+ <http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu>
+ <http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/SiSU/examples.html>
+
 A few additional sample books prepared as sisu markup samples, output formats
 to be generated using SiSU are contained in a separate package
 sisu-markup-samples
 
-sisu-markup-samples contains gpl content and additional material released under
-various licenses mostly different Creative Commons licences that do not permit
-inclusion in the Debian Project as they do not meet the DFSG for various
-reasons, most commonly in that they require the original substantive text be
-maintained and often that the works be used only non-commercially
+sisu-markup-samples contains books (prepared using sisu markup), that were
+released by their authors various licenses mostly different Creative Commons
+licences that do not permit inclusion in the Debian Project as they have
+requirements that do not meet the Debian Free Software Guidelines for various
+reasons, most commonly that they require that the original substantive text
+remain unchanged, and sometimes that the works be used only non-commercially.
 
   Free as in Freedom - Richard Stallman's Crusade for Free Software, Sam
   Williams, [as above]
diff --git a/data/v3/samples/_sisu/image/free_as_in_freedom_2_01_pdp_1_processor_with_kl_10.png b/data/v3/samples/_sisu/image/free_as_in_freedom_2_01_pdp_1_processor_with_kl_10.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..679c22a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/v3/samples/_sisu/image/free_as_in_freedom_2_01_pdp_1_processor_with_kl_10.png
diff --git a/data/v3/samples/_sisu/image/free_as_in_freedom_2_02_rms_st_ignucius.png b/data/v3/samples/_sisu/image/free_as_in_freedom_2_02_rms_st_ignucius.png
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..9ed7b35
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/v3/samples/_sisu/image/free_as_in_freedom_2_02_rms_st_ignucius.png
diff --git a/data/v3/samples/_sisu/sisurc_SAMPLE.yml b/data/v3/samples/_sisu/sisurc_SAMPLE.yml
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ab13f22
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/v3/samples/_sisu/sisurc_SAMPLE.yml
@@ -0,0 +1,110 @@
+# Name: SiSU
+# Author: ralph@amissah.com
+# Description: site or directory wide environment defaults set here
+# system environment info / resource configuration file, for sisu
+# License: GPL v3 or later
+#   this file should be configured and live in
+#      /etc/sisu     #per environment settings, overridden by:
+#      ~/.sisu       #per user settings, overridden by:
+#     ./_sisu/config #per local directory settings
+#% presentation/web directory, main path and subdirectories (most subdirectories are created automatically based on markup directory name)
+webserv:
+#  #url_root:     'http://www.sisudoc.org' #without dir stub, e.g. this dir would map to http://www.sisudoc.org/samples
+#  #path:         './tested' #either (i) / [full path from root] or (ii) ~/ [home] or (iii) ./ [pwd] or (iv) will be made from home
+#  #images:       'sisu/image'
+#  #man:          'man'
+#  #cgi:          '/usr/local/lib/sisu-cgi'
+##show_output_on: 'filesystem' #for -v and -u url information, alternatives: 'filesystem','webserver','remote_webserver','local:8111','localhost','localhost:8080','webrick','path'
+webserv_cgi:
+#  host:         localhost
+#  base_path:    ~
+#  port:         '8081'
+#  user:         ~
+#  file_links:   webserv #  www.sisudoc.org
+#show_output_on: 'filesystem_url'
+#% processing directories, main path and subdirectories
+processing:
+## path:         '~'
+##  dir:         '_sisu_processing~'
+##  metaverse:    'metaverse'
+##  tune:         'tune'
+##  latex:        'tex'
+##  texinfo:      'texinfo'
+##  concord_max:  400000
+#% flag - set (non-default) processing flag shortcuts -1, -2 etc. (here adding colour and verbosity as default)
+flag:
+  color:        true                       # making colour default -c is toggle, and will now toggle colour off
+# default:      '-NQhewpotbxXyYv'           # includes verbose; -m would in any event be run by default
+# i:            '-NQhewpoty'                # -m run by default
+# ii:           '-NQhewpotbxXy'             # -m run by default
+# iii:          '-NQhewpotbxXyY'            # -m run by default
+# iv:           '-NQhewpotbxXYDy  --update' # -m run by default
+# v:            '-NQhewpotbxXYDyv --update' # includes verbose; -m run by default
+#% papersize, (LaTeX/pdf) current values A4, US_letter, book_b5, book_a5, US_legal, easily extensible
+default:
+  papersize:    'A4,letter' #'A4,letter,b5,a5'
+#  #texpdf_font:       'Liberation Sans'
+#  #texpdf_font_sans:  'Liberation Sans'
+#  #texpdf_font_serif: 'Liberation Serif'
+#  #texpdf_font_mono:  'Liberation Mono' #'Inconsolata'
+#  #text_wrap:    78
+#  #emphasis:     'bold' #make *{emphasis}* 'bold', 'italics' or 'underscore', default if not configured is 'bold'
+#  #language:      'fr'
+#  #language:      'en'
+#  digest:       'sha' #sha is sha256, default is md5
+#% settings used by ssh scp
+#remote:
+#  #user:         'ralph'
+#  #host:         'sisudoc.org'
+#  #path:         '.' #no trailing slash eg 'sisu/www'
+#% webrick information
+#% sql database info, postgresql
+#db:
+#  engine:
+#    default:    'postgresql'
+## share_source:  true
+#  postgresql:
+#    port:       '5432' # '5432'
+#    user:       'ralph' # '[provide username]'
+#    #host:       'sisudoc.org'
+#
+#% output_dir_structure_by: language (language_and_filetype); filetype; or filename (original v1 & v2)
+##output_dir_structure_by: filename
+##output_dir_structure_by: filetype
+#output_dir_structure_by: language
+#
+#% possible values ~, true, false, or command instruction e.g. editor: 'gvim -c :R -c :S'.
+##will only ignore if value set to false, absence or nil will not remove program as should operate without rc file
+##ie in case of ~ will ignore and use hard coded defaults within program), true, false, or command instruction e.g. editor: 'gvim -c :R -c :S'
+##on value true system defaults used, to change, e.g. editor specify
+#permission_set:
+#  zap:               true
+#  css_modify:        true
+#  remote_base_site:  true
+#program_set:
+#  rmagick:           true
+#  wc:                true
+#  editor:            true
+#  postgresql:        true
+#  sqlite:            true
+#  tidy:              true
+#  rexml:             true
+#  pdflatex:          true
+#program_select:
+#  editor:            'vim' #'gvim -c :R'
+#  pdf_viewer:        'evince'
+#  web_browser:       'iceweasel'
+#  console_web_browser: 'links2'
+#  epub_viewer:       'ebook-viewer' #'calibre' 'fbreader'
+#  odf_viewer:        'lowriter'
+#  xml_viewer:        'xml-viewer'
+#search:
+#  sisu:
+#    flag:            true
+#    action:          http://search.sisudoc.org
+#    db:              sisu
+#    title:           'SiSU search form (sample)'
+#html:
+#  minitoc:           true
+#manifest:
+#  minitoc:           true
diff --git a/data/v3/samples/_sisu/skin/doc/skin_gutenberg.rb b/data/v3/samples/_sisu/skin/doc/skin_gutenberg.rb
deleted file mode 100644
index 148fbae..0000000
--- a/data/v3/samples/_sisu/skin/doc/skin_gutenberg.rb
+++ /dev/null
@@ -1,216 +0,0 @@
-# coding: utf-8
-=begin
- * Name: SiSU - Simple information Structuring Universe - Structured information, Serialized Units
- * Author: Ralph Amissah
-   * http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu
-   * http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/SiSU/download
- * Description: Document skin sample prepared for Gutenberg Project (first used with "War and Peace")
- * License: Same as SiSU see http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu
- * Notes: Site default appearance variables set in defaults.rb
-     Generic site wide modifications set here scribe_skin.rb, and this file required by other "scribes" instead of defaults.rb
-=end
-module SiSU_Viz
-  require "#{SiSU_lib}/defaults"
-  class Skin
-    #% path
-    def path_root                                                                     # the only parameter that cannot be changed here
-      './sisu/'
-    end
-    def path_rel
-      '../'
-    end
-  #% url
-    def url_home
-      'http://www.gutenberg.net'
-    end
-    def url_txt                                                                      # text to go with url usually stripped url
-      'www.gutenberg.net'
-    end
-    #% txt
-    def txt_hp
-      'www.gutenberg.net'
-    end
-    def txt_home
-      'Gutenberg Project'
-    end
-    #% icon
-    def icon_home_button
-      'gutenberg.home.png'
-    end
-    def icon_home_banner
-      icon_home_button
-    end
-    #% banner
-    def banner_home_button
-      %{<table summary="home button" border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0"><tr><td align="left" bgcolor=#{color_yellow_dark}><a href="#{url_home}">#{png_home}</a></td></tr></table>\n}
-    end
-    def banner_home_and_index_buttons
-      %{<table><tr><td width="20%"><table summary="home and index buttons" border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0"><tr><td align="left" bgcolor=#{color_yellow_dark}><a href="#{url_home}" target="_top">#{png_home}</a></td></tr></table></td><td width="60%"><center><center><table summary="buttons" border="1" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0"><tr><td align="center" bgcolor="#f1e8de"><font face="arial" size="2"><a href="toc.html" target="_top">&nbsp;This&nbsp;text&nbsp;sub-&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;Table&nbsp;of&nbsp;Contents&nbsp;</a></font></td></tr></table></center></center></td><td width="20%">&nbsp;</td></tr></table>}
-    end
-    def banner_band
-      %{<table summary="band" border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0"><tr><td align="left" bgcolor=#{color_yellow_dark}><a href="#{url_home}" target="_top">#{png_home}</a>#{table_close}}
-    end
-    #% credits
-    def credits_splash
-      %{<table summary="credits" align="center"bgcolor="#ffffff"><tr><td><font color="black"><center><a href="http://www.gutenberg.net/"><img border="0" align="center" src="../_sisu/image_local/gutenberg_icon.png" alt="Gutenberg Project"><br />Courtesy of The Gutenberg Project</a></center></font></td></tr></table>}
-    end
-  end
-  class TeX
-    def header_center
-      "\\chead{\\href{#{@vz.url_home}}{www.gutenberg.net}}"
-    end
-    def home_url
-      "\\href{#{@vz.url_home}}{www.gutenberg.net}"
-    end
-    def home
-      "\\href{#{@vz.url_home}}{Gutenberg Project}"
-    end
-    def owner_chapter
-      "Document owner details"
-    end
-  end
-  class Inserts
-    def insert1
-<<CONTENTS
-
-:C~ Project Gutenberg~#
-
-1~ Project Gutenberg Notes~#
-
-Copyright laws are changing all over the world, be sure to check the copyright laws for your country before posting these files!!~#
-
-Please take a look at the important information in this header.  We encourage you to keep this file on your own disk, keeping an electronic path open for the next readers.  Do not remove this.~#
-
-*{It must legally be the first thing seen when opening the book.}* In fact, our legal advisors said we can't even change margins.~#
-
-*{Welcome To The World of Free Plain Vanilla Electronic Texts}*~#
-
-*{Etexts Readable By Both Humans and By Computers, Since 1971}*~#
-
-*{These Etexts Prepared By Hundreds of Volunteers and Donations}*~#
-
-Information on contacting Project Gutenberg to get Etexts, and further information is included below.  We need your donations.~#
-
-CONTENTS
-    end
-    def insert2                                                                  #note took out stop after http://promo.net/pg and created space after  this url repeated in subsequent paragraph, as broke latex/pdf, think of modifying regexs for urls
-<<CONTENTS
-Project Gutenberg Etexts are usually created from multiple editions, all of which are in the Public Domain in the United States, unless a copyright notice is included.  Therefore, we usually do NOT keep any of these books in compliance with any particular paper edition.~#
-
-We are now trying to release all our books one month in advance of the official release dates, leaving time for better editing.~#
-
-Please note:  neither this list nor its contents are final till midnight of the last day of the month of any such announcement.  The official release date of all Project Gutenberg Etexts is at Midnight, Central Time, of the last day of the stated month.  A preliminary version may often be posted for suggestion, comment and editing by those who wish to do so.  To be sure you have an up to date first edition [xxxxx10x.xxx] please check file sizes in the first week of the next month.  Since our ftp program has a bug in it that scrambles the date [tried to fix and failed] a look at the file size will have to do, but we will try to see a new copy has at least one byte more or less.~#
-
-1~ Information about Project Gutenberg (one page)~#
-
-We produce about two million dollars for each hour we work.  The time it takes us, a rather conservative estimate, is fifty hours to get any etext selected, entered, proofread, edited, copyright searched and analyzed, the copyright letters written, etc.  This projected audience is one hundred million readers.  If our value per text is nominally estimated at one dollar then we produce $2 million dollars per hour this year as we release thirty-six text files per month, or 432 more Etexts in 1999 for a total of 2000+ If these reach just 10% of the computerized population, then the total should reach over 200 billion Etexts given away this year.~#
-
-The Goal of Project Gutenberg is to Give Away One Trillion Etext Files by December 31, 2001.  [10,000 x 100,000,000 = 1 Trillion] This is ten thousand titles each to one hundred million readers, which is only ~5% of the present number of computer users.  At our revised rates of production, we will reach only one-third of that goal by the end of 2001, or about 3,333 Etexts unless we manage to get some real funding; currently our funding is mostly from Michael Hart's salary at Carnegie-Mellon University, and an assortment of sporadic gifts; this salary is only good for a few more years, so we are looking for something to replace it, as we don't want Project Gutenberg to be so dependent on one person.~#
-
-We need your donations more than ever!~#
-
-All donations should be made to "Project Gutenberg/CMU": and are tax deductible to the extent allowable by law.  (CMU = Carnegie-Mellon University).~#
-
-For these and other matters, please mail to:~#
-
-Project Gutenberg~#
-
-P. O. Box  2782~#
-
-Champaign, IL 61825~#
-
-When all other email fails. . .try our Executive Director: Michael S. Hart hart@pobox.com forwards to hart@prairienet.org and archive.org if your mail bounces from archive.org, I will still see it, if it bounces from prairienet.org, better resend later on. . . .~#
-
-We would prefer to send you this information by email.~#
-
-******~#
-
-To access Project Gutenberg etexts, use any Web browser to view http://promo.net/pg  This site lists Etexts by author and by title, and includes information about how to get involved with Project Gutenberg.  You could also download our past Newsletters, or subscribe here.  This is one of our major sites, please email hart@pobox.com, for a more complete list of our various sites.~#
-
-To go directly to the etext collections, use FTP or any Web browser to visit a Project Gutenberg mirror (mirror sites are available on 7 continents; mirrors are listed at http://promo.net/pg ).~#
-
-Mac users, do NOT point and click, typing works better.~#
-
-Example FTP session:~#
-
-ftp metalab.unc.edu~#
-
-login: anonymous~#
-
-password: your@login~#
-
-cd pub/docs/books/gutenberg~#
-
-cd etext90 through etext99 or etext00 through etext01, etc.~#
-
-dir [to see files]~#
-
-get or mget [to get files. . .set bin for zip files]~#
-
-GET GUTINDEX.??  [to get a year's listing of books, e.g., GUTINDEX.99]~#
-
-GET GUTINDEX.ALL [to get a listing of ALL books]~#
-
-***~#
-
-:C~ Information prepared by the Project Gutenberg legal advisor** (three pages)~#
-
-1~ THE SMALL PRINT!**FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN ETEXTS~#
-
-Why is this "Small Print!" statement here?  You know: lawyers.  They tell us you might sue us if there is something wrong with your copy of this etext, even if you got it for free from someone other than us, and even if what's wrong is not our fault.  So, among other things, this "Small Print!" statement disclaims most of our liability to you.  It also tells you how you can distribute copies of this etext if you want to.~#
-
-2~ *BEFORE!* YOU USE OR READ THIS ETEXT~#
-
-By using or reading any part of this PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm etext, you indicate that you understand, agree to and accept this "Small Print!" statement.  If you do not, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for this etext by sending a request within 30 days of receiving it to the person you got it from.  If you received this etext on a physical medium (such as a disk), you must return it with your request.~#
-
-2~ ABOUT PROJECT GUTENBERG-TM ETEXTS~#
-
-This PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm etext, like most PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm etexts, is a "public domain" work distributed by Professor Michael S. Hart through the Project Gutenberg Association at Carnegie-Mellon University (the "Project").  Among other things, this means that no one owns a United States copyright on or for this work, so the Project (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules, set forth below, apply if you wish to copy and distribute this etext under the Project's "PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark.~#
-
-To create these etexts, the Project expends considerable efforts to identify, transcribe and proofread public domain works.  Despite these efforts, the Project's etexts and any medium they may be on may contain "Defects".  Among other things, Defects may take the form of incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other etext medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.~#
-
-2~ LIMITED WARRANTY; DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES~#
-
-But for the "Right of Replacement or Refund" described below, [1] the Project (and any other party you may receive this etext from as a PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm etext) disclaims all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees, and [2] YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE OR UNDER STRICT LIABILITY, OR FOR BREACH OF WARRANTY OR CONTRACT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.~#
-
-If you discover a Defect in this etext within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending an explanatory note within that time to the person you received it from.  If you received it on a physical medium, you must return it with your note, and such person may choose to alternatively give you a replacement copy.  If you received it electronically, such person may choose to alternatively give you a second opportunity to receive it electronically.~#
-
-THIS ETEXT IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED TO YOU "AS-IS".  NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARE MADE TO YOU AS TO THE ETEXT OR ANY MEDIUM IT MAY BE ON, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.~#
-
-Some states do not allow disclaimers of implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of consequential damages, so the above disclaimers and exclusions may not apply to you, and you may have other legal rights.~#
-
-2~ INDEMNITY~#
-
-You will indemnify and hold the Project, its directors, officers, members and agents harmless from all liability, cost and expense, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following that you do or cause: [1] distribution of this etext, [2] alteration, modification, or addition to the etext, or [3] any Defect.~#
-
-2~ DISTRIBUTION UNDER "PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm"~#
-
-You may distribute copies of this etext electronically, or by disk, book or any other medium if you either delete this "Small Print!" and all other references to Project Gutenberg, or:~#
-
-*{[1]}*  Only give exact copies of it.  Among other things, this requires that you do not remove, alter or modify the etext or this "small print!" statement.  You may however, if you wish, distribute this etext in machine readable binary, compressed, mark-up, or proprietary form, including any form resulting from conversion by word pro- cessing or hypertext software, but only so long as *{EITHER}*:~#
-
-_1 *{[*]}*  The etext, when displayed, is clearly readable, and does *not* contain characters other than those intended by the author of the work, although tilde (~), asterisk (*) and underline (_) characters may be used to convey punctuation intended by the author, and additional characters may be used to indicate hypertext links; OR~#
-
-_1 *{[*]}*  The etext may be readily converted by the reader at no expense into plain ASCII, EBCDIC or equivalent form by the program that displays the etext (as is the case, for instance, with most word processors); OR~#
-
-_1 *{[*]}*  You provide, or agree to also provide on request at no additional cost, fee or expense, a copy of the etext in its original plain ASCII form (or in EBCDIC or other equivalent proprietary form).~#
-
-*{[2]}*  Honor the etext refund and replacement provisions of this "Small Print!" statement.~#
-
-*{[3]}*  Pay a trademark license fee to the Project of 20% of the net profits you derive calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  If you don't derive profits, no royalty is due.  Royalties are payable to "Project Gutenberg Association/Carnegie-Mellon University" within the 60 days following each date you prepare (or were legally required to prepare) your annual (or equivalent periodic) tax return.~#
-
-2~ WHAT IF YOU *WANT* TO SEND MONEY EVEN IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO?~#
-
-The Project gratefully accepts contributions in money, time, scanning machines, OCR software, public domain etexts, royalty free copyright licenses, and every other sort of contribution you can think of.  Money should be paid to "Project Gutenberg Association / Carnegie-Mellon University".~#
-
-We are planning on making some changes in our donation structure in 2000, so you might want to email me, hart@pobox.com beforehand.~#
-
-*END THE SMALL PRINT! FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN ETEXTS*Ver.04.29.93*END*~#
-
-<!pn!>
-
-CONTENTS
-    end
-  end
-end
-
diff --git a/data/v3/samples/accelerando.charles_stross.sst b/data/v3/samples/accelerando.charles_stross.sst
index 24eabd8..0693204 100644
--- a/data/v3/samples/accelerando.charles_stross.sst
+++ b/data/v3/samples/accelerando.charles_stross.sst
@@ -5,6 +5,10 @@
 @creator:
  :author: Stross, Charles
 
+@date:
+ :published: 2005-07-05
+ :available: 2005-07-05
+
 @rights:
  :copyright: Copyright (C) Charles Stross, 2005.
  :license:  Creative Commons License, Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0: * Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor; * Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes; * No Derivative Works. You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work; * For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. (* For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. * Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/ These SiSU presentations of Accelerando are done with the kind permission of the author Charles Stross
@@ -12,37 +16,24 @@
 @source: http://www.accelerando.org/
 
 @classify:
- :subject: Science Fiction
  :topic_register: SiSU:markup sample:book;book:novel:science fiction|short stories;fiction:science fiction|artificial intelligence
+ :subject: Science Fiction
  :type: science fiction
  :oclc: 57682282
  :isbn: 9780441012848
 
-@date:
- :published: 2005-07-05
- :available: 2005-07-05
+@links:
+ { Accelerando home }http://www.accelerando.org/
+ { @ Wikipedia }http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerando_%28novel%29
+ { @ Amazon.com}http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0441014151
+ { @ Barnes & Noble}http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?isbn=0441014151
+ { SiSU }http://sisudoc.org/
+ { sources / git }http://sources.sisudoc.org/
 
 @make:
  :headings: none; none; PART; Chapter;
- :skin: skin_accelerando_stross
  :breaks: new=:A,:B; break=:C,1
-
-@links:
- { Accelerando home }http://www.accelerando.org/
- { Accelerando, Charlie Stross @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/accelerando.charlie_stross
- { @ Wikipedia }http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerando_%28novel%29
- { Syntax }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/sample/syntax/accelerando.charles_stross.sst.html
- {@ Amazon.com}http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0441014151
- {@ Barnes & Noble}http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?isbn=0441014151
- {Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom, Cory Doctorow @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/down_and_out_in_the_magic_kingdom.cory_doctorow
- { Little Brother, Cory Doctorow @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/little_brother.cory_doctorow
- {For the Win, Cory Doctorow @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/for_the_win.cory_doctorow
- { Free Culture, Lawrence Lessig @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/free_culture.lawrence_lessig
- { The Wealth of Networks, Yochai Benkler @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/the_wealth_of_networks.yochai_benkler
- { Viral Spiral, David Bollier@ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/viral_spiral.david_bollier
- { Democratizing Innovation, Eric von Hippel @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/democratizing_innovation.eric_von_hippel
- { Two Bits, Christopher Kelty @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/two_bits.christopher_kelty
- { Free as in Freedom (on Richard M. Stallman), Sam Williams @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/free_as_in_freedom.richard_stallman_crusade_for_free_software.sam_williams
+ :skin: skin_accelerando_stross
 
 % book cover shot (US) book cover shot (UK)
 
diff --git a/data/v3/samples/autonomy_markup0.sst b/data/v3/samples/autonomy_markup0.sst
index 5803660..0f26f9b 100644
--- a/data/v3/samples/autonomy_markup0.sst
+++ b/data/v3/samples/autonomy_markup0.sst
@@ -6,40 +6,33 @@
 @creator:
  :author: Amissah, Ralph
 
+@date:
+ :published: 2000-08-27
+
 @rights:
  :copyright: Copyright (C) Ralph Amissah
 
 @classify:
- :type: article
- :subject: international contracts, international commercial arbitration, private international law
  :topic_register: SiSU:markup sample:article;law:international:commercial arbitration|uniform law|harmonization;private law;arbitration:international commercial
+ :subject: international contracts, international commercial arbitration, private international law
 
-@date:
- :published: 2000-08-27
+@links:
+ { SiSU }http://sisudoc.org/
+ { sources / git }http://sources.sisudoc.org/
 
 @make:
  :italics: /CISG|PICC|PECL|UNCITRAL|UNIDROIT|lex mercatoria|pacta sunt servanda|caveat subscriptor|ex aequo et bono|amiable compositeur|ad hoc/i
  :num_top: 1
 
-@links:
- {Syntax}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/sample/syntax/autonomy_markup0.sst.html
- {The Autonomous Contract}http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/the.autonomous.contract.07.10.1997.amissah/toc.html
- {Contract Principles}http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/private.international.commercial.law/contract.principles.html
- {UNIDROIT Principles}http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/unidroit.international.commercial.contracts.principles.1994.commented/toc.html
- {Sales}http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/private.international.commercial.law/sale.of.goods.html
- {CISG}http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/un.contracts.international.sale.of.goods.convention.1980/doc.html
- {Arbitration}http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/arbitration/toc.html
- {Electronic Commerce}http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/electronic.commerce/toc.html
-
 % (Draft 0.90 - 2000-08-27)
 
-:A~ @title @author~{* Ralph Amissah is a Fellow of Pace University, Institute for International Commercial Law. http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/ <br>RA lectured on the private law aspects of international trade whilst at the Law Faculty of the University of Tromsø, Norway. http://www.jus.uit.no/ <br> RA built the first web site related to international trade law, now known as lexmercatoria.org and described as "an (international | transnational) commercial law and e-commerce infrastructure monitor". http://lexmercatoria.org/ <br> RA is interested in the law, technology, commerce nexus. RA works with the law firm Amissahs.<br>/{[This is a draft document and subject to change.]}/ <br>All errors are very much my own.<br>ralph@amissah.com }~
+:A~ @title @author~{* Ralph Amissah is a Fellow of Pace University, Institute for International Commercial Law. http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/ \\ RA lectured on the private law aspects of international trade whilst at the Law Faculty of the University of Tromsø, Norway. http://www.jus.uit.no/ \\ RA built the first web site related to international trade law, now known as lexmercatoria.org and described as "an (international | transnational) commercial law and e-commerce infrastructure monitor". http://lexmercatoria.org/ \\ RA is interested in the law, technology, commerce nexus. RA works with the law firm Amissahs. \\ /{[This is a draft document and subject to change.]}/ \\ All errors are very much my own. \\ ralph@amissah.com }~
 
 1~ Reinforcing trends: borderless technologies, global economy, transnational legal solutions?
 
 Revisiting the Autonomous Contract~{ /{The Autonomous Contract: Reflecting the borderless electronic-commercial environment in contracting}/ was published in /{Elektronisk handel - rettslige aspekter, Nordisk årsbok i rettsinformatikk 1997}/ (Electronic Commerce - Legal Aspects. The Nordic yearbook for Legal Informatics 1997) Edited by Randi Punsvik, or at http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/the.autonomous.contract.07.10.1997.amissah/doc.html }~
 
-Globalisation is to be observed as a trend intrinsic to the world economy.~{ As Maria Cattaui Livanos suggests in /{The global economy - an opportunity to be seized}/ in /{Business World}/ the Electronic magazine of the International Chamber of Commerce (Paris, July 1997) at http://www.iccwbo.org/html/globalec.htm <br> "Globalization is unstoppable. Even though it may be only in its early stages, it is already intrinsic to the world economy. We have to live with it, recognize its advantages and learn to manage it.<br>That imperative applies to governments, who would be unwise to attempt to stem the tide for reasons of political expediency. It also goes for companies of all sizes, who must now compete on global markets and learn to adjust their strategies accordingly, seizing the opportunities that globalization offers."}~ Rudimentary economics explains this runaway process, as being driven by competition within the business community to achieve efficient production, and to reach and extend available markets.~{To remain successful, being in competition, the business community is compelled to take advantage of the opportunities provided by globalisation.}~ Technological advancement particularly in transport and communications has historically played a fundamental role in the furtherance of international commerce, with the Net, technology's latest spatio-temporally transforming offering, linchpin of the "new-economy", extending exponentially the global reach of the business community. The Net covers much of the essence of international commerce providing an instantaneous, low cost, convergent, global and borderless: information centre, marketplace and channel for communications, payments and the delivery of services and intellectual property. The sale of goods, however, involves the separate element of their physical delivery. The Net has raised a plethora of questions and has frequently offered solutions. The increased transparency of borders arising from the Net's ubiquitous nature results in an increased demand for the transparency of operation. As economic activities become increasingly global, to reduce transaction costs, there is a strong incentive for the "law" that provides for them, to do so in a similar dimension. The appeal of transnational legal solutions lies in the potential reduction in complexity, more widely dispersed expertise, and resulting increased transaction efficiency. The Net reflexively offers possibilities for the development of transnational legal solutions, having in a similar vein transformed the possibilities for the promulgation of texts, the sharing of ideas and collaborative ventures. There are however, likely to be tensions within the legal community protecting entrenched practices against that which is new, (both in law and technology) and the business community's goal to reduce transaction costs.
+Globalisation is to be observed as a trend intrinsic to the world economy.~{ As Maria Cattaui Livanos suggests in /{The global economy - an opportunity to be seized}/ in /{Business World}/ the Electronic magazine of the International Chamber of Commerce (Paris, July 1997) at http://www.iccwbo.org/html/globalec.htm \\ "Globalization is unstoppable. Even though it may be only in its early stages, it is already intrinsic to the world economy. We have to live with it, recognize its advantages and learn to manage it. \\ That imperative applies to governments, who would be unwise to attempt to stem the tide for reasons of political expediency. It also goes for companies of all sizes, who must now compete on global markets and learn to adjust their strategies accordingly, seizing the opportunities that globalization offers."}~ Rudimentary economics explains this runaway process, as being driven by competition within the business community to achieve efficient production, and to reach and extend available markets.~{To remain successful, being in competition, the business community is compelled to take advantage of the opportunities provided by globalisation.}~ Technological advancement particularly in transport and communications has historically played a fundamental role in the furtherance of international commerce, with the Net, technology's latest spatio-temporally transforming offering, linchpin of the "new-economy", extending exponentially the global reach of the business community. The Net covers much of the essence of international commerce providing an instantaneous, low cost, convergent, global and borderless: information centre, marketplace and channel for communications, payments and the delivery of services and intellectual property. The sale of goods, however, involves the separate element of their physical delivery. The Net has raised a plethora of questions and has frequently offered solutions. The increased transparency of borders arising from the Net's ubiquitous nature results in an increased demand for the transparency of operation. As economic activities become increasingly global, to reduce transaction costs, there is a strong incentive for the "law" that provides for them, to do so in a similar dimension. The appeal of transnational legal solutions lies in the potential reduction in complexity, more widely dispersed expertise, and resulting increased transaction efficiency. The Net reflexively offers possibilities for the development of transnational legal solutions, having in a similar vein transformed the possibilities for the promulgation of texts, the sharing of ideas and collaborative ventures. There are however, likely to be tensions within the legal community protecting entrenched practices against that which is new, (both in law and technology) and the business community's goal to reduce transaction costs.
 
 Within commercial law an analysis of law and economics may assist in developing a better understanding of the relationship between commercial law and the commercial sector it serves.~{ Realists would contend that law is contextual and best understood by exploring the interrelationships between law and the other social sciences, such as sociology, psychology, political science, and economics.}~ "...[T]he importance of the interrelations between law and economics can be seen in the twin facts that legal change is often a function of economic ideas and conditions, which necessitate and/or generate demands for legal change, and that economic change is often governed by legal change."~{ Part of a section cited in Mercuro and Steven G. Medema, /{Economics and the Law: from Posner to Post-Modernism}/ (Princeton, 1997) p. 11, with reference to Karl N. Llewellyn The Effect of Legal Institutions upon Economics, American Economic Review 15 (December 1925) pp 655-683, Mark M. Litchman Economics, the Basis of Law, American Law Review 61 (May-June 1927) pp 357-387, and W. S. Holdsworth A Neglected Aspect of the Relations between Economic and Legal History, Economic History Review 1 (January 1927-1928) pp 114-123.}~ In doing so, however, it is important to be aware that there are several competing schools of law and economics, with different perspectives, levels of abstraction, and analytical consequences of and for the world that they model.~{ For a good introduction see Nicholas Mercuro and Steven G. Medema, /{Economics and the Law: from Posner to Post-Modernism}/ (Princeton, 1997). These include: Chicago law and economics (New law and economics); New Haven School of law and economics; Public Choice Theory; Institutional law and economics; Neoinstitutional law and economics; Critical Legal Studies.}~
 
@@ -75,7 +68,7 @@ This framework provided by /{"ICA"}/ opened the door for the modelling of effect
 
 1~ "State contracted international law" and/or "institutionally offered lex"? CISG and PICC as examples
 
-An institutionally offered lex ("IoL", uniform rules and principles) appear to have a number of advantages over "State contracted international law" ("ScIL", model laws, treaties and conventions for enactment). The development and formulation of both "ScIL" and "IoL" law takes time, the CISG representing a half century of effort~{ /{UNCITRAL Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods 1980}/ see at http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/un.contracts.international.sale.of.goods.convention.1980/ <br>The CISG may be regarded as the culmination of an effort in the field dating back to Ernst Rabel, (/{Das Recht des Warenkaufs}/ Bd. I&II (Berlin, 1936-1958). Two volume study on sales law.) followed by the Cornell Project, (Cornell Project on Formation of Contracts 1968 - Rudolf Schlesinger, Formation of Contracts. A study of the Common Core of Legal Systems, 2 vols. (New York, London 1968)) and connected most directly to the UNIDROIT inspired /{Uniform Law for International Sales}/ (ULIS http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/unidroit.ulis.convention.1964/ at and ULF at http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/unidroit.ulf.convention.1964/ ), the main preparatory works behind the CISG (/{Uniform Law on the Formation of Contracts for the International Sale of Goods}/ (ULF) and the /{Convention relating to a Uniform Law on the International Sale of Goods}/ (ULIS) The Hague, 1964.). }~ and PICC twenty years.~{ /{UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts}/ commonly referred to as the /{UNIDROIT Principles}/ and within this paper as PICC see at http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/unidroit.contract.principles.1994/ and http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/unidroit.international.commercial.contracts.principles.1994.commented/ <br>The first edition of the PICC were finalised in 1994, 23 years after their first conception, and 14 years after work started on them in earnest. }~ The CISG by UNCITRAL represents the greatest success for the unification of an area of substantive commercial contract law to date, being currently applied by 57 States,~{ As of February 2000. }~ estimated as representing close to seventy percent of world trade and including every major trading nation of the world apart from England and Japan. To labour the point, the USA most of the EU (along with Canada, Australia, Russia) and China, ahead of its entry to the WTO already share the same law in relation to the international sale of goods. "ScIL" however has additional hurdles to overcome. *(a)* In order to enter into force and become applicable, it must go through the lengthy process of ratification and accession by States. *(b)* Implementation is frequently with various reservations. *(c)* Even where widely used, there are usually as many or more States that are exceptions. Success, that is by no means guaranteed, takes time and for every uniform law that is a success, there are several failures.
+An institutionally offered lex ("IoL", uniform rules and principles) appear to have a number of advantages over "State contracted international law" ("ScIL", model laws, treaties and conventions for enactment). The development and formulation of both "ScIL" and "IoL" law takes time, the CISG representing a half century of effort~{ /{UNCITRAL Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods 1980}/ see at http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/un.contracts.international.sale.of.goods.convention.1980/ \\ The CISG may be regarded as the culmination of an effort in the field dating back to Ernst Rabel, (/{Das Recht des Warenkaufs}/ Bd. I&II (Berlin, 1936-1958). Two volume study on sales law.) followed by the Cornell Project, (Cornell Project on Formation of Contracts 1968 - Rudolf Schlesinger, Formation of Contracts. A study of the Common Core of Legal Systems, 2 vols. (New York, London 1968)) and connected most directly to the UNIDROIT inspired /{Uniform Law for International Sales}/ (ULIS http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/unidroit.ulis.convention.1964/ at and ULF at http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/unidroit.ulf.convention.1964/ ), the main preparatory works behind the CISG (/{Uniform Law on the Formation of Contracts for the International Sale of Goods}/ (ULF) and the /{Convention relating to a Uniform Law on the International Sale of Goods}/ (ULIS) The Hague, 1964.). }~ and PICC twenty years.~{ /{UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts}/ commonly referred to as the /{UNIDROIT Principles}/ and within this paper as PICC see at http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/unidroit.contract.principles.1994/ and http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/unidroit.international.commercial.contracts.principles.1994.commented/ \\ The first edition of the PICC were finalised in 1994, 23 years after their first conception, and 14 years after work started on them in earnest. }~ The CISG by UNCITRAL represents the greatest success for the unification of an area of substantive commercial contract law to date, being currently applied by 57 States,~{ As of February 2000. }~ estimated as representing close to seventy percent of world trade and including every major trading nation of the world apart from England and Japan. To labour the point, the USA most of the EU (along with Canada, Australia, Russia) and China, ahead of its entry to the WTO already share the same law in relation to the international sale of goods. "ScIL" however has additional hurdles to overcome. *(a)* In order to enter into force and become applicable, it must go through the lengthy process of ratification and accession by States. *(b)* Implementation is frequently with various reservations. *(c)* Even where widely used, there are usually as many or more States that are exceptions. Success, that is by no means guaranteed, takes time and for every uniform law that is a success, there are several failures.
 
 Institutionally offered lex ("IoL") comprehensive general contract principles or contract law restatements that create an entire "legal" environment for contracting, has the advantage of being instantly available, becoming effective by choice of the contracting parties at the stroke of a pen. "IoL" is also more easily developed subsequently, in light of experience and need. Amongst the reasons for their use is the reduction of transaction cost in their provision of a set of default rules, applicable transnationally, that satisfy risk management criteria, being (or becoming) known, tried and tested, and of predictable effect.~{ "[P]arties often want to close contracts quickly, rather than hold up the transaction to negotiate solutions for every problem that might arise." Honnold (1992) on p. 13. }~ The most resoundingly successful "IoL" example to date has been the ICC's /{Uniform Customs and Practices for Documentary Credits}/, which is subscribed to as the default rules for the letters of credit offered by the vast majority of banks in the vast majority of countries of the world. Furthermore uniform principles allow unification on matters that at the present stage of national and regional pluralism could not be achieved at a treaty level. There are however, things that only "ScIL" can "engineer", (for example that which relates to priorities and third party obligations).
 
@@ -131,7 +124,7 @@ The major obstacle that remains to being confident of this as the great and free
 
 How to protect liberal democratic ideals and ensure international jurisprudential deliberation? Looking at judicial method, where court decisions are looked to for guidance, liberal democratic ideals and international jurisprudential deliberation are fostered by a judicial minimalist approach.
 
-For those of us with a common law background, and others who pay special attention to cases as you are invited to by interpretation clauses, there is scope for discussion as to the most appropriate approach to be taken with regard to judicial decisions. US judge Cass Sunstein suggestion of judicial minimalism~{ Cass R. Sunstein, /{One Case at a Time - Judicial Minimalism on the Supreme Court}/ (1999) }~ which despite its being developed in a different context~{ His analysis is developed based largely on "hard" constitutional cases of the U.S. }~ is attractive in that it is suited to a liberal democracy in ensuring democratic jurisprudential deliberation. It maintains discussion, debate, and allows for adjustment as appropriate and the gradual development of a common understanding of issues. Much as one may admire farsighted and far-reaching decisions and expositions, there is less chance with the minimalist approach of the (dogmatic) imposition of particular values. Whilst information sharing offers the possibility of the percolation of good ideas.~{ D. Stauffer, /{Introduction to Percolation Theory}/ (London, 1985). Percolation represents the sudden dramatic expansion of a common idea or ideas thought he reaching of a critical level/mass in the rapid recognition of their power and the making of further interconnections. An epidemic like infection of ideas. Not quite the way we are used to the progression of ideas within a conservative tradition. }~ Much as we admire the integrity of Dworkin's Hercules,~{ Ronald Dworkin, /{Laws Empire}/ (Harvard, 1986); /{Hard Cases in Harvard Law Review}/ (1988). }~ that he can consistently deliver single solutions suitable across such disparate socio-economic cultures is questionable. In examining the situation his own "integrity" would likely give him pause and prevent him from dictating that he can.~{ Hercules was created for U.S. Federal Cases and the community represented by the U.S. }~ This position is maintained as a general principle across international commercial law, despite private (as opposed to public) international commercial law not being an area of particularly "hard" cases of principle, and; despite private international commercial law being an area in which over a long history it has been demonstrated that lawyers are able to talk a common language to make themselves and their concepts (which are not dissimilar) understood by each other.~{ In 1966, a time when there were greater differences in the legal systems of States comprising the world economy Clive Schmitthoff was able to comment that:<br>"22. The similarity of the law of international trade transcends the division of the world between countries of free enterprise and countries of centrally planned economy, and between the legal families of the civil law of Roman inspiration and the common law of English tradition. As a Polish scholar observed, "the law of external trade of the countries of planned economy does not differ in its fundamental principles from the law of external trade of other countries, such as e.g., Austria or Switzerland. Consequently, international trade law specialists of all countries have found without difficulty that they speak a 'common language'<br>23. The reason for this universal similarity of the law of international trade is that this branch of law is based on three fundamental propositions: first, that the parties are free, subject to limitations imposed by the national laws, to contract on whatever terms they are able to agree (principle of the autonomy of the parties' will); secondly, that once the parties have entered into a contract, that contract must be faithfully fulfilled (pacta sunt servanda) and only in very exceptional circumstances does the law excuse a party from performing his obligations, viz., if force majeure or frustration can be established; and, thirdly that arbitration is widely used in international trade for the settlement of disputes, and the awards of arbitration tribunals command far-reaching international recognition and are often capable of enforcement abroad."<br>/{Report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Progressive Development of the Law of International Trade}/ (1966). Report prepared for the UN by C. Schmitthoff. }~
+For those of us with a common law background, and others who pay special attention to cases as you are invited to by interpretation clauses, there is scope for discussion as to the most appropriate approach to be taken with regard to judicial decisions. US judge Cass Sunstein suggestion of judicial minimalism~{ Cass R. Sunstein, /{One Case at a Time - Judicial Minimalism on the Supreme Court}/ (1999) }~ which despite its being developed in a different context~{ His analysis is developed based largely on "hard" constitutional cases of the U.S. }~ is attractive in that it is suited to a liberal democracy in ensuring democratic jurisprudential deliberation. It maintains discussion, debate, and allows for adjustment as appropriate and the gradual development of a common understanding of issues. Much as one may admire farsighted and far-reaching decisions and expositions, there is less chance with the minimalist approach of the (dogmatic) imposition of particular values. Whilst information sharing offers the possibility of the percolation of good ideas.~{ D. Stauffer, /{Introduction to Percolation Theory}/ (London, 1985). Percolation represents the sudden dramatic expansion of a common idea or ideas thought he reaching of a critical level/mass in the rapid recognition of their power and the making of further interconnections. An epidemic like infection of ideas. Not quite the way we are used to the progression of ideas within a conservative tradition. }~ Much as we admire the integrity of Dworkin's Hercules,~{ Ronald Dworkin, /{Laws Empire}/ (Harvard, 1986); /{Hard Cases in Harvard Law Review}/ (1988). }~ that he can consistently deliver single solutions suitable across such disparate socio-economic cultures is questionable. In examining the situation his own "integrity" would likely give him pause and prevent him from dictating that he can.~{ Hercules was created for U.S. Federal Cases and the community represented by the U.S. }~ This position is maintained as a general principle across international commercial law, despite private (as opposed to public) international commercial law not being an area of particularly "hard" cases of principle, and; despite private international commercial law being an area in which over a long history it has been demonstrated that lawyers are able to talk a common language to make themselves and their concepts (which are not dissimilar) understood by each other.~{ In 1966, a time when there were greater differences in the legal systems of States comprising the world economy Clive Schmitthoff was able to comment that: \\ "22. The similarity of the law of international trade transcends the division of the world between countries of free enterprise and countries of centrally planned economy, and between the legal families of the civil law of Roman inspiration and the common law of English tradition. As a Polish scholar observed, "the law of external trade of the countries of planned economy does not differ in its fundamental principles from the law of external trade of other countries, such as e.g., Austria or Switzerland. Consequently, international trade law specialists of all countries have found without difficulty that they speak a 'common language' \\ 23. The reason for this universal similarity of the law of international trade is that this branch of law is based on three fundamental propositions: first, that the parties are free, subject to limitations imposed by the national laws, to contract on whatever terms they are able to agree (principle of the autonomy of the parties' will); secondly, that once the parties have entered into a contract, that contract must be faithfully fulfilled (pacta sunt servanda) and only in very exceptional circumstances does the law excuse a party from performing his obligations, viz., if force majeure or frustration can be established; and, thirdly that arbitration is widely used in international trade for the settlement of disputes, and the awards of arbitration tribunals command far-reaching international recognition and are often capable of enforcement abroad." \\ /{Report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Progressive Development of the Law of International Trade}/ (1966). Report prepared for the UN by C. Schmitthoff. }~
 
 2~ Non-binding interpretative councils and their co-ordinating guides can provide a focal point for the convergence of ideas - certainty, predictability, and efficiency
 
diff --git a/data/v3/samples/content.cory_doctorow.sst b/data/v3/samples/content.cory_doctorow.sst
index 88d90cf..dbf0040 100644
--- a/data/v3/samples/content.cory_doctorow.sst
+++ b/data/v3/samples/content.cory_doctorow.sst
@@ -10,35 +10,28 @@
  :published: 2008-09
 
 @rights:
-  :copyright: Copyright (C) Cory Doctorow, 2008.
-  :license: This entire work (with the exception of the introduction by John Perry Barlow) is copyright 2008 by Cory Doctorow and released under the terms of a Creative Commons US Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/). Some Rights Reserved.<br> The introduction is copyright 2008 by John Perry Barlow and released under the terms of a Creative Commons US Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/). Some Rights Reserved.
+ :copyright: Copyright (C) Cory Doctorow, 2008.
+ :license: This entire work (with the exception of the introduction by John Perry Barlow) is copyright 2008 by Cory Doctorow and released under the terms of a Creative Commons US Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/). Some Rights Reserved. \\ The introduction is copyright 2008 by John Perry Barlow and released under the terms of a Creative Commons US Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/). Some Rights Reserved.
 
 @classify:
- :subject: Selected Essays
  :topic_register: SiSU:markup sample:book;copyright;content;creative commons;intellectual property:content;book:subject:culture|copyright|society|content|social aspects of technology;culture;society;technology:social aspects
+ :subject: Selected Essays
  :oclc: 268676051
  :isbn: 9781892391810
 
+@links:
+ { CONTENT }http://craphound.com/content/
+ { @ Wikipedia }http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Doctorow
+ { @ Amazon.com }http://www.amazon.com/Content-Selected-Technology-Creativity-Copyright/dp/1892391813
+ { @ Barnes & Noble }http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Content/Cory-Doctorow/e/9781892391810/?itm=1&USRI=content+cory+doctorow
+ { SiSU }http://sisudoc.org/
+ { sources / git }http://sources.sisudoc.org/
+
 @make:
  :num_top: 1
  :breaks: break=1
- :skin: skin_content
  :emphasis: italics
-
-@links: { CONTENT }http://craphound.com/content/
- { CONTENT, Cory Doctorow @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/content.cory_doctorow
- {@ Wikipedia }http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Doctorow
- {@ Amazon.com}http://www.amazon.com/Content-Selected-Technology-Creativity-Copyright/dp/1892391813
- {@ Barnes & Noble}http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Content/Cory-Doctorow/e/9781892391810/?itm=1&USRI=content+cory+doctorow
- {Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom, Cory Doctorow @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/down_and_out_in_the_magic_kingdom.cory_doctorow
- { Little Brother, Cory Doctorow @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/little_brother.cory_doctorow
- {For the Win, Cory Doctorow @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/for_the_win.cory_doctorow
- { Free Culture, Lawrence Lessig @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/free_culture.lawrence_lessig
- { The Wealth of Networks, Yochai Benkler @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/the_wealth_of_networks.yochai_benkler
- { Viral Spiral, David Bollier@ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/viral_spiral.david_bollier
- { Democratizing Innovation, Eric von Hippel @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/democratizing_innovation.eric_von_hippel
- { Two Bits, Christopher Kelty @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/two_bits.christopher_kelty
- { Free as in Freedom (on Richard M. Stallman), Sam Williams @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/free_as_in_freedom.richard_stallman_crusade_for_free_software.sam_williams
+ :skin: skin_content
 
 :A~ @title @author
 
diff --git a/data/v3/samples/democratizing_innovation.eric_von_hippel.sst b/data/v3/samples/democratizing_innovation.eric_von_hippel.sst
index f47afc5..132d8bc 100644
--- a/data/v3/samples/democratizing_innovation.eric_von_hippel.sst
+++ b/data/v3/samples/democratizing_innovation.eric_von_hippel.sst
@@ -4,10 +4,21 @@
  :language: US
 
 @creator:
- :author: von Hipel, Eric
+ :author: von Hippel, Eric
+
+@date:
+ :published: 2005
+ :created: 2005
+ :issued: 2005
+ :available: 2005
+ :modified: 2005
+ :valid: 2005
+
+@rights:
+ :copyright: Copyright (C) 2005 Eric von Hippel. Exclusive rights to publish and sell this book in print form in English are licensed to The MIT Press. All other rights are reserved by the author. An electronic version of this book is available under a Creative Commons license.
+ :license:  Creative Commons US Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs license 2.0. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/legalcode Some Rights Reserved. You are free to copy, distribute, display and perform the work, under the following conditions: Attribution, you must give the original author credit; you may not use this work for commercial purposes; No Derivative Works, you may not alter, transform, or build-upon this work. For reuse or distribution you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. Any conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder. Your fair use and other rights are in no way affected by the above.
 
 @classify:
- :type: Book
  :topic_register: SiSU:markup sample:book;innovation;technological innovations:economic aspects;diffusion of innovations;democracy;open source software:innovation
  :isbn: 9780262720472
  :oclc: 56880369
@@ -15,39 +26,20 @@
 % HC79.T4H558 2005
 % 338'.064-dc22    2004061060
 
-@rights:
- :copyright: Copyright (C) 2005 Eric von Hippel. Exclusive rights to publish and sell this book in print form in English are licensed to The MIT Press. All other rights are reserved by the author. An electronic version of this book is available under a Creative Commons license.
- :license:  Creative Commons US Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs license 2.0. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/legalcode Some Rights Reserved. You are free to copy, distribute, display and perform the work, under the following conditions: Attribution, you must give the original author credit; you may not use this work for commercial purposes; No Derivative Works, you may not alter, transform, or build-upon this work. For reuse or distribution you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. Any conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder. Your fair use and other rights are in no way affected by the above.
-
-@date:
- :published: 2005
- :created: 2005
- :issued: 2005
- :available: 2005
- :modified: 2005
- :valid: 2005
+@links:
+ { Democratizing Innovation }http://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www/democ1.htm
+ { Eric von Hippel }http://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www/
+ { @ Wikipedia }http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratizing_Innovation
+ { Democratizing Innovation @ Amazon.com }http://www.amazon.com/Democratizing-Innovation-Eric-Von-Hippel/dp/0262720477
+ { Democratizing Innovation @ Barnes & Noble }http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?isbn=9780262720472
+ { SiSU }http://sisudoc.org/
+ { sources / git }http://sources.sisudoc.org/
 
 @make:
  :breaks: new=:B,C; break=1
  :texpdf_font: Liberation Sans
  :skin: skin_di_von_hippel
 
-@links:
- {Democratizing Innovation}http://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www/democ1.htm
- {Eric von Hippel}http://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www/
- {Democratizing Innovation, Eric von Hippel @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/democratizing_innovation.eric_von_hippel
- {@ Wikipedia}http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratizing_Innovation
- {Viral Spiral, David Bollier@ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/viral_spiral.david_bollier
- {Two Bits, Christopher Kelty @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/two_bits.christopher_kelty
- {Free Culture, Lawrence Lessig @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/free_culture.lawrence_lessig
- {CONTENT, Cory Doctorow @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/content.cory_doctorow
- {Free as in Freedom (on Richard M. Stallman), Sam Williams @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/free_as_in_freedom.richard_stallman_crusade_for_free_software.sam_williams
- {Free For All, Peter Wayner @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/free_for_all.peter_wayner
- {The Cathedral and the Bazaar, Eric S. Raymond @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/the_cathedral_and_the_bazaar.eric_s_raymond
- {Little Brother, Cory Doctorow @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/little_brother.cory_doctorow
- {Democratizing Innovation @ Amazon.com}http://www.amazon.com/Democratizing-Innovation-Eric-Von-Hippel/dp/0262720477
- {Democratizing Innovation @ Barnes & Noble}http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?isbn=9780262720472
-
 :A~ @title @author
 
 1~attribution Attribution~#
diff --git a/data/v3/samples/down_and_out_in_the_magic_kingdom.cory_doctorow.sst b/data/v3/samples/down_and_out_in_the_magic_kingdom.cory_doctorow.sst
index b9aa6a2..ad69f0b 100644
--- a/data/v3/samples/down_and_out_in_the_magic_kingdom.cory_doctorow.sst
+++ b/data/v3/samples/down_and_out_in_the_magic_kingdom.cory_doctorow.sst
@@ -2,55 +2,39 @@
 
 @title: Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom
 
-% http://www.craphound.com/down
-
 @creator:
  :author: Doctorow, Cory
 
-% doctorow@craphound.com
+@date:
+ :published: 2003-01-09
+ :modified: 2010-09-16
 
 @rights:
  :copyright: Copyright © 2003 Cory Doctorow
- :license: Creative Commons, Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 1.0. That means, you are free: <br> to Share - to copy, distribute and transmit the work; <br> to Remix - to adapt the work; <br> Under the following conditions: <br> Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work); <br> Noncommercial - You may not use this work for commercial purposes; <br> Share Alike — If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one. <br> For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. <br> The best way to do this is with a link http://craphound.com/down <br> Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get my permission. More info here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/1.0/ See the end of this document for the complete legalese. <br> RELICENSED from Attribution-NoDerivs-NonCommercial 1.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd-nc/1.0/
-
-% Tor Books, January 2003
+ :license: Creative Commons, Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 1.0. That means, you are free: \\ to Share - to copy, distribute and transmit the work; \\ to Remix - to adapt the work; \\ Under the following conditions: \\ Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work); \\ Noncommercial - You may not use this work for commercial purposes; \\ Share Alike — If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one. \\ For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. \\ The best way to do this is with a link http://craphound.com/down \\ Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get my permission. More info here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/1.0/ See the end of this document for the complete legalese. \\ RELICENSED from Attribution-NoDerivs-NonCommercial 1.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd-nc/1.0/
 
 @classify:
- :subject: novel
  :topic_register: SiSU:markup sample:book;book:novel;fiction:counterculture|young adult|science fiction
+ :subject: novel
  :type: fiction
  :oclc: 50645482
  :isbn: 0765304368
 
-% Realizing his boyhood dream of moving to the twentieth-century artistic creation of Disney World, Jules becomes incensed by a new group that would change the Hall of Presidents by replacing the audioanimatronics with brain interfaces.
+@notes:
+ :description: Realizing his boyhood dream of moving to the twentieth-century artistic creation of Disney World, Jules becomes incensed by a new group that would change the Hall of Presidents by replacing the audioanimatronics with brain interfaces.
 
-% :loc: #___#
-
-@date:
- :published: 2003-01-09
- :modified: 2010-09-16
-
-%  :added_to_site: 20YY-MM-DD
+@links:
+ { Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom home }http://craphound.com/down
+ { @ Wikipedia }http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_and_Out_in_the_Magic_Kingdom
+ { @ Amazon.com }http://www.amazon.com/Down-Magic-Kingdom-Cory-Doctorow/dp/076530953X
+ { @ Barnes & Noble }http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Down-and-Out-in-the-Magic-Kingdom/Cory-Doctorow/e/9780765309532
+ { SiSU }http://sisudoc.org/
+ { sources / git }http://sources.sisudoc.org/
 
 @make:
  :breaks: new=:C; break=1
  :skin: skin_magic_kingdom
 
-@links: { Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom home }http://craphound.com/down
- {Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom, Cory Doctorow @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/down_and_out_in_the_magic_kingdom.cory_doctorow
- {@ Wikipedia }http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_and_Out_in_the_Magic_Kingdom
- {@ Amazon.com}http://www.amazon.com/Down-Magic-Kingdom-Cory-Doctorow/dp/076530953X
- {@ Barnes & Noble}http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Down-and-Out-in-the-Magic-Kingdom/Cory-Doctorow/e/9780765309532
- {Little Brother, Cory Doctorow @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/little_brother.cory_doctorow
- {For the Win, Cory Doctorow @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/for_the_win.cory_doctorow
- {CONTENT, Cory Doctorow @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/content.cory_doctorow
- {Free Culture, Lawrence Lessig @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/free_culture.lawrence_lessig
- {The Wealth of Networks, Yochai Benkler @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/the_wealth_of_networks.yochai_benkler
- {Two Bits, Christopher Kelty @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/two_bits.christopher_kelty
- {Free as in Freedom (on Richard M. Stallman), Sam Williams @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/free_as_in_freedom.richard_stallman_crusade_for_free_software.sam_williams
- {Free For All, Peter Wayner @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/free_for_all.peter_wayner
- {The Cathedral and the Bazaar, Eric S. Raymond @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/the_cathedral_and_the_bazaar.eric_s_raymond
-
 :A~ @title @author
 
 1~blurbs Blurbs:
diff --git a/data/v3/samples/for_the_win.cory_doctorow.sst b/data/v3/samples/for_the_win.cory_doctorow.sst
index 4bc3f23..547e2ef 100644
--- a/data/v3/samples/for_the_win.cory_doctorow.sst
+++ b/data/v3/samples/for_the_win.cory_doctorow.sst
@@ -5,49 +5,36 @@
 @creator:
  :author: Doctorow, Cory
 
-% doctorow@craphound.com
+@date:
+ :modified: 2010-09-16
 
 @rights:
- :copyright: Cory Doctorow
- :license: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 license. That means, you are free: <br> to Share -- to copy, distribute and transmit the work; <br> to Remix -- to adapt the work; <br> Under the following conditions: <br> * Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). <br> * Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes. <br> * Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one. <br> For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. The best way to do this is with a link http://craphound.com/ftw <br> Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get my permission. More info here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ See the end of this document for the complete legalese.
+ :copyright: 2010 Cory Doctorow
+ :license: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 license. That means, you are free: \\ to Share -- to copy, distribute and transmit the work; \\ to Remix -- to adapt the work; \\ Under the following conditions: \\ * Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). \\ * Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes. \\ * Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one. \\ For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. The best way to do this is with a link http://craphound.com/ftw \\ Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get my permission. More info here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ See the end of this document for the complete legalese.
 
 @classify:
- :subject: novel
  :topic_register: SiSU:markup sample:book;book:novel;fiction:counterculture|young adult|science fiction
+ :subject: novel
  :type: fiction
  :oclc: 468976621
  :isbn: 9780765322166
 
-% A group of teens from around the world find themselves drawn into an online revolution arranged by a mysterious young woman known as Big Sister Nor, who hopes to challenge the status quo and change the world using her virtual connections.
+@notes:
+ :description: A group of teens from around the world find themselves drawn into an online revolution arranged by a mysterious young woman known as Big Sister Nor, who hopes to challenge the status quo and change the world using her virtual connections.
 
-%  :loc: #___#
-
-@date:
- :modified: 2010-09-16
-
-%  :published: 20YY-MM-DD
-%  :added_to_site: 20YY-MM-DD
+@links:
+ { For the Win home }http://craphound.com/ftw
+ { @ Wikipedia }http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_The_Win_(Cory_Doctorow_novel)
+ { @ Amazon.com }http://www.amazon.com/Win-Cory-Doctorow/dp/0765322161
+ { @ Barnes & Noble }http://search.barnesandnoble.com/For-the-Win/Cory-Doctorow/e/9780765322166
+ { SiSU }http://sisudoc.org/
+ { sources / git }http://sources.sisudoc.org/
 
 @make:
  :num_top: 1
  :breaks: new=:C; break=1
  :skin: skin_for_the_win
 
-@links: { Little Brother home }http://craphound.com/ftw
- {For the Win, Cory Doctorow @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/for_the_win.cory_doctorow
- {@ Wikipedia }http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_The_Win_(Cory_Doctorow_novel)
- {@ Amazon.com}http://www.amazon.com/Win-Cory-Doctorow/dp/0765322161
- {@ Barnes & Noble}http://search.barnesandnoble.com/For-the-Win/Cory-Doctorow/e/9780765322166
- {Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom, Cory Doctorow @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/down_and_out_in_the_magic_kingdom.cory_doctorow
- {Little Brother, Cory Doctorow @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/little_brother.cory_doctorow
- {CONTENT, Cory Doctorow @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/content.cory_doctorow
- {Free Culture, Lawrence Lessig @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/free_culture.lawrence_lessig
- {The Wealth of Networks, Yochai Benkler @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/the_wealth_of_networks.yochai_benkler
- {Two Bits, Christopher Kelty @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/two_bits.christopher_kelty
- {Free as in Freedom (on Richard M. Stallman), Sam Williams @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/free_as_in_freedom.richard_stallman_crusade_for_free_software.sam_williams
- {Free For All, Peter Wayner @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/free_for_all.peter_wayner
- {The Cathedral and the Bazaar, Eric S. Raymond @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/the_cathedral_and_the_bazaar.eric_s_raymond
-
 :A~ @title @author
 
 1~introduction- INTRODUCTION
diff --git a/data/v3/samples/free_as_in_freedom.richard_stallman_crusade_for_free_software.sam_williams.sst b/data/v3/samples/free_as_in_freedom.richard_stallman_crusade_for_free_software.sam_williams.sst
index 213c76e..090ba03 100644
--- a/data/v3/samples/free_as_in_freedom.richard_stallman_crusade_for_free_software.sam_williams.sst
+++ b/data/v3/samples/free_as_in_freedom.richard_stallman_crusade_for_free_software.sam_williams.sst
@@ -3,7 +3,11 @@
 @title: Free as in Freedom
  :subtitle: Richard Stallman's Crusade for Free Software
 
-@creator: Williams, Sam
+@creator:
+ :author: Williams, Sam
+
+@date:
+ :published: 2002
 
 @rights:
  :copyright: Copyright (C) Sam Williams 2002.
@@ -14,30 +18,17 @@
  :oclc: 49044520
  :isbn: 9780596002879
 
-@date:
- :published: 2002
-
-@notes: March 2002
-
 @links:
  { Home and Source }http://faifzilla.org/
- {Free as in Freedom (on Richard Stallman), Sam Williams @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/free_as_in_freedom.richard_stallman_crusade_for_free_software.sam_williams
- {@ Wikipedia}http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_as_in_Freedom:_Richard_Stallman%27s_Crusade_for_Free_Software
- {@ Amazon.com}http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0596002874
- {@ Barnes & Noble}http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?isbn=0596002874
- {Viral Spiral, David Bollier@ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/viral_spiral.david_bollier
- {Democratizing Innovation, Eric von Hippel @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/democratizing_innovation.eric_von_hippel
- {The Wealth of Networks, Yochai Benkler @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/the_wealth_of_networks.yochai_benkler
- {Two Bits, Christopher Kelty @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/two_bits.christopher_kelty
- {Free For All, Peter Wayner @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/free_for_all.peter_wayner
- {The Cathedral and the Bazaar, Eric S. Raymond @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/the_cathedral_and_the_bazaar.eric_s_raymond
- {Free Culture, Lawrence Lessig @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/free_culture.lawrence_lessig
- {CONTENT, Cory Doctorow @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/content.cory_doctorow
- {Little Brother, Cory Doctorow @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/little_brother.cory_doctorow
+ { @ Wikipedia }http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_as_in_Freedom:_Richard_Stallman%27s_Crusade_for_Free_Software
+ { @ Amazon.com }http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0596002874
+ { @ Barnes & Noble }http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?isbn=0596002874
+ { SiSU }http://sisudoc.org/
+ { sources / git }http://sources.sisudoc.org/
 
 @make:
- :skin: skin_rms
  :breaks: new=:A,:B,:C,1
+ :skin: skin_rms
 
 :A~ @title @author
 
@@ -232,7 +223,7 @@ Once inside the auditorium, a visitor finds the person who has forced this tempo
 
 % extended range for Microsoft
 
-The subject of Stallman's speech is the history and future of the free software movement. The location is significant. Less than a month before, Microsoft senior vice president Craig Mundie appeared at the nearby NYU Stern School of Business, delivering a speech blasting the General Public License, or GPL, a legal device originally conceived by Stallman 16 years before. Built to counteract the growing wave of software secrecy overtaking the computer industry-a wave first noticed by Stallman during his 1980 troubles with the Xerox laser printer-the GPL has evolved into a central tool of the free software community. In simplest terms, the GPL locks software programs into a form of communal ownership-what today's legal scholars now call the "digital commons"-through the legal weight of copyright. Once locked, programs remain unremovable. Derivative versions must carry the same copyright protection-even derivative versions that bear only a small snippet of the original source code. For this reason, some within the software industry have taken to calling the GPL a "viral" license, because it spreads itself to every software program it touches.~{ Actually, the GPL's powers are not quite that potent. According to section 10 of the GNU General Public License, Version 2 (1991), the viral nature of the license depends heavily on the Free Software Foundation's willingness to view a program as a derivative work, not to mention the existing license the GPL would replace.<br>If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author to ask for permission. For software that is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we sometimes make exceptions for this. Our decision will be guided by the two goals of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free software and of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally.<br>"To compare something to a virus is very harsh," says Stallman. "A spider plant is a more accurate comparison; it goes to another place if you actively take a cutting."<br>For more information on the GNU General Public License, visit http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html }~
+The subject of Stallman's speech is the history and future of the free software movement. The location is significant. Less than a month before, Microsoft senior vice president Craig Mundie appeared at the nearby NYU Stern School of Business, delivering a speech blasting the General Public License, or GPL, a legal device originally conceived by Stallman 16 years before. Built to counteract the growing wave of software secrecy overtaking the computer industry-a wave first noticed by Stallman during his 1980 troubles with the Xerox laser printer-the GPL has evolved into a central tool of the free software community. In simplest terms, the GPL locks software programs into a form of communal ownership-what today's legal scholars now call the "digital commons"-through the legal weight of copyright. Once locked, programs remain unremovable. Derivative versions must carry the same copyright protection-even derivative versions that bear only a small snippet of the original source code. For this reason, some within the software industry have taken to calling the GPL a "viral" license, because it spreads itself to every software program it touches.~{ Actually, the GPL's powers are not quite that potent. According to section 10 of the GNU General Public License, Version 2 (1991), the viral nature of the license depends heavily on the Free Software Foundation's willingness to view a program as a derivative work, not to mention the existing license the GPL would replace. \\ If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author to ask for permission. For software that is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we sometimes make exceptions for this. Our decision will be guided by the two goals of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free software and of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally. \\ "To compare something to a virus is very harsh," says Stallman. "A spider plant is a more accurate comparison; it goes to another place if you actively take a cutting." \\ For more information on the GNU General Public License, visit http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html }~
 ={Mundie, Craig+2;NYU Stern School of Business;Stern School of Business (NYU)}
 
 In an information economy increasingly dependent on software and increasingly beholden to software standards, the GPL has become the proverbial "big stick." Even companies that once laughed it off as software socialism have come around to recognize the benefits. Linux, the Unix-like kernel developed by Finnish college student Linus Torvalds in 1991, is licensed under the GPL, as are many of the world's most popular programming tools: GNU Emacs, the GNU Debugger, the GNU C Compiler, etc. Together, these tools form the components of a free software operating system developed, nurtured, and owned by the worldwide hacker community. Instead of viewing this community as a threat, high-tech companies like IBM, Hewlett Packard, and Sun Microsystems have come to rely upon it, selling software applications and services built to ride atop the ever-growing free software infrastructure.
@@ -244,12 +235,12 @@ They've also come to rely upon it as a strategic weapon in the hacker community'
 20 years is a long time in the software industry. Consider this: in 1980, when Richard Stallman was cursing the AI Lab's Xerox laser printer, Microsoft, the company modern hackers view as the most powerful force in the worldwide software industry, was still a privately held startup. IBM, the company hackers used to regard as the most powerful force in the worldwide software industry, had yet to to introduce its first personal computer, thereby igniting the current low-cost PC market. Many of the technologies we now take for granted-the World Wide Web, satellite television, 32-bit video-game consoles-didn't even exist. The same goes for many of the companies that now fill the upper echelons of the corporate establishment, companies like AOL, Sun Microsystems, Amazon.com, Compaq, and Dell. The list goes on and on.
 ={Amazon.com;AOL (America OnLine);Compaq computers;Dell computers;PCs (personal computers);personal computers (PCs)}
 
-The fact that the high-technology marketplace has come so far in such little time is fuel for both sides of the GPL debate. GPL-proponents point to the short lifespan of most computer hardware platforms. Facing the risk of buying an obsolete product, consumers tend to flock to companies with the best long-term survival. As a result, the software marketplace has become a winner-take-all arena.~{ See Shubha Ghosh, "Revealing the Microsoft Windows Source Code," Gigalaw.com (January, 2000).<br> http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/ghosh-2000-01-p1.html }~ The current, privately owned software environment, GPL-proponents say, leads to monopoly abuse and stagnation. Strong companies suck all the oxygen out of the marketplace for rival competitors and innovative startups.
+The fact that the high-technology marketplace has come so far in such little time is fuel for both sides of the GPL debate. GPL-proponents point to the short lifespan of most computer hardware platforms. Facing the risk of buying an obsolete product, consumers tend to flock to companies with the best long-term survival. As a result, the software marketplace has become a winner-take-all arena.~{ See Shubha Ghosh, "Revealing the Microsoft Windows Source Code," Gigalaw.com (January, 2000). \\ http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/ghosh-2000-01-p1.html }~ The current, privately owned software environment, GPL-proponents say, leads to monopoly abuse and stagnation. Strong companies suck all the oxygen out of the marketplace for rival competitors and innovative startups.
 
-GPL-opponents argue just the opposite. Selling software is just as risky, if not more risky, than buying software, they say. Without the legal guarantees provided by private software licenses, not to mention the economic prospects of a privately owned "killer app" (i.e., a breakthrough technology that launches an entirely new market),~{ Killer apps don't have to be proprietary. Witness, of course, the legendary Mosaic browser, a program whose copyright permits noncommercial derivatives with certain restrictions. Still, I think the reader gets the point: the software marketplace is like the lottery. The bigger the potential payoff, the more people want to participate. For a good summary of the killer-app phenomenon, see Philip Ben-David, "Whatever Happened to the `Killer App'?" e-Commerce News (December 7, 2000).<br> http://www.ecommercetimes.com/perl/story/5893.html }~ companies lose the incentive to participate. Once again, the market stagnates and innovation declines. As Mundie himself noted in his May 3 address on the same campus, the GPL's "viral" nature "poses a threat" to any company that relies on the uniqueness of its software as a competitive asset. Added Mundie:
+GPL-opponents argue just the opposite. Selling software is just as risky, if not more risky, than buying software, they say. Without the legal guarantees provided by private software licenses, not to mention the economic prospects of a privately owned "killer app" (i.e., a breakthrough technology that launches an entirely new market),~{ Killer apps don't have to be proprietary. Witness, of course, the legendary Mosaic browser, a program whose copyright permits noncommercial derivatives with certain restrictions. Still, I think the reader gets the point: the software marketplace is like the lottery. The bigger the potential payoff, the more people want to participate. For a good summary of the killer-app phenomenon, see Philip Ben-David, "Whatever Happened to the `Killer App'?" e-Commerce News (December 7, 2000). \\ http://www.ecommercetimes.com/perl/story/5893.html }~ companies lose the incentive to participate. Once again, the market stagnates and innovation declines. As Mundie himself noted in his May 3 address on the same campus, the GPL's "viral" nature "poses a threat" to any company that relies on the uniqueness of its software as a competitive asset. Added Mundie:
 ={Mundie, Craig+2}
 
-_1 It also fundamentally undermines the independent commercial software sector because it effectively makes it impossible to distribute software on a basis where recipients pay for the product rather than just the cost of distribution.~{ See Craig Mundie, "The Commercial Software Model," senior vice president, Microsoft Corp. Excerpted from an online transcript of Mundie's May 3, 2001, speech to the New York University Stern School of Business.<br> http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/craig/05-03sharedsource.asp }~
+_1 It also fundamentally undermines the independent commercial software sector because it effectively makes it impossible to distribute software on a basis where recipients pay for the product rather than just the cost of distribution.~{ See Craig Mundie, "The Commercial Software Model," senior vice president, Microsoft Corp. Excerpted from an online transcript of Mundie's May 3, 2001, speech to the New York University Stern School of Business. \\ http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/craig/05-03sharedsource.asp }~
 
 The mutual success of GNU/Linux, the amalgamated operating system built around the GPL-protected Linux kernel, and Windows over the last 10 years reveals the wisdom of both perspectives. Nevertheless, the battle for momentum is an important one in the software industry. Even powerful vendors such as Microsoft rely on the support of third-party software developers whose tools, programs, and computer games make an underlying software platform such as Windows more attractive to the mainstream consumer. Citing the rapid evolution of the technology marketplace over the last 20 years, not to mention his own company's admirable track record during that period, Mundie advised listeners to not get too carried away by the free software movement's recent momentum:
 ={GNU Project:Linux and, mutual success of;Linux:GNU Project and;third-party software developers supporting Microsoft}
@@ -308,7 +299,7 @@ Richard Matthew Stallman's rise from frustrated academic to political leader ove
 
 Most importantly, it speaks to the changing nature of political power in a world increasingly beholden to computer technology and the software programs that power that technology.
 
-Maybe that's why, even at a time when most high-technology stars are on the wane, Stallman's star has grown. Since launching the GNU Project in 1984,~{ The acronym GNU stands for "GNU's not Unix." In another portion of the May 29, 2001, NYU speech, Stallman summed up the acronym's origin:<br>_1 We hackers always look for a funny or naughty name for a program, because naming a program is half the fun of writing the program. We also had a tradition of recursive acronyms, to say that the program that you're writing is similar to some existing program . . . I looked for a recursive acronym for Something Is Not UNIX. And I tried all 26 letters and discovered that none of them was a word. I decided to make it a contraction. That way I could have a three-letter acronym, for Something's Not UNIX. And I tried letters, and I came across the word "GNU." That was it.<br>_1 Although a fan of puns, Stallman recommends that software users pronounce the "g" at the beginning of the acronym (i.e., "gah-new"). Not only does this avoid confusion with the word "gnu," the name of the African antelope, Connochaetes gnou, it also avoids confusion with the adjective "new." "We've been working on it for 17 years now, so it is not exactly new any more," Stallman says.<br>Source: author notes and online transcript of "Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation," Richard Stallman's May 29, 2001, speech at New York University.<br> http://www.gnu.org/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt }~ Stallman has been at turns ignored, satirized, vilified, and attacked-both from within and without the free software movement. Through it all, the GNU Project has managed to meet its milestones, albeit with a few notorious delays, and stay relevant in a software marketplace several orders of magnitude more complex than the one it entered 18 years ago. So too has the free software ideology, an ideology meticulously groomed by Stallman himself.
+Maybe that's why, even at a time when most high-technology stars are on the wane, Stallman's star has grown. Since launching the GNU Project in 1984,~{ The acronym GNU stands for "GNU's not Unix." In another portion of the May 29, 2001, NYU speech, Stallman summed up the acronym's origin: \\ _1 We hackers always look for a funny or naughty name for a program, because naming a program is half the fun of writing the program. We also had a tradition of recursive acronyms, to say that the program that you're writing is similar to some existing program . . . I looked for a recursive acronym for Something Is Not UNIX. And I tried all 26 letters and discovered that none of them was a word. I decided to make it a contraction. That way I could have a three-letter acronym, for Something's Not UNIX. And I tried letters, and I came across the word "GNU." That was it. \\ _1 Although a fan of puns, Stallman recommends that software users pronounce the "g" at the beginning of the acronym (i.e., "gah-new"). Not only does this avoid confusion with the word "gnu," the name of the African antelope, Connochaetes gnou, it also avoids confusion with the adjective "new." "We've been working on it for 17 years now, so it is not exactly new any more," Stallman says. \\ Source: author notes and online transcript of "Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation," Richard Stallman's May 29, 2001, speech at New York University. \\ http://www.gnu.org/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt }~ Stallman has been at turns ignored, satirized, vilified, and attacked-both from within and without the free software movement. Through it all, the GNU Project has managed to meet its milestones, albeit with a few notorious delays, and stay relevant in a software marketplace several orders of magnitude more complex than the one it entered 18 years ago. So too has the free software ideology, an ideology meticulously groomed by Stallman himself.
 
 To understand the reasons behind this currency, it helps to examine Richard Stallman both in his own words and in the words of the people who have collaborated and battled with him along the way. The Richard Stallman character sketch is not a complicated one. If any person exemplifies the old adage "what you see is what you get," it's Stallman.
 
@@ -348,7 +339,7 @@ Thirty years after the fact, Lippman punctuates the memory with a laugh. "To tel
 Seated at the dining-room table of her second Manhattan apartment-the same spacious three-bedroom complex she and her son moved to following her 1967 marriage to Maurice Lippman, now deceased-Alice Lippman exudes a Jewish mother's mixture of pride and bemusement when recalling her son's early years. The nearby dining-room credenza offers an eight-by-ten photo of Stallman glowering in full beard and doctoral robes. The image dwarfs accompanying photos of Lippman's nieces and nephews, but before a visitor can make too much of it, Lippman makes sure to balance its prominent placement with an ironic wisecrack.
 ={Lippman, Maurice}
 
-"Richard insisted I have it after he received his honorary doctorate at the University of Glasgow," says Lippman. "He said to me, `Guess what, mom? It's the first graduation I ever attended.'"~{ See Michael Gross, "Richard Stallman: High School Misfit, Symbol of Free Software, MacArthur-certified Genius" (1999). This interview is one of the most candid Stallman interviews on the record. I recommend it highly.<br> http://www.mgross.com/interviews/stallman1.html }~
+"Richard insisted I have it after he received his honorary doctorate at the University of Glasgow," says Lippman. "He said to me, `Guess what, mom? It's the first graduation I ever attended.'"~{ See Michael Gross, "Richard Stallman: High School Misfit, Symbol of Free Software, MacArthur-certified Genius" (1999). This interview is one of the most candid Stallman interviews on the record. I recommend it highly. \\ http://www.mgross.com/interviews/stallman1.html }~
 ={University of Glasgow}
 
 Such comments reflect the sense of humor that comes with raising a child prodigy. Make no mistake, for every story Lippman hears and reads about her son's stubbornness and unusual behavior, she can deliver at least a dozen in return.
@@ -391,10 +382,10 @@ Seth Breidbart, a fellow Columbia Science Honors Program alumnus, offers bolster
 
 "It's hard to describe," Breidbart says. "It wasn't like he was unapproachable. He was just very intense. [He was] very knowledgeable but also very hardheaded in some ways."
 
-Such descriptions give rise to speculation: are judgment-laden adjectives like "intense" and "hardheaded" simply a way to describe traits that today might be categorized under juvenile behavioral disorder? A December, 2001, /{Wired}/ magazine article titled "The Geek Syndrome" paints the portrait of several scientifically gifted children diagnosed with high-functioning autism or Asperger Syndrome. In many ways, the parental recollections recorded in the Wired article are eerily similar to the ones offered by Lippman. Even Stallman has indulged in psychiatric revisionism from time to time. During a 2000 profile for the /{Toronto Star}/, Stallman described himself to an interviewer as "borderline autistic,"~{ See Judy Steed, /{Toronto Star}/, BUSINESS, (October 9, 2000): C03.<br>His vision of free software and social cooperation stands in stark contrast to the isolated nature of his private life. A Glenn Gould-like eccentric, the Canadian pianist was similarly brilliant, articulate, and lonely. Stallman considers himself afflicted, to some degree, by autism: a condition that, he says, makes it difficult for him to interact with people. }~ a description that goes a long way toward explaining a lifelong tendency toward social and emotional isolation and the equally lifelong effort to overcome it.
+Such descriptions give rise to speculation: are judgment-laden adjectives like "intense" and "hardheaded" simply a way to describe traits that today might be categorized under juvenile behavioral disorder? A December, 2001, /{Wired}/ magazine article titled "The Geek Syndrome" paints the portrait of several scientifically gifted children diagnosed with high-functioning autism or Asperger Syndrome. In many ways, the parental recollections recorded in the Wired article are eerily similar to the ones offered by Lippman. Even Stallman has indulged in psychiatric revisionism from time to time. During a 2000 profile for the /{Toronto Star}/, Stallman described himself to an interviewer as "borderline autistic,"~{ See Judy Steed, /{Toronto Star}/, BUSINESS, (October 9, 2000): C03. \\ His vision of free software and social cooperation stands in stark contrast to the isolated nature of his private life. A Glenn Gould-like eccentric, the Canadian pianist was similarly brilliant, articulate, and lonely. Stallman considers himself afflicted, to some degree, by autism: a condition that, he says, makes it difficult for him to interact with people. }~ a description that goes a long way toward explaining a lifelong tendency toward social and emotional isolation and the equally lifelong effort to overcome it.
 ={Asperger Syndrome+1;autism+5;Geek Syndrome, The (Silberman)+1;Wired magazine;Toronto Star;Silberman, Steve+1;Stallman, Richard M.:behavioral disorders+1}
 
-Such speculation benefits from the fast and loose nature of most so-called "behavioral disorders" nowadays, of course. As Steve Silberman, author of "The Geek Syndrome," notes, American psychiatrists have only recently come to accept Asperger Syndrome as a valid umbrella term covering a wide set of behavioral traits. The traits range from poor motor skills and poor socialization to high intelligence and an almost obsessive affinity for numbers, computers, and ordered systems.~{ See Steve Silberman, "The Geek Syndrome," Wired (December, 2001).<br> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.12/aspergers_pr.html }~ Reflecting on the broad nature of this umbrella, Stallman says its possible that, if born 40 years later, he might have merited just such a diagnosis. Then again, so would many of his computer-world colleagues.
+Such speculation benefits from the fast and loose nature of most so-called "behavioral disorders" nowadays, of course. As Steve Silberman, author of "The Geek Syndrome," notes, American psychiatrists have only recently come to accept Asperger Syndrome as a valid umbrella term covering a wide set of behavioral traits. The traits range from poor motor skills and poor socialization to high intelligence and an almost obsessive affinity for numbers, computers, and ordered systems.~{ See Steve Silberman, "The Geek Syndrome," Wired (December, 2001). \\ http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.12/aspergers_pr.html }~ Reflecting on the broad nature of this umbrella, Stallman says its possible that, if born 40 years later, he might have merited just such a diagnosis. Then again, so would many of his computer-world colleagues.
 ={Stallman, Richard M.:childhood, behavioral disorders}
 
 "It's possible I could have had something like that," he says. "On the other hand, one of the aspects of that syndrome is difficulty following rhythms. I can dance. In fact, I love following the most complicated rhythms. It's not clear cut enough to know."
@@ -598,7 +589,7 @@ Looking back, Stallman sees nothing unusual in the AI Lab's willingness to accep
 To get a taste of "bureaucratic and stuffy," Stallman need only visit the computer labs at Harvard. There, access to the terminals was doled out according to academic rank. As an undergrad, Stallman usually had to sign up or wait until midnight, about the time most professors and grad students finished their daily work assignments. The waiting wasn't difficult, but it was frustrating. Waiting for a public terminal, knowing all the while that a half dozen equally usable machines were sitting idle inside professors' locked offices, seemed the height of illogic. Although Stallman paid the occasional visit to the Harvard computer labs, he preferred the more egalitarian policies of the AI Lab. "It was a breath of fresh air," he says. "At the AI Lab, people seemed more concerned about work than status."
 ={Harvard University:computer labs}
 
-Stallman quickly learned that the AI Lab's first-come, first-served policy owed much to the efforts of a vigilant few. Many were holdovers from the days of Project MAC, the Department of Defense-funded research program that had given birth to the first time-share operating systems. A few were already legends in the computing world. There was Richard Greenblatt, the lab's in-house Lisp expert and author of MacHack, the computer chess program that had once humbled A.I. critic Hubert Dreyfus. There was Gerald Sussman, original author of the robotic block-stacking program HACKER. And there was Bill Gosper, the in-house math whiz already in the midst of an 18-month hacking bender triggered by the philosophical implications of the computer game LIFE.~{ See Steven Levy, Hackers (Penguin USA [paperback], 1984): 144.<br>Levy devotes about five pages to describing Gosper's fascination with LIFE, a math-based software game first created by British mathematician John Conway. I heartily recommend this book as a supplement, perhaps even a prerequisite, to this one. }~
+Stallman quickly learned that the AI Lab's first-come, first-served policy owed much to the efforts of a vigilant few. Many were holdovers from the days of Project MAC, the Department of Defense-funded research program that had given birth to the first time-share operating systems. A few were already legends in the computing world. There was Richard Greenblatt, the lab's in-house Lisp expert and author of MacHack, the computer chess program that had once humbled A.I. critic Hubert Dreyfus. There was Gerald Sussman, original author of the robotic block-stacking program HACKER. And there was Bill Gosper, the in-house math whiz already in the midst of an 18-month hacking bender triggered by the philosophical implications of the computer game LIFE.~{ See Steven Levy, Hackers (Penguin USA [paperback], 1984): 144. \\ Levy devotes about five pages to describing Gosper's fascination with LIFE, a math-based software game first created by British mathematician John Conway. I heartily recommend this book as a supplement, perhaps even a prerequisite, to this one. }~
 ={Dreyfus, Hubert;Gosper, Bill;Greenblat, Richard;LIFE mathematical game;LISP programming language;MacHack;Project MAC;Sussman, Gerald+2}
 
 Members of the tight-knit group called themselves "hackers." Over time, they extended the "hacker" description to Stallman as well. In the process of doing so, they inculcated Stallman in the ethical traditions of the "hacker ethic ." To be a hacker meant more than just writing programs, Stallman learned. It meant writing the best possible programs. It meant sitting at a terminal for 36 hours straight if that's what it took to write the best possible programs. Most importantly, it meant having access to the best possible machines and the most useful information at all times. Hackers spoke openly about changing the world through software, and Stallman learned the instinctual hacker disdain for any obstacle that prevented a hacker from fulfilling this noble cause. Chief among these obstacles were poor software, academic bureaucracy, and selfish behavior.
@@ -624,7 +615,7 @@ Using this feature, Stallman was able to watch how programs written by hackers p
 
 By the end of 1970, hacking at the AI Lab had become a regular part of Stallman's weekly schedule. From Monday to Thursday, Stallman devoted his waking hours to his Harvard classes. As soon as Friday afternoon arrived, however, he was on the T, heading down to MIT for the weekend. Stallman usually timed his arrival to coincide with the ritual food run. Joining five or six other hackers in their nightly quest for Chinese food, he would jump inside a beat-up car and head across the Harvard Bridge into nearby Boston. For the next two hours, he and his hacker colleagues would discuss everything from ITS to the internal logic of the Chinese language and pictograph system. Following dinner, the group would return to MIT and hack code until dawn.
 
-For the geeky outcast who rarely associated with his high-school peers, it was a heady experience, suddenly hanging out with people who shared the same predilection for computers, science fiction, and Chinese food. "I remember many sunrises seen from a car coming back from Chinatown," Stallman would recall nostalgically, 15 years after the fact in a speech at the Swedish Royal Technical Institute. "It was actually a very beautiful thing to see a sunrise, 'cause that's such a calm time of day. It's a wonderful time of day to get ready to go to bed. It's so nice to walk home with the light just brightening and the birds starting to chirp; you can get a real feeling of gentle satisfaction, of tranquility about the work that you have done that night."~{ See Richard Stallman, "RMS lecture at KTH (Sweden)," (October 30, 1986).<br> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/stallman-kth.html }~
+For the geeky outcast who rarely associated with his high-school peers, it was a heady experience, suddenly hanging out with people who shared the same predilection for computers, science fiction, and Chinese food. "I remember many sunrises seen from a car coming back from Chinatown," Stallman would recall nostalgically, 15 years after the fact in a speech at the Swedish Royal Technical Institute. "It was actually a very beautiful thing to see a sunrise, 'cause that's such a calm time of day. It's a wonderful time of day to get ready to go to bed. It's so nice to walk home with the light just brightening and the birds starting to chirp; you can get a real feeling of gentle satisfaction, of tranquility about the work that you have done that night."~{ See Richard Stallman, "RMS lecture at KTH (Sweden)," (October 30, 1986). \\ http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/stallman-kth.html }~
 ={Swedish Royal Technical Institute}
 
 The more Stallman hung out with the hackers, the more he adopted the hacker worldview. Already committed to the notion of personal liberty, Stallman began to infuse his actions with a sense of communal responsibility. When others violated the communal code, Stallman was quick to speak out. Within a year of his first visit, Stallman was the one breaking into locked offices, trying to recover the sequestered terminals that belonged to the lab community as a whole. In true hacker fashion, Stallman also sought to make his own personal contribution to the art of lock hacking. One of the most artful door-opening tricks, commonly attributed to Greenblatt, involved bending a stiff wire into a cane and attaching a loop of tape to the long end. Sliding the wire under the door, a hacker could twist and rotate the wire so that the long end touched the door knob. Provided the adhesive on the tape held, a hacker could open the doorknob with a few sharp twists.
@@ -694,7 +685,7 @@ Ask anyone who's spent more than a minute in Richard Stallman's presence, and yo
 
 To call the Stallman gaze intense is an understatement. Stallman's eyes don't just look at you; they look through you. Even when your own eyes momentarily shift away out of simple primate politeness, Stallman's eyes remain locked-in, sizzling away at the side of your head like twin photon beams.
 
-Maybe that's why most writers, when describing Stallman, tend to go for the religious angle. In a 1998 Salon.com article titled "The Saint of Free Software," Andrew Leonard describes Stallman's green eyes as "radiating the power of an Old Testament prophet."~{ See Andrew Leonard, "The Saint of Free Software," Salon.com (August 1998).<br> http://www.salon.com/21st/feature/1998/08/cov_31feature.html }~ A 1999 /{Wired}/ magazine article describes the Stallman beard as "Rasputin-like,"~{ See Leander Kahney, "Linux's Forgotten Man," Wired News (March 5, 1999).<br> http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,18291,00.html }~ while a /{London Guardian}/ profile describes the Stallman smile as the smile of "a disciple seeing Jesus."~{ See "Programmer on moral high ground; Free software is a moral issue for Richard Stallman believes in freedom and free software." London Guardian (November 6, 1999).<br>These are just a small sampling of the religious comparisons. To date, the most extreme comparison has to go to Linus Torvalds, who, in his autobiography-see Linus Torvalds and David Diamond, Just For Fun: The Story of an Accidentaly Revolutionary (HarperCollins Publishers, Inc., 2001): 58-writes "Richard Stallman is the God of Free Software."<br>Honorable mention goes to Larry Lessig, who, in a footnote description of Stallman in his book-see Larry Lessig, The Future of Ideas (Random House, 2001): 270-likens Stallman to Moses:<br>_1 ... as with Moses, it was another leader, Linus Torvalds, who finally carried the movement into the promised land by facilitating the development of the final part of the OS puzzle. Like Moses, too, Stallman is both respected and reviled by allies within the movement. He is [an] unforgiving, and hence for many inspiring, leader of a critically important aspect of modern culture. I have deep respect for the principle and commitment of this extraordinary individual, though I also have great respect for those who are courageous enough to question his thinking and then sustain his wrath.<br>In a final interview with Stallman, I asked him his thoughts about the religious comparisons. "Some people do compare me with an Old Testament prophent, and the reason is Old Testament prophets said certain social practices were wrong. They wouldn't compromise on moral issues. They couldn't be bought off, and they were usually treated with contempt." }~
+Maybe that's why most writers, when describing Stallman, tend to go for the religious angle. In a 1998 Salon.com article titled "The Saint of Free Software," Andrew Leonard describes Stallman's green eyes as "radiating the power of an Old Testament prophet."~{ See Andrew Leonard, "The Saint of Free Software," Salon.com (August 1998). \\ http://www.salon.com/21st/feature/1998/08/cov_31feature.html }~ A 1999 /{Wired}/ magazine article describes the Stallman beard as "Rasputin-like,"~{ See Leander Kahney, "Linux's Forgotten Man," Wired News (March 5, 1999). \\ http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,18291,00.html }~ while a /{London Guardian}/ profile describes the Stallman smile as the smile of "a disciple seeing Jesus."~{ See "Programmer on moral high ground; Free software is a moral issue for Richard Stallman believes in freedom and free software." London Guardian (November 6, 1999). \\ These are just a small sampling of the religious comparisons. To date, the most extreme comparison has to go to Linus Torvalds, who, in his autobiography-see Linus Torvalds and David Diamond, Just For Fun: The Story of an Accidentaly Revolutionary (HarperCollins Publishers, Inc., 2001): 58-writes "Richard Stallman is the God of Free Software." \\ Honorable mention goes to Larry Lessig, who, in a footnote description of Stallman in his book-see Larry Lessig, The Future of Ideas (Random House, 2001): 270-likens Stallman to Moses: \\ _1 ... as with Moses, it was another leader, Linus Torvalds, who finally carried the movement into the promised land by facilitating the development of the final part of the OS puzzle. Like Moses, too, Stallman is both respected and reviled by allies within the movement. He is [an] unforgiving, and hence for many inspiring, leader of a critically important aspect of modern culture. I have deep respect for the principle and commitment of this extraordinary individual, though I also have great respect for those who are courageous enough to question his thinking and then sustain his wrath. \\ In a final interview with Stallman, I asked him his thoughts about the religious comparisons. "Some people do compare me with an Old Testament prophent, and the reason is Old Testament prophets said certain social practices were wrong. They wouldn't compromise on moral issues. They couldn't be bought off, and they were usually treated with contempt." }~
 ={Wired magazine;Leonard, Andrew;London Guardian;Salon.com}
 
 Such analogies serve a purpose, but they ultimately fall short. That's because they fail to take into account the vulnerable side of the Stallman persona. Watch the Stallman gaze for an extended period of time, and you will begin to notice a subtle change. What appears at first to be an attempt to intimidate or hypnotize reveals itself upon second and third viewing as a frustrated attempt to build and maintain contact. If, as Stallman himself has suspected from time to time, his personality is the product of autism or Asperger Syndrome, his eyes certainly confirm the diagnosis. Even at their most high-beam level of intensity, they have a tendency to grow cloudy and distant, like the eyes of a wounded animal preparing to give up the ghost.
@@ -756,7 +747,7 @@ Stallman's body bears witness to the tragedy. Lack of exercise has left Stallman
 
 The walk is further slowed by Stallman's willingness to stop and smell the roses, literally. Spotting a particularly beautiful blossom, he tickles the innermost petals with his prodigious nose, takes a deep sniff and steps back with a contented sigh.
 
-"Mmm, rhinophytophilia,"~{ At the time, I thought Stallman was referring to the flower's scientific name. Months later, I would learn that rhinophytophilia was in fact a humorous reference to the activity, i.e., Stallman sticking his nose into a flower and enjoying the moment. For another humorous Stallman flower incident, visit:<br> http://www.stallman.org/texas.html }~ he says, rubbing his back.
+"Mmm, rhinophytophilia,"~{ At the time, I thought Stallman was referring to the flower's scientific name. Months later, I would learn that rhinophytophilia was in fact a humorous reference to the activity, i.e., Stallman sticking his nose into a flower and enjoying the moment. For another humorous Stallman flower incident, visit: \\ http://www.stallman.org/texas.html }~ he says, rubbing his back.
 
 The drive to the restaurant takes less than three minutes. Upon recommendation from Tim Ney, former executive director of the Free Software Foundation, I have let Stallman choose the restaurant. While some reporters zero in on Stallman's monk-like lifestyle, the truth is, Stallman is a committed epicure when it comes to food. One of the fringe benefits of being a traveling missionary for the free software cause is the ability to sample delicious food from around the world. "Visit almost any major city in the world, and chances are Richard knows the best restaurant in town," says Ney. "Richard also takes great pride in knowing what's on the menu and ordering for the entire table."
 ={Ney, Tim}
@@ -781,7 +772,7 @@ The conversation shifts to Napster, the San Mateo, California software company,
 
 Although based on proprietary software, the Napster system draws inspiration from the long-held Stallman contention that once a work enters the digital realm-in other words, once making a copy is less a matter of duplicating sounds or duplicating atoms and more a matter of duplicating information-the natural human impulse to share a work becomes harder to restrict. Rather than impose additional restrictions, Napster execs have decided to take advantage of the impulse. Giving music listeners a central place to trade music files, the company has gambled on its ability to steer the resulting user traffic toward other commercial opportunities.
 
-The sudden success of the Napster model has put the fear in traditional record companies, with good reason. Just days before my Palo Alto meeting with Stallman, U.S. District Court Judge Marilyn Patel granted a request filed by the Recording Industry Association of America for an injunction against the file-sharing service. The injunction was subsequently suspended by the U.S. Ninth District Court of Appeals, but by early 2001, the Court of Appeals, too, would find the San Mateo-based company in breach of copyright law,~{ See Cecily Barnes and Scott Ard, "Court Grants Stay of Napster Injunction," News.com (July 28, 2000).<br> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-2376465.html }~ a decision RIAA spokesperson Hillary Rosen would later proclaim proclaim a "clear victory for the creative content community and the legitimate online marketplace."~{ See "A Clear Victory for Recording Industry in Napster Case," RIAA press release (February 12, 2001).<br> http://www.riaa.com/PR_story.cfm?id=372 }~
+The sudden success of the Napster model has put the fear in traditional record companies, with good reason. Just days before my Palo Alto meeting with Stallman, U.S. District Court Judge Marilyn Patel granted a request filed by the Recording Industry Association of America for an injunction against the file-sharing service. The injunction was subsequently suspended by the U.S. Ninth District Court of Appeals, but by early 2001, the Court of Appeals, too, would find the San Mateo-based company in breach of copyright law,~{ See Cecily Barnes and Scott Ard, "Court Grants Stay of Napster Injunction," News.com (July 28, 2000). \\ http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-2376465.html }~ a decision RIAA spokesperson Hillary Rosen would later proclaim proclaim a "clear victory for the creative content community and the legitimate online marketplace."~{ See "A Clear Victory for Recording Industry in Napster Case," RIAA press release (February 12, 2001). \\ http://www.riaa.com/PR_story.cfm?id=372 }~
 
 For hackers such as Stallman, the Napster business model is scary in different ways. The company's eagerness to appropriate time-worn hacker principles such as file sharing and communal information ownership, while at the same time selling a service based on proprietary software, sends a distressing mixed message. As a person who already has a hard enough time getting his own carefully articulated message into the media stream, Stallman is understandably reticent when it comes to speaking out about the company. Still, Stallman does admit to learning a thing or two from the social side of the Napster phenomenon.
 
@@ -804,7 +795,7 @@ I turn to look, catching a glimpse of a woman's back. The woman is young, somewh
 
 "Oh, no," he says. "They're gone. And to think, I'll probably never even get to see her again."
 
-After a brief sigh, Stallman recovers. The moment gives me a chance to discuss Stallman's reputation vis-ý-vis the fairer sex. The reputation is a bit contradictory at times. A number of hackers report Stallman's predilection for greeting females with a kiss on the back of the hand.~{ See Mae Ling Mak, "Mae Ling's Story" (December 17, 1998).<br> http://www.crackmonkey.org/pipermail/crackmonkey/1998q4/003006.htm <br>So far, Mak is the only person I've found willing to speak on the record in regard to this practice, although I've heard this from a few other female sources. Mak, despite expressing initial revulsion at it, later managed to put aside her misgivings and dance with Stallman at a 1999 LinuxWorld show.<br> http://www.linux.com/interact/potd.phtml?potd_id=44 }~ A May 26, 2000 Salon.com article, meanwhile, portrays Stallman as a bit of a hacker lothario. Documenting the free software-free love connection, reporter Annalee Newitz presents Stallman as rejecting traditional family values, telling her, "I believe in love, but not monogamy."~{ See Annalee Newitz, "If Code is Free Why Not Me?" Salon.com (May 26, 2000).<br> http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/05/26/free_love/print.html }~
+After a brief sigh, Stallman recovers. The moment gives me a chance to discuss Stallman's reputation vis-ý-vis the fairer sex. The reputation is a bit contradictory at times. A number of hackers report Stallman's predilection for greeting females with a kiss on the back of the hand.~{ See Mae Ling Mak, "Mae Ling's Story" (December 17, 1998). \\ http://www.crackmonkey.org/pipermail/crackmonkey/1998q4/003006.htm \\ So far, Mak is the only person I've found willing to speak on the record in regard to this practice, although I've heard this from a few other female sources. Mak, despite expressing initial revulsion at it, later managed to put aside her misgivings and dance with Stallman at a 1999 LinuxWorld show. \\ http://www.linux.com/interact/potd.phtml?potd_id=44 }~ A May 26, 2000 Salon.com article, meanwhile, portrays Stallman as a bit of a hacker lothario. Documenting the free software-free love connection, reporter Annalee Newitz presents Stallman as rejecting traditional family values, telling her, "I believe in love, but not monogamy."~{ See Annalee Newitz, "If Code is Free Why Not Me?" Salon.com (May 26, 2000). \\ http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/05/26/free_love/print.html }~
 ={Newitz, Annalee;Salon.com}
 
 Stallman lets his menu drop a little when I bring this up. "Well, most men seem to want sex and seem to have a rather contemptuous attitude towards women," he says. "Even women they're involved with. I can't understand it at all."
@@ -848,7 +839,7 @@ Stallman asks me if I would be interested in hearing the folk filk. As soon as I
 
 _1 How much wood could a woodchuck chuck,If a woodchuck could chuck wood? How many poles could a polak lock,If a polak could lock poles? How many knees could a negro grow, If a negro could grow knees? The answer, my dear, is stick it in your ear.The answer is to stick it in your ear.
 
-The singing ends, and Stallman's lips curl into another child-like half smile. I glance around at the nearby tables. The Asian families enjoying their Sunday lunch pay little attention to the bearded alto in their midst.~{ For more Stallman filks, visit<br> http://www.stallman.org/doggerel.html. To hear Stallman singing "The Free Software Song," visit<br> http://www.gnu.org/music/free-software-song.html. }~ After a few moments of hesitation, I finally smile too.
+The singing ends, and Stallman's lips curl into another child-like half smile. I glance around at the nearby tables. The Asian families enjoying their Sunday lunch pay little attention to the bearded alto in their midst.~{ For more Stallman filks, visit \\ http://www.stallman.org/doggerel.html. To hear Stallman singing "The Free Software Song," visit \\ http://www.gnu.org/music/free-software-song.html. }~ After a few moments of hesitation, I finally smile too.
 
 "Do you want that last cornball?" Stallman asks, eyes twinkling. Before I can screw up the punch line, Stallman grabs the corn-encrusted dumpling with his two chopsticks and lifts it proudly. "Maybe I'm the one who should get the cornball," he says.
 
@@ -912,7 +903,7 @@ The waiter, uncomprehending or fooled by the look of the bill, smiles and scurri
 The AI Lab of the 1970s was by all accounts a special place. Cutting-edge projects and top-flight researchers gave it an esteemed position in the world of computer science. The internal hacker culture and its anarchic policies lent a rebellious mystique as well. Only later, when many of the lab's scientists and software superstars had departed, would hackers fully realize the unique and ephemeral world they had once inhabited.
 ={AI Lab (Artificial Intelligence Laboratory)+17}
 
-"It was a bit like the Garden of Eden," says Stallman, summing up the lab and its software-sharing ethos in a 1998 Forbes article. "It hadn't occurred to us not to cooperate."~{ See Josh McHugh, "For the Love of Hacking," Forbes (August 10, 1998).<br> http://www.forbes.com/forbes/1998/0810/6203094a.html }~
+"It was a bit like the Garden of Eden," says Stallman, summing up the lab and its software-sharing ethos in a 1998 Forbes article. "It hadn't occurred to us not to cooperate."~{ See Josh McHugh, "For the Love of Hacking," Forbes (August 10, 1998). \\ http://www.forbes.com/forbes/1998/0810/6203094a.html }~
 
 Such mythological descriptions, while extreme, underline an important fact. The ninth floor of 545 Tech Square was more than a workplace for many. For hackers such as Stallman, it was home.
 
@@ -969,13 +960,13 @@ During the late 1960s, interface design made additional leaps. In a famous 1968
 Such innovations would take another two decades to make their way into the commercial marketplace. Still, by the 1970s, video screens had started to replace teletypes as display terminals, creating the potential for full-screen-as opposed to line-by-line-editing capabilities.
 ={display terminals, replacing teletypes;video screens}
 
-One of the first programs to take advantage of this full-screen capability was the MIT AI Lab's TECO. Short for Text Editor and COrrector, the program had been upgraded by hackers from an old teletype line editor for the lab's PDP-6 machine.~{ According to the Jargon File, TECO's name originally stood for Tape Editor and Corrector.<br> http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/TECO.html }~
+One of the first programs to take advantage of this full-screen capability was the MIT AI Lab's TECO. Short for Text Editor and COrrector, the program had been upgraded by hackers from an old teletype line editor for the lab's PDP-6 machine.~{ According to the Jargon File, TECO's name originally stood for Tape Editor and Corrector. \\ http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/TECO.html }~
 
-TECO was a substantial improvement over old editors, but it still had its drawbacks. To create and edit a document, a programmer had to enter a series of software commands specifying each edit. It was an abstract process. Unlike modern word processors, which update text with each keystroke, TECO demanded that the user enter an extended series of editing instructions followed by an "end of command" sequence just to change the text.Over time, a hacker grew proficient enough to write entire documents in edit mode, but as Stallman himself would later point out, the process required "a mental skill like that of blindfold chess."~{ See Richard Stallman, "EMACS: The Extensible, Customizable, Display Editor," AI Lab Memo (1979). An updated HTML version of this memo, from which I am quoting, is available at<br> http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/emacs-paper.html }~
+TECO was a substantial improvement over old editors, but it still had its drawbacks. To create and edit a document, a programmer had to enter a series of software commands specifying each edit. It was an abstract process. Unlike modern word processors, which update text with each keystroke, TECO demanded that the user enter an extended series of editing instructions followed by an "end of command" sequence just to change the text.Over time, a hacker grew proficient enough to write entire documents in edit mode, but as Stallman himself would later point out, the process required "a mental skill like that of blindfold chess."~{ See Richard Stallman, "EMACS: The Extensible, Customizable, Display Editor," AI Lab Memo (1979). An updated HTML version of this memo, from which I am quoting, is available at \\ http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/emacs-paper.html }~
 
 To facilitate the process, AI Lab hackers had built a system that displayed both the "source" and "display" modes on a split screen. Despite this innovative hack, switching from mode to mode was still a nuisance.
 
-TECO wasn't the only full-screen editor floating around the computer world at this time. During a visit to the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Lab in 1976, Stallman encountered an edit program named E. The program contained an internal feature, which allowed a user to update display text after each command keystroke. In the language of 1970s programming, E was one of the first rudimentary WYSIWYG editors. Short for "what you see is what you get," WYSIWYG meant that a user could manipulate the file by moving through the displayed text, as opposed to working through a back-end editor program."~{ See Richard Stallman, "Emacs the Full Screen Editor" (1987).<br> http://www.lysator.liu.se/history/garb/txt/87-1-emacs.txt }~
+TECO wasn't the only full-screen editor floating around the computer world at this time. During a visit to the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Lab in 1976, Stallman encountered an edit program named E. The program contained an internal feature, which allowed a user to update display text after each command keystroke. In the language of 1970s programming, E was one of the first rudimentary WYSIWYG editors. Short for "what you see is what you get," WYSIWYG meant that a user could manipulate the file by moving through the displayed text, as opposed to working through a back-end editor program."~{ See Richard Stallman, "Emacs the Full Screen Editor" (1987). \\ http://www.lysator.liu.se/history/garb/txt/87-1-emacs.txt }~
 ={E edit program;Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory}
 
 Impressed by the hack, Stallman looked for ways to expand TECO's functionality in similar fashion upon his return to MIT. He found a TECO feature called Control-R, written by Carl Mikkelson and named after the two-key combination that triggered it. Mikkelson's hack switched TECO from its usual abstract command-execution mode to a more intuitive keystroke-by-keystroke mode. Stallman revised the feature in a subtle but significant way. He made it possible to trigger other TECO command strings, or "macros," using other, two-key combinations. Where users had once entered command strings and discarded them after entering then, Stallman's hack made it possible to save macro tricks on file and call them up at will. Mikkelson's hack had raised TECO to the level of a WYSIWYG editor. Stallman's hack had raised it to the level of a user-programmable WYSIWYG editor. "That was the real breakthrough," says Guy Steele, a fellow AI Lab hacker at the time. ^39^
@@ -1014,7 +1005,7 @@ Stallman now faced another conundrum: if users made changes but didn't communica
 Not everybody accepted the contract. The explosive innovation continued throughout the decade, resulting in a host of Emacs-like programs with varying degrees of cross-compatibility. A few cited their relation to Stallman's original Emacs with humorously recursive names: Sine (Sine is not Emacs), Eine (Eine is not Emacs), and Zwei (Zwei was Eine initially). As a devoted exponent of the hacker ethic, Stallman saw no reason to halt this innovation through legal harassment. Still, the fact that some people would so eagerly take software from the community chest, alter it, and slap a new name on the resulting software displayed a stunning lack of courtesy.
 ={Eine (Eine is not Emacs) text editor;Zwei (Zwei was Eine initially) text editor;Sine (Sine is not Emacs) text editor}
 
-Such rude behavior was reflected against other, unsettling developments in the hacker community. Brian Reid's 1979 decision to embed "time bombs" in Scribe, making it possible for Unilogic to limit unpaid user access to the software, was a dark omen to Stallman. "He considered it the most Nazi thing he ever saw in his life," recalls Reid. Despite going on to later Internet fame as the cocreator of the Usenet alt heirarchy, Reid says he still has yet to live down that 1979 decision, at least in Stallman's eyes. "He said that all software should be free and the prospect of charging money for software was a crime against humanity."~{ In a 1996 interview with online magazine MEME, Stallman cited Scribe's sale as irksome, but hesitated to mention Reid by name. "The problem was nobody censured or punished this student for what he did," Stallman said. "The result was other people got tempted to follow his example." See MEME 2.04.<br> http://memex.org/meme2-04.html }~
+Such rude behavior was reflected against other, unsettling developments in the hacker community. Brian Reid's 1979 decision to embed "time bombs" in Scribe, making it possible for Unilogic to limit unpaid user access to the software, was a dark omen to Stallman. "He considered it the most Nazi thing he ever saw in his life," recalls Reid. Despite going on to later Internet fame as the cocreator of the Usenet alt heirarchy, Reid says he still has yet to live down that 1979 decision, at least in Stallman's eyes. "He said that all software should be free and the prospect of charging money for software was a crime against humanity."~{ In a 1996 interview with online magazine MEME, Stallman cited Scribe's sale as irksome, but hesitated to mention Reid by name. "The problem was nobody censured or punished this student for what he did," Stallman said. "The result was other people got tempted to follow his example." See MEME 2.04. \\ http://memex.org/meme2-04.html }~
 ={Reid, Brian+1;Unilogic software company;time bombs, in software;Scribe text-formatting program}
 
 % additional reference to Unilogic; also time bombs; also scribe text-formatting program
@@ -1026,7 +1017,7 @@ Although Stallman had been powerless to head off Reid's sale, he did possess the
 
 Over time, Emacs became a sales tool for the hacker ethic. The flexibility Stallman and built into the software not only encouraged collaboration, it demanded it. Users who didn't keep abreast of the latest developments in Emacs evolution or didn't contribute their contributions back to Stallman ran the risk of missing out on the latest breakthroughs. And the breakthroughs were many. Twenty years later, users had modified Emacs for so many different uses-using it as a spreadsheet, calculator, database, and web browser-that later Emacs developers adopted an overflowing sink to represent its versatile functionality. "That's the idea that we wanted to convey," says Stallman. "The amount of stuff it has contained within it is both wonderful and awful at the same time."
 
-Stallman's AI Lab contemporaries are more charitable. Hal Abelson, an MIT grad student who worked with Stallman during the 1970s and would later assist Stallman as a charter boardmember of the Free Software Foundation, describes Emacs as "an absolutely brilliant creation." In giving programmers a way to add new software libraries and features without messing up the system, Abelson says, Stallman paved the way for future large-scale collaborative software projects. "Its structure was robust enough that you'd have people all over the world who were loosely collaborating [and] contributing to it," Abelson says. "I don't know if that had been done before."~{ In writing this chapter, I've elected to focus more on the social significance of Emacs than the software significance. To read more about the software side, I recommend Stallman's 1979 memo. I particularly recommend the section titled "Research Through Development of Installed Tools" (#SEC27). Not only is it accessible to the nontechnical reader, it also sheds light on how closely intertwined Stallman's political philosophies are with his software-design philosophies. A sample excerpt follows:<br>_1 EMACS could not have been reached by a process of careful design, because such processes arrive only at goals which are visible at the outset, and whose desirability is established on the bottom line at the outset. Neither I nor anyone else visualized an extensible editor until I had made one, nor appreciated its value until he had experienced it. EMACS exists because I felt free to make individually useful small improvements on a path whose end was not in sight. }~
+Stallman's AI Lab contemporaries are more charitable. Hal Abelson, an MIT grad student who worked with Stallman during the 1970s and would later assist Stallman as a charter boardmember of the Free Software Foundation, describes Emacs as "an absolutely brilliant creation." In giving programmers a way to add new software libraries and features without messing up the system, Abelson says, Stallman paved the way for future large-scale collaborative software projects. "Its structure was robust enough that you'd have people all over the world who were loosely collaborating [and] contributing to it," Abelson says. "I don't know if that had been done before."~{ In writing this chapter, I've elected to focus more on the social significance of Emacs than the software significance. To read more about the software side, I recommend Stallman's 1979 memo. I particularly recommend the section titled "Research Through Development of Installed Tools" (#SEC27). Not only is it accessible to the nontechnical reader, it also sheds light on how closely intertwined Stallman's political philosophies are with his software-design philosophies. A sample excerpt follows: \\ EMACS could not have been reached by a process of careful design, because such processes arrive only at goals which are visible at the outset, and whose desirability is established on the bottom line at the outset. Neither I nor anyone else visualized an extensible editor until I had made one, nor appreciated its value until he had experienced it. EMACS exists because I felt free to make individually useful small improvements on a path whose end was not in sight. }~
 ={Abelson, Hal}
 
 Guy Steele expresses similar admiration. Currently a research scientist for Sun Microsystems, he remembers Stallman primarily as a "brilliant programmer with the ability to generate large quantities of relatively bug-free code." Although their personalities didn't exactly mesh, Steele and Stallman collaborated long enough for Steele to get a glimpse of Stallman's intense coding style. He recalls a notable episode in the late 1970s when the two programmers banded together to write the editor's "pretty print" feature. Originally conceived by Steele, pretty print was another keystroke-triggerd feature that reformatted Emacs' source code so that it was both more readable and took up less space, further bolstering the program's WYSIWIG qualities. The feature was strategic enough to attract Stallman's active interest, and it wasn't long before Steele wrote that he and Stallman were planning an improved version.
@@ -1044,7 +1035,7 @@ The length of the session revealed itself when Steele finally left the AI Lab. S
 On September 27, 1983, computer programmers logging on to the Usenet newsgroup net.unix-wizards encountered an unusual message. Posted in the small hours of the morning, 12:30 a.m. to be exact, and signed by rms@mit-oz, the message's subject line was terse but attention-grabbing. "New UNIX implementation," it read. Instead of introducing a newly released version of Unix, however, the message's opening paragraph issued a call to arms:
 ={GNU Project:new UNIX implementation;net.unix-wizards newsgroup}
 
-_1 Starting this Thanksgiving I am going to write a complete Unix-compatible software system called GNU (for Gnu's Not Unix), and give it away free to everyone who can use it. Contributions of time, money, programs and equipment are greatly needed.~{ See Richard Stallman, "Initial GNU Announcement" (September 1983).<br> http://www.gnu.ai.mit.edu/gnu/initial-announcement.html }~
+_1 Starting this Thanksgiving I am going to write a complete Unix-compatible software system called GNU (for Gnu's Not Unix), and give it away free to everyone who can use it. Contributions of time, money, programs and equipment are greatly needed.~{ See Richard Stallman, "Initial GNU Announcement" (September 1983). \\ http://www.gnu.ai.mit.edu/gnu/initial-announcement.html }~
 ={Unix operating system:GNU system and}
 
 To an experienced Unix developer, the message was a mixture of idealism and hubris. Not only did the author pledge to rebuild the already mature Unix operating system from the ground up, he also proposed to improve it in places. The new GNU system, the author predicted, would carry all the usual components-a text editor, a shell program to run Unix-compatible applications, a compiler, "and a few other things." ^44^ It would also contain many enticing features that other Unix systems didn't yet offer: a graphic user interface based on the Lisp programming language, a crash-proof file system, and networking protocols built according to MIT's internal networking system.
@@ -1077,7 +1068,7 @@ The breaking point came in 1982. That was the year the lab's administration deci
 
 "Without hackers to maintain the system, [faculty members] said, `We're going to have a disaster; we must have commercial software,'" Stallman would recall a few years later. "They said, `We can expect the company to maintain it.' It proved that they were utterly wrong, but that's what they did."~{ See Richard Stallman (1986). }~
 
-At first, hackers viewed the Twenex system as yet another authoritarian symbol begging to be subverted. The system's name itself was a protest. Officially dubbed TOPS-20 by DEC, it was a successor to TOPS-10, a commercial operating system DEC marketed for the PDP-10. Bolt Beranek Newman had deveoped an improved version, dubbed Tenex, which TOPS-20 drew upon.~{ Multiple sources: see Richard Stallman interview, Gerald Sussman email, and Jargon File 3.0.0.<br> http://www.clueless.com/jargon3.0.0/TWENEX.html }~ Stallman, the hacker who coined the Twenex term, says he came up with the name as a way to avoid using the TOPS-20 name. "The system was far from tops, so there was no way I was going to call it that," Stallman recalls. "So I decided to insert a `w' in the Tenex name and call it Twenex."
+At first, hackers viewed the Twenex system as yet another authoritarian symbol begging to be subverted. The system's name itself was a protest. Officially dubbed TOPS-20 by DEC, it was a successor to TOPS-10, a commercial operating system DEC marketed for the PDP-10. Bolt Beranek Newman had deveoped an improved version, dubbed Tenex, which TOPS-20 drew upon.~{ Multiple sources: see Richard Stallman interview, Gerald Sussman email, and Jargon File 3.0.0. \\ http://www.clueless.com/jargon3.0.0/TWENEX.html }~ Stallman, the hacker who coined the Twenex term, says he came up with the name as a way to avoid using the TOPS-20 name. "The system was far from tops, so there was no way I was going to call it that," Stallman recalls. "So I decided to insert a `w' in the Tenex name and call it Twenex."
 ={DEC (Digital Equipment Corporation);TOPS-20 operating system+1}
 
 % ={Bolt, Beranek & Newman engineering firm;Tenex}
@@ -1097,7 +1088,7 @@ The disguise was a thin one at best. By 1982, Stallman's aversion to passwords a
 
 "I'm eternally grateful that MIT let me and many other people use their computers for free," says Hopkins. "It meant a lot to many people."
 
-This so-called "tourist" policy, which had been openly tolerated by MIT management during the ITS years,~{ See "MIT AI Lab Tourist Policy."<br> http://catalog.com/hopkins/text/tourist-policy.html }~ fell by the wayside when Oz became the lab's primary link to the ARPAnet. At first, Stallman continued his policy of repeating his login ID as a password so outside users could follow in his footsteps. Over time, however, the Oz's fragility prompted administrators to bar outsiders who, through sheer accident or malicious intent, might bring down the system. When those same administrators eventually demanded that Stallman stop publishing his password, Stallman, citing personal ethics, refused to do so and ceased using the Oz system altogether. ^46^
+This so-called "tourist" policy, which had been openly tolerated by MIT management during the ITS years,~{ See "MIT AI Lab Tourist Policy." \\ http://catalog.com/hopkins/text/tourist-policy.html }~ fell by the wayside when Oz became the lab's primary link to the ARPAnet. At first, Stallman continued his policy of repeating his login ID as a password so outside users could follow in his footsteps. Over time, however, the Oz's fragility prompted administrators to bar outsiders who, through sheer accident or malicious intent, might bring down the system. When those same administrators eventually demanded that Stallman stop publishing his password, Stallman, citing personal ethics, refused to do so and ceased using the Oz system altogether. ^46^
 
 "[When] passwords first appeared at the MIT AI Lab I [decided] to follow my belief that there should be no passwords," Stallman would later say. "Because I don't believe that it's really desirable to have security on a computer, I shouldn't be willing to help uphold the security regime." ^46^
 
@@ -1160,7 +1151,7 @@ Nowhere was this state of affairs more evident than in the realm of personal com
 One of the most notorious of these programmers was Bill Gates, a Harvard dropout two years Stallman's junior. Although Stallman didn't know it at the time, seven years before sending out his message to the net.unix-wizards newsgroup, Gates, a budding entrepreneur and general partner with the Albuquerque-based software firm Micro-Soft, later spelled as Microsoft, had sent out his own open letter to the software-developer community. Written in response to the PC users copying Micro-Soft's software programs, Gates' " Open Letter to Hobbyists" had excoriated the notion of communal software development.
 ={Gates, Bill+2;Micro-Soft;net.unix-wizards newsgroup;Open Letter to Hobbyists (Gates)+1}
 
-"Who can afford to do professional work for nothing?" asked Gates. "What hobbyist can put three man-years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product, and distributing it for free?"~{ See Bill Gates, "An Open Letter to Hobbyists" (February 3, 1976).<br>To view an online copy of this letter, go to<br> http://www.blinkenlights.com/classiccmp/gateswhine.html. }~
+"Who can afford to do professional work for nothing?" asked Gates. "What hobbyist can put three man-years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product, and distributing it for free?"~{ See Bill Gates, "An Open Letter to Hobbyists" (February 3, 1976). \\ To view an online copy of this letter, go to \\ http://www.blinkenlights.com/classiccmp/gateswhine.html. }~
 
 Although few hackers at the AI Lab saw the missive, Gates' 1976 letter nevertheless represented the changing attitude toward software both among commercial software companies and commercial software developers. Why treat software as a zero-cost commodity when the market said otherwise? As the 1970s gave way to the 1980s, selling software became more than a way to recoup costs; it became a political statement. At a time when the Reagan Administration was rushing to dismantle many of the federal regulations and spending programs that had been built up during the half century following the Great Depression, more than a few software programmers saw the hacker ethic as anticompetitive and, by extension, un-American. At best, it was a throwback to the anticorporate attitudes of the late 1960s and early 1970s. Like a Wall Street banker discovering an old tie-dyed shirt hiding between French-cuffed shirts and double-breasted suits, many computer programmers treated the hacker ethic as an embarrassing reminder of an idealistic age.
 
@@ -1180,7 +1171,7 @@ group{
 
     If not now, when?
 
-}group ~{ See Richard Stallman, Open Sources (O'Reilly & Associates, Inc., 1999): 56.<br>Stallman adds his own footnote to this statement, writing, "As an atheist, I don't follow any religious leaders, but I sometimes find I admire something one of them has said." }~
+}group ~{ See Richard Stallman, Open Sources (O'Reilly & Associates, Inc., 1999): 56. \\ Stallman adds his own footnote to this statement, writing, "As an atheist, I don't follow any religious leaders, but I sometimes find I admire something one of them has said." }~
 
 Speaking to audiences, Stallman avoids the religious route and expresses the decision in pragmatic terms. "I asked myself: what could I, an operating-system developer, do to improve the situation? It wasn't until I examined the question for a while that I realized an operating-system developer was exactly what was needed to solve the problem."
 
@@ -1221,7 +1212,7 @@ In the course of reverse-engineering Gosling's interpreter, Stallman would creat
 Despite the stress it generated, the dispute over Gosling's innovations would assist both Stallman and the free software movement in the long term. It would force Stallman to address the weaknesses of the Emacs Commune and the informal trust system that had allowed problematic offshoots to emerge. It would also force Stallman to sharpen the free software movement's political objectives. Following the release of GNU Emacs in 1985, Stallman issued " The GNU Manifesto," an expansion of the original announcement posted in September, 1983. Stallman included within the document a lengthy section devoted to the many arguments used by commercial and academic programmers to justify the proliferation of proprietary software programs. One argument, "Don't programmers deserve a reward for their creativity," earned a response encapsulating Stallman's anger over the recent Gosling Emacs episode:
 ={Emacs Commune:proprietary software and;Emacs text editor;GNU Emacs;GNU Manifesto}
 
-"If anything deserves a reward, it is social contribution," Stallman wrote. "Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far [sic] 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."~{ See Richard Stallman, "The GNU Manifesto" (1985).<br> http://www.gnu.org/manifesto.html }~
+"If anything deserves a reward, it is social contribution," Stallman wrote. "Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far [sic] 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."~{ See Richard Stallman, "The GNU Manifesto" (1985). \\ http://www.gnu.org/manifesto.html }~
 
 With the release of GNU Emacs, the GNU Project finally had code to show. It also had the burdens of any software-based enterprise. As more and more Unix developers began playing with the software, money, gifts, and requests for tapes began to pour in. To address the business side of the GNU Project, Stallman drafted a few of his colleagues and formed the Free Software Foundation (FSF), a nonprofit organization dedicated to speeding the GNU Project towards its goal. With Stallman as president and various hacker allies as board members, the FSF helped provide a corporate face for the GNU Project.
 ={Free Software Foundation (FSF):GNU Project and;GNU Project:Emacs, release of}
@@ -1261,9 +1252,9 @@ Needless to say, Stallman, who stands in front of the room dressed in plain blue
 As Stallman putters around the front of the room, a few audience members wearing T-shirts with the logo of the Maui FreeBSD Users Group (MFUG) race to set up camera and audio equipment. FreeBSD, a free software offshoot of the Berkeley Software Distribution, the venerable 1970s academic version of Unix, is technically a competitor to the GNU/Linux operating system. Still, in the hacking world, Stallman speeches are documented with a fervor reminiscent of the Grateful Dead and its legendary army of amateur archivists. As the local free software heads, it's up to the MFUG members to make sure fellow programmers in Hamburg, Mumbai, and Novosibirsk don't miss out on the latest pearls of RMS wisdom.
 ={Berkely Software Distribution (BSD);BSD (Berkely Software Distribution);Grateful Dead, The+1;Maui FreeBSD Users Group}
 
-The analogy to the Grateful Dead is apt. Often, when describing the business opportunities inherent within the free software model, Stallman has held up the Grateful Dead as an example. In refusing to restrict fans' ability to record live concerts, the Grateful Dead became more than a rock group. They became the center of a tribal community dedicated to Grateful Dead music. Over time, that tribal community became so large and so devoted that the band shunned record contracts and supported itself solely through musical tours and live appearances. In 1994, the band's last year as a touring act, the Grateful Dead drew $52 million in gate receipts alone.~{ See "Grateful Dead Time Capsule: 1985-1995 North American Tour Grosses."<br> http://www.accessplace.com/gdtc/1197.htm }~
+The analogy to the Grateful Dead is apt. Often, when describing the business opportunities inherent within the free software model, Stallman has held up the Grateful Dead as an example. In refusing to restrict fans' ability to record live concerts, the Grateful Dead became more than a rock group. They became the center of a tribal community dedicated to Grateful Dead music. Over time, that tribal community became so large and so devoted that the band shunned record contracts and supported itself solely through musical tours and live appearances. In 1994, the band's last year as a touring act, the Grateful Dead drew $52 million in gate receipts alone.~{ See "Grateful Dead Time Capsule: 1985-1995 North American Tour Grosses." \\ http://www.accessplace.com/gdtc/1197.htm }~
 
-While few software companies have been able to match that success, the tribal aspect of the free software community is one reason many in the latter half of the 1990s started to accept the notion that publishing software source code might be a good thing. Hoping to build their own loyal followings, companies such as IBM, Sun Microsystems, and Hewlett Packard have come to accept the letter, if not the spirit, of the Stallman free software message. Describing the GPL as the information-technology industry's "Magna Carta," ZDNet software columnist Evan Leibovitch sees the growing affection for all things GNU as more than just a trend. "This societal shift is letting users take back control of their futures," Leibovitch writes. "Just as the Magna Carta gave rights to British subjects, the GPL enforces consumer rights and freedoms on behalf of the users of computer software."~{ See Evan Leibovitch, "Who's Afraid of Big Bad Wolves," ZDNet Tech Update (December 15, 2000).<br> http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2664992,00.html }~
+While few software companies have been able to match that success, the tribal aspect of the free software community is one reason many in the latter half of the 1990s started to accept the notion that publishing software source code might be a good thing. Hoping to build their own loyal followings, companies such as IBM, Sun Microsystems, and Hewlett Packard have come to accept the letter, if not the spirit, of the Stallman free software message. Describing the GPL as the information-technology industry's "Magna Carta," ZDNet software columnist Evan Leibovitch sees the growing affection for all things GNU as more than just a trend. "This societal shift is letting users take back control of their futures," Leibovitch writes. "Just as the Magna Carta gave rights to British subjects, the GPL enforces consumer rights and freedoms on behalf of the users of computer software."~{ See Evan Leibovitch, "Who's Afraid of Big Bad Wolves," ZDNet Tech Update (December 15, 2000). \\ http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2664992,00.html }~
 ={Hewlett Packard;IBM;Sun Microsystems}
 
 The tribal aspect of the free software community also helps explain why 40-odd programmers, who might otherwise be working on physics projects or surfing the Web for windsurfing buoy reports, have packed into a conference room to hear Stallman speak.
@@ -1275,7 +1266,7 @@ Unlike the New York speech, Stallman gets no introduction. He also offers no sel
 
 Once again, Stallman quickly segues into the parable of the Xerox laser printer, taking a moment to deliver the same dramatic finger-pointing gestures to the crowd. He also devotes a minute or two to the GNU/Linux name.
 
-"Some people say to me, `Why make such a fuss about getting credit for this system? After all, the important thing is the job is done, not whether you get recognition for it.' Well, this would be wise advice if it were true. But the job wasn't to build an operating system; the job is to spread freedom to the users of computers. And to do that we have to make it possible to do everything with computers in freedom."~{ For narrative purposes, I have hesitated to go in-depth when describing Stallman's full definition of software "freedom." The GNU Project web site lists four fundamental components:<br>The freedom to run a program, for any purpose (freedom 0).<br>The freedom to study how a program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1).<br>The freedom to redistribute copies of a program so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).<br>The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3).<br>For more information, please visit "The Free Software Definition" at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html }~
+"Some people say to me, `Why make such a fuss about getting credit for this system? After all, the important thing is the job is done, not whether you get recognition for it.' Well, this would be wise advice if it were true. But the job wasn't to build an operating system; the job is to spread freedom to the users of computers. And to do that we have to make it possible to do everything with computers in freedom."~{ For narrative purposes, I have hesitated to go in-depth when describing Stallman's full definition of software "freedom." The GNU Project web site lists four fundamental components: \\ The freedom to run a program, for any purpose (freedom 0). \\ The freedom to study how a program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). \\ The freedom to redistribute copies of a program so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). \\ The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). \\ For more information, please visit "The Free Software Definition" at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html }~
 
 Adds Stallman, "There's a lot more work to do."
 
@@ -1329,7 +1320,7 @@ The skit is a lighthearted moment of self-pardoy, a humorous return-jab at the m
 Discussing the St. Ignucius persona afterward, Stallman says he first came up with it in 1996, long after the creation of Emacs but well before the emergence of the "open source" term and the struggle for hacker-community leadership that precipitated it. At the time, Stallman says, he wanted a way to "poke fun at himself," to remind listeners that, though stubborn, Stallman was not the fanatic some made him out to be. It was only later, Stallman adds, that others seized the persona as a convenient way to play up his reputation as software ideologue, as Eric Raymond did in an 1999 interview with the linux.com web site:
 ={linux.com;Raymond, Eric:St. Ignucius and+2}
 
-_1 When I say RMS calibrates what he does, I'm not belittling or accusing him of insincerity. I'm saying that like all good communicators he's got a theatrical streak. Sometimes it's conscious-have you ever seen him in his St. Ignucius drag, blessing software with a disk platter on his head? Mostly it's unconscious; he's just learned the degree of irritating stimulus that works, that holds attention without (usually) freaking people out.~{ See "Guest Interview: Eric S. Raymond," Linux.com (May 18, 1999).<br> http://www.linux.com/interviews/19990518/8/ }~
+_1 When I say RMS calibrates what he does, I'm not belittling or accusing him of insincerity. I'm saying that like all good communicators he's got a theatrical streak. Sometimes it's conscious-have you ever seen him in his St. Ignucius drag, blessing software with a disk platter on his head? Mostly it's unconscious; he's just learned the degree of irritating stimulus that works, that holds attention without (usually) freaking people out.~{ See "Guest Interview: Eric S. Raymond," Linux.com (May 18, 1999). \\ http://www.linux.com/interviews/19990518/8/ }~
 
 Stallman takes issue with the Raymond analysis. "It's simply my way of making fun of myself," he says. "The fact that others see it as anything more than that is a reflection of their agenda, not mine."
 
@@ -1379,7 +1370,7 @@ By the spring of 1985, Richard Stallman had settled on the GNU Project's first m
 The dispute with UniPress had highlighted a flaw in the Emacs Commune social contract. Where users relied on Stallman's expert insight, the Commune's rules held. In areas where Stallman no longer held the position of alpha hacker-pre-1984 Unix systems, for example-individuals and companies were free to make their own rules.
 ={UniPress software company}
 
-The tension between the freedom to modify and the freedom to exert authorial privilege had been building before GOSMACS. The Copyright Act of 1976 had overhauled U.S. copyright law, extending the legal protection of copyright to software programs. According to Section 102(b) of the Act, individuals and companies now possessed the ability to copyright the "expression" of a software program but not the "actual processes or methods embodied in the program."~{ See Hal Abelson, Mike Fischer, and Joanne Costello, "Software and Copyright Law," updated version (1998).<br> http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/6805/articles/int-prop/software-copyright.html }~ Translated, programmers and companies had the ability to treat software programs like a story or song. Other programmers could take inspiration from the work, but to make a direct copy or nonsatirical derivative, they first had to secure permission from the original creator. Although the new law guaranteed that even programs without copyright notices carried copyright protection, programmers quickly asserted their rights, attaching coypright notices to their software programs.
+The tension between the freedom to modify and the freedom to exert authorial privilege had been building before GOSMACS. The Copyright Act of 1976 had overhauled U.S. copyright law, extending the legal protection of copyright to software programs. According to Section 102(b) of the Act, individuals and companies now possessed the ability to copyright the "expression" of a software program but not the "actual processes or methods embodied in the program."~{ See Hal Abelson, Mike Fischer, and Joanne Costello, "Software and Copyright Law," updated version (1998). \\ http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/6805/articles/int-prop/software-copyright.html }~ Translated, programmers and companies had the ability to treat software programs like a story or song. Other programmers could take inspiration from the work, but to make a direct copy or nonsatirical derivative, they first had to secure permission from the original creator. Although the new law guaranteed that even programs without copyright notices carried copyright protection, programmers quickly asserted their rights, attaching coypright notices to their software programs.
 ={Copyright Act of 1976;copyright laws;GOSMACS (Gosling Emacs);software:copyright laws on}
 
 At first, Stallman viewed these notices with alarm. Rare was the software program that didn't borrow source code from past programs, and yet, with a single stroke of the president's pen, Congress had given programmers and companies the power to assert individual authorship over communally built programs. It also injected a dose of formality into what had otherwise been an informal system. Even if hackers could demonstrate how a given program's source-code bloodlines stretched back years, if not decades, the resources and money that went into battling each copyright notice were beyond most hackers' means. Simply put, disputes that had once been settled hacker-to-hacker were now settled lawyer-to-lawyer. In such a system, companies, not hackers, held the automatic advantage.
@@ -1411,9 +1402,8 @@ As an example of this informality, Gilmore cites a copyright notice for trn, a U
 
 % previous markup as 'poem' with footnote not satisfactory
 
-Copyright (c) 1985, Larry Wall<br>
-You may copy the trn kit in whole or in part as long as you don't try
-to make money off it, or pretend that you wrote it.~{ See Trn Kit README.<br> http://www.za.debian.org/doc/trn/trn-readme }~
+Copyright (c) 1985, Larry Wall \\
+You may copy the trn kit in whole or in part as long as you don't try to make money off it, or pretend that you wrote it.~{ See Trn Kit README. \\ http://www.za.debian.org/doc/trn/trn-readme }~
 
 Such statements, while reflective of the hacker ethic, also reflected the difficulty of translating the loose, informal nature of that ethic into the rigid, legal language of copyright. In writing the GNU Emacs License, Stallman had done more than close up the escape hatch that permitted proprietary offshoots. He had expressed the hacker ethic in a manner understandable to both lawyer and hacker alike.
 
@@ -1439,7 +1429,7 @@ anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the
 rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for
 you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
 
-}poem ~{ See Richard Stallman, et al., "GNU General Public License: Version 1," (February, 1989).<br> http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copying-1.0.html }~
+}poem ~{ See Richard Stallman, et al., "GNU General Public License: Version 1," (February, 1989). \\ http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copying-1.0.html }~
 
 In fashioning the GPL, Stallman had been forced to make an additional adjustment to the informal tenets of the old Emacs Commune. Where he had once demanded that Commune members publish any and all changes, Stallman now demanded publication only in instances when programmers circulated their derivative versions in the same public manner as Stallman. In other words, programmers who simply modified Emacs for private use no longer needed to send the source-code changes back to Stallman. In what would become a rare compromise of free software doctrine, Stallman slashed the price tag for free software. Users could innovate without Stallman looking over their shoulders just so long as they didn't bar Stallman and the rest of the hacker community from future exchanges of the same program.
 ={Emacs Commune+1}
@@ -1454,7 +1444,7 @@ As hacks go, the GPL stands as one of Stallman's best. It created a system of co
 
 "The GPL developed much like any piece of free software with a large community discussing its structure, its respect or the opposite in their observation, needs for tweaking and even to compromise it mildly for greater acceptance," says Jerry Cohen, another attorney who helped Stallman with the creation of the license. "The process worked very well and GPL in its several versions has gone from widespread skeptical and at times hostile response to widespread acceptance."
 
-In a 1986 interview with Byte magazine, Stallman summed up the GPL in colorful terms. In addition to proclaiming hacker values, Stallman said, readers should also "see it as a form of intellectual jujitsu, using the legal system that software hoarders have set up against them."~{ See David Betz and Jon Edwards, "Richard Stallman discusses his public-domain [sic] Unix-compatible software system with BYTE editors," BYTE (July, 1996). (Reprinted on the GNU Project web site: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/byte-interview.html )<br>This interview offers an interesting, not to mention candid, glimpse at Stallman's political attitudes during the earliest days of the GNU Project. It is also helpful in tracing the evolution of Stallman's rhetoric.<br>Describing the purpose of the GPL, Stallman says, "I'm trying to change the way people approach knowledge and information in general. I think that to try to own knowledge, to try to control whether people are allowed to use it, or to try to stop other people from sharing it, is sabotage."<br>Contrast this with a statement to the author in August 2000: "I urge you not to use the term `intellectual property' in your thinking. It will lead you to misunderstand things, because that term generalizes about copyrights, patents, and trademarks. And those things are so different in their effects that it is entirely foolish to try to talk about them at once. If you hear somebody saying something about intellectual property, without quotes, then he's not thinking very clearly and you shouldn't join." }~ Years later, Stallman would describe the GPL's creation in less hostile terms. "I was thinking about issues that were in a sense ethical and in a sense political and in a sense legal," he says. "I had to try to do what could be sustained by the legal system that we're in. In spirit the job was that of legislating the basis for a new society, but since I wasn't a government, I couldn't actually change any laws. I had to try to do this by building on top of the existing legal system, which had not been designed for anything like this."
+In a 1986 interview with Byte magazine, Stallman summed up the GPL in colorful terms. In addition to proclaiming hacker values, Stallman said, readers should also "see it as a form of intellectual jujitsu, using the legal system that software hoarders have set up against them."~{ See David Betz and Jon Edwards, "Richard Stallman discusses his public-domain [sic] Unix-compatible software system with BYTE editors," BYTE (July, 1996). (Reprinted on the GNU Project web site: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/byte-interview.html ) \\ This interview offers an interesting, not to mention candid, glimpse at Stallman's political attitudes during the earliest days of the GNU Project. It is also helpful in tracing the evolution of Stallman's rhetoric. \\ Describing the purpose of the GPL, Stallman says, "I'm trying to change the way people approach knowledge and information in general. I think that to try to own knowledge, to try to control whether people are allowed to use it, or to try to stop other people from sharing it, is sabotage." \\ Contrast this with a statement to the author in August 2000: "I urge you not to use the term `intellectual property' in your thinking. It will lead you to misunderstand things, because that term generalizes about copyrights, patents, and trademarks. And those things are so different in their effects that it is entirely foolish to try to talk about them at once. If you hear somebody saying something about intellectual property, without quotes, then he's not thinking very clearly and you shouldn't join." }~ Years later, Stallman would describe the GPL's creation in less hostile terms. "I was thinking about issues that were in a sense ethical and in a sense political and in a sense legal," he says. "I had to try to do what could be sustained by the legal system that we're in. In spirit the job was that of legislating the basis for a new society, but since I wasn't a government, I couldn't actually change any laws. I had to try to do this by building on top of the existing legal system, which had not been designed for anything like this."
 ={Byte magazine}
 
 About the time Stallman was pondering the ethical, political, and legal issues associated with free software, a California hacker named Don Hopkins mailed him a manual for the 68000 microprocessor. Hopkins, a Unix hacker and fellow science-fiction buff, had borrowed the manual from Stallman a while earlier. As a display of gratitude, Hopkins decorated the return envelope with a number of stickers obtained at a local science-fiction convention. One sticker in particular caught Stallman's eye. It read, "Copyleft (L), All Rights Reversed." Following the release of the first version of GPL, Stallman paid tribute to the sticker, nicknaming the free software license "Copyleft." Over time, the nickname and its shorthand symbol, a backwards "C," would become an official Free Software Foundation synonym for the GPL.
@@ -1478,7 +1468,7 @@ Hired in 1986, Bostic had taken on the personal project of porting BSD over to t
 
 % CSRG abbreviated to SRG above?
 
-The arguments eventually took hold, although not in the way Stallman would have liked. In June, 1989, Berkeley separated its networking code from the rest of the AT&T-owned operating system and distributed it under a University of California license. The contract terms were liberal. All a licensee had to do was give credit to the university in advertisements touting derivative programs.~{ The University of California's "obnoxious advertising clause" would later prove to be a problem. Looking for a less restrictive alternative to the GPL, some hackers used the University of California, replacing "University of California" with the name of their own instution. The result: free software programs that borrowed from dozens of other programs would have to cite dozens of institutions in advertisements. In 1999, after a decade of lobbying on Stallman's part, the University of California agreed to drop this clause.<br>See "The BSD License Problem" at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html. }~ In contrast to the GPL, proprietary offshoots were permissible. Only one problem hampered the license's rapid adoption: the BSD Networking release wasn't a complete operating system. People could study the code, but it could only be run in conjunction with other proprietary-licensed code.
+The arguments eventually took hold, although not in the way Stallman would have liked. In June, 1989, Berkeley separated its networking code from the rest of the AT&T-owned operating system and distributed it under a University of California license. The contract terms were liberal. All a licensee had to do was give credit to the university in advertisements touting derivative programs.~{ The University of California's "obnoxious advertising clause" would later prove to be a problem. Looking for a less restrictive alternative to the GPL, some hackers used the University of California, replacing "University of California" with the name of their own instution. The result: free software programs that borrowed from dozens of other programs would have to cite dozens of institutions in advertisements. In 1999, after a decade of lobbying on Stallman's part, the University of California agreed to drop this clause. \\ See "The BSD License Problem" at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html. }~ In contrast to the GPL, proprietary offshoots were permissible. Only one problem hampered the license's rapid adoption: the BSD Networking release wasn't a complete operating system. People could study the code, but it could only be run in conjunction with other proprietary-licensed code.
 ={AT&T+1}
 
 Over the next few years, Bostic and other University of California employees worked to replace the missing components and turn BSD into a complete, freely redistributable operating system. Although delayed by a legal challenge from Unix Systems Laboratories-the AT&T spin-off that retained ownership of the Unix brand name-the effort would finally bear fruit in the early 1990s. Even before then, however, many of the Berkeley utilities would make their way into Stallman's GNU Project.
@@ -1547,14 +1537,14 @@ Jeremy Allison, a Sun user during the late 1980s and programmer destined to run
 
 Stallman's growing stature as a software programmer, however, was balanced by his struggles as a project manager. Although the GNU Project moved from success to success in creation of developer-oriented tools, its inability to generate a working kernel-the central "traffic cop" program in all Unix systems that determines which devices and applications get access to the microprocessor and when-was starting to elicit grumbles as the 1980s came to a close. As with most GNU Project efforts, Stallman had started kernel development by looking for an existing program to modify. According to a January 1987 "Gnusletter," Stallman was already working to overhaul TRIX, a Unix kernel developed at MIT.
 
-A review of GNU Project "GNUsletters" of the late 1980s reflects the management tension. In January, 1987, Stallman announced to the world that the GNU Project was working to overhaul TRIX, a Unix kernel developed at MIT. A year later, in February of 1988, the GNU Project announced that it had shifted its attentions to Mach, a lightweight "micro-kernel" developed at Carnegie Mellon. All told, however, official GNU Project kernel development wouldn't commence until 1990.~{ See "HURD History."<br> http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/history.html }~
+A review of GNU Project "GNUsletters" of the late 1980s reflects the management tension. In January, 1987, Stallman announced to the world that the GNU Project was working to overhaul TRIX, a Unix kernel developed at MIT. A year later, in February of 1988, the GNU Project announced that it had shifted its attentions to Mach, a lightweight "micro-kernel" developed at Carnegie Mellon. All told, however, official GNU Project kernel development wouldn't commence until 1990.~{ See "HURD History." \\ http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/history.html }~
 
 % ={Carnegie Mellon University}
 
 The delays in kernel development were just one of many concerns weighing on Stallman during this period. In 1989, Lotus Development Corporation filed suit against rival software company, Paperback Software International, for copying menu commands in Lotus' popular 1-2-3 Spreadsheet program. Lotus' suit, coupled with the Apple-Microsoft "look and feel" battle, provided a troublesome backdrop for the GNU Project. Although both suits fell outside the scope of the GNU Project, both revolved around operating systems and software applications developed for the personal computer, not Unix-compatible hardware systems-they threatened to impose a chilling effect on the entire culture of software development. Determined to do something, Stallman recruited a few programmer friends and composed a magazine ad blasting the lawsuits. He then followed up the ad by helping to organize a group to protest the corporations filing the suit. Calling itself the League of Programming Freedom, the group held protests outside the offices of Lotus, Inc. and the Boston courtroom hosting the Lotus trial.
 ={Apple Computers;Lotus Development Corp.;Microsoft Corporation:Apple Computer lawsuit;Paperback Software International}
 
-The protests were notable.~{ According to a League of Programming Freedom Press, the protests were notable for featuring the first hexadecimal protest chant:<br>1-2-3-4, toss the lawyers out the door;<br>5-6-7-8, innovate don't litigate;<br>9-A-B-C, 1-2-3 is not for me;<br>D-E-F-O, look and feel have got to go<br> http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Links/prep.ai.mit.edu/demo.final.release }~ They document the evolving nature of software industry. Applications had quietly replaced operating systems as the primary corporate battleground. In its unfulfilled quest to build a free software operating system, the GNU Project seemed hopelessly behind the times. Indeed, the very fact that Stallman had felt it necessary to put together an entirely new group dedicated to battling the "look and feel" lawsuits reinforced that obsolescence in the eyes of some observers.
+The protests were notable.~{ According to a League of Programming Freedom Press, the protests were notable for featuring the first hexadecimal protest chant: \\ 1-2-3-4, toss the lawyers out the door; \\ 5-6-7-8, innovate don't litigate; \\ 9-A-B-C, 1-2-3 is not for me; \\ D-E-F-O, look and feel have got to go \\ http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Links/prep.ai.mit.edu/demo.final.release }~ They document the evolving nature of software industry. Applications had quietly replaced operating systems as the primary corporate battleground. In its unfulfilled quest to build a free software operating system, the GNU Project seemed hopelessly behind the times. Indeed, the very fact that Stallman had felt it necessary to put together an entirely new group dedicated to battling the "look and feel" lawsuits reinforced that obsolescence in the eyes of some observers.
 
 In 1990, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation cerified Stallman's genius status when it granted Stallman a MacArthur fellowship, therefore making him a recipient for the organization's so-called "genius grant." The grant, a $240,000 reward for launching the GNU Project and giving voice to the free software philosophy, relieved a number of short-term concerns. First and foremost, it gave Stallman, a nonsalaried employee of the FSF who had been supporting himself through consulting contracts, the ability to devote more time to writing GNU code.~{ I use the term "writing" here loosely. About the time of the MacArthur award, Stallman began suffering chronic pain in his hands and was dictating his work to FSF-employed typists. Although some have speculated that the hand pain was the result of repetitive stress injury, or RSI, an injury common among software programmers, Stallman is not 100% sure. "It was NOT carpal tunnel syndrome," he writes. "My hand problem was in the hands themselves, not in the wrists." Stallman has since learned to work without typists after switching to a keyboard with a lighter touch. }~
 
@@ -1591,7 +1581,7 @@ things people like/dislike in minix, as my OS resembles it somewhat
 (same physical layout of the file-system (due to practical reasons)
 among other things).
 
-}poem~{ See "Linux 10th Anniversary."<br> http://www.linux10.org/history/ }~
+}poem~{ See "Linux 10th Anniversary." \\ http://www.linux10.org/history/ }~
 
 The posting drew a smattering of responses and within a month, Torvalds had posted a 0.01 version of the operating system-i.e., the earliest possible version fit for outside review-on an Internet FTP site. In the course of doing so, Torvalds had to come up with a name for the new system. On his own PC hard drive, Torvalds had saved the program as Linux, a name that paid its respects to the software convention of giving each Unix variant a name that ended with the letter X. Deeming the name too "egotistical," Torvalds changed it to Freax, only to have the FTP site manager change it back.
 ={Freax}
@@ -1605,7 +1595,7 @@ _1 You put six months of your life into this thing and you want to make it avail
 
 When it was time to release the 0.12 version of Linux, the first to include a fully integrated version of GCC, Torvalds decided to voice his allegiance with the free software movement. He discarded the old kernel license and replaced it with the GPL. The decision triggered a porting spree, as Torvalds and his collaborators looked to other GNU programs to fold into the growing Linux stew. Within three years, Linux developers were offering their first production release, Linux 1.0, including fully modified versions of GCC, GDB, and a host of BSD tools.
 
-By 1994, the amalgamated operating system had earned enough respect in the hacker world to make some observers wonder if Torvalds hadn't given away the farm by switching to the GPL in the project's initial months. In the first issue of Linux Journal, publisher Robert Young sat down with Torvalds for an interview. When Young asked the Finnish programmer if he felt regret at giving up private ownership of the Linux source code, Torvalds said no. "Even with 20/20 hindsight," Torvalds said, he considered the GPL "one of the very best design decisions" made during the early stages of the Linux project.~{ See Robert Young, "Interview with Linus, the Author of Linux," Linux Journal (March 1, 1994).<br> http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=2736 }~
+By 1994, the amalgamated operating system had earned enough respect in the hacker world to make some observers wonder if Torvalds hadn't given away the farm by switching to the GPL in the project's initial months. In the first issue of Linux Journal, publisher Robert Young sat down with Torvalds for an interview. When Young asked the Finnish programmer if he felt regret at giving up private ownership of the Linux source code, Torvalds said no. "Even with 20/20 hindsight," Torvalds said, he considered the GPL "one of the very best design decisions" made during the early stages of the Linux project.~{ See Robert Young, "Interview with Linus, the Author of Linux," Linux Journal (March 1, 1994). \\ http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=2736 }~
 ={Young, Robert}
 
 % robert young entry added
@@ -1637,7 +1627,7 @@ Or were they? To the pessimistically inclined, each sign of acceptance carried i
 
 % Intel index ref added
 
-Finally, there was the curious nature of Linux itself. Unrestricted by design bugs (like GNU) and legal disputes (like BSD), Linux' high-speed evolution had been so unplanned, its success so accidental, that programmers closest to the software code itself didn't know what to make of it. More compilation album than operating system, it was comprised of a hacker medley of greatest hits: everything from GCC, GDB, and glibc (the GNU Project's newly developed C Library) to X (a Unix-based graphic user interface developed by MIT's Laboratory for Computer Science) to BSD-developed tools such as BIND (the Berkeley Internet Naming Daemon, which lets users substitute easy-to-remember Internet domain names for numeric IP addresses) and TCP/IP. The arch's capstone, of course, was the Linux kernel-itself a bored-out, super-charged version of Minix. Rather than building their operating system from scratch, Torvalds and his rapidly expanding Linux development team had followed the old Picasso adage, "good artists borrow; great artists steal." Or as Torvalds himself would later translate it when describing the secret of his success: "I'm basically a very lazy person who likes to take credit for things other people actually do."~{ Torvalds has offered this quote in many different settings. To date, however, the quote's most notable appearance is in the Eric Raymond essay, "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" (May, 1997).<br> http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/index.html }~
+Finally, there was the curious nature of Linux itself. Unrestricted by design bugs (like GNU) and legal disputes (like BSD), Linux' high-speed evolution had been so unplanned, its success so accidental, that programmers closest to the software code itself didn't know what to make of it. More compilation album than operating system, it was comprised of a hacker medley of greatest hits: everything from GCC, GDB, and glibc (the GNU Project's newly developed C Library) to X (a Unix-based graphic user interface developed by MIT's Laboratory for Computer Science) to BSD-developed tools such as BIND (the Berkeley Internet Naming Daemon, which lets users substitute easy-to-remember Internet domain names for numeric IP addresses) and TCP/IP. The arch's capstone, of course, was the Linux kernel-itself a bored-out, super-charged version of Minix. Rather than building their operating system from scratch, Torvalds and his rapidly expanding Linux development team had followed the old Picasso adage, "good artists borrow; great artists steal." Or as Torvalds himself would later translate it when describing the secret of his success: "I'm basically a very lazy person who likes to take credit for things other people actually do."~{ Torvalds has offered this quote in many different settings. To date, however, the quote's most notable appearance is in the Eric Raymond essay, "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" (May, 1997). \\ http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/index.html }~
 ={BIND (Berkely Internet Naming Daemon);Berkely Internet Naming Daemon (BIND);C programming language:glibc;GNU Debugger (GDB):Linux and;GDB (GNU Debugger): Linux and;glibc (GNU C Library);GNU C Library (glibc);kernel (Linux);X graphic user interface;Laboratory for Computer Science:X, developing;Minix operating system:kernel, used for Linux;TCP/IP;Torvalds, Linus:Minix, reworking for Linux+2}
 
 Such laziness, while admirable from an efficiency perspective, was troubling from a political perspective. For one thing, it underlined the lack of an ideological agenda on Torvalds' part. Unlike the GNU developers, Torvalds hadn't built an operating system out of a desire to give his fellow hackers something to work with; he'd built it to have something he himself could play with. Like Tom Sawyer whitewashing a fence, Torvalds' genius lay less in the overall vision and more in his ability to recruit other hackers to speed the process.
@@ -1666,7 +1656,7 @@ The message represented a dramatic about-face on Stallman's part. Until 1993, St
 
 The friend's report was correct. Built to run on 386-based machines, Linux was firmly rooted to its low-cost hardware platform. What the friend failed to report, however, was the sizable advantage Linux enjoyed as the only freely modifiable operating system in the marketplace. In other words, while Stallman spent the next three years listening to bug reports from his HURD team, Torvalds was winning over the programmers who would later uproot and replant the operating system onto new platforms.
 
-By 1993, the GNU Project's inability to deliver a working kernel was leading to problems both within the GNU Project and within the free software movement at large. A March, 1993, a Wired magazine article by Simson Garfinkel described the GNU Project as "bogged down" despite the success of the project's many tools.~{ See Simson Garfinkel, "Is Stallman Stalled?" Wired (March, 1993). }~ Those within the project and its nonprofit adjunct, the Free Software Foundation, remember the mood as being even worse than Garfinkel's article let on. "It was very clear, at least to me at the time, that there was a window of opportunity to introduce a new operating system," says Chassell. "And once that window was closed, people would become less interested. Which is in fact exactly what happened."~{ Chassel's concern about there being a 36-month "window" for a new operating system is not unique to the GNU Project. During the early 1990s, free software versions of the Berkeley Software Distribution were held up by Unix System Laboratories' lawsuit restricting the release of BSD-derived software. While many users consider BSD offshoots such as FreeBSD and OpenBSD to be demonstrably superior to GNU/Linux both in terms of performance and security, the number of FreeBSD and OpenBSD users remains a fraction of the total GNU/Linux user population.<br>To view a sample analysis of the relative success of GNU/Linux in relation to other free software operating systems, see the essay by New Zealand hacker, Liam Greenwood, "Why is Linux Successful" (1999). }~
+By 1993, the GNU Project's inability to deliver a working kernel was leading to problems both within the GNU Project and within the free software movement at large. A March, 1993, a Wired magazine article by Simson Garfinkel described the GNU Project as "bogged down" despite the success of the project's many tools.~{ See Simson Garfinkel, "Is Stallman Stalled?" Wired (March, 1993). }~ Those within the project and its nonprofit adjunct, the Free Software Foundation, remember the mood as being even worse than Garfinkel's article let on. "It was very clear, at least to me at the time, that there was a window of opportunity to introduce a new operating system," says Chassell. "And once that window was closed, people would become less interested. Which is in fact exactly what happened."~{ Chassel's concern about there being a 36-month "window" for a new operating system is not unique to the GNU Project. During the early 1990s, free software versions of the Berkeley Software Distribution were held up by Unix System Laboratories' lawsuit restricting the release of BSD-derived software. While many users consider BSD offshoots such as FreeBSD and OpenBSD to be demonstrably superior to GNU/Linux both in terms of performance and security, the number of FreeBSD and OpenBSD users remains a fraction of the total GNU/Linux user population. \\ To view a sample analysis of the relative success of GNU/Linux in relation to other free software operating systems, see the essay by New Zealand hacker, Liam Greenwood, "Why is Linux Successful" (1999). }~
 ={Garfinkel, Simson;GNU Project:kernel;Wired magazine:GNU Project and}
 
 % ={Chassell, Robert}
@@ -1682,7 +1672,7 @@ Stallman cites a number of issues when explaining the delay. The Lotus and Apple
 
 "I figured, OK, the [Mach] part that has to talk to the machine has already been debugged," Stallman says, recalling the HURD team's troubles in a 2000 speech. "With that head start, we should be able to get it done faster. But instead, it turned out that debugging these asynchronous multithreaded programs was really hard. There were timing books that would clobber the files, and that's no fun. The end result was that it took many, many years to produce a test version."~{ See Maui High Performance Computing Center Speech. }~
 
-Whatever the excuse, or excuses, the concurrent success of the Linux-kernel team created a tense situation. Sure, the Linux kernel had been licensed under the GPL, but as Murdock himself had noted, the desire to treat Linux as a purely free software operating system was far from uniform. By late 1993, the total Linux user population had grown from a dozen or so Minix enthusiasts to somewhere between 20,000 and 100,000.~{ GNU/Linux user-population numbers are sketchy at best, which is why I've provided such a broad range. The 100,000 total comes from the Red Hat "Milestones" site,<br> http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/milestones.html }~ What had once been a hobby was now a marketplace ripe for exploitation. Like Winston Churchill watching Soviet troops sweep into Berlin, Stallman felt an understandable set of mixed emotions when it came time to celebrate the Linux "victory."~{ I wrote this Winston Churchill analogy before Stallman himself sent me his own unsolicited comment on Churchill:<br>_1 World War II and the determination needed to win it was a very strong memory as I was growing up. Statements such as Churchill's, "We will fight them in the landing zones, we will fight them on the beaches . . . we will never surrender," have always resonated for me. }~
+Whatever the excuse, or excuses, the concurrent success of the Linux-kernel team created a tense situation. Sure, the Linux kernel had been licensed under the GPL, but as Murdock himself had noted, the desire to treat Linux as a purely free software operating system was far from uniform. By late 1993, the total Linux user population had grown from a dozen or so Minix enthusiasts to somewhere between 20,000 and 100,000.~{ GNU/Linux user-population numbers are sketchy at best, which is why I've provided such a broad range. The 100,000 total comes from the Red Hat "Milestones" site, \\ http://www.redhat.com/about/corporate/milestones.html }~ What had once been a hobby was now a marketplace ripe for exploitation. Like Winston Churchill watching Soviet troops sweep into Berlin, Stallman felt an understandable set of mixed emotions when it came time to celebrate the Linux "victory."~{ I wrote this Winston Churchill analogy before Stallman himself sent me his own unsolicited comment on Churchill: \\ _1 World War II and the determination needed to win it was a very strong memory as I was growing up. Statements such as Churchill's, "We will fight them in the landing zones, we will fight them on the beaches . . . we will never surrender," have always resonated for me. }~
 
 Although late to the party, Stallman still had clout. As soon as the FSF announced that it would lend its money and moral support to Murdock's software project, other offers of support began rolling in. Murdock dubbed the new project Debian-a compression of his and his wife, Deborah's, names-and within a few weeks was rolling out the first distribution. "[Richard's support] catapulted Debian almost overnight from this interesting little project to something people within the community had to pay attention to," Murdock says.
 ={Debian+19}
@@ -1694,7 +1684,7 @@ In January of 1994, Murdock issued the " Debian Manifesto." Written in the spiri
 
 _1 The Free Software Foundation plays an extremely important role in the future of Debian. By the simple fact that they will be distributing it, a message is sent to the world that Linux is not a commercial product and that it never should be, but that this does not mean that Linux will never be able to compete commercially. For those of you who disagree, I challenge you to rationalize the success of GNU Emacs and GCC, which are not commercial software but which have had quite an impact on the commercial market regardless of that fact.
 
-_1 The time has come to concentrate on the future of Linux rather than on the destructive goal of enriching oneself at the expense of the entire Linux community and its future. The development and distribution of Debian may not be the answer to the problems that I have outlined in the Manifesto, but I hope that it will at least attract enough attention to these problems to allow them to be solved.~{ See Ian Murdock, "A Brief History of Debian," (January 6, 1994): Appendix A, "The Debian Manifesto."<br> http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/project-history/apA.html }~
+_1 The time has come to concentrate on the future of Linux rather than on the destructive goal of enriching oneself at the expense of the entire Linux community and its future. The development and distribution of Debian may not be the answer to the problems that I have outlined in the Manifesto, but I hope that it will at least attract enough attention to these problems to allow them to be solved.~{ See Ian Murdock, "A Brief History of Debian," (January 6, 1994): Appendix A, "The Debian Manifesto." \\ http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/project-history/apA.html }~
 
 Shortly after the Manifesto's release, the Free Software Foundation made its first major request. Stallman wanted Murdock to call its distribution "GNU/Linux." At first, Murdock says, Stallman had wanted to use the term " Lignux"-"as in Linux with GNU at the heart of it"-but a sample testing of the term on Usenet and in various impromptu hacker focus groups had merited enough catcalls to convince Stallman to go with the less awkward GNU/Linux.
 ={Lignux (Linux with GNU)}
@@ -1707,7 +1697,7 @@ The deepest split, Murdock says, was over glibc. Short for GNU C Library, glibc
 In the hacker world, forks are an interesting phenomenon. Although the hacker ethic permits a programmer to do anything he wants with a given program's source code, most hackers prefer to pour their innovations into a central source-code file or "tree" to ensure compatibility with other people's programs. To fork glibc this early in the development of Linux would have meant losing the potential input of hundreds, even thousands, of Linux developers. It would also mean growing incompatibility between Linux and the GNU system that Stallman and the GNU team still hoped to develop.
 ={forks (code)+3;tree (source code)}
 
-As leader of the GNU Project, Stallman had already experienced the negative effects of a software fork in 1991. A group of Emacs developers working for a software company named Lucid had a falling out over Stallman's unwillingness to fold changes back into the GNU Emacs code base. The fork had given birth to a parallel version, Lucid Emacs, and hard feelings all around.~{ Jamie Zawinski, a former Lucid programmer who would go on to head the Mozilla development team, has a web site that documents the Lucid/GNU Emacs fork, titled, "The Lemacs/FSFmacs Schism."<br> http://www.jwz.org/doc/lemacs.html }~
+As leader of the GNU Project, Stallman had already experienced the negative effects of a software fork in 1991. A group of Emacs developers working for a software company named Lucid had a falling out over Stallman's unwillingness to fold changes back into the GNU Emacs code base. The fork had given birth to a parallel version, Lucid Emacs, and hard feelings all around.~{ Jamie Zawinski, a former Lucid programmer who would go on to head the Mozilla development team, has a web site that documents the Lucid/GNU Emacs fork, titled, "The Lemacs/FSFmacs Schism." \\ http://www.jwz.org/doc/lemacs.html }~
 ={Emacs text editor:Lucid software company and;GNU Emacs:Lucid software company and;Lucid software company}
 
 Murdock says Debian was mounting work on a similar fork in glibc source code that motivated Stallman to insist on adding the GNU prefix when Debian rolled out its software distribution. "The fork has since converged. Still, at the time, there was a concern that if the Linux community saw itself as a different thing as the GNU community, it might be a force for disunity."
@@ -1758,7 +1748,7 @@ Ready or not.
 In November , 1995, Peter Salus, a member of the Free Software Foundation and author of the 1994 book, A Quarter Century of Unix, issued a call for papers to members of the GNU Project's "system-discuss" mailing list. Salus, the conference's scheduled chairman, wanted to tip off fellow hackers about the upcoming Conference on Freely Redistributable Software in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Slated for February, 1996 and sponsored by the Free Software Foundation, the event promised to be the first engineering conference solely dedicated to free software and, in a show of unity with other free software programmers, welcomed papers on "any aspect of GNU, Linux, NetBSD, 386BSD, FreeBSD, Perl, Tcl/tk, and other tools for which the code is accessible and redistributable." Salus wrote:
 ={Free Software Foundation (FSF);FSF (Free Software Foundation);FreeBSD;Conference on Freely Redistributable Software+1;Linux;NetBSD;Perl programming language;386BSD;Salus, Peter+4}
 
-_1 Over the past 15 years, free and low-cost software has become ubiquitous. This conference will bring together implementers of several different types of freely redistributable software and publishers of such software (on various media). There will be tutorials and refereed papers, as well as keynotes by Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman.~{ See Peter Salus, "FYI-Conference on Freely Redistributable Software, 2/2, Cambridge" (1995) (archived by Terry Winograd).<br> http://hci.stanford.edu/pcd-archives/pcd-fyi/1995/0078.html }~
+_1 Over the past 15 years, free and low-cost software has become ubiquitous. This conference will bring together implementers of several different types of freely redistributable software and publishers of such software (on various media). There will be tutorials and refereed papers, as well as keynotes by Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman.~{ See Peter Salus, "FYI-Conference on Freely Redistributable Software, 2/2, Cambridge" (1995) (archived by Terry Winograd). \\ http://hci.stanford.edu/pcd-archives/pcd-fyi/1995/0078.html }~
 
 One of the first people to receive Salus' email was conference committee member Eric S. Raymond. Although not the leader of a project or company like the various other members of the list, Raymond had built a tidy reputation within the hacker community as a major contributor to GNU Emacs and as editor of /{The New Hacker Dictionary}/, a book version of the hacking community's decade-old Jargon File.
 ={New Hacker Dictionary, The;Raymond, Eric:open source and+56}
@@ -1767,7 +1757,7 @@ For Raymond, the 1996 conference was a welcome event. Active in the GNU Project
 
 Despite the falling out, Raymond remained active in the free software community. So much so that when Salus suggested a conference pairing Stallman and Torvalds as keynote speakers, Raymond eagerly seconded the idea. With Stallman representing the older, wiser contingent of ITS/Unix hackers and Torvalds representing the younger, more energetic crop of Linux hackers, the pairing indicated a symbolic show of unity that could only be beneficial, especially to ambitious younger (i.e., below 40) hackers such as Raymond. "I sort of had a foot in both camps," Raymond says.
 
-By the time of the conference, the tension between those two camps had become palpable. Both groups had one thing in common, though: the conference was their first chance to meet the Finnish wunderkind in the flesh. Surprisingly, Torvalds proved himself to be a charming, affable speaker. Possessing only a slight Swedish accent, Torvalds surprised audience members with his quick, self-effacing wit.~{ Although Linus Torvalds is Finnish, his mother tongue is Swedish. "The Rampantly Unofficial Linus FAQ" offers a brief explanation:<br>_1 Finland has a significant (about 6%) Swedish-speaking minority population. They call themselves "finlandssvensk" or "finlandssvenskar" and consider themselves Finns; many of their families have lived in Finland for centuries. Swedish is one of Finland's two official languages.<br> http://tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/linus/ }~ Even more surprising, says Raymond, was Torvalds' equal willingness to take potshots at other prominent hackers, including the most prominent hacker of all, Richard Stallman. By the end of the conference, Torvalds' half-hacker, half-slacker manner was winning over older and younger conference-goers alike.
+By the time of the conference, the tension between those two camps had become palpable. Both groups had one thing in common, though: the conference was their first chance to meet the Finnish wunderkind in the flesh. Surprisingly, Torvalds proved himself to be a charming, affable speaker. Possessing only a slight Swedish accent, Torvalds surprised audience members with his quick, self-effacing wit.~{ Although Linus Torvalds is Finnish, his mother tongue is Swedish. "The Rampantly Unofficial Linus FAQ" offers a brief explanation: \\ _1 Finland has a significant (about 6%) Swedish-speaking minority population. They call themselves "finlandssvensk" or "finlandssvenskar" and consider themselves Finns; many of their families have lived in Finland for centuries. Swedish is one of Finland's two official languages. \\ http://tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/linus/ }~ Even more surprising, says Raymond, was Torvalds' equal willingness to take potshots at other prominent hackers, including the most prominent hacker of all, Richard Stallman. By the end of the conference, Torvalds' half-hacker, half-slacker manner was winning over older and younger conference-goers alike.
 
 "It was a pivotal moment," recalls Raymond. "Before 1996, Richard was the only credible claimant to being the ideological leader of the entire culture. People who dissented didn't do so in public. The person who broke that taboo was Torvalds."
 
@@ -1785,7 +1775,7 @@ As a former GNU Project member, Raymond sensed an added dynamic to the tension b
 For Raymond, the defection merely confirmed a growing suspicion: recent delays such as the HURD and recent troubles such as the Lucid-Emacs schism reflected problems normally associated with software project management, not software code development. Shortly after the Freely Redistributable Software Conference, Raymond began working on his own pet software project, a popmail utility called "fetchmail." Taking a cue from Torvalds, Raymond issued his program with a tacked-on promise to update the source code as early and as often as possible. When users began sending in bug reports and feature suggestions, Raymond, at first anticipating a tangled mess, found the resulting software surprisingly sturdy. Analyzing the success of the Torvalds approach, Raymond issued a quick analysis: using the Internet as his "petri dish" and the harsh scrutiny of the hacker community as a form of natural selection, Torvalds had created an evolutionary model free of central planning.
 ={fetchmail;FreeBSD;Conference on Freely Redistributable Software;Internet}
 
-What's more, Raymond decided, Torvalds had found a way around Brooks' Law. First articulated by Fred P. Brooks, manager of IBM's OS/360 project and author of the 1975 book, The Mythical Man-Month, Brooks' Law held that adding developers to a project only resulted in further project delays. Believing as most hackers that software, like soup, benefits from a limited number of cooks, Raymond sensed something revolutionary at work. In inviting more and more cooks into the kitchen, Torvalds had actually found away to make the resulting software better.~{ Brooks' Law is the shorthand summary of the following quote taken from Brooks' book:<br>_1 Since software construction is inherently a systems effort-an exercise in complex interrelationships-communication effort is great, and it quickly dominates the decrease in individual task time brought about by partitioning. Adding more men then lengthens, not shortens, the schedule.<br>See Fred P. Brooks, The Mythical Man-Month (Addison Wesley Publishing, 1995) }~
+What's more, Raymond decided, Torvalds had found a way around Brooks' Law. First articulated by Fred P. Brooks, manager of IBM's OS/360 project and author of the 1975 book, The Mythical Man-Month, Brooks' Law held that adding developers to a project only resulted in further project delays. Believing as most hackers that software, like soup, benefits from a limited number of cooks, Raymond sensed something revolutionary at work. In inviting more and more cooks into the kitchen, Torvalds had actually found away to make the resulting software better.~{ Brooks' Law is the shorthand summary of the following quote taken from Brooks' book: \\ _1 Since software construction is inherently a systems effort-an exercise in complex interrelationships-communication effort is great, and it quickly dominates the decrease in individual task time brought about by partitioning. Adding more men then lengthens, not shortens, the schedule. \\ See Fred P. Brooks, The Mythical Man-Month (Addison Wesley Publishing, 1995) }~
 ={Brooks, Fred P.;Mythical Man-Month, The (Brooks)}
 
 Raymond put his observations on paper. He crafted them into a speech, which he promptly delivered before a group of friends and neighbors in Chester County, Pennsylvania. Dubbed " The Cathedral and the Bazaar," the speech contrasted the management styles of the GNU Project with the management style of Torvalds and the kernel hackers. Raymond says the response was enthusiastic, but not nearly as enthusiastic as the one he received during the 1997 Linux Kongress, a gathering of Linux users in Germany the next spring.
@@ -1823,7 +1813,7 @@ While in California, Raymond also managed to squeeze in a visit to VA Research,
 
 Peterson, whose organization had taken an active interest in advancing the free software cause, offered an alternative: open source.
 
-Looking back, Peterson says she came up with the open source term while discussing Netscape's decision with a friend in the public relations industry. She doesn't remember where she came upon the term or if she borrowed it from another field, but she does remember her friend disliking the term.~{ See Malcolm Maclachlan, "Profit Motive Splits Open Source Movement," TechWeb News (August 26, 1998).<br> http://content.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19980824S0012 }~
+Looking back, Peterson says she came up with the open source term while discussing Netscape's decision with a friend in the public relations industry. She doesn't remember where she came upon the term or if she borrowed it from another field, but she does remember her friend disliking the term.~{ See Malcolm Maclachlan, "Profit Motive Splits Open Source Movement," TechWeb News (August 26, 1998). \\ http://content.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19980824S0012 }~
 
 At the meeting, Peterson says, the response was dramatically different. "I was hesitant about suggesting it," Peterson recalls. "I had no standing with the group, so started using it casually, not highlighting it as a new term." To Peterson's surprise, the term caught on. By the end of the meeting, most of the attendees, including Raymond, seemed pleased by it.
 
@@ -1880,7 +1870,7 @@ http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.html }~
 
 Perens would later resign from the OSI, expressing regret that the organization had set itself up in opposition to Stallman and the FSF. Still, looking back on the need for a free software definition outside the Free Software Foundation's auspices, Perens understands why other hackers might still feel the need for distance. "I really like and admire Richard," says Perens. "I do think Richard would do his job better if Richard had more balance. That includes going away from free software for a couple of months."
 
-Stallman's monomaniacal energies would do little to counteract the public-relations momentum of open source proponents. In August of 1998, when chip-maker Intel purchased a stake in GNU/Linux vendor Red Hat, an accompanying New York Times article described the company as the product of a movement "known alternatively as free software and open source."~{ See Amy Harmon, "For Sale: Free Operating System," New York Times (September 28, 1998).<br> http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/98/09/biztech/articles/28linux.html }~ Six months later, a John Markoff article on Apple Computer was proclaiming the company's adoption of the "open source" Apache server in the article headline.~{ See John Markoff, "Apple Adopts `Open Source' for its Server Computers," New York Times (March 17, 1999).<br> http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/03/biztech/articles/17apple.html }~
+Stallman's monomaniacal energies would do little to counteract the public-relations momentum of open source proponents. In August of 1998, when chip-maker Intel purchased a stake in GNU/Linux vendor Red Hat, an accompanying New York Times article described the company as the product of a movement "known alternatively as free software and open source."~{ See Amy Harmon, "For Sale: Free Operating System," New York Times (September 28, 1998). \\ http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/98/09/biztech/articles/28linux.html }~ Six months later, a John Markoff article on Apple Computer was proclaiming the company's adoption of the "open source" Apache server in the article headline.~{ See John Markoff, "Apple Adopts `Open Source' for its Server Computers," New York Times (March 17, 1999). \\ http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/03/biztech/articles/17apple.html }~
 ={Apache web server;Apple Computers:open source software and;Intel;Markoff, John;Red Hat Inc.:success of+1}
 
 Such momentum would coincide with the growing momentum of companies that actively embraced the "open source" term. By August of 1999, Red Hat, a company that now eagerly billed itself as "open source," was selling shares on Nasdaq. In December, VA Linux-formerly VA Research-was floating its own IPO to historical effect. Opening at $30 per share, the company's stock price exploded past the $300 mark in initial trading only to settle back down to the $239 level. Shareholders lucky enough to get in at the bottom and stay until the end experienced a 698% increase in paper wealth, a Nasdaq record.
@@ -1890,7 +1880,7 @@ Such momentum would coincide with the growing momentum of companies that activel
 
 Among those lucky shareholders was Eric Raymond, who, as a company board member since the Mozilla launch, had received 150,000 shares of VA Linux stock. Stunned by the realization that his essay contrasting the Stallman-Torvalds managerial styles had netted him $36 million in potential wealth, Raymond penned a follow-up essay. In it, Raymond mused on the relationship between the hacker ethic and monetary wealth:
 
-_1 Reporters often ask me these days if I think the open-source community will be corrupted by the influx of big money. I tell them what I believe, which is this: commercial demand for programmers has been so intense for so long that anyone who can be seriously distracted by money is already gone. Our community has been self-selected for caring about other things-accomplishment, pride, artistic passion, and each other.~{ See Eric Raymond, "Surprised by Wealth," Linux Today (December 10, 1999).<br> http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=1999-12-10-001-05-NW-LF }~
+_1 Reporters often ask me these days if I think the open-source community will be corrupted by the influx of big money. I tell them what I believe, which is this: commercial demand for programmers has been so intense for so long that anyone who can be seriously distracted by money is already gone. Our community has been self-selected for caring about other things-accomplishment, pride, artistic passion, and each other.~{ See Eric Raymond, "Surprised by Wealth," Linux Today (December 10, 1999). \\ http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=1999-12-10-001-05-NW-LF }~
 
 Whether or not such comments allayed suspicions that Raymond and other open source proponents had simply been in it for the money, they drove home the open source community's ultimate message: all you needed to sell the free software concept is a friendly face and a sensible message. Instead of fighting the marketplace head-on as Stallman had done, Raymond, Torvalds, and other new leaders of the hacker community had adopted a more relaxed approach-ignoring the marketplace in some areas, leveraging it in others. Instead of playing the role of high-school outcasts, they had played the game of celebrity, magnifying their power in the process.
 
@@ -2127,7 +2117,7 @@ During my research, I came across an essay titled "Freedom-Or Copyright?" Writte
 
 % additional reference to the Digital Millenium Copyright Act
 
-_1 We still have the same old freedoms in using paper books. But if e-books replace printed books, that exception will do little good. With "electronic ink," which makes it possible to download new text onto an apparently printed piece of paper, even newspapers could become ephemeral. Imagine: no more used book stores; no more lending a book to your friend; no more borrowing one from the public library-no more "leaks" that might give someone a chance to read without paying. (And judging from the ads for Microsoft Reader, no more anonymous purchasing of books either.) This is the world publishers have in mind for us.~{ See "Safari Tech Books Online; Subscriber Agreement: Terms of Service."<br> http://safari.oreilly.com/mainhlp.asp?help=service }~
+_1 We still have the same old freedoms in using paper books. But if e-books replace printed books, that exception will do little good. With "electronic ink," which makes it possible to download new text onto an apparently printed piece of paper, even newspapers could become ephemeral. Imagine: no more used book stores; no more lending a book to your friend; no more borrowing one from the public library-no more "leaks" that might give someone a chance to read without paying. (And judging from the ads for Microsoft Reader, no more anonymous purchasing of books either.) This is the world publishers have in mind for us.~{ See "Safari Tech Books Online; Subscriber Agreement: Terms of Service." \\ http://safari.oreilly.com/mainhlp.asp?help=service }~
 
 Needless to say, the essay caused some concern. Neither Tracy nor I had discussed the software her company would use nor had we discussed the type of copyright that would govern the e-book's usage. I mentioned the Technology Review article and asked if she could give me information on her company's e-book policies. Tracy promised to get back to me.
 
@@ -2218,9 +2208,9 @@ In July, a full year after the original email from Tracy, I got a call from Henn
 Sure enough, the issue did come up. I learned through Henning that O'Reilly intended to publish the biography both as a book and as part of its new Safari Tech Books Online subscription service. The Safari user license would involve special restrictions,1 Henning warned, but O'Reilly was willing to allow for a copyright that permitted users to copy and share and the book's text regardless of medium. Basically, as author, I had the choice between two licenses: the Open Publication License or the GNU Free Documentation License.
 ={Open Publication License (OPL)+8;OPL (Open Publication License)+8;Safari Tech Books Online subscription service}
 
-I checked out the contents and background of each license. The Open Publication License (OPL)~{ See "The Open Publication License: Draft v1.0" (June 8, 1999).<br> http://opencontent.org/openpub/ }~ gives readers the right to reproduce and distribute a work, in whole or in part, in any medium "physical or electronic," provided the copied work retains the Open Publication License. It also permits modification of a work, provided certain conditions are met. Finally, the Open Publication License includes a number of options, which, if selected by the author, can limit the creation of "substantively modified" versions or book-form derivatives without prior author approval.
+I checked out the contents and background of each license. The Open Publication License (OPL)~{ See "The Open Publication License: Draft v1.0" (June 8, 1999). \\ http://opencontent.org/openpub/ }~ gives readers the right to reproduce and distribute a work, in whole or in part, in any medium "physical or electronic," provided the copied work retains the Open Publication License. It also permits modification of a work, provided certain conditions are met. Finally, the Open Publication License includes a number of options, which, if selected by the author, can limit the creation of "substantively modified" versions or book-form derivatives without prior author approval.
 
-The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL),~{ See "The GNU Free Documentation License: Version 1.1" (March, 2000).<br> http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html }~ meanwhile, permits the copying and distribution of a document in any medium, provided the resulting work carries the same license. It also permits the modification of a document provided certain conditions. Unlike the OPL, however, it does not give authors the option to restrict certain modifications. It also does not give authors the right to reject modifications that might result in a competitive book product. It does require certain forms of front- and back-cover information if a party other than the copyright holder wishes to publish more than 100 copies of a protected work, however.
+The GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL),~{ See "The GNU Free Documentation License: Version 1.1" (March, 2000). \\ http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html }~ meanwhile, permits the copying and distribution of a document in any medium, provided the resulting work carries the same license. It also permits the modification of a document provided certain conditions. Unlike the OPL, however, it does not give authors the option to restrict certain modifications. It also does not give authors the right to reject modifications that might result in a competitive book product. It does require certain forms of front- and back-cover information if a party other than the copyright holder wishes to publish more than 100 copies of a protected work, however.
 ={GFDL (GNU Free Documentation License)+1;GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL)+1}
 
 In the course of researching the licenses, I also made sure to visit the GNU Project web page titled "Various Licenses and Comments About Them."~{ See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html }~ On that page, I found a Stallman critique of the Open Publication License. Stallman's critique related to the creation of modified works and the ability of an author to select either one of the OPL's options to restrict modification. If an author didn't want to select either option, it was better to use the GFDL instead, Stallman noted, since it minimized the risk of the nonselected options popping up in modified versions of a document.
diff --git a/data/v3/samples/free_as_in_freedom_2.richard_stallman_and_the_free_software_revolution.sam_williams.richard_stallman.sst b/data/v3/samples/free_as_in_freedom_2.richard_stallman_and_the_free_software_revolution.sam_williams.richard_stallman.sst
index 0ad9038..5fda933 100644
--- a/data/v3/samples/free_as_in_freedom_2.richard_stallman_and_the_free_software_revolution.sam_williams.richard_stallman.sst
+++ b/data/v3/samples/free_as_in_freedom_2.richard_stallman_and_the_free_software_revolution.sam_williams.richard_stallman.sst
@@ -6,6 +6,9 @@
 @creator:
  :author: Williams, Sam; Stallman, Richard M.
 
+@date:
+ :published: 2010
+
 @rights:
  :copyright: Copyright (C) Sam Williams 2002; Copyright 2010 Richard M. Stallman
  :license: Published under the GNU Free Documentation License. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License."
@@ -13,28 +16,17 @@
 @classify:
  :topic_register: SiSU:markup sample:book;copyright;GNU/Linux:GPL|copyleft|free software;free software;Software:Software Libré;GPL;Linux:GNU|Software Libré;book:biography;programming
 
-@date:
- :published: 2010
+@links:
+ { Home and Source }http://faifzilla.org/
+ { @ Wikipedia }http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_as_in_Freedom:_Richard_Stallman%27s_Crusade_for_Free_Software
+ { @ Amazon.com }http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0596002874
+ { @ Barnes & Noble }http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?isbn=0596002874
+ { SiSU }http://sisudoc.org/
+ { sources / git }http://sources.sisudoc.org/
 
 @make:
- :skin: skin_rms2
  :breaks: new=:A,:B,:C,1
-
-@links:
- { Home and Source }http://faifzilla.org/
- {Free as in Freedom (on Richard Stallman), Sam Williams @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/free_as_in_freedom.richard_stallman_crusade_for_free_software.sam_williams
- {@ Wikipedia}http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_as_in_Freedom:_Richard_Stallman%27s_Crusade_for_Free_Software
- {@ Amazon.com}http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0596002874
- {@ Barnes & Noble}http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?isbn=0596002874
- {Viral Spiral, David Bollier@ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/viral_spiral.david_bollier
- {Democratizing Innovation, Eric von Hippel @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/democratizing_innovation.eric_von_hippel
- {The Wealth of Networks, Yochai Benkler @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/the_wealth_of_networks.yochai_benkler
- {Two Bits, Christopher Kelty @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/two_bits.christopher_kelty
- {Free For All, Peter Wayner @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/free_for_all.peter_wayner
- {The Cathedral and the Bazaar, Eric S. Raymond @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/the_cathedral_and_the_bazaar.eric_s_raymond
- {Free Culture, Lawrence Lessig @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/free_culture.lawrence_lessig
- {CONTENT, Cory Doctorow @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/content.cory_doctorow
- {Little Brother, Cory Doctorow @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/little_brother.cory_doctorow
+ :skin: skin_rms2
 
 % http://static.fsf.org/nosvn/faif-2.0.pdf 
 % http://www.scribd.com/doc/55232810/Free-as-in-Freedom-Richard-Stallman
diff --git a/data/v3/samples/free_culture.lawrence_lessig.sst b/data/v3/samples/free_culture.lawrence_lessig.sst
index a2e059a..621fc69 100644
--- a/data/v3/samples/free_culture.lawrence_lessig.sst
+++ b/data/v3/samples/free_culture.lawrence_lessig.sst
@@ -11,47 +11,33 @@
  :created: 2004-03-25
  :issued: 2004-03-25
  :available: 2004-03-25
- :modified: 2004-03-25
  :valid: 2004-03-25
-
-% :created: 2004-04-08
+ :modified: 2004-03-25
 
 @rights:
  :copyright: Copyright (C) Lawrence Lessig, 2004.
  :license: Free Culture is Licensed under a Creative Commons License. This License permits non-commercial use of this work, so long as attribution is given. For more information about the license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/
 
 @classify:
- :type: Book
  :topic_register: SiSU:markup sample:book;copyright;free culture;creative commons;intellectual property:copyright:creative commons;book:subject:culture|copyright|society|public policy|mass media;culture;society
+ :type: Book
  :isbn: 9781594200069
  :oclc: 53324884
 
 % :isbn: 1594200068
 
-% :language: US
-
-@make:
- :breaks: new=:B; break=1
- :skin: skin_lessig
-
 @links:
  {Free Culture}http://www.free-culture.cc
  {Remixes}http://www.free-culture.cc/remixes/
- {Free Culture, Lawrence Lessig @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/free_culture.lawrence_lessig
  {@ Wikipedia}http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Culture_%28book%29
  {@ Amazon.com}http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594200068
  {@ Barnes & Noble}http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?isbn=1594200068
- {The Wealth of Networks, Yochai Benkler @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/the_wealth_of_networks.yochai_benkler
- {Viral Spiral, David Bollier@ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/viral_spiral.david_bollier
- {Democratizing Innovation, Eric von Hippel @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/democratizing_innovation.eric_von_hippel
- {Two Bits, Christopher Kelty @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/two_bits.christopher_kelty
- {Free as in Freedom (on Richard M. Stallman), Sam Williams @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/free_as_in_freedom.richard_stallman_crusade_for_free_software.sam_williams
- {Free For All, Peter Wayner @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/free_for_all.peter_wayner
- {The Cathedral and the Bazaar, Eric S. Raymond @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/the_cathedral_and_the_bazaar.eric_s_raymond
- { CONTENT, Cory Doctorow @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/content.cory_doctorow
- {Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom, Cory Doctorow @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/down_and_out_in_the_magic_kingdom.cory_doctorow
- { Little Brother, Cory Doctorow @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/little_brother.cory_doctorow
- {For the Win, Cory Doctorow @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/for_the_win.cory_doctorow
+ { SiSU }http://sisudoc.org/
+ { sources / git }http://sources.sisudoc.org/
+
+@make:
+ :breaks: new=:B; break=1
+ :skin: skin_lessig
 
 :A~ @title @author
 
@@ -834,7 +820,7 @@ Let's start with some simple but important points. From the perspective of the l
 Whether on balance sharing is harmful depends importantly on how harmful type A sharing is. Just as Edison complained about Hollywood, composers complained about piano rolls, recording artists complained about radio, and broadcasters complained about cable TV, the music industry complains that type A sharing is a kind of "theft" that is "devastating" the industry.
 ={Edison, Thomas}
 
-While the numbers do suggest that sharing is harmful, how harmful is harder to reckon. It has long been the recording industry's practice to blame technology for any drop in sales. The history of cassette recording is a good example. As a study by Cap Gemini Ernst & Young put it, "Rather than exploiting this new, popular technology, the labels fought it."~{ See Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, /{Technology Evolution and the Music Industry's Business Model Crisis}/ (2003), 3. This report describes the music industry's effort to stigmatize the budding practice of cassette taping in the 1970s, including an advertising campaign featuring a cassette-shape skull and the caption "Home taping is killing music."<br>At the time digital audio tape became a threat, the Office of Technical Assessment conducted a survey of consumer behavior. In 1988, 40 percent of consumers older than ten had taped music to a cassette format. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, /{Copyright and Home Copying: Technology Challenges the Law,}/ OTA-CIT-422 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, October 1989), 145-56. }~ The labels claimed that every album taped was an album unsold, and when record sales fell by 11.4 percent in 1981, the industry claimed that its point was proved. Technology was the problem, and banning or regulating technology was the answer.
+While the numbers do suggest that sharing is harmful, how harmful is harder to reckon. It has long been the recording industry's practice to blame technology for any drop in sales. The history of cassette recording is a good example. As a study by Cap Gemini Ernst & Young put it, "Rather than exploiting this new, popular technology, the labels fought it."~{ See Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, /{Technology Evolution and the Music Industry's Business Model Crisis}/ (2003), 3. This report describes the music industry's effort to stigmatize the budding practice of cassette taping in the 1970s, including an advertising campaign featuring a cassette-shape skull and the caption "Home taping is killing music." \\ At the time digital audio tape became a threat, the Office of Technical Assessment conducted a survey of consumer behavior. In 1988, 40 percent of consumers older than ten had taped music to a cassette format. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, /{Copyright and Home Copying: Technology Challenges the Law,}/ OTA-CIT-422 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, October 1989), 145-56. }~ The labels claimed that every album taped was an album unsold, and when record sales fell by 11.4 percent in 1981, the industry claimed that its point was proved. Technology was the problem, and banning or regulating technology was the answer.
 ={cassette recording+1;recording industry:new technology opposed by+2;technology:established industries threatened by changes in+2}
 
 Yet soon thereafter, and before Congress was given an opportunity to enact regulation, MTV was launched, and the industry had a record turnaround. "In the end," Cap Gemini concludes, "the 'crisis' ... was not the fault of the tapers" who did not [stop after MTV came into being] - but had to a large extent resulted from stagnation in musical innovation at the major labels."~{ U.S. Congress, /{Copyright and Home Copying,}/ 4. }~
@@ -891,7 +877,7 @@ If 99.4 percent is not good enough, then this is a war on file-sharing technolog
 Zero tolerance has not been our history. It has not produced the content industry that we know today. The history of American law has been a process of balance. As new technologies changed the way content was distributed, the law adjusted, after some time, to the new technology. In this adjustment, the law sought to ensure the legitimate rights of creators while protecting innovation. Sometimes this has meant more rights for creators. Sometimes less.
 
 So, as we've seen, when "mechanical reproduction" threatened the interests of composers, Congress balanced the rights of composers against the interests of the recording industry. It granted rights to composers, but also to the recording artists: Composers were to be paid, but at a price set by Congress. But when radio started broadcasting the recordings made by these recording artists, and they complained to Congress that their "creative property" was not being respected (since the radio station did not have to pay them for the creativity it broadcast), Congress rejected their claim. An indirect benefit was enough.
-={artists:recording industry payments to;composers, copyright protections of;Congress, U.S.:on copyright laws+3|on recording industry+1;copyright law:on music recordings+2|statutory licenses in+2;radio:music recordings played on;recording industry:artist remuneration in|copyright protections in|radio broadcast and;statutory licenses|composer's rights vs. producers' rights in}
+={artists:recording industry payments to;composers, copyright protections of;Congress, U.S.:on copyright laws+3|on recording industry+1;copyright law:on music recordings+2|statutory licenses in+2;radio:music recordings played on;recording industry:artist remuneration in|copyright protections in|radio broadcast and;statutory licenses:composer's rights vs. producers' rights in}
 
 Cable TV followed the pattern of record albums. When the courts rejected the claim that cable broadcasters had to pay for the content they rebroadcast, Congress responded by giving broadcasters a right to compensation, but at a level set by the law. It likewise gave cable companies the right to the content, so long as they paid the statutory price.
 ={cable television+1;Congress, U.S.:on cable television+1;copyright law:on cable television rebroadcasting+1;television:cable vs. broadcast+1}
diff --git a/data/v3/samples/free_for_all.peter_wayner.sst b/data/v3/samples/free_for_all.peter_wayner.sst
index 27f4136..ba7ac3f 100644
--- a/data/v3/samples/free_for_all.peter_wayner.sst
+++ b/data/v3/samples/free_for_all.peter_wayner.sst
@@ -6,16 +6,6 @@
 @creator:
  :author: Wayner, Peter
 
-@classify:
- :type: Book
- :topic_register: SiSU:markup sample:book;GNU/Linux:GPL;free software;open source software;software license:GPL;Linux:GNU|Software Libré;book:subject:Linux|Software Libré|technology
- :oclc: 43520955
- :isbn: 9780066620503
-
-@rights:
-  :copyright: Copyright (C) Peter Wayner, 2000.
-  :license: Free For All is Licensed under a Creative Commons License. This License permits non-commercial use of this work, so long as attribution is given. For more information about the license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/
-
 @date:
  :published: 2002-12-22
  :created: 2002-12-22
@@ -24,28 +14,27 @@
  :modified: 2002-12-22
  :valid: 2002-12-22
 
-% :language: US
+@rights:
+  :copyright: Copyright (C) Peter Wayner, 2000.
+  :license: Free For All is Licensed under a Creative Commons License. This License permits non-commercial use of this work, so long as attribution is given. For more information about the license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/
+
+@classify:
+ :topic_register: SiSU:markup sample:book;GNU/Linux:GPL;free software;open source software;software license:GPL;Linux:GNU|Software Libré;book:subject:Linux|Software Libré|technology
+ :type: Book
+ :oclc: 43520955
+ :isbn: 9780066620503
+
+@links:
+ { The Original Authoritative and Updated Version of the Text available in pdf }http://www.wayner.org/books/ffa
+ { @ Amazon.com }http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0066620503
+ { @ Barnes & Noble }http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?isbn=0066620503
+ { SiSU }http://sisudoc.org/
+ { sources / git }http://sources.sisudoc.org/
 
 @make:
  :num_top: 1
  :breaks: new=:A,:B,:C,1
  :skin: skin_wayner
- :image: center
-
-@links:
- {The Original Authoritative and Updated Version of the Text available in pdf}http://www.wayner.org/books/ffa
- {Free For All @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/free_for_all.peter_wayner
- {@ Amazon.com}http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0066620503
- {@ Barnes & Noble}http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?isbn=0066620503
- {Free as in Freedom (on Richard M. Stallman), Sam Williams @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/free_as_in_freedom.richard_stallman_crusade_for_free_software.sam_williams
- {The Wealth of Networks, Yochai Benkler @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/the_wealth_of_networks.yochai_benkler
- {Viral Spiral, David Bollier@ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/viral_spiral.david_bollier
- {Democratizing Innovation, Eric von Hippel @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/democratizing_innovation.eric_von_hippel
- {Two Bits, Christopher Kelty @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/two_bits.christopher_kelty
- {The Cathedral and the Bazaar, Eric S. Raymond @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/the_cathedral_and_the_bazaar.eric_s_raymond
- {Free Culture, Lawrence Lessig @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/free_culture.lawrence_lessig
- {CONTENT, Cory Doctorow @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/content.cory_doctorow
- {Little Brother, Cory Doctorow @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/little_brother.cory_doctorow
 
 :A~ @title @author
 
@@ -3057,42 +3046,42 @@ This license was first written by Richard Stallman to control the usage of softw
 
 *{Abelson, Reed.}* "Among U.S. Donations, Tons of Worthless Drugs." New York Times, June 29, 1999.
 
-*{Ananian, C. Scott.}* "A Linux Lament: As Red Hat Prepares to Go Public, One Linux Hacker's Dreams of IPO Glory Are Crushed by the Man." Salon magazine, July 30, 1999. <br />
-http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/1999/07/30/redhat_shares/index.html <br />
-"Questions Not to Ask on Linux-Kernel." May 1998. <br />
+*{Ananian, C. Scott.}* "A Linux Lament: As Red Hat Prepares to Go Public, One Linux Hacker's Dreams of IPO Glory Are Crushed by the Man." Salon magazine, July 30, 1999. \\
+http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/1999/07/30/redhat_shares/index.html \\
+"Questions Not to Ask on Linux-Kernel." May 1998. \\
 http://lwn.net/980521/a/nonfaq.html
 
 *{Aragon, Lawrence, and Matthew A. De Bellis.}* "Our Lunch With Linus: (Almost) Everything You Need to Know About the World's Hottest Programmer." VAR Business, April 12, 1999.
 
 *{Betz, David, and Jon Edwards.}* "GNU's NOT UNIX." BYTE, July 1986.
 
-*{Brinkley, Joel.}* "Microsoft Witness Attacked for Contradictory Opinions." New York Times, January 15, 1999. <br />
+*{Brinkley, Joel.}* "Microsoft Witness Attacked for Contradictory Opinions." New York Times, January 15, 1999. \\
 http://www.nytimes.com/library/1999/01/biztech/articles/15soft.html
 
-*{Bronson, Po.}* "Manager's Journal Silicon Valley Searches for an Image."Wall Street Journal, June 8, 1998. <br />Nudist on the Late Shift: And Other True Tales of Silicon Valley. New York: Random House, 1999.
+*{Bronson, Po.}* "Manager's Journal Silicon Valley Searches for an Image."Wall Street Journal, June 8, 1998. \\ Nudist on the Late Shift: And Other True Tales of Silicon Valley. New York: Random House, 1999.
 
-*{Brown, Zack.}* "The 'Linux' vs. 'GNU/Linux' Debate." Kernel Traffic, April 13, 1999. <br />
+*{Brown, Zack.}* "The 'Linux' vs. 'GNU/Linux' Debate." Kernel Traffic, April 13, 1999. \\
 http://www.kt.opensrc.org/kt19990408_13.html#editorial
 
-*{Caravita, Giuseppe.}* "Telecommunications, Technology, and Science." Il Sole 24 Ore, March 5, 1999. <br />
+*{Caravita, Giuseppe.}* "Telecommunications, Technology, and Science." Il Sole 24 Ore, March 5, 1999. \\
 http://www.ilsole24ore.it/24oreinformatica/speciale_3d.19990305/INFORMATICA/Informatica/A.html
 
-*{Chalmers, Rachel.}* "Challenges Ahead for the Linux Standards Base."LinuxWorld, April 1999. <br />
+*{Chalmers, Rachel.}* "Challenges Ahead for the Linux Standards Base."LinuxWorld, April 1999. \\
 http://www.linuxworld.com/linuxworld/lw-1999-04/lw-04-lsb.html
 
-*{Coates, James.}* "A Rebellious Reaction to the Linux Revolution."Chicago Tribune, April 25, 1999. <br />
+*{Coates, James.}* "A Rebellious Reaction to the Linux Revolution."Chicago Tribune, April 25, 1999. \\
 http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/printedition/article/0,1051,SA-Vo9904250051,00.html
 
-*{Cox, Alan.}* "Editorial." Freshmeat, July 18, 1999. <br />
+*{Cox, Alan.}* "Editorial." Freshmeat, July 18, 1999. \\
 http://www.freshmeat.net/news/1998/07/18/900797536.html
 
-*{Cringely, Robert X.}* "Be Careful What You Wish For: Why Being Acquired by Microsoft Makes Hardly Anyone Happy in the Long Run." PBS Online, August 27, 1999. <br />
+*{Cringely, Robert X.}* "Be Careful What You Wish For: Why Being Acquired by Microsoft Makes Hardly Anyone Happy in the Long Run." PBS Online, August 27, 1999. \\
 http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit19990826.html
 
-*{D'Amico, Mary Lisbeth.}* "German Division of Microsoft Protests 'Where Do You Want to Go Tomorrow' Slogan: Linux Site Holds Contest for New Slogan While Case Is Pending." LinuxWorld, April 13, 1999. <br />
+*{D'Amico, Mary Lisbeth.}* "German Division of Microsoft Protests 'Where Do You Want to Go Tomorrow' Slogan: Linux Site Holds Contest for New Slogan While Case Is Pending." LinuxWorld, April 13, 1999. \\
 http://www.linuxworld.com/linuxworld/lw-1999-04/lw-04-german.html
 
-*{Diamond, David.}* "Linus the Liberator." San Jose Mercury News. <br />
+*{Diamond, David.}* "Linus the Liberator." San Jose Mercury News. \\
 http://www.mercurycenter.com/svtech/news/special/linus/story.html
 
 *{DiBona, Chris, Sam Ockman, and Mark Stone.}* Open Sources:Voices from the Open Source Revolution. San Francisco: O'Reilly, 1999.
@@ -3101,42 +3090,42 @@ http://www.mercurycenter.com/svtech/news/special/linus/story.html
 
 *{Gilder, George.}* Wealth and Poverty. Institute for Contemporary Studies. San Fransisco: CA, 1981.
 
-*{Gleick, James.}* "Control Freaks." New York Times, July 19, 1998. <br />"Broken Windows Theory." New York Times, March 21, 1999.
+*{Gleick, James.}* "Control Freaks." New York Times, July 19, 1998. \\ "Broken Windows Theory." New York Times, March 21, 1999.
 
-*{"Interview with Linus Torvalds."}* FatBrain.com, May 1999. <br />
+*{"Interview with Linus Torvalds."}* FatBrain.com, May 1999. \\
 http://www.kt.opensrc.org/interviews/ti19990528_fb.html
 
-*{Jelinek, Jakub.}* "Re: Mach64 Problems in UltraPenguin 1.1.9." Linux Weekly News, April 27, 1999. <br />
+*{Jelinek, Jakub.}* "Re: Mach64 Problems in UltraPenguin 1.1.9." Linux Weekly News, April 27, 1999. \\
 http://www.lwn.net/1999/0429/a/up-dead.html
 
-*{Johnson, Richard B., and Chris Wedgwood.}* "Segfault in syslogd [problem shown]." April 1999. <br />
+*{Johnson, Richard B., and Chris Wedgwood.}* "Segfault in syslogd [problem shown]." April 1999. \\
 http://www.kt.opensrc.org/kt19990415_14.html#8
 
 *{Joy, Bill.}* "Talk to Stanford EE 380 Students." November 1999.
 
 *{Kahn, David.}* The Codebreakers. New York: Macmillan, 1967.
 
-*{Kahney, Leander.}* "Open-Source Gurus Trade Jabs." Wired News, April 10, 1999. <br />
-http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/19049.html
-<br />"Apple Lifts License Restrictions." Wired News, April 21, 1999. <br />
+*{Kahney, Leander.}* "Open-Source Gurus Trade Jabs." Wired News, April 10, 1999. \\
+http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/19049.html \\
+"Apple Lifts License Restrictions." Wired News, April 21, 1999. \\
 http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/19233.html
 
-*{Kidd, Eric.}* "Why You Might Want to Use the Library GPL for Your Next Library." Linux Gazette, March 1999. <br />
+*{Kidd, Eric.}* "Why You Might Want to Use the Library GPL for Your Next Library." Linux Gazette, March 1999. \\
 http://www.linuxgazette.com/issue38/kidd.html
 
 *{Kohn, Alfie.}* "Studies Find Reward Often No Motivator; Creativity and Intrinsic Interest Diminish If Task Is Done for Gain." Boston Globe, January 19, 1987.
 
 *{Leonard, Andrew.}* "Open Season: Why an Industry of Cutthroat Competition Is Suddenly Deciding Good Karma Is Great Business." Wired News, May 1999.
 
-*{Linksvayer, Mike.}* "Choice of the GNU Generation." Meta Magazine. <br />
+*{Linksvayer, Mike.}* "Choice of the GNU Generation." Meta Magazine. \\
 http://gondwanaland.com/meta/history/interview.html
 
-*{"Linux Beat Windows NT Handily in an Oracle Performance Benchmark."}* Linux Weekly News, April 29, 1999. <br />
+*{"Linux Beat Windows NT Handily in an Oracle Performance Benchmark."}* Linux Weekly News, April 29, 1999. \\
 http://rpmfind.net/veillard/oracle/
 
 *{Liston, Robert.}* The Pueblo Surrender: A Covert Action by the National Security Agency. New York: Evans, 1988.
 
-*{Little, Darnell.}* "Comdex Q&A: Linus Torvalds on the Battle Against Microsoft." Chicago Tribune April 19, 1999. <br />
+*{Little, Darnell.}* "Comdex Q&A: Linus Torvalds on the Battle Against Microsoft." Chicago Tribune April 19, 1999. \\
 http://chicagotribune.com/business/businessnews/ws/item/0,1267,2674627007-27361,00.html
 
 *{Lohr, Steve.}* "Tiny Software Maker Takes Aim at Microsoft in Court." New York Times, May 31, 1999.
@@ -3145,84 +3134,85 @@ http://chicagotribune.com/business/businessnews/ws/item/0,1267,2674627007-27361,
 
 *{McKusick, Marshall Kirk.}* "Twenty Years of Berkeley Unix." In Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution. San Francisco: O'Reilly, 1999.
 
-*{McKusick, Marshall Kirk, Keith Bostic, and Michael J. Karels, eds.}* The Design and Implementation of the 4.4BSD Operating System <br />(Unix and Open Systems Series). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1996.
+*{McKusick, Marshall Kirk, Keith Bostic, and Michael J. Karels, eds.}* The Design and Implementation of the 4.4BSD Operating System \\ (Unix and Open Systems Series). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1996.
 
-*{McMillan, Robert, and Nora Mikes.}* "After the 'Sweet Sixteen': Linus Torvalds's Take on the State of Linux." LinuxWorld, March 1999. <br />
+*{McMillan, Robert, and Nora Mikes.}* "After the 'Sweet Sixteen': Linus Torvalds's Take on the State of Linux." LinuxWorld, March 1999. \\
 http://www.linuxworld.com/linuxworld/lw-1999-03/lw03-torvalds.html
 
-*{Metcalfe, Bob.}* "Linux's '60s Technology: Open-Sores Ideology Won't Beat W2K, but What Will?" June 19, 1999. <br />
+*{Metcalfe, Bob.}* "Linux's '60s Technology: Open-Sores Ideology Won't Beat W2K, but What Will?" June 19, 1999. \\
 http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/990621opmetcalfe.xml
 
-*{Nolan, Chris.}* "Microsoft Antitrust: the Gassée Factor: U.S. Reportedly Looks into Obstacles for Be Operating System." San Jose Mercury News, February 11, 1999. <br />
+*{Nolan, Chris.}* "Microsoft Antitrust: the Gassée Factor: U.S. Reportedly Looks into Obstacles for Be Operating System." San Jose Mercury News, February 11, 1999. \\
 http://www.sjmercury.com/svtech/columns/talkischeap/docs/cn021199.html
 
-*{Oakes, Chris.}* "Netscape Browser Guru: We Failed." Wired News, April 2, 1999. <br />
+*{Oakes, Chris.}* "Netscape Browser Guru: We Failed." Wired News, April 2, 1999. \\
 http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/18926.html
 
-*{Ousterhout, John.}* "Free Software Needs Profit." Dr. Dobb's Journal website, 1999. <br />
+*{Ousterhout, John.}* "Free Software Needs Profit." Dr. Dobb's Journal website, 1999. \\
 http://www.ddj.com/oped/1999/oust.htm
 
-*{Perens, Bruce, Wichert Akkerman, and Ian Jackson.}* "The Apple Public Source License--Our Concerns." March 1999. <br />
-http://perens.com/APSL.html/ <br />
+*{Perens, Bruce, Wichert Akkerman, and Ian Jackson.}* "The Apple Public Source License--Our Concerns." March 1999. \\
+http://perens.com/APSL.html/ \\
 "The Open Source Definition." In Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution, ed. Chris DiBona, Sam Ockman, and Mark Stone, 171-85. San Francisco: O'Reilly, 1999.
 
-*{Picarille, Lisa, and Malcolm Maclachlan.}* "Apple Defends Open Source Initiative." March 24, 1999. <br />
+*{Picarille, Lisa, and Malcolm Maclachlan.}* "Apple Defends Open Source Initiative." March 24, 1999. \\
 http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB19990324S0027
 
 *{Raymond, Eric.}* The Cathedral and the Bazaar:Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary. San Francisco: O'Reilly, 1999.
 
-*{Reilly, Patrick.}* "Nader's Microsoft Agenda: Progressive Nonprofit Plan for 'Free' Software." Capital Research Center, April 1, 1999. <br />
+*{Reilly, Patrick.}* "Nader's Microsoft Agenda: Progressive Nonprofit Plan for 'Free' Software." Capital Research Center, April 1, 1999. \\
 http://www.capitalresearch.org/trends/ot-0499a.html
 
 *{Rubini, Alessandro.}* "Tour of the Linux Kernel Source." Linux Documentation Project.
 
-*{Rusling, David A.}* "The Linux Kernel." <br />
+*{Rusling, David A.}* "The Linux Kernel." \\
 http://metalab.unc.edu/mdw/LDP/tlk/tlk-title.html
 
-*{Schmalensee, Richard.}* "Direct Testimony in the Microsoft Anti-Trust Case of 1999." <br />
+*{Schmalensee, Richard.}* "Direct Testimony in the Microsoft Anti-Trust Case of 1999." \\
 http://www.courttv.com/trials/ microsoft/legaldocs/ms_wit.html
 
 *{Schulman, Andrew.}* Unauthorized Windows 95. Foster City, CA: IDG Books, 1995.
 
-*{Searles, Doc.}* "It's an Industry." Linux Journal, May 21, 1999. <br />
+*{Searles, Doc.}* "It's an Industry." Linux Journal, May 21, 1999. \\
 http://www.linuxresources.com/articles/conversations/001.html
 
-*{Slind-Flor, Victoria.}* "Linux May Alter IP Legal Landscape: Some Predict More Contract Work if Alternative to Windows Catches On." National Law Journal, March 12, 1999. <br />
+*{Slind-Flor, Victoria.}* "Linux May Alter IP Legal Landscape: Some Predict More Contract Work if Alternative to Windows Catches On." National Law Journal, March 12, 1999. \\
 http://www.lawnewsnetwork.com/stories/mar/e030899q.html
 
-*{Stallman, Richard.}* "The GNU Manifesto." 1984. <br />
-http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html <br />
-"Why Software Should Not Have Owners." 1994. <br />
+*{Stallman, Richard.}* "The GNU Manifesto." 1984. \\
+http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html \\
+"Why Software Should Not Have Owners." 1994. \\
 http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html
 
 *{Thompson, Ken, and Dennis Ritchie.}* "The UNIX Time-Sharing System." Communications of the ACM, 1974.
 
 *{Thygeson, Gordon.}* Apple T-Shirts: A Yearbook of History at Apple Computer. Cupertino, CA: Pomo Publishing, 1998
 
-*{Torvalds, Linus.}* "Linus Torvalds: Leader of the Revolution." Transcript of Chat with Linus Torvalds, creator of the Linux OS. ABCNews.com. <br />"Linux's History." July 31, 1992. <br />
+*{Torvalds, Linus.}* "Linus Torvalds: Leader of the Revolution." Transcript of Chat with Linus Torvalds, creator of the Linux OS. ABCNews.com. \\ "Linux's History." July 31, 1992. \\
 http://www.li.org/li/linuxhistory.shtml
 
 *{Valloppillil, Vinod.}* "Open Source Software: A (New?) Development Methodology." Microsoft, Redmond, WA, August 1998.
 
-*{Wayner, Peter.}* "If SB266 Wants Plaintext, Give Them Plaintext . . . ," Risks Digest, May 23, 1991. <br />
-http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/11.71.html#subj2 <br />"Should Hackers Spend Years in Prison?" Salon, June 9, 1999. <br />
-http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/1999/06/09/hacker_penalties/index.html
-<br />"Netscape to Release New Browser Engine to Developers." New York Times, December 7, 1999. <br />"Glory Among the Geeks." Salon, January 1999. <br />
+*{Wayner, Peter.}* "If SB266 Wants Plaintext, Give Them Plaintext . . . ," Risks Digest, May 23, 1991. \\
+http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/11.71.html#subj2 \\
+"Should Hackers Spend Years in Prison?" Salon, June 9, 1999. \\
+http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/1999/06/09/hacker_penalties/index.html \\
+"Netscape to Release New Browser Engine to Developers." New York Times, December 7, 1999. \\ "Glory Among the Geeks." Salon, January 1999. \\
 http://www.salon.com/21st/feature/1999/01/28feature.html
 
-*{Whitenger, Dave. "Words of a Maddog."}* Linux Today, April 19, 1999. <br />
+*{Whitenger, Dave. "Words of a Maddog."}* Linux Today, April 19, 1999. \\
 http://linuxtoday.com/stories/5118.html
 
-*{"Web and File Server Comparison: Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0 and Red Hat Linux 5.2 Upgraded to the Linux 2.2.2 Kernel."}* Mindcraft, April 13, 1999. <br />
+*{"Web and File Server Comparison: Microsoft Windows NT Server 4.0 and Red Hat Linux 5.2 Upgraded to the Linux 2.2.2 Kernel."}* Mindcraft, April 13, 1999. \\
 http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html
 
-*{Williams, Sam.}* "Linus Has Left the Building." Upside, May 5, 1999. <br />
+*{Williams, Sam.}* "Linus Has Left the Building." Upside, May 5, 1999. \\
 http://www.upside.com/Open_Season/
 
-*{Williams, Riley.}* "Linux Kernel Vertsion History." <br />
+*{Williams, Riley.}* "Linux Kernel Vertsion History." \\
 http://ps.cus.umist.ac.uk/~rhw/kernel.versions.html
 
-*{Zawinski, Jamie.}* "Resignation and Postmortem." <br />
+*{Zawinski, Jamie.}* "Resignation and Postmortem." \\
 http://www.jwz.org/gruntle/nomo.html
 
 1~other.works Other works by Peter Wayner
diff --git a/data/v3/samples/gpl2.fsf.sst b/data/v3/samples/gpl2.fsf.sst
index 1d06226..95cf362 100644
--- a/data/v3/samples/gpl2.fsf.sst
+++ b/data/v3/samples/gpl2.fsf.sst
@@ -5,23 +5,20 @@
 @creator:
  :author: Free Software Foundation
 
+@date:
+ :published: 1991
+
 @rights:
  :copyright: Copyright 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc. 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA.
  :license: Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
 
-@date:
- :published: 1991
-
 @classify:
  :topic_register: GPL;Software:license;GNU/Linux:License:GPL
 
 @links:
- {Free Software Foundation}http://www.fsf.org
- {GPL @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/gpl2.fsf
- {Markup}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/sample/markup/gpl2.fsf.sst
- {Syntax}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/sample/syntax/gpl2.fsf.sst.html
- {Free as In Freedom - Richard Stallman's Crusade for Free Software}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/free_as_in_freedom.richard_stallman_crusade_for_free_software.sam_williams
- {Viral Spiral, David Bollier@ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/viral_spiral.david_bollier
+ { Free Software Foundation }http://www.fsf.org
+ { SiSU }http://sisudoc.org/
+ { sources / git }http://sources.sisudoc.org/
 
 @make:
  :skin: skin_gnu
diff --git a/data/v3/samples/gpl3.fsf.sst b/data/v3/samples/gpl3.fsf.sst
index 2767991..499385d 100644
--- a/data/v3/samples/gpl3.fsf.sst
+++ b/data/v3/samples/gpl3.fsf.sst
@@ -5,6 +5,11 @@
 @creator:
  :author: Free Software Foundation
 
+@date:
+ :published: 2007-06-29
+ :available: 2007-06-29
+ :valid: 2007-06-29
+
 @rights:
   :copyright: Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. http://fsf.org/
   :license: Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
@@ -12,20 +17,14 @@
 @classify:
  :topic_register: GPL;Software:license
 
-@date:
- :published: 2007-06-29
- :available: 2007-06-29
- :valid: 2007-06-29
-
 @publisher: SiSU on behalf of the Free Software Foundation
 
 @links:
- {Free Software Foundation}http://www.fsf.org
- {GPL3 @ FSF}http://gplv3.fsf.org/
- {GPL @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/gpl3.fsf
- { Syntax }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/sample/syntax/gpl.fsf.sst.html
- {GPL3 source text}http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt
- {Free as In Freedom - Richard Stallman's Crusade for Free Software}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/free_as_in_freedom.richard_stallman_crusade_for_free_software.sam_williams
+ { Free Software Foundation }http://www.fsf.org
+ { GPL3 @ FSF }http://gplv3.fsf.org/
+ { GPL3 source text }http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt
+ { SiSU }http://sisudoc.org/
+ { sources / git }http://sources.sisudoc.org/
 
 @make:
  :skin: skin_gnu
@@ -258,8 +257,8 @@ To do so, attach the following notices to the program. It is safest to attach th
 
 poem{
 
-    \<one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does.\>
-    Copyright (C) \<year\> \<name of author\>
+    <one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does.>
+    Copyright (C) <year> <name of author>
 
     This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
     it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
@@ -282,7 +281,7 @@ If the program does terminal interaction, make it output a short notice like thi
 
 poem{
 
-    \<program\> Copyright (C) \<year\> \<name of author\>
+    <program> Copyright (C) <year> <name of author>
     This program comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'.
     This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
     under certain conditions; type 'show c' for details.
diff --git a/data/v3/samples/little_brother.cory_doctorow.sst b/data/v3/samples/little_brother.cory_doctorow.sst
index 1fa2658..387154d 100644
--- a/data/v3/samples/little_brother.cory_doctorow.sst
+++ b/data/v3/samples/little_brother.cory_doctorow.sst
@@ -11,40 +11,31 @@
 @rights:
  :copyright: Copyright (C) Cory Doctorow, 2008.
  :illustrations: Richard Wilkinson, 2009
- :license: This book is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 license. That means:<br>You are free:<br> * to Share - to copy, distribute and transmit the work<br> * to Remix - to adapt the work<br> Under the following conditions:<br> * Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).<br> * Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes.<br> * Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.<br> * For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. The best way to do this is with a link http://craphound.com/littlebrother <br> * Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get my permission<br> More info here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/ <br> See the end of this file for the complete legalese. [Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License]
+ :license: This book is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 license. That means: \\ You are free: \\ * to Share - to copy, distribute and transmit the work \\ * to Remix - to adapt the work \\ Under the following conditions: \\ * Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). \\ * Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes. \\ * Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one. \\ * For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. The best way to do this is with a link http://craphound.com/littlebrother \\ * Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get my permission \\ More info here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/ \\ See the end of this file for the complete legalese. [Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License] \\ Illustration: Richard Wilkinson, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.
 
 @classify:
- :subject: Novel
  :topic_register: SiSU:markup sample:book;book:novel:fiction:civil rights|counterculture|young adult|science fiction|computer hackers|terrorism;democracy
+ :subject: Novel
  :type: fiction
  :loc: PZ7.D66237 Lit 2008
  :oclc: 176972381
  :isbn: 9780765319852
 
-% After being interrogated for days by the Department of Homeland Security in the aftermath of a major terrorist attack on San Francisco, California, seventeen-year-old Marcus, released into what is now a police state, decides to use his expertise in computer hacking to set things right.
+@notes:
+ :description: After being interrogated for days by the Department of Homeland Security in the aftermath of a major terrorist attack on San Francisco, California, seventeen-year-old Marcus, released into what is now a police state, decides to use his expertise in computer hacking to set things right.
+
+@links:
+ { Little Brother home }http://craphound.com/littlebrother
+ { @ Wikipedia }http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Brother_(Cory_Doctorow_novel)
+ { @ Amazon.com }http://www.amazon.com/Little-Brother-Cory-Doctorow/dp/B002IT5OMA
+ { @ Barnes & Noble}http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Little-Brother/Cory-Doctorow/e/9780765319852
+ { SiSU }http://sisudoc.org/
+ { sources / git }http://sources.sisudoc.org/
 
 @make:
  :breaks: break=1
  :skin: skin_little_brother
 
-@links:
- { Little Brother home }http://craphound.com/littlebrother
- {Little Brother, Cory Doctorow @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/little_brother.cory_doctorow
- {@ Wikipedia }http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Brother_(Cory_Doctorow_novel)
- {@ Amazon.com}http://www.amazon.com/Little-Brother-Cory-Doctorow/dp/B002IT5OMA
- {@ Barnes & Noble}http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Little-Brother/Cory-Doctorow/e/9780765319852
- {Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom, Cory Doctorow @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/down_and_out_in_the_magic_kingdom.cory_doctorow
- {For the Win, Cory Doctorow @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/for_the_win.cory_doctorow
- {CONTENT, Cory Doctorow @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/content.cory_doctorow
- {Free Culture, Lawrence Lessig @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/free_culture.lawrence_lessig
- {The Wealth of Networks, Yochai Benkler @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/the_wealth_of_networks.yochai_benkler
- {Viral Spiral, David Bollier@ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/viral_spiral.david_bollier
- {Two Bits, Christopher Kelty @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/two_bits.christopher_kelty
- {Free as in Freedom (on Richard M. Stallman), Sam Williams @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/free_as_in_freedom.richard_stallman_crusade_for_free_software.sam_williams
- {Democratizing Innovation, Eric von Hippel @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/democratizing_innovation.eric_von_hippel
- {Free For All, Peter Wayner @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/free_for_all.peter_wayner
- {The Cathedral and the Bazaar, Eric S. Raymond @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/the_cathedral_and_the_bazaar.eric_s_raymond
-
 :A~ @title @author
 
 1~cc READ THIS FIRST
diff --git a/data/v3/samples/the_cathedral_and_the_bazaar.eric_s_raymond.sst b/data/v3/samples/the_cathedral_and_the_bazaar.eric_s_raymond.sst
index d7f4c4e..2c30c00 100644
--- a/data/v3/samples/the_cathedral_and_the_bazaar.eric_s_raymond.sst
+++ b/data/v3/samples/the_cathedral_and_the_bazaar.eric_s_raymond.sst
@@ -5,45 +5,37 @@
 @creator:
  :author: Raymond, Eric S.
 
-@classify:
- :type: Book
- :topic_register: SiSU:markup sample:book;programming;software:open source software;open source software:development
-
-@rights:
- :copyright: Copyright © 2000 Eric S. Raymond.
- :license: Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the Open Publication License, version 2.0.
-
 @date:
  :published: 2002-08-02
  :created: 1997-05-21
  :issued: 1997-05-21
  :available: 1997-05-21
  :modified: 2002-08-02
+
+@rights:
+ :copyright: Copyright © 2000 Eric S. Raymond.
+ :license: Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the Open Publication License, version 2.0.
+
+@classify:
+ :topic_register: SiSU:markup sample:book;programming;software:open source software;open source software:development
+ :type: Book
  :oclc: 45835582
 
+@notes:
+ :abstract: I anatomize a successful open-source project, fetchmail, that was run as a deliberate test of the surprising theories about software engineering suggested by the history of Linux. I discuss these theories in terms of two fundamentally different development styles, the "cathedral" model of most of the commercial world versus the "bazaar" model of the Linux world. I show that these models derive from opposing assumptions about the nature of the software-debugging task. I then make a sustained argument from the Linux experience for the proposition that "Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow", suggest productive analogies with other self-correcting systems of selfish agents, and conclude with some exploration of the implications of this insight for the future of software.
+
 @links:
- {The Cathedral and the Bazaar @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/the_cathedral_and_the_bazaar.eric_s_raymond
- {The Cathedral and the Bazaar, Source }http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/
- {@ Wikipedia}http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar
- {Democratizing Innovation, Eric von Hippel @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/democratizing_innovation.eric_von_hippel
- {Viral Spiral, David Bollier@ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/viral_spiral.david_bollier
- {Two Bits, Christopher Kelty @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/two_bits.christopher_kelty
- {Free as in Freedom (on Richard Stallman), Sam Williams @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/free_as_in_freedom.richard_stallman_crusade_for_free_software.sam_williams
- {The Wealth of Networks, Yochai Benkler @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/the_wealth_of_networks.yochai_benkler
- {Free Culture, Lawrence Lessig @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/free_culture.lawrence_lessig
- {CONTENT, Cory Doctorow @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/content.cory_doctorow
- {Free For All, Peter Wayner @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/free_for_all.peter_wayner
- {Little Brother, Cory Doctorow @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/little_brother.cory_doctorow
- {CatB @ Amazon.com}http://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Networks-Production-Transforms-Markets/dp/0596001088/
- {CatB @ Barnes & Noble}http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?isbn=0596001088
+ { The Cathedral and the Bazaar, Source }http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/
+ { @ Wikipedia }http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar
+ { CatB @ Amazon.com }http://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Networks-Production-Transforms-Markets/dp/0596001088/
+ { CatB @ Barnes & Noble }http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?isbn=0596001088
+ { SiSU }http://sisudoc.org/
+ { sources / git }http://sources.sisudoc.org/
 
 @make:
  :breaks: new=:C; break=1
  :skin: skin_sisu
 
-@notes:
- :abstract: I anatomize a successful open-source project, fetchmail, that was run as a deliberate test of the surprising theories about software engineering suggested by the history of Linux. I discuss these theories in terms of two fundamentally different development styles, the "cathedral" model of most of the commercial world versus the "bazaar" model of the Linux world. I show that these models derive from opposing assumptions about the nature of the software-debugging task. I then make a sustained argument from the Linux experience for the proposition that "Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow", suggest productive analogies with other self-correcting systems of selfish agents, and conclude with some exploration of the implications of this insight for the future of software.
-
 :A~ @title @author
 
 1~ The Cathedral and the Bazaar
diff --git a/data/v3/samples/the_public_domain.james_boyle.sst b/data/v3/samples/the_public_domain.james_boyle.sst
index 142de47..6ad07f1 100644
--- a/data/v3/samples/the_public_domain.james_boyle.sst
+++ b/data/v3/samples/the_public_domain.james_boyle.sst
@@ -6,29 +6,27 @@
 @creator:
  :author: Boyle, James
 
+@date:
+ :published: 2008
+
 @rights:
  :copyright: 2008, James Boyle
  :license: Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike (CC-BY-NC-SA) 3.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/
 
 @classify:
  :topic_register: public domain
-% :subject: #___#
-% :type: #___#
-% :loc: #___#
-% :oclc: #___#
-% :isbn: #___#
 
-@date:
- :published: 2008
+@links:
+ { The Public Domain }http://www.thepublicdomain.org/
+ { James Boyle }http://james-boyle.com/
+ { SiSU }http://sisudoc.org/
+ { sources / git }http://sources.sisudoc.org/
 
 @make:
  :headings: none; none; none; none;
  :num_top: 1
  :breaks: new=:C; break=1
 
-@links:
- {SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/SiSU
-
 :A~ @title @author
 
 1~ Acknowledgments
@@ -203,7 +201,7 @@ In other words, as all this suggests, this chapter is only an introduction to a
 
 1~ Chapter 2: Thomas Jefferson Writes a Letter
 
-On August 13, 1813, Thomas Jefferson took up his pen to write to Isaac McPherson.~{Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson (August 13, 1813), in The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Albert Ellery Bergh (Washington, D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association of the United States, 1907), vol. XIII, 326–338 (hereinafter Letter to McPherson), available at http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/jefferson_papers/mtjser1.html (follow “May 1, 1812” hyperlink, then navigate to image 1057).}~ It was a quiet week in Jefferson’s correspondence. He wrote a letter to Madison about the appointment of a tax assessor, attempted to procure a government position for an acquaintance, produced a fascinating and lengthy series of comments on a new “Rudiments of English Grammar,” discussed the orthography of nouns ending in “y,” accepted the necessary delay in the publication of a study on the anatomy of mammoth bones, completed a brief biography of Governor Lewis, and, in general, confined himself narrowly in subject matter.~{For example, attempting to procure a former stable master a position (letter from Thomas Jefferson to Samuel H. Smith [August 15, 1813], available at http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/jefferson_papers/mtjser1.html [follow “May 1, 1812” hyperlink, then navigate to image 1070]), comments on “Rudiments of English Grammar” (letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Waldo [August 16, 1813], in Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. XIII, 338–347), orthography of the plurals of nouns ending in “y” (letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Wilson [August 17, 1813], Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. XIII, 347–348), accepting the necessary delay in the publication of a study on the anatomy of mammoth bones (letter from Thomas Jefferson to Caspar Wistar [August 17, 1813], available at http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/jefferson_papers/mtjser1.html [follow “May 1, 1812” hyperlink, then navigate to image 1095]), and discussing the Lewis biography (excerpt of a letter from Thomas Jefferson to Paul Allen [August 18, 1813], Letters of the Lewis and Clark Expedition with Related Documents 1783–1854, ed. Donald Jackson (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1962), 586).<br>It is easy, in fact, reading this prodigious outpouring of knowledge and enthusiasm, to forget the other side of Jefferson and the social system that gave him the leisure to write these letters. Just a few weeks before he wrote to McPherson, he wrote a letter to Jeremiah Goodman about a slave called Hercules who had been imprisoned as a runaway.<br>“The folly he has committed certainly justifies further punishment, and he goes in expectation of receiving it. . . .” Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Jeremiah A. Goodman (July 26, 1813), in Thomas Jefferson’s Farm Book, ed. Edwin Morris Betts (Charlottesville, Va.: American Philosophical Society, 1999), 36. While leaving the matter up to Goodman, Jefferson argues for leniency and for refraining from further punishment. In that sense, it is a humane letter. But this is one of the authors of the Declaration of Independence, full of glorious principles—unalienable rights; life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—enunciated in the context of indignation at relatively mild colonial policies of taxation and legislation. How could a man who thought that taxing tea was tyranny, and that all men had an unalienable right to liberty, believe that it was “folly” justifying “further punishment” for a slave to run away? Reading the letter—a curiously intimate, almost voyeuristic act—one finds oneself saying “What was he thinking?”}~ But on the 13th of August, Jefferson’s mind was on intellectual property, and most specifically, patents.
+On August 13, 1813, Thomas Jefferson took up his pen to write to Isaac McPherson.~{Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson (August 13, 1813), in The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Albert Ellery Bergh (Washington, D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association of the United States, 1907), vol. XIII, 326–338 (hereinafter Letter to McPherson), available at http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/jefferson_papers/mtjser1.html (follow “May 1, 1812” hyperlink, then navigate to image 1057).}~ It was a quiet week in Jefferson’s correspondence. He wrote a letter to Madison about the appointment of a tax assessor, attempted to procure a government position for an acquaintance, produced a fascinating and lengthy series of comments on a new “Rudiments of English Grammar,” discussed the orthography of nouns ending in “y,” accepted the necessary delay in the publication of a study on the anatomy of mammoth bones, completed a brief biography of Governor Lewis, and, in general, confined himself narrowly in subject matter.~{For example, attempting to procure a former stable master a position (letter from Thomas Jefferson to Samuel H. Smith [August 15, 1813], available at http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/jefferson_papers/mtjser1.html [follow “May 1, 1812” hyperlink, then navigate to image 1070]), comments on “Rudiments of English Grammar” (letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Waldo [August 16, 1813], in Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. XIII, 338–347), orthography of the plurals of nouns ending in “y” (letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Wilson [August 17, 1813], Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. XIII, 347–348), accepting the necessary delay in the publication of a study on the anatomy of mammoth bones (letter from Thomas Jefferson to Caspar Wistar [August 17, 1813], available at http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/jefferson_papers/mtjser1.html [follow “May 1, 1812” hyperlink, then navigate to image 1095]), and discussing the Lewis biography (excerpt of a letter from Thomas Jefferson to Paul Allen [August 18, 1813], Letters of the Lewis and Clark Expedition with Related Documents 1783–1854, ed. Donald Jackson (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1962), 586). \\ It is easy, in fact, reading this prodigious outpouring of knowledge and enthusiasm, to forget the other side of Jefferson and the social system that gave him the leisure to write these letters. Just a few weeks before he wrote to McPherson, he wrote a letter to Jeremiah Goodman about a slave called Hercules who had been imprisoned as a runaway. \\ “The folly he has committed certainly justifies further punishment, and he goes in expectation of receiving it. . . .” Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Jeremiah A. Goodman (July 26, 1813), in Thomas Jefferson’s Farm Book, ed. Edwin Morris Betts (Charlottesville, Va.: American Philosophical Society, 1999), 36. While leaving the matter up to Goodman, Jefferson argues for leniency and for refraining from further punishment. In that sense, it is a humane letter. But this is one of the authors of the Declaration of Independence, full of glorious principles—unalienable rights; life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—enunciated in the context of indignation at relatively mild colonial policies of taxation and legislation. How could a man who thought that taxing tea was tyranny, and that all men had an unalienable right to liberty, believe that it was “folly” justifying “further punishment” for a slave to run away? Reading the letter—a curiously intimate, almost voyeuristic act—one finds oneself saying “What was he thinking?”}~ But on the 13th of August, Jefferson’s mind was on intellectual property, and most specifically, patents.
 
 Jefferson’s writing is, as usual, apparently effortless. Some find his penmanship a little hard to decipher. To me, used to plowing through the frenzied chicken tracks that law students produce during exams, it seems perfectly clear. If handwriting truly showed the architecture of the soul, then Jefferson’s would conjure up Monticello or the University of Virginia. There are a few revisions and interlineations, a couple of words squeezed in with a caret at the bottom of the line, but for the most part the lines of handwriting simply roll on and on—“the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain,”~{Letter to McPherson, 333.}~ to quote a phrase from the letter, caught in vellum and ink, though that brain has been dust for more than a century and a half. I love libraries. I love the mushroom smell of gently rotting paper, the flaky crackle of manuscripts, and the surprise of matching style of handwriting with style of thought. Today, though, I am viewing his letter over the Internet on a computer screen. (You can too. The details are [in the footnotes].)
 
@@ -255,7 +253,7 @@ _1 We have, then, only one resource left. We must betake ourselves to copyright,
 
 Notice that it is the monopolistic quality of intellectual property that really disturbs Macaulay. His was a generation of thinkers for whom the negative effect of monopolies of any kind (and state-granted monopolies in particular) was axiomatic. He becomes almost contemptuous when one of the supporters of copyright extension declared that it was merely “a theory” that monopoly makes things expensive. Macaulay agrees, tongue in cheek. “It is a theory in the same sense in which it is a theory, that day and night follow each other, that lead is heavier than water, that bread nourishes, that arsenic poisons, that alcohol intoxicates.”~{Ibid., 198–199.}~
 
-These words from Jefferson and Macaulay encapsulate an eighteenth- and nineteenth-century free-trade skepticism about intellectual property, a skepticism that is widely, but not universally, believed to have played an important role in shaping the history of intellectual property in both the United States and the United Kingdom. Certainly the U.S. Supreme Court has offered support for that position,~{Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1, 7–11 (1966).}~ and, with one significant recent exception,~{Adam Mossoff, “Who Cares What Thomas Jefferson Thought about Patents? Reevaluating the Patent ‘Privilege’ in Historical Context,” Cornell Law Review 92 (2007): 953–1012. In a thoughtful, carefully reasoned, and provocative article, Professor Mossoff argues that Jefferson’s views have been misused by the courts and legal historians, and that if we understand the use of the word “privilege” in historical context, we see that the “patent privilege” was influenced by a philosophy of natural rights as well as the antimonopolist utilitarianism described here. I both agree and disagree.<br> Professor Mossoff’s central point—that the word “privilege” was not understood by eighteenth-century audiences as the antonym of “right”—is surely correct. To lay great stress on the linguistic point that the patent right is “merely” a “privilege” is to rest one’s argument on a weak reed. But this is not the only argument. One could also believe that intellectual property rights have vital conceptual and practical differences with property rights over tangible objects or land, that the framers of the Constitution who were most involved in the intellectual property clause were deeply opposed to the confusion involved in conflating the two, and that they looked upon this confusion particularly harshly because of an intense concern about state monopolies. One can still disagree with this assessment, of course; one can interpret Madison’s words this way or that, or interpret subsequent patent decisions as deep statements of principle or commonplace rhetorical flourishes. Still it seems to me a much stronger argument than the one based on the privilege–right distinction. I am not sure Professor Mossoff would disagree.<br> Professor Mossoff is also correct to point out that a “legal privilege” did sometimes mean to an eighteenth-century reader something that the state was duty-bound to grant. There was, in fact, a wide range of sources from which an eighteenth-century lawyer could derive a state obligation to grant a privilege. Eighteenth-century legal talk was a normative bouillabaisse—a rich stew of natural right, common law, utility, and progress—often thrown together without regard to their differences. Some lawyers and judges thought the common law embodied natural rights, others that it represented the dictates of “progress” and “utility,” and others, more confusingly still, seemed to adopt all of those views at once.<br> Nevertheless, I would agree that some eighteenth-century writers saw claims of common-law right beneath the assertion of some “privileges” and that a smaller number of those assumed common-law right and natural right to be equivalent, and thus saw a strong state obligation to grant a particular privilege based on natural right, wherever that privilege had been recognized by English or U.S. common law. But here is where I part company with Professor Mossoff.<br> First, I do not believe that the most important architects of the intellectual property clause shared that view when it came to patents and copyrights. Jefferson, of course, was not one of those who believed the state was so bound. “Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from [inventions], as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body” (Letter to McPherson, 334, emphasis added). More importantly, Jefferson’s thinking about patents was infused by a deeply utilitarian, antimonopolist tinge. So, I would argue, was Madison’s.<br> The quotations from Madison which I give later show clearly, to me at least, that Madison shared Jefferson’s deeply utilitarian attitude toward patent and copyright law. I think there is very good reason to believe that this attitude was dominant among the Scottish Enlightenment thinkers whose writings were so influential to the framers. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that the American Revolution was violently against the world of monopoly and corruption that was the supposed target of the English Statute of Monopolies (itself hardly a natural rights document). Yes, those thinkers might fall back into talking about how hard an inventor had worked or construing a patent expansively. Yes, they might think that within the boundaries of settled law, it would be unjust to deny one inventor a patent when the general scheme of patent law had already been laid down. But that did not and does not negate the antimonopolist and, for that matter, utilitarian roots of the Constitution’s intellectual property clause.<br> Second, while I agree that there were strands of natural right thinking and a labor theory of value in the U.S. intellectual property system, and that they continue to this day—indeed, these were the very views that the Feist decision discussed in Chapter 9 repudiated, as late as 1991—I think it is easy to make too much of that fact. Is this signal or noise? There are conceptual reasons to think it is the latter. Later in this chapter I discuss the evolution of the droits d’auteur tradition in France. Here, at the supposed heart of the natural rights tradition, we find thinkers driven inexorably to consider the question of limits. How far does the supposed natural right extend—in time, in space, in subject matter? It is at that moment that the utilitarian focus and the fear of monopoly represented by Jefferson and Madison—and, for that matter, Locke and Condorcet—become so important.<br> Professor Mossoff is correct to criticize the focus on the word “privilege,” and also correct that the ideas of natural right and the labor theory of value always color attitudes toward intellectual property claims. But it would be an equal and opposite mistake to ignore two points. First, intellectual property rights are profoundly different from physical property rights over land in ways that should definitively shape policy choices. Second, partly because of those differences, and because of the influence of free-trade Scottish Enlightenment thought on the American Revolution in particular, there was a powerful antimonopolist and free-trade sentiment behind the copyright and patent clause. Simply read the clause. Congress is given the power “to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” Does this really read like the work of a group of believers in natural right? On the contrary, it reads like a limited grant of power to achieve a particular utilitarian goal. That sentiment—nicely encapsulated in but by no means limited to the words of Jefferson—is still a good starting place for an understanding of intellectual property.}~ historians of intellectual property have agreed.~{See, e.g., Ochoa and Rose, “Anti-Monopoly Origins,” and Edward C. Walterscheid, The Nature of the Intellectual Property Clause: A Study in Historical Perspective (Buffalo, N.Y.: W. S. Hein, 2002). Ochoa, Rose, and Walterscheid stress the antimonopolist concerns that animated some of those who were most active in the debates about intellectual property. They also point out the influence of the English Statute of Monopolies of 1623, which attacked monopolies in general, while making an exception for periods of legal exclusivity for a limited time granted over “sole Working or Making of any Manner of new Manufacture within this Realm, to the first true Inventor or Inventors of such Manufactures which others at the time of the Making of such Letters Patents Grants did not use, so they be not contrary to the Law, nor mischievous to the State, by Raising of the Prices of Commodities at home, or Hurt by Trade, or generally inconvenient.”}~ Jefferson himself had believed that the Constitution should have definite limits on both the term and the scope of intellectual property rights.~{For example, in a letter to Madison commenting on the draft of the Constitution: “I like it, as far as it goes; but I should have been for going further. For instance, the following alterations and additions would have pleased me: . . . Article 9. Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature, and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not exceeding . . . years, but for no longer term, and no other purpose.” Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (August 28, 1789), in Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 7, 450–451.}~ James Madison stressed the costs of any intellectual property right and the need to limit its term and to allow the government to end the monopoly by compulsory purchase if necessary.~{“Monopolies tho’ in certain cases useful ought to be granted with caution, and guarded with strictness against abuse. The Constitution of the U.S. has limited them to two cases—the authors of Books, and of useful inventions, in both which they are considered as a compensation for a benefit actually gained to the community as a purchase of property which the owner might otherwise withhold from public use. There can be no just objection to a temporary monopoly in these cases: but it ought to be temporary because under that limitation a sufficient recompence and encouragement may be given. The limitation is particularly proper in the case of inventions, because they grow so much out of preceding ones that there is the less merit in the authors; and because, for the same reason, the discovery might be expected in a short time from other hands. . . . Monopolies have been granted in other Countries, and by some of the States in this, on another principle, that of supporting some useful undertaking, until experience and success should render the monopoly unnecessary, and lead to a salutary competition . . . But grants of this sort can be justified in very peculiar cases only, if at all; the danger being very great that the good resulting from the operation of the monopoly, will be overbalanced by the evil effect of the precedent; and it being not impossible that the monopoly itself in its original operation, may produce more evil than good. In all cases of monopoly, not excepting those in favor of authors and inventors, it would be well to reserve to the State, a right to extinguish the monopoly by paying a specified and reasonable sum. . . . Perpetual monopolies of every sort are forbidden not only by the Genius of free Governments, but by the imperfection of human foresight.” James Madison, “Monopolies, Perpetuities, Corporations, Ecclesiastical Endowments” (1819), in “Aspects of Monopoly One Hundred Years Ago,” Harper’s Magazine, ed. Galliard Hunt, 128 (1914), 489–490; also in “Madison’s ‘Detatched Memoranda,’ ” ed. Elizabeth Fleet, William & Mary Quarterly, 3rd series, 3 no. 4 (1946): 551–552, available at http://www.constitution.org/jm/18191213_monopolies.htm.}~ Adam Smith expressed similar views. Monopolies that carry on long after they were needed to encourage some socially beneficial activity, he said, tax every other citizen “very absurdly in two different ways: first, by the high price of goods, which, in the case of a free trade, they could buy much cheaper; and, secondly, by their total exclusion from a branch of business which it might be both convenient and profitable for many of them to carry on.”~{Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, pt. 3, Of the Expenses of Public Works and Public Institutions, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1880), 2:339: “When a company of merchants undertake, at their own risk and expense, to establish a new trade with some remote and barbarous nation, it may not be unreasonable to incorporate them into a joint-stock company, and to grant them, in case of their success, a monopoly of the trade for a certain number of years. It is the easiest and most natural way in which the state can recompense them for hazarding a dangerous and expensive experiment, of which the public is afterwards to reap the benefit. A temporary monopoly of this kind may be vindicated, upon the same principles upon which a like monopoly of a new machine is granted to its inventor, and that of a new book to its author. But upon the expiration of the term, the monopoly ought certainly to determine; the forts and garrisons, if it was found necessary to establish any, to be taken into the hands of government, their value to be paid to the company, and the trade to be laid open to all the subjects of the state. By a perpetual monopoly, all the other subjects of the state are taxed very absurdly in two different ways: first, by the high price of goods, which, in the case of a free trade, they could buy much cheaper; and, secondly, by their total exclusion from a branch of business which it might be both convenient and profitable for many of them to carry on.”}~
+These words from Jefferson and Macaulay encapsulate an eighteenth- and nineteenth-century free-trade skepticism about intellectual property, a skepticism that is widely, but not universally, believed to have played an important role in shaping the history of intellectual property in both the United States and the United Kingdom. Certainly the U.S. Supreme Court has offered support for that position,~{Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1, 7–11 (1966).}~ and, with one significant recent exception,~{Adam Mossoff, “Who Cares What Thomas Jefferson Thought about Patents? Reevaluating the Patent ‘Privilege’ in Historical Context,” Cornell Law Review 92 (2007): 953–1012. In a thoughtful, carefully reasoned, and provocative article, Professor Mossoff argues that Jefferson’s views have been misused by the courts and legal historians, and that if we understand the use of the word “privilege” in historical context, we see that the “patent privilege” was influenced by a philosophy of natural rights as well as the antimonopolist utilitarianism described here. I both agree and disagree. \\ Professor Mossoff’s central point—that the word “privilege” was not understood by eighteenth-century audiences as the antonym of “right”—is surely correct. To lay great stress on the linguistic point that the patent right is “merely” a “privilege” is to rest one’s argument on a weak reed. But this is not the only argument. One could also believe that intellectual property rights have vital conceptual and practical differences with property rights over tangible objects or land, that the framers of the Constitution who were most involved in the intellectual property clause were deeply opposed to the confusion involved in conflating the two, and that they looked upon this confusion particularly harshly because of an intense concern about state monopolies. One can still disagree with this assessment, of course; one can interpret Madison’s words this way or that, or interpret subsequent patent decisions as deep statements of principle or commonplace rhetorical flourishes. Still it seems to me a much stronger argument than the one based on the privilege–right distinction. I am not sure Professor Mossoff would disagree. \\ Professor Mossoff is also correct to point out that a “legal privilege” did sometimes mean to an eighteenth-century reader something that the state was duty-bound to grant. There was, in fact, a wide range of sources from which an eighteenth-century lawyer could derive a state obligation to grant a privilege. Eighteenth-century legal talk was a normative bouillabaisse—a rich stew of natural right, common law, utility, and progress—often thrown together without regard to their differences. Some lawyers and judges thought the common law embodied natural rights, others that it represented the dictates of “progress” and “utility,” and others, more confusingly still, seemed to adopt all of those views at once. \\ Nevertheless, I would agree that some eighteenth-century writers saw claims of common-law right beneath the assertion of some “privileges” and that a smaller number of those assumed common-law right and natural right to be equivalent, and thus saw a strong state obligation to grant a particular privilege based on natural right, wherever that privilege had been recognized by English or U.S. common law. But here is where I part company with Professor Mossoff. \\ First, I do not believe that the most important architects of the intellectual property clause shared that view when it came to patents and copyrights. Jefferson, of course, was not one of those who believed the state was so bound. “Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from [inventions], as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body” (Letter to McPherson, 334, emphasis added). More importantly, Jefferson’s thinking about patents was infused by a deeply utilitarian, antimonopolist tinge. So, I would argue, was Madison’s. \\ The quotations from Madison which I give later show clearly, to me at least, that Madison shared Jefferson’s deeply utilitarian attitude toward patent and copyright law. I think there is very good reason to believe that this attitude was dominant among the Scottish Enlightenment thinkers whose writings were so influential to the framers. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that the American Revolution was violently against the world of monopoly and corruption that was the supposed target of the English Statute of Monopolies (itself hardly a natural rights document). Yes, those thinkers might fall back into talking about how hard an inventor had worked or construing a patent expansively. Yes, they might think that within the boundaries of settled law, it would be unjust to deny one inventor a patent when the general scheme of patent law had already been laid down. But that did not and does not negate the antimonopolist and, for that matter, utilitarian roots of the Constitution’s intellectual property clause. \\ Second, while I agree that there were strands of natural right thinking and a labor theory of value in the U.S. intellectual property system, and that they continue to this day—indeed, these were the very views that the Feist decision discussed in Chapter 9 repudiated, as late as 1991—I think it is easy to make too much of that fact. Is this signal or noise? There are conceptual reasons to think it is the latter. Later in this chapter I discuss the evolution of the droits d’auteur tradition in France. Here, at the supposed heart of the natural rights tradition, we find thinkers driven inexorably to consider the question of limits. How far does the supposed natural right extend—in time, in space, in subject matter? It is at that moment that the utilitarian focus and the fear of monopoly represented by Jefferson and Madison—and, for that matter, Locke and Condorcet—become so important. \\ Professor Mossoff is correct to criticize the focus on the word “privilege,” and also correct that the ideas of natural right and the labor theory of value always color attitudes toward intellectual property claims. But it would be an equal and opposite mistake to ignore two points. First, intellectual property rights are profoundly different from physical property rights over land in ways that should definitively shape policy choices. Second, partly because of those differences, and because of the influence of free-trade Scottish Enlightenment thought on the American Revolution in particular, there was a powerful antimonopolist and free-trade sentiment behind the copyright and patent clause. Simply read the clause. Congress is given the power “to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” Does this really read like the work of a group of believers in natural right? On the contrary, it reads like a limited grant of power to achieve a particular utilitarian goal. That sentiment—nicely encapsulated in but by no means limited to the words of Jefferson—is still a good starting place for an understanding of intellectual property.}~ historians of intellectual property have agreed.~{See, e.g., Ochoa and Rose, “Anti-Monopoly Origins,” and Edward C. Walterscheid, The Nature of the Intellectual Property Clause: A Study in Historical Perspective (Buffalo, N.Y.: W. S. Hein, 2002). Ochoa, Rose, and Walterscheid stress the antimonopolist concerns that animated some of those who were most active in the debates about intellectual property. They also point out the influence of the English Statute of Monopolies of 1623, which attacked monopolies in general, while making an exception for periods of legal exclusivity for a limited time granted over “sole Working or Making of any Manner of new Manufacture within this Realm, to the first true Inventor or Inventors of such Manufactures which others at the time of the Making of such Letters Patents Grants did not use, so they be not contrary to the Law, nor mischievous to the State, by Raising of the Prices of Commodities at home, or Hurt by Trade, or generally inconvenient.”}~ Jefferson himself had believed that the Constitution should have definite limits on both the term and the scope of intellectual property rights.~{For example, in a letter to Madison commenting on the draft of the Constitution: “I like it, as far as it goes; but I should have been for going further. For instance, the following alterations and additions would have pleased me: . . . Article 9. Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature, and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not exceeding . . . years, but for no longer term, and no other purpose.” Letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison (August 28, 1789), in Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 7, 450–451.}~ James Madison stressed the costs of any intellectual property right and the need to limit its term and to allow the government to end the monopoly by compulsory purchase if necessary.~{“Monopolies tho’ in certain cases useful ought to be granted with caution, and guarded with strictness against abuse. The Constitution of the U.S. has limited them to two cases—the authors of Books, and of useful inventions, in both which they are considered as a compensation for a benefit actually gained to the community as a purchase of property which the owner might otherwise withhold from public use. There can be no just objection to a temporary monopoly in these cases: but it ought to be temporary because under that limitation a sufficient recompence and encouragement may be given. The limitation is particularly proper in the case of inventions, because they grow so much out of preceding ones that there is the less merit in the authors; and because, for the same reason, the discovery might be expected in a short time from other hands. . . . Monopolies have been granted in other Countries, and by some of the States in this, on another principle, that of supporting some useful undertaking, until experience and success should render the monopoly unnecessary, and lead to a salutary competition . . . But grants of this sort can be justified in very peculiar cases only, if at all; the danger being very great that the good resulting from the operation of the monopoly, will be overbalanced by the evil effect of the precedent; and it being not impossible that the monopoly itself in its original operation, may produce more evil than good. In all cases of monopoly, not excepting those in favor of authors and inventors, it would be well to reserve to the State, a right to extinguish the monopoly by paying a specified and reasonable sum. . . . Perpetual monopolies of every sort are forbidden not only by the Genius of free Governments, but by the imperfection of human foresight.” James Madison, “Monopolies, Perpetuities, Corporations, Ecclesiastical Endowments” (1819), in “Aspects of Monopoly One Hundred Years Ago,” Harper’s Magazine, ed. Galliard Hunt, 128 (1914), 489–490; also in “Madison’s ‘Detatched Memoranda,’ ” ed. Elizabeth Fleet, William & Mary Quarterly, 3rd series, 3 no. 4 (1946): 551–552, available at http://www.constitution.org/jm/18191213_monopolies.htm.}~ Adam Smith expressed similar views. Monopolies that carry on long after they were needed to encourage some socially beneficial activity, he said, tax every other citizen “very absurdly in two different ways: first, by the high price of goods, which, in the case of a free trade, they could buy much cheaper; and, secondly, by their total exclusion from a branch of business which it might be both convenient and profitable for many of them to carry on.”~{Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, pt. 3, Of the Expenses of Public Works and Public Institutions, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1880), 2:339: “When a company of merchants undertake, at their own risk and expense, to establish a new trade with some remote and barbarous nation, it may not be unreasonable to incorporate them into a joint-stock company, and to grant them, in case of their success, a monopoly of the trade for a certain number of years. It is the easiest and most natural way in which the state can recompense them for hazarding a dangerous and expensive experiment, of which the public is afterwards to reap the benefit. A temporary monopoly of this kind may be vindicated, upon the same principles upon which a like monopoly of a new machine is granted to its inventor, and that of a new book to its author. But upon the expiration of the term, the monopoly ought certainly to determine; the forts and garrisons, if it was found necessary to establish any, to be taken into the hands of government, their value to be paid to the company, and the trade to be laid open to all the subjects of the state. By a perpetual monopoly, all the other subjects of the state are taxed very absurdly in two different ways: first, by the high price of goods, which, in the case of a free trade, they could buy much cheaper; and, secondly, by their total exclusion from a branch of business which it might be both convenient and profitable for many of them to carry on.”}~
 
 It is important to note, though, that the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century writers I have quoted were not against intellectual property. All of them—Jefferson, Madison, Smith, and Macaulay—could see good reason why intellectual property rights should be granted. They simply insisted on weighing the costs and benefits of a new right, each expansion of scope, each lengthening of the copyright term. Here is Macaulay again, waxing eloquently sarcastic about the costs and benefits of extending the copyright term so that it would last many years after the author’s death:
 
@@ -350,7 +348,7 @@ Of course, we could build a culture around a notion of natural, absolute, and pe
 
 Or perhaps not. Think of the way that Jefferson traced the origins of the mechanical arts used in the elevators and hopper-boys all the way back to ancient Persia. (In Mr. Helprin’s utopia, presumably, a royalty stream would run to Cyrus the Great’s engineers.) Jefferson’s point was that for the process of invention to work, we need to confine narrowly the time and scope of the state-provided monopoly, otherwise further inventions would become impossible. Each process or part of a new invention would risk infringing a myriad of prior patents on its subcomponents. Innovation would strangle in a thicket of conflicting monopolies with their roots vanishing back in time. Presumably the title of Mr. Helprin’s excellent novel would require clearance from Shakespeare’s heirs.
 
-Of course, one could construct a more modest Lockean idea of intellectual property~{The two most influential and brilliant examples are Justin Hughes, “The Philosophy of Intellectual Property,” Georgetown Law Journal 77 (1988): 287–366, and Wendy J. Gordon, “A Property Right in Self-Expression: Equality and Individualism in the Natural Law of Intellectual Property,” Yale Law Journal 102 (1993): 1533–1610. Both of these articles attempt not to use Locke as the basis for a world of absolute right, but instead to focus on the Locke whose world of private property coexisted with a commons—albeit one much diminished after the invention of money. If one goes far enough into the Lockean conception—fine-tuning “enough and as good” so as to allow for a vigorous commons, and the claims of labor so as to take account of the importance of the embedded contributions of culture and science—then the differences between the Jeffersonian view and the Lockean view start to recede in significance. Academics have found the Lockean view attractive, noting, correctly, that Locke is commonly brandished as a rhetorical emblem for property schemes that he himself would have scorned. Yet when one looks at the actual world of intellectual property policy discourse, and the difficulty of enunciating even the simple Jeffersonian antimonopolist ideas I lay out here, it is hard to imagine the nuanced Lockean view flourishing. Consider this comment of Jeremy Waldron’s and ask yourself—is this result more likely from within the Jeffersonian or the Lockean view?<br> Our tendency of course is to focus on authors when we think about intellectual property. Many of us are authors ourselves: reading a case about copyright we can empathize readily with a plaintiff’s feeling for the effort he has put in, his need to control his work, and his natural desire to reap the fruits of his own labor. In this Essay, however, I shall look at the way we think about actual, potential and putative infringers of copyright, those whose freedom is or might be constrained by others’ ownership of songs, plays, words, images and stories. Clearly our concept of the author and this concept of the copier are two sides of the same coin. If we think of an author as having a natural right to profit from his work, then we will think of the copier as some sort of thief; whereas if we think of the author as beneficiary of a statutory monopoly, it may be easier to see the copier as an embodiment of free enterprise values. These are the connections I want to discuss, and my argument will be that we cannot begin to unravel the conundrums of moral justification in this area unless we are willing to approach the matter even-handedly from both sides of the question.<br> After a magisterial study of justifications for the existing world of intellectual property, Waldron concludes, “[t]he fact is, however, that whether or not we speak of a burden of proof, an institution like intellectual property is not self-justifying; we owe a justification to anyone who finds that he can move less freely than he would in the absence of the institution. So although the people whose perspective I have taken—the copiers—may be denigrated as unoriginal plagiarists or thieves of others’ work, still they are the ones who feel the immediate impact of our intellectual property laws. It affects what they may do, how they may speak, and how they may earn a living. Of course nothing is settled by saying that it is their interests that are particularly at stake; if the tables were turned, we should want to highlight the perspective of the authors. But as things stand, the would-be copiers are the ones to whom a justification of intellectual property is owed.” See Jeremy Waldron, “From Authors to Copiers: Individual Rights and Social Values in Intellectual Property,” Chicago-Kent Law Review 68 (1993): 841, 842, 887. That justification seems more plausibly and practically to come from the perspective I sketch out here. See also William Fisher, “Theories of Intellectual Property,” in New Essays in the Legal and Political Theory of Property, ed. Stephen R. Munzer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 168–200.} —building on the notion of “enough and as good” left over for others and drawing the limits tightly enough to avoid the worst of Mr. Helprin’s excesses. But as one attempts to do this systematically, the power of the Jeffersonian vision becomes all the more apparent—at least as a starting place.
+Of course, one could construct a more modest Lockean idea of intellectual property~{The two most influential and brilliant examples are Justin Hughes, “The Philosophy of Intellectual Property,” Georgetown Law Journal 77 (1988): 287–366, and Wendy J. Gordon, “A Property Right in Self-Expression: Equality and Individualism in the Natural Law of Intellectual Property,” Yale Law Journal 102 (1993): 1533–1610. Both of these articles attempt not to use Locke as the basis for a world of absolute right, but instead to focus on the Locke whose world of private property coexisted with a commons—albeit one much diminished after the invention of money. If one goes far enough into the Lockean conception—fine-tuning “enough and as good” so as to allow for a vigorous commons, and the claims of labor so as to take account of the importance of the embedded contributions of culture and science—then the differences between the Jeffersonian view and the Lockean view start to recede in significance. Academics have found the Lockean view attractive, noting, correctly, that Locke is commonly brandished as a rhetorical emblem for property schemes that he himself would have scorned. Yet when one looks at the actual world of intellectual property policy discourse, and the difficulty of enunciating even the simple Jeffersonian antimonopolist ideas I lay out here, it is hard to imagine the nuanced Lockean view flourishing. Consider this comment of Jeremy Waldron’s and ask yourself—is this result more likely from within the Jeffersonian or the Lockean view? \\ Our tendency of course is to focus on authors when we think about intellectual property. Many of us are authors ourselves: reading a case about copyright we can empathize readily with a plaintiff’s feeling for the effort he has put in, his need to control his work, and his natural desire to reap the fruits of his own labor. In this Essay, however, I shall look at the way we think about actual, potential and putative infringers of copyright, those whose freedom is or might be constrained by others’ ownership of songs, plays, words, images and stories. Clearly our concept of the author and this concept of the copier are two sides of the same coin. If we think of an author as having a natural right to profit from his work, then we will think of the copier as some sort of thief; whereas if we think of the author as beneficiary of a statutory monopoly, it may be easier to see the copier as an embodiment of free enterprise values. These are the connections I want to discuss, and my argument will be that we cannot begin to unravel the conundrums of moral justification in this area unless we are willing to approach the matter even-handedly from both sides of the question. \\ After a magisterial study of justifications for the existing world of intellectual property, Waldron concludes, “[t]he fact is, however, that whether or not we speak of a burden of proof, an institution like intellectual property is not self-justifying; we owe a justification to anyone who finds that he can move less freely than he would in the absence of the institution. So although the people whose perspective I have taken—the copiers—may be denigrated as unoriginal plagiarists or thieves of others’ work, still they are the ones who feel the immediate impact of our intellectual property laws. It affects what they may do, how they may speak, and how they may earn a living. Of course nothing is settled by saying that it is their interests that are particularly at stake; if the tables were turned, we should want to highlight the perspective of the authors. But as things stand, the would-be copiers are the ones to whom a justification of intellectual property is owed.” See Jeremy Waldron, “From Authors to Copiers: Individual Rights and Social Values in Intellectual Property,” Chicago-Kent Law Review 68 (1993): 841, 842, 887. That justification seems more plausibly and practically to come from the perspective I sketch out here. See also William Fisher, “Theories of Intellectual Property,” in New Essays in the Legal and Political Theory of Property, ed. Stephen R. Munzer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 168–200.} —building on the notion of “enough and as good” left over for others and drawing the limits tightly enough to avoid the worst of Mr. Helprin’s excesses. But as one attempts to do this systematically, the power of the Jeffersonian vision becomes all the more apparent—at least as a starting place.
 
 The Jefferson Warning will play an important role in this book. But my arguments here have implications far beyond Jefferson’s time, country, or constitutional tradition. In the last analysis, I hope to convince you of the importance of the Jefferson Warning or the views of Macaulay not because they are famous authorities and revered thinkers or because they framed constitutions or debated legislation. I wish to convince you that their views are important because they encapsulate neatly an important series of truths about intellectual property. We should listen to the Jefferson Warning not because it is prestigious but because of its insight. As the Diderot-Condorcet debates point out, the questions on which Jefferson and Macaulay focused do not disappear merely because one embraces a philosophy of moral rights—if anything, they become more pressing, particularly when one comes to define the limits of intellectual property in scope and time. I ask that those readers who remain leery of the Jeffersonian focus concentrate on that last issue. In an era when we have been expanding intellectual property rights relentlessly, it is a crucial one. If the Jefferson Warning produces in my unconvinced reader even a slight queasiness about the likely effects of such a process of expansion, it will have done its job—though in fact the tradition it represented was much richer than a simple utilitarian series of cautions.
 
@@ -503,7 +501,7 @@ As bioinformatics blurs the line between computer modeling and biological resear
 
 Of course, we would hope that in your daily actions you scrupulously observed the rights—all the rights—of the companies that have interests in the texts, tunes, images of celebrities, trademarks, business method patents, and fragments of computer code you dealt with. Did you? Can you be sure? I teach intellectual property, but I admit to some uncertainty. I would not have imagined that a temporary image of a Web page captured in the cache of my browser counted as a “copy” for the purposes of copyright law.~{See James Boyle, “Intellectual Property Policy Online: A Young Person’s Guide,” Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 10 (1996): 47–112.}~ I would have thought that it was fair use for a company to photocopy articles in journals it subscribed to, and paid for, in order to circulate them to its researchers.~{American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, 37 F.3d 882 (2nd Cir. 1994).}~ If a conservative Web site reposted news articles from liberal newspapers with critical commentary, that, too, would have seemed like fair use.~{Los Angeles Times v. Free Republic, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5669, 54 U.S.P.Q.2D 1453 (C.D. Cal. 2000).}~ I would have thought that it was beneficial competition, and not a trespass, for an electronic “aggregator” to gather together auction prices or airline fares, so as to give consumers more choice.~{eBay, Inc. v. Bidder’s Edge, Inc. , 100 F. Supp. 2d 1058 (N.D. Cal. 2000).}~ I would not have thought that a search engine that catalogued and displayed in framed format the digital graphics found on the Internet would be sued for infringing the copyrights of the owners of those images.~{Kelly v. Arriba Soft, 336 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2003). After initially holding that while thumbnails were fair use, inline links that displayed pictures were not fair use, the court reversed itself and found fair use in both instances.}~ I would not have thought that I might be sued for violating intellectual property law if I tried to compete with a printer company by making toner cartridges that were compatible with its printers.~{After a District Court issued a temporary injunction telling Static Controls that it must cease manufacturing generic toner cartridges that operated in Lexmark printers—indicating it was likely to be found to be violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s “anti-circumvention” provisions—the Appeals Court held that such cartridges did not in fact violate the DMCA. Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. , 387 F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 2004).}~
 
-The examples go on. I know that the “research exemption” in U.S. patent law is very tightly limited, but I would have laughed if you had told me that even a research university was forbidden from doing research unless that research had no conceivable practical or academic worth—in other words that even in academia, in a project with no commercial goal, the research exemption only covered research that was completely pointless.~{Madey v. Duke Univ. , 307 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 958 (2003).}~ Why have an exemption at all, in that case? I would have told an academic cryptography researcher that he need not fear legal threats from copyright owners simply for researching and publishing work on the vulnerabilities of copy protection schemes.~{“When scientists from Princeton University and Rice University tried to publish their findings [on the vulnerabilities in a copy protection scheme] in April 2001, the recording industry claimed that the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) makes it illegal to discuss or provide technology that might be used to bypass industry controls limiting how consumers can use music they have purchased. ‘Studying digital access technologies and publishing the research for our colleagues are both fundamental to the progress of science and academic freedom,’ stated Princeton scientist Edward Felten. ‘The recording industry’s interpretation of the DMCA would make scientific progress on this important topic illegal.’ . . .<br> “SDMI sponsored the ‘SDMI Public Challenge’ in September 2000, asking Netizens to try to break their favored watermark schemes, designed to control consumer access to digital music. When the scientists’ paper about their successful defeat of the watermarks, including one developed by a company called Verance, was accepted for publication, Matt Oppenheim, an officer of both RIAA and SDMI, sent the Princeton professor a letter threatening legal liability if the scientist published his results.” “EFF Media Release: Princeton Scientists Sue Over Squelched Research,” available at http://w2.eff.org/IP/DMCA/Felten_v_RIAA/20010606_eff_felten_pr.html. After a First Amendment challenge to the relevant provisions of the DMCA, the threats were withdrawn.}~ I would not have thought that one could patent the idea of having an electronic Dutch auction on the Internet, working out the daily prices of a bundle of mutual funds through simple arithmetic, or buying something online with one click.~{See, e.g., Robert P. Merges, “As Many as Six Impossible Patents before Breakfast: Property Rights for Business Concepts and Patent System Reform,” Berkeley Technology Law Journal 14 (1999): 615.}~ I would have assumed that celebrities’ rights to control their images should end with their deaths, and that courts would agree that those rights were tightly limited by the First Amendment. Yet, in each of these cases, I would have been wrong, or at least I might be wrong—enough that a sane person would worry. Not all of the expansive claims eventually triumphed, of course, but some did. Guessing which would and which would not was hard even for me, though, as I said, I teach intellectual property law. You, probably, do not.
+The examples go on. I know that the “research exemption” in U.S. patent law is very tightly limited, but I would have laughed if you had told me that even a research university was forbidden from doing research unless that research had no conceivable practical or academic worth—in other words that even in academia, in a project with no commercial goal, the research exemption only covered research that was completely pointless.~{Madey v. Duke Univ. , 307 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 958 (2003).}~ Why have an exemption at all, in that case? I would have told an academic cryptography researcher that he need not fear legal threats from copyright owners simply for researching and publishing work on the vulnerabilities of copy protection schemes.~{“When scientists from Princeton University and Rice University tried to publish their findings [on the vulnerabilities in a copy protection scheme] in April 2001, the recording industry claimed that the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) makes it illegal to discuss or provide technology that might be used to bypass industry controls limiting how consumers can use music they have purchased. ‘Studying digital access technologies and publishing the research for our colleagues are both fundamental to the progress of science and academic freedom,’ stated Princeton scientist Edward Felten. ‘The recording industry’s interpretation of the DMCA would make scientific progress on this important topic illegal.’ . . . \\ “SDMI sponsored the ‘SDMI Public Challenge’ in September 2000, asking Netizens to try to break their favored watermark schemes, designed to control consumer access to digital music. When the scientists’ paper about their successful defeat of the watermarks, including one developed by a company called Verance, was accepted for publication, Matt Oppenheim, an officer of both RIAA and SDMI, sent the Princeton professor a letter threatening legal liability if the scientist published his results.” “EFF Media Release: Princeton Scientists Sue Over Squelched Research,” available at http://w2.eff.org/IP/DMCA/Felten_v_RIAA/20010606_eff_felten_pr.html. After a First Amendment challenge to the relevant provisions of the DMCA, the threats were withdrawn.}~ I would not have thought that one could patent the idea of having an electronic Dutch auction on the Internet, working out the daily prices of a bundle of mutual funds through simple arithmetic, or buying something online with one click.~{See, e.g., Robert P. Merges, “As Many as Six Impossible Patents before Breakfast: Property Rights for Business Concepts and Patent System Reform,” Berkeley Technology Law Journal 14 (1999): 615.}~ I would have assumed that celebrities’ rights to control their images should end with their deaths, and that courts would agree that those rights were tightly limited by the First Amendment. Yet, in each of these cases, I would have been wrong, or at least I might be wrong—enough that a sane person would worry. Not all of the expansive claims eventually triumphed, of course, but some did. Guessing which would and which would not was hard even for me, though, as I said, I teach intellectual property law. You, probably, do not.
 
 In 1950 none of this would have mattered. Unless you were in some related business—as a publisher, broadcaster, film distributor, or what have you—it would have been hard for you to trigger the rules of intellectual property law. If you were in such a business, you were probably very familiar with the rules that governed your activities and well represented by corporate counsel who knew them even better. What’s more, the rules were neither as complex nor as counterintuitive as they are now. They also did not reach as far. The reach of the rights has been expanded, and their content made more difficult to understand, at the exact moment that their practical effect has been transformed. It is not merely that the triggers of intellectual property law can easily be set off by individual footsteps. There are now many more triggers and their trip wires are harder to see.
 
@@ -1090,7 +1088,7 @@ According to the overwhelming majority of sources, “I Got a Woman” stems fro
 
 _1 Musically, soul denotes styles performed by and for black audiences according to past musical practices reinterpreted and redefined. During its development, three performers played significant roles in shaping its sound, messages, and performance practice: Ray Charles, James Brown, and Aretha Franklin. If one can pinpoint a moment when gospel and blues began to merge into a secular version of gospel song, it was in 1954 when Ray Charles recorded “My Jesus Is All the World to Me,” changing its text to “I Got A Woman.”~{Robert W. Stephens, “Soul: A Historical Reconstruction of Continuity and Change in Black Popular Music,” The Black Perspective in Music 12, no. 1 (Spring 1984): 32.}~
 
-That story is repeated in the biography on Charles’s Web site. “Charles reworded the gospel tune ‘Jesus Is All the World to Me’ adding deep church inflections to the secular rhythms of the nightclubs, and the world was never the same.”~{Forever Ray, available at http://www.raycharles.com/the_man_biography.html. }~ Michael Lydon, Charles’s most impressive biographer, simply reports that “Jesus Is All the World to Me” is described as the song’s origin in another published source,~{Michael Lydon, Ray Charles (New York: Routledge, 2004), 419: “Arnold Shaw, in The Rockin’ 50’s says that ‘I Got a Woman’ is based on Jesus is All the World to Me. Because Renald Richard left Ray’s band before the song was recorded, he was not at first properly credited: some record labels list [Ray Charles] alone as the songwriter. Richard, however, straightened that out with Atlantic, and he has for many years earned a substantial income from his royalties.”}~ and this origin is cited repeatedly elsewhere in books, newspaper articles, and online,~{See Stephens, “Soul,” 32. The standard biographical literature also repeats the same story:<br> In 1954 an historic recording session with Atlantic records fused gospel with rhythm-and-blues and established Charles’ “sweet new style” in American music. One number recorded at that session was destined to become his first great success. Secularizing the gospel hymn “My Jesus Is All the World to Me,” Charles employed the 8- and 16-measure forms of gospel music, in conjunction with the 12-measure form of standard blues. Charles contended that his invention of soul music resulted from the heightening of the intensity of the emotion expressed by jazz through the charging of feeling in the unbridled way of gospel.<br> “Ray Charles,” Encyclopedia of World Biography, 2nd ed., vol. 3 (Detroit, Mich.: Gale Research, 1998), 469. Popular accounts offer the same story:<br> This young, blind, black, gravelly-voiced singer brought together the most engaging aspects of black music into one form and began the process of synthesis that led to soul and, ultimately, funk a decade later. He would turn around gospel standards like “My Jesus Is All the World to Me,” recreating it as “I Got a Woman[.]”<br> Ricky Vincent, Funk: The Music, The People, and the Rhythm of the One (New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 1996), 121. See also Joel Hirschhorn, The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Songwriting (New York: Alpha Books, 2004), 108: “I Got a Woman was Ray’s rewrite of ‘My Jesus Is All the World to Me.’ ”<br> Charles himself was more equivocal about the origins of the song:<br> So I was lucky. Lucky to have my own band at this point in my career. Lucky to be able to construct my musical building to my exact specifications. And lucky in another way: While I was stomping around New Orleans, I had met a trumpeter named Renolds [sic] Richard who by thus time was in my band. One day he brought me some words to a song. I dressed them up a little and put them to music. The tune was called “I Got a Woman,” and it was another of those spirituals which I refashioned in my own way. I Got a Woman was my first real smash, much bigger than [“]Baby Let Me Hold Your Hand[.]” This spiritual-and-blues combination of mine was starting to hit.<br> Charles and Ritz, Brother Ray, 150.}~ though the most detailed accounts also mention Renald Richard, Charles’s trumpeter, who is credited with co-writing the song.~{See Lydon, Ray Charles, 419.}~
+That story is repeated in the biography on Charles’s Web site. “Charles reworded the gospel tune ‘Jesus Is All the World to Me’ adding deep church inflections to the secular rhythms of the nightclubs, and the world was never the same.”~{Forever Ray, available at http://www.raycharles.com/the_man_biography.html. }~ Michael Lydon, Charles’s most impressive biographer, simply reports that “Jesus Is All the World to Me” is described as the song’s origin in another published source,~{Michael Lydon, Ray Charles (New York: Routledge, 2004), 419: “Arnold Shaw, in The Rockin’ 50’s says that ‘I Got a Woman’ is based on Jesus is All the World to Me. Because Renald Richard left Ray’s band before the song was recorded, he was not at first properly credited: some record labels list [Ray Charles] alone as the songwriter. Richard, however, straightened that out with Atlantic, and he has for many years earned a substantial income from his royalties.”}~ and this origin is cited repeatedly elsewhere in books, newspaper articles, and online,~{See Stephens, “Soul,” 32. The standard biographical literature also repeats the same story: \\ In 1954 an historic recording session with Atlantic records fused gospel with rhythm-and-blues and established Charles’ “sweet new style” in American music. One number recorded at that session was destined to become his first great success. Secularizing the gospel hymn “My Jesus Is All the World to Me,” Charles employed the 8- and 16-measure forms of gospel music, in conjunction with the 12-measure form of standard blues. Charles contended that his invention of soul music resulted from the heightening of the intensity of the emotion expressed by jazz through the charging of feeling in the unbridled way of gospel. \\ “Ray Charles,” Encyclopedia of World Biography, 2nd ed., vol. 3 (Detroit, Mich.: Gale Research, 1998), 469. Popular accounts offer the same story: \\ This young, blind, black, gravelly-voiced singer brought together the most engaging aspects of black music into one form and began the process of synthesis that led to soul and, ultimately, funk a decade later. He would turn around gospel standards like “My Jesus Is All the World to Me,” recreating it as “I Got a Woman[.]” \\ Ricky Vincent, Funk: The Music, The People, and the Rhythm of the One (New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 1996), 121. See also Joel Hirschhorn, The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Songwriting (New York: Alpha Books, 2004), 108: “I Got a Woman was Ray’s rewrite of ‘My Jesus Is All the World to Me.’ ” \\ Charles himself was more equivocal about the origins of the song: \\ So I was lucky. Lucky to have my own band at this point in my career. Lucky to be able to construct my musical building to my exact specifications. And lucky in another way: While I was stomping around New Orleans, I had met a trumpeter named Renolds [sic] Richard who by thus time was in my band. One day he brought me some words to a song. I dressed them up a little and put them to music. The tune was called “I Got a Woman,” and it was another of those spirituals which I refashioned in my own way. I Got a Woman was my first real smash, much bigger than [“]Baby Let Me Hold Your Hand[.]” This spiritual-and-blues combination of mine was starting to hit. \\ Charles and Ritz, Brother Ray, 150.}~ though the most detailed accounts also mention Renald Richard, Charles’s trumpeter, who is credited with co-writing the song.~{See Lydon, Ray Charles, 419.}~
 
 To secular ears, “Jesus Is All the World to Me” is a plodding piece of music with a mechanical, up-and-down melodic structure. It conjures up a bored (and white) church audience, trudging through the verses, a semitone flat, while thinking about Sunday lunch rather than salvation. It is about as far removed as one could be from the syncopated beat and amorous subject matter of “I Got a Woman.” The hymn was the product of Will Lamartine Thompson—a severe-looking fellow with a faint resemblance to an elderly Doc Holliday—who died in 1909 and is buried in the same place he was born, East Liverpool, Ohio. But the words have an earnestness to them that gives life to the otherwise uninspired verse.
 
@@ -1151,7 +1149,7 @@ This stage of Charles’s career is described, rightly, hy and sensual style tha
 
 The connection is striking: two very recent gospel songs, probably by the same author, from which Charles copies the melody, structure, pattern of verses, even most of the title—in each case substituting a beloved sensual woman for the beloved deity. Many others have noticed just how closely Charles based his songs on gospel tunes, although the prevalence of the story that “I Got a Woman” is derived from an early-twentieth-century hymn caused most to see only the second transposition, not the first.~{“If one can pinpoint a moment when gospel and blues began to merge into a secular version of gospel song, it was in 1954 when Ray Charles recorded ‘My Jesus Is All the World to Me,’ changing its text to ‘I Got A Woman.’ The following year, he changed Clara Ward’s ‘This Little Light of Mine’ to ‘This Little Girl of Mine.’ ” Stephens, “Soul,” 32.}~ Borrowing from a fifty-year-old hymn and changing it substantially in the process seems a little different from the repeated process of “search and replace” musical collage that Charles performed on the contemporary works of Clara Ward.
 
-If I am right, Charles’s “merger” of gospel and blues relied on a very direct process of transposition. The transposition was not just of themes: passion for woman substituted for passion for God. That is a familiar aspect of soul.~{Robert Lashley, “Why Ray Charles Matters,” Blogcritics Magazine, December 17, 2005, http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/12/17/032826.php: <br>But it was the staggering, nearly byzantine ambition that encompassed Charles’ musical mind which is the foundation for his art. You can hear it in his first imprint on the pop music world, 1955’s I Got A Woman. The shuffling big beat borrows from Louis Jordan’s big band fusion, the backbeat is 2/4 gospel. The arrangement is lucid, not quite jazz, not quite blues, definitely not rock and roll but something sophisticated altogether. The emotions are feral, but not quite the primitiveness of rock and roll. It is the sound of life, a place where there is an ever flowing river of cool. It, you might ask? Rhythm and Blues, Ray Charles’ invention.<br> A volcano bubbling under the surface, Ray spent the mid 50’s crafting timeless songs as if there were cars on an assembly[.] Start with the blasphemous fusion of Hallelujah I [L]ove Her So and This Little Girl of Mine, where Ray changes the words from loving god to loving a woman, yet, in the intensity of his performance, raises the question if he’s still loving the same thing.<br> The anonymous encyclopedists at Wikipedia agree:<br> Many of the most prominent soul artists, such as Aretha Franklin, Marvin Gaye, Wilson Pickett and Al Green, had roots in the church and gospel music and brought with them much of the vocal styles of artists such as Clara Ward and Julius Cheeks. Secular songwriters often appropriated gospel songs, such as the Pilgrim Travelers’ song “I’ve Got A New Home,” which Ray Charles turned into “Lonely Avenue,” or “Stand By Me,” which Ben E. King and Lieber and Stoller adapted from a well-known gospel song, or Marvin Gaye’s “Can I Get A Witness,” which reworks traditional gospel catchphrases. In other cases secular musicians did the opposite, attaching phrases and titles from the gospel tradition to secular songs to create soul hits such as “Come See About Me” for the Supremes and “99½ Won’t Do” for Wilson Pickett.<br> “Urban Contemporary Gospel,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/urban_contemporary_gospel. }~ It is what allows it to draw so easily from gospel’s fieriness and yet coat the religion with a distinctly more worldly passion. Sex, sin, and syncopation—what more could one ask? But Charles’s genius was to take particular songs that had already proved themselves in the church and on the radio, and to grab large chunks of the melody and structure. He was not just copying themes, or merging genres, he was copying the melodies and words from recent songs.
+If I am right, Charles’s “merger” of gospel and blues relied on a very direct process of transposition. The transposition was not just of themes: passion for woman substituted for passion for God. That is a familiar aspect of soul.~{Robert Lashley, “Why Ray Charles Matters,” Blogcritics Magazine, December 17, 2005, http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/12/17/032826.php: \\ But it was the staggering, nearly byzantine ambition that encompassed Charles’ musical mind which is the foundation for his art. You can hear it in his first imprint on the pop music world, 1955’s I Got A Woman. The shuffling big beat borrows from Louis Jordan’s big band fusion, the backbeat is 2/4 gospel. The arrangement is lucid, not quite jazz, not quite blues, definitely not rock and roll but something sophisticated altogether. The emotions are feral, but not quite the primitiveness of rock and roll. It is the sound of life, a place where there is an ever flowing river of cool. It, you might ask? Rhythm and Blues, Ray Charles’ invention. \\ A volcano bubbling under the surface, Ray spent the mid 50’s crafting timeless songs as if there were cars on an assembly[.] Start with the blasphemous fusion of Hallelujah I [L]ove Her So and This Little Girl of Mine, where Ray changes the words from loving god to loving a woman, yet, in the intensity of his performance, raises the question if he’s still loving the same thing. \\ The anonymous encyclopedists at Wikipedia agree: \\ Many of the most prominent soul artists, such as Aretha Franklin, Marvin Gaye, Wilson Pickett and Al Green, had roots in the church and gospel music and brought with them much of the vocal styles of artists such as Clara Ward and Julius Cheeks. Secular songwriters often appropriated gospel songs, such as the Pilgrim Travelers’ song “I’ve Got A New Home,” which Ray Charles turned into “Lonely Avenue,” or “Stand By Me,” which Ben E. King and Lieber and Stoller adapted from a well-known gospel song, or Marvin Gaye’s “Can I Get A Witness,” which reworks traditional gospel catchphrases. In other cases secular musicians did the opposite, attaching phrases and titles from the gospel tradition to secular songs to create soul hits such as “Come See About Me” for the Supremes and “99½ Won’t Do” for Wilson Pickett. \\ “Urban Contemporary Gospel,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/urban_contemporary_gospel. }~ It is what allows it to draw so easily from gospel’s fieriness and yet coat the religion with a distinctly more worldly passion. Sex, sin, and syncopation—what more could one ask? But Charles’s genius was to take particular songs that had already proved themselves in the church and on the radio, and to grab large chunks of the melody and structure. He was not just copying themes, or merging genres, he was copying the melodies and words from recent songs.
 
 Was this mere musical plagiarism, then? Should we think less of Ray Charles’s genius because we find just how closely two of the canonical songs in the creation of soul were based on the work of his contemporaries? Hardly. “I Got a Woman” and “This Little Girl of Mine” are simply brilliant. Charles does in fact span the worlds of the nightclub at 3 a.m. on Sunday morning and the church later that day, of ecstatic testimony and good old-fashioned sexual infatuation. But the way he does so is a lot more like welding, or bricolage, than it is like designing out of nothing or creating anew while distantly tugged by mysterious musical forces called “themes” or “genres.” Charles takes bits that have been proven to work and combines them to make something new. When I tell engineers or software engineers this story, they nod. Of course that is how creation works. One does not reinvent the wheel, or the method of debugging, so why should one reinvent the hook, the riff, or the melody? And yet Charles’s creation does not have the degraded artistic quality that is associated with “mere” cut-and-paste or collage techniques. The combination is greater than the sum of its parts. If Charles’s songs do not fit our model of innovative artistic creativity, perhaps we need to revise the model—at least for music—rather than devaluing his work.
 
diff --git a/data/v3/samples/the_wealth_of_networks.yochai_benkler.sst b/data/v3/samples/the_wealth_of_networks.yochai_benkler.sst
index 13cdf9b..d90f1e1 100644
--- a/data/v3/samples/the_wealth_of_networks.yochai_benkler.sst
+++ b/data/v3/samples/the_wealth_of_networks.yochai_benkler.sst
@@ -7,53 +7,43 @@
 @creator:
  :author: Benkler, Yochai
 
+@date:
+ :published: 2006-04-03
+ :created: 2006-04-03
+ :issued: 2006-04-03
+ :available: 2006-04-03
+ :modified: 2006-04-03
+ :valid: 2006-04-03
+
+@rights:
+ :copyright: Copyright (C) 2006 Yochai Benkler.
+ :license: All rights reserved. Subject to the exception immediately following, this book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, including illustrations, in any form (beyond that copying permitted by Sections 107 and 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law and except by reviewers for the public press), without written permission from the publishers. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ The author has made an online version of the book available under a Creative Commons Noncommercial Sharealike license; it can be accessed through the author's website at http://www.benkler.org.
+
 @classify:
- :type: Book
  :topic_register: SiSU:markup sample:book;networks;Internet;intellectual property:patents|copyright;economics;society;copyright;patents;book:subject:information society|information networks|economics|public policy|society|copyright|patents
+ :type: Book
  :isbn: 9780300110562
  :oclc: 61881089
 
 % :isbn: 0300110561
 
-@rights:
- :copyright: Copyright (C) 2006 Yochai Benkler.
- :license: All rights reserved. Subject to the exception immediately following, this book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, including illustrations, in any form (beyond that copying permitted by Sections 107 and 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law and except by reviewers for the public press), without written permission from the publishers. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ The author has made an online version of the book available under a Creative Commons Noncommercial Sharealike license; it can be accessed through the author's website at http://www.benkler.org.
-
 % STRANGE FRUIT By Lewis Allan 1939 (Renewed) by Music Sales Corporation (ASCAP) International copyright secured. All rights reserved. All rights outside the United States controlled by Edward B. Marks Music Company. Reprinted by permission.
 
-@date:
- :published: 2006-04-03
- :created: 2006-04-03
- :issued: 2006-04-03
- :available: 2006-04-03
- :modified: 2006-04-03
- :valid: 2006-04-03
-
 % :created: 2006-01-27
 
+@links:
+ { The Wealth of Networks, dedicated wiki }http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/wealth_of_networks/Main_Page
+ { Yochai Benkler, wiki }http://www.benkler.org/wealth_of_networks/index.php/Main_Page
+ { @ Wikipedia}http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Networks
+ { WoN @ Amazon.com }http://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Networks-Production-Transforms-Markets/dp/0300110561/
+ { WoN @ Barnes & Noble }http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?isbn=0300110561
+ { SiSU }http://sisudoc.org/
+ { sources / git }http://sources.sisudoc.org/
+
 @make:
  :skin: skin_won_benkler
  :breaks: new=:B; break=1
 
-@links:
- {The Wealth of Networks, dedicated wiki}http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/wealth_of_networks/Main_Page
- {Yochai Benkler, wiki}http://www.benkler.org/wealth_of_networks/index.php/Main_Page
- {The Wealth of Networks, Yochai Benkler @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/the_wealth_of_networks.yochai_benkler
- {@ Wikipedia}http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Networks
- {Democratizing Innovation, Eric von Hippel @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/democratizing_innovation.eric_von_hippel
- {Viral Spiral, David Bollier@ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/viral_spiral.david_bollier
- {Two Bits, Christopher Kelty @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/two_bits.christopher_kelty
- {Free Culture, Lawrence Lessig @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/free_culture.lawrence_lessig
- {CONTENT, Cory Doctorow @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/content.cory_doctorow
- {Free as in Freedom (on Richard M. Stallman), Sam Williams @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/free_as_in_freedom.richard_stallman_crusade_for_free_software.sam_williams
- {Free For All, Peter Wayner @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/free_for_all.peter_wayner
- {The Cathedral and the Bazaar, Eric S. Raymond @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/the_cathedral_and_the_bazaar.eric_s_raymond
- {Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom, Cory Doctorow @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/down_and_out_in_the_magic_kingdom.cory_doctorow
- {Little Brother, Cory Doctorow @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/little_brother.cory_doctorow
- {For the Win, Cory Doctorow @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/for_the_win.cory_doctorow
- {WoN @ Amazon.com}http://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Networks-Production-Transforms-Markets/dp/0300110561/
- {WoN @ Barnes & Noble}http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?isbn=0300110561
-
 :A~ @title @author
 
 1~attribution Attribution~#
@@ -91,7 +81,7 @@ A series of changes in the technologies, economic organization, and social pract
 The rise of greater scope for individual and cooperative nonmarket production of information and culture, however, threatens the incumbents of the industrial information economy. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, we find ourselves in the midst of a battle over the institutional ecology of the digital environment. A wide range of laws and institutions-- from broad areas like telecommunications, copyright, or international trade regulation, to minutiae like the rules for registering domain names or whether digital television receivers will be required by law to recognize a particular code--are being tugged and warped in efforts to tilt the playing field toward one way of doing things or the other. How these battles turn out over the next decade or so will likely have a significant effect on how we come to know what is going on in the world we occupy, and to what extent and in what forms we will be able--as autonomous individuals, as citizens, and as participants in cultures and communities--to affect how we and others see the world as it is and as it might be.
 
 2~ THE EMERGENCE OF THE NETWORKED INFORMATION ECONOMY
-={information economy:emergence of+9;networked information economy+52|emergence of+9}
+={information economy:emergence of+9;networked information economy+52:emergence of+9}
 
 The most advanced economies in the world today have made two parallel shifts that, paradoxically, make possible a significant attenuation of the limitations that market-based production places on the pursuit of the political ,{[pg 3]}, values central to liberal societies. The first move, in the making for more than a century, is to an economy centered on information (financial services, accounting, software, science) and cultural (films, music) production, and the manipulation of symbols (from making sneakers to branding them and manufacturing the cultural significance of the Swoosh). The second is the move to a communications environment built on cheap processors with high computation capabilities, interconnected in a pervasive network--the phenomenon we associate with the Internet. It is this second shift that allows for an increasing role for nonmarket production in the information and cultural production sector, organized in a radically more decentralized pattern than was true of this sector in the twentieth century. The first shift means that these new patterns of production--nonmarket and radically decentralized--will emerge, if permitted, at the core, rather than the periphery of the most advanced economies. It promises to enable social production and exchange to play a much larger role, alongside property- and marketbased production, than they ever have in modern democracies.
 ={nonmarket information producers+4;physical constraints on information production+2;production of information:physical constraints on+2}
diff --git a/data/v3/samples/two_bits.christopher_kelty.sst b/data/v3/samples/two_bits.christopher_kelty.sst
index 1cff4f9..c27ca8b 100644
--- a/data/v3/samples/two_bits.christopher_kelty.sst
+++ b/data/v3/samples/two_bits.christopher_kelty.sst
@@ -6,9 +6,12 @@
 @creator:
  :author: Kelty, Christopher M.
 
+@date:
+ :published: 2008
+
 @rights:
- :copyright: © 2008 Duke University Press<br>Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper ∞<br>Designed by C. H. Westmoreland<br>Typeset in Charis (an Open Source font) by Achorn International<br>Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication data and republication acknowledgments appear on the last printed pages of this book.
- :license: Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike License, available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ or by mail from Creative Commons, 559 Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford, Calif. 94305, U.S.A. "NonCommercial" as defined in this license specifically excludes any sale of this work or any portion thereof for money, even if sale does not result in a profit by the seller or if the sale is by a 501(c)(3) nonprofit or NGO.<br>Duke University Press gratefully acknowledges the support of HASTAC (Humanities, Arts, Science, and Technology Advanced Collaboratory), which provided funds to help support the electronic interface of this book.<br>Two Bits is accessible on the Web at twobits.net.
+ :copyright: © 2008 Duke University Press \\ Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper ∞ \\ Designed by C. H. Westmoreland \\ Typeset in Charis (an Open Source font) by Achorn International \\ Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication data and republication acknowledgments appear on the last printed pages of this book.
+ :license: Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike License, available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ or by mail from Creative Commons, 559 Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford, Calif. 94305, U.S.A. "NonCommercial" as defined in this license specifically excludes any sale of this work or any portion thereof for money, even if sale does not result in a profit by the seller or if the sale is by a 501(c)(3) nonprofit or NGO. \\ Duke University Press gratefully acknowledges the support of HASTAC (Humanities, Arts, Science, and Technology Advanced Collaboratory), which provided funds to help support the electronic interface of this book. \\ Two Bits is accessible on the Web at twobits.net.
 
 @classify:
  :topic_register: open source software:social aspects;software:development:geeks;anthropology:geeks;book:subject:anthropology|information society|geeks;society;programming;society:information society;
@@ -16,28 +19,19 @@
 
 % :isbn: 978082234264-9
 
-@date: 2008
+@links:
+ { Two Bits home page }http://twobits.net/
+ { Christopher M. Kelty }http://kelty.org/
+ { Two Bits @ Amazon.com }http://www.amazon.com/Two-Bits-Cultural-Significance-Software/dp/0822342642
+ { Two Bits @ Barnes & Noble }http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Two-Bits/Christopher-M-Kelty/e/9780822342649
+ { SiSU }http://sisudoc.org/
+ { sources / git }http://sources.sisudoc.org/
 
 @make:
  :skin: skin_2bits
  :breaks: new=:C; break=1
  :italics: /Two Bits/i
 
-@links:
- {Two Bits, Christopher Kelty: home page}http://twobits.net/
- {Two Bits, Christopher Kelty @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/two_bits.christopher_kelty
- {Viral Spiral, David Bollier@ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/viral_spiral.david_bollier
- {Democratizing Innovation, Eric von Hippel @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/democratizing_innovation.eric_von_hippel
- {The Wealth of Networks, Yochai Benkler @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/the_wealth_of_networks.yochai_benkler
- {Free Culture, Lawrence Lessig @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/free_culture.lawrence_lessig
- {CONTENT, Cory Doctorow @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/content.cory_doctorow
- {Free as in Freedom (on Richard M. Stallman), Sam Williams @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/free_as_in_freedom.richard_stallman_crusade_for_free_software.sam_williams
- {Free For All, Peter Wayner @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/free_for_all.peter_wayner
- {The Cathedral and the Bazaar, Eric S. Raymond @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/the_cathedral_and_the_bazaar.eric_s_raymond
- {Little Brother, Cory Doctorow @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/little_brother.cory_doctorow
- {Two Bits @ Amazon.com}http://www.amazon.com/Two-Bits-Cultural-Significance-Software/dp/0822342642
- {Two Bits @ Barnes & Noble}http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Two-Bits/Christopher-M-Kelty/e/9780822342649
-
 :A~ @title @author
 
 1~dedication Dedication
@@ -1175,7 +1169,7 @@ Minix became as widely used in the 1980s as a teaching tool as Lions’s source
 ={ontology:of UNIX operating system}
 
 Minix was not commercial software, but nor was it Free Software. It was copyrighted and controlled by Tanenbaum’s publisher, Prentice Hall. Because it used no AT&T source code, Minix was also legally independent, a legal object of its own. The fact that it was intended to be legally distinct from, yet conceptually true to UNIX is a clear indication of the kinds of tensions that govern the creation and sharing of source code. The ironic apotheosis of Minix as the pedagogical gold standard for studying UNIX came in 1991-92, when a young Linus Torvalds created a "fork" of Minix, also rewritten from scratch, that would go on to become the paradigmatic piece of Free Software: Linux. Tanenbaum’s purpose for Minix was that it remain a pedagogically useful operating system—small, concise, and illustrative—whereas Torvalds wanted to extend and expand his version of Minix to take full advantage of the kinds of hardware being produced in the 1990s. Both, however, were committed to source-code visibility and sharing as the swiftest route to complete comprehension of operating-systems principles.
-={Linux (Free Software project)|origins in Minix}
+={Linux (Free Software project):origins in Minix}
 
 2~ Forking UNIX
 ={forking+13}
@@ -1605,7 +1599,7 @@ Stallman’s communal model could not completely prevent the porting and forking
 2~ The Controversy
 
 In brief the controversy was this: in 1983 James Gosling decided to sell his version of EMACS—a version written in C for UNIX called GOSMACS—to a commercial software vendor called Unipress. GOSMACS, the second most famous implementation of EMACS (after Stallman’s itself ), was written when Gosling was a graduate student at Carnegie Mellon University. For years, Gosling had distributed GOSMACS by himself and had run a mailing list on Usenet, on which he answered queries and discussed extensions. Gosling had explicitly asked people not to redistribute the program, but to come back to him (or send interested parties to him directly) for new versions, making GOSMACS more of a benevolent dictatorship than a commune. Gosling maintained his authority, but graciously accepted revisions and bug-fixes and extensions from users, incorporating them into new releases. Stallman’s system, by contrast, allowed users to distribute their extensions themselves, as well as have them included in the "official" EMACS. By 1983, Gosling had decided he was unable to effectively maintain and support GOSMACS—a task he considered the proper role of a corporation.
-={Gosling, James+64|GOSMACS (version of EMACS)+41;Unipress+41}
+={Gosling, James+64;GOSMACS (version of EMACS)+41;Unipress+41}
 
 % ,{[pg 189]},
 
@@ -1669,7 +1663,7 @@ Why I Must Write GNU
 
 }group
 
-At that point, it is clear, there was no "free software license." There was the word free, but not the term public domain. There was the "golden rule," and there was a resistance to nondisclosure and license arrangements in general, but certainly no articulated conception of copyleft of Free Software as a legally distinct entity. And yet Stallman hardly intended to "abandon it" to the public domain, as Gosling suggested. Instead, Stallman likely intended to require the same EMACS commune rules to apply to Free Software, rules that he would be able to control largely by overseeing (in a nonlegal sense) who was sent or sold what and by demanding (in the form of messages attached to the software) that any modifications or improvements come in the form of donations. It was during the period 1983-85 that the EMACS commune morphed into the GPL, as Stallman began adding copyrights and appending messages that made explicit what people could do with the software.~{ Various other people seem to have conceived of a similar scheme around the same time (if the Usenet archives are any guide), including Guido Van Rossum (who would later become famous for the creation of the Python scripting language). The following is from Message-ID: 5568@mcvax.uucp:<br>/* This software is copyright (c) Mathematical Centre, Amsterdam,<br>* 1983.<br>* Permission is granted to use and copy this software, but not for * profit,<br>* and provided that these same conditions are imposed on any person<br>* receiving or using the software.<br>*/ }~
+At that point, it is clear, there was no "free software license." There was the word free, but not the term public domain. There was the "golden rule," and there was a resistance to nondisclosure and license arrangements in general, but certainly no articulated conception of copyleft of Free Software as a legally distinct entity. And yet Stallman hardly intended to "abandon it" to the public domain, as Gosling suggested. Instead, Stallman likely intended to require the same EMACS commune rules to apply to Free Software, rules that he would be able to control largely by overseeing (in a nonlegal sense) who was sent or sold what and by demanding (in the form of messages attached to the software) that any modifications or improvements come in the form of donations. It was during the period 1983-85 that the EMACS commune morphed into the GPL, as Stallman began adding copyrights and appending messages that made explicit what people could do with the software.~{ Various other people seem to have conceived of a similar scheme around the same time (if the Usenet archives are any guide), including Guido Van Rossum (who would later become famous for the creation of the Python scripting language). The following is from Message-ID: 5568@mcvax.uucp: \\ /* This software is copyright (c) Mathematical Centre, Amsterdam, \\ * 1983. \\ * Permission is granted to use and copy this software, but not for * profit, \\ * and provided that these same conditions are imposed on any person \\ * receiving or using the software. \\ */ }~
 ={EMACS commune}
 
 The GNU project initially received little attention, however; scattered messages to net.unix-wizards over the course of 1983-84 periodically ask about the status and how to contact them, often in the context of discussions of AT&T UNIX licensing practices that were unfolding as UNIX was divested and began to market its own version of UNIX.~{ For example, Message-ID: { 6818@brl-tgr.arpa }http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6818@brl-tgr.arpa. }~ Stallman’s original plan for GNU was to start with the core operating system, the kernel, but his extensive work on EMACS and the sudden need for a free EMACS for UNIX led him to start with a UNIX version of EMACS. In 1984 and into 1985, he and others began work on a UNIX version of GNU EMACS. The two commercial versions of UNIX EMACS (CCA EMACS and Unipress EMACS) continued to circulate and improve in parallel. DEC users meanwhile used the original free version created by Stallman. And, as often happens, life went on: Zimmerman left CCA in August ,{[pg 193]}, 1984, and Gosling moved to Sun, neither of them remaining closely involved in the software they had created, but leaving the new owners to do so.
@@ -2555,7 +2549,7 @@ _1 We anticipate that the phrase "as appropriate to the medium, genre, and marke
 
 _1 This sort of deference to community values—think of it as "punting to culture"—is very common in everyday business and contract law. The idea is that when lawyers have trouble defining the specialized terms of certain subcultures, they should get out of the way and let those subcultures work them out. It’s probably not a surprise Creative Commons likes this sort of notion a lot.~{ Message from the cc-sampling mailing list, Glenn Brown, Subject: BACKGROUND: "AS APPROPRIATE TO THE MEDIUM, GENRE, AND MARKET NICHE," 23 May 2003, http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-sampling/2003-May/000004.html. }~
 
-As in the case of reuse in Connexions, sampling in the music world can imply a number of different, perhaps overlapping, customary meanings of what is acceptable and what is not. For Connexions, the trick was to differentiate the cases wherein collaboration should be encouraged from the cases wherein the legal right to "sample"—to fork or to create a derived work—was the appropriate course of action. For Creative Commons, the very structure of the licenses attempts to capture this distinction as such and to allow for individuals to make determinations about the meaning of sampling themselves.~{ Sampling offers a particularly clear example of how Creative Commons differs from the existing practice and infrastructure of music creation and intellectual-property law. The music industry has actually long recognized the fact of sampling as something musicians do and has attempted to deal with it by making it an explicit economic practice; the music industry thus encourages sampling by facilitating the sale between labels and artists of rights to make a sample. Record companies will negotiate prices, lengths, quality, and quantity of sampling and settle on a price.<br>This practice is set opposite the assumption, also codified in law, that the public has a right to a fair use of copyrighted material without payment or permission. Sampling a piece of music might seem to fall into this category of use, except that one of the tests of fair use is that the use not impact any existing market for such uses, and the fact that the music industry has effectively created a market for the buying and selling of samples means that sampling now routinely falls outside the fair uses codified in the statute, thus removing sampling from the domain of fair use. Creative Commons licenses, on the other hand, say that owners should be able to designate their material as "sample-able," to give permission ahead of time, and by this practice to encourage others to do the same. They give an "honorable" meaning to the practice of sampling for free, rather than the dishonorable one created by the industry. It thus becomes a war over the meaning of norms, in the law-and-economics language of Creative Commons and its founders. }~
+As in the case of reuse in Connexions, sampling in the music world can imply a number of different, perhaps overlapping, customary meanings of what is acceptable and what is not. For Connexions, the trick was to differentiate the cases wherein collaboration should be encouraged from the cases wherein the legal right to "sample"—to fork or to create a derived work—was the appropriate course of action. For Creative Commons, the very structure of the licenses attempts to capture this distinction as such and to allow for individuals to make determinations about the meaning of sampling themselves.~{ Sampling offers a particularly clear example of how Creative Commons differs from the existing practice and infrastructure of music creation and intellectual-property law. The music industry has actually long recognized the fact of sampling as something musicians do and has attempted to deal with it by making it an explicit economic practice; the music industry thus encourages sampling by facilitating the sale between labels and artists of rights to make a sample. Record companies will negotiate prices, lengths, quality, and quantity of sampling and settle on a price. \\ This practice is set opposite the assumption, also codified in law, that the public has a right to a fair use of copyrighted material without payment or permission. Sampling a piece of music might seem to fall into this category of use, except that one of the tests of fair use is that the use not impact any existing market for such uses, and the fact that the music industry has effectively created a market for the buying and selling of samples means that sampling now routinely falls outside the fair uses codified in the statute, thus removing sampling from the domain of fair use. Creative Commons licenses, on the other hand, say that owners should be able to designate their material as "sample-able," to give permission ahead of time, and by this practice to encourage others to do the same. They give an "honorable" meaning to the practice of sampling for free, rather than the dishonorable one created by the industry. It thus becomes a war over the meaning of norms, in the law-and-economics language of Creative Commons and its founders. }~
 
 At stake, then, is the construction of both technologies and legal licenses that, as Brent and Rich would assert, "make it easy for users to do the right thing." The "right thing," however, is precisely what goes unstated: the moral and technical order that guides the design of both licenses and tools. Connexions users are given tools that facilitate citation, acknowledgment, attribution, and certain kinds of reuse instead of tools that privilege anonymity or facilitate proliferation or encourage nonreciprocal collaborations. By the same token, Creative Commons licenses, while legally binding, are created with the aim of changing norms: they promote attribution and citation; they promote fair use and clearly designated uses; they are written to give users flexibility to decide what kinds of things should be allowed and what kinds shouldn’t. Without a doubt, the "right thing" is right for some people and not for others—and it is thus political. But the criteria for what is right are not ,{[pg 300]}, merely political; the criteria are what constitute the affinity of these geeks in the first place, what makes them a recursive public. They see in these instruments the possibility for the creation of authentic publics whose role is to stand outside power, outside markets, and to participate in sovereignty, and through this participation to produce liberty without sacrificing stability.
 ={Baraniuk, Richard;Hendricks, Brent;affinity (of geeks);fair use;moral and technical order;recursive public}
diff --git a/data/v3/samples/un_contracts_international_sale_of_goods_convention_1980.sst b/data/v3/samples/un_contracts_international_sale_of_goods_convention_1980.sst
index 392f21f..884f769 100644
--- a/data/v3/samples/un_contracts_international_sale_of_goods_convention_1980.sst
+++ b/data/v3/samples/un_contracts_international_sale_of_goods_convention_1980.sst
@@ -9,21 +9,19 @@
 @original:
  :source: UNCITRAL, United Nations
 
+@date:
+ :published: 1980
+
 @classify:
  :subject: UNCITRAL, United Nations, sale of goods
  :topic_register: SiSU:markup sample:convention;law:international:uniform law|sales law|CISG;CISG
  :keywords: UNCITRAL, United Nations, sale of goods
  :type: convention, international sales, sale of goods, UNCITRAL, United Nations
 
-@date:
- :published: 1980
-
 @make:
  :headings: PART; Chapter; Section; Article;
- :skin: skin_sisu
  :breaks: new=:A,:B; break=:C
-
-@links: { Syntax }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/sample/syntax/un_contracts_international_sale_of_goods_convention_1980.sst.html
+ :skin: skin_sisu
 
 :A~ United Nations Convention On Contracts For The International Sale Of Goods, 1980 (CISG)
 
diff --git a/data/v3/samples/viral_spiral.david_bollier.sst b/data/v3/samples/viral_spiral.david_bollier.sst
index 0f98794..062aa23 100644
--- a/data/v3/samples/viral_spiral.david_bollier.sst
+++ b/data/v3/samples/viral_spiral.david_bollier.sst
@@ -7,39 +7,31 @@
 @creator:
  :author: Bollier, David
 
-@classify:
- :type: Book
- :oclc: 227016731
- :topic_register: SiSU:markup sample:book;networks;Internet:social aspects|copyright|intellectual property;intellectual property:copyright|creative commons|patents|public domain;society:information society;copyright:creative commons|public domain|licenses;patents;book:subject:information society|information networks|society|copyright|creative commons|patents|culture;open source software:social aspects;software:free software|GPL|open source;license:GPL;programming;democracy;democratization;creative commons:organization;public domain:copyright law (U.S.);free culture;culture
+@date:
+ :published: 2008
 
 @rights:
  :copyright: © 2008 by David Bollier All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, in any form, without written permission from the publisher. The author has made an online version of the book available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial license. It can be accessed at http://www.viralspiral.cc and http://www.onthecommons.org. Requests for permission to reproduce selections from this book should be mailed to: Permissions Department, The New Press, 38 Greene Street, New York, NY 10013. Published in the United States by The New Press, New York, 2008 Distributed by W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., New York ISBN 978-1-59558-396-3 (hc.) CIP data available The New Press was established in 1990 as a not-for-profit alternative to the large, commercial publishing houses currently dominating the book publishing industry. The New Press operates in the public interest rather than for private gain, and is committed to publishing, in innovative ways, works of educational, cultural, and community value that are often deemed insufficiently profitable. www.thenewpress.com A Caravan book. For more information, visit www.caravanbooks.org.
  :license: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial license.
 
+@classify:
+ :topic_register: SiSU:markup sample:book;networks;Internet:social aspects|copyright|intellectual property;intellectual property:copyright|creative commons|patents|public domain;society:information society;copyright:creative commons|public domain|licenses;patents;book:subject:information society|information networks|society|copyright|creative commons|patents|culture;open source software:social aspects;software:free software|GPL|open source;license:GPL;programming;democracy;democratization;creative commons:organization;public domain:copyright law (U.S.);free culture;culture
+ :oclc: 227016731
+
+@links:
+ { Viral Spiral }http://viralspiral.cc/
+ { David Bollier }http://www.bollier.org/
+ { David Bollier @ Wikipedia }http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bollier
+ { Viral Spiral @ Amazon.com }http://www.amazon.com/Viral-Spiral-Commoners-Digital-Republic/dp/1595583963
+ { Viral Spiral @ Barnes & Noble }http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?isbn=1595583963
+ { SiSU }http://sisudoc.org/
+ { sources / git }http://sources.sisudoc.org/
+
 @make:
  :breaks: new=:B,C; break=1
  :texpdf_font: Liberation Sans
  :skin: skin_vs_david_bollier
 
-@links:
- {Viral Spiral}http://viralspiral.cc/
- {David Bollier}http://www.bollier.org/
- {David Bollier @ Wikipedia}http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bollier
- {Viral Spiral, David Bollier@ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/viral_spiral.david_bollier
- {The Wealth of Networks, Yochai Benkler @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/the_wealth_of_networks.yochai_benkler
- {Democratizing Innovation, Eric von Hippel @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/democratizing_innovation.eric_von_hippel
- {Two Bits, Christopher Kelty @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/two_bits.christopher_kelty
- {Free Culture, Lawrence Lessig @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/free_culture.lawrence_lessig
- {CONTENT, Cory Doctorow @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/content.cory_doctorow
- {Free as in Freedom (on Richard M. Stallman), Sam Williams @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/free_as_in_freedom.richard_stallman_crusade_for_free_software.sam_williams
- {Free For All, Peter Wayner @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/free_for_all.peter_wayner
- {The Cathedral and the Bazaar, Eric S. Raymond @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/the_cathedral_and_the_bazaar.eric_s_raymond
- {Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom, Cory Doctorow @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/down_and_out_in_the_magic_kingdom.cory_doctorow
- {Little Brother, Cory Doctorow @ SiSU}http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/little_brother.cory_doctorow
- {For the Win, Cory Doctorow @ SiSU }http://www.jus.uio.no/sisu/for_the_win.cory_doctorow
- {Viral Spiral @ Amazon.com}http://www.amazon.com/Viral-Spiral-Commoners-Digital-Republic/dp/1595583963
- {Viral Spiral @ Barnes & Noble}http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?isbn=1595583963
-
 :A~ @title @author
 
 1~attribution Attribution~#
@@ -173,7 +165,7 @@ By the late 1990s, this legal scholarship was in full flower, Internet usage was
 ={GNU/Linux;Linux:see also GNU/Linux;Eldred v. Reno/Eldred v. Ashcroft}
 
 The immediate upshot of their legal and techno ingenuity, as we will see in chapters 3 and 4, was the drafting of the Creative Commons licenses and the organization that would promote them. The purpose of these free, standardized public licenses was, and is, to get beyond the binary choice imposed by copyright law. Why must a work be considered either a chunk of privately owned property or a kind of nonproperty completely open to anyone without constraint (“in the public domain”)? The CC licenses overcome this stifling either/or logic by articulating a new middle ground of ownership that sanctions sharing and collaboration under specified terms. To stress its difference from copyright law, which declares “All Rights Reserved,” the Creative Commons licenses bear the tagline “Some Rights Reserved.”
-={Creative Commons (CC) licenses+2|copyright law, and+2;opyright law:CC licenses+2}
+={Creative Commons (CC) licenses+2:copyright law, and+2;Copyright law:CC licenses+2}
 
 Like free software, the CC licenses paradoxically rely upon copyright law to legally protect the commons. The licenses use the rights of ownership granted by copyright law not to exclude others, but to invite them to share. The licenses recognize authors’ interests in owning and controlling their work — but they also recognize that new creativity owes many social and intergenerational debts. Creativity is not something that emanates solely from the mind of the “romantic author,” as copyright mythology has it; it also derives from artistic communities and previous generations of authors and artists. The CC licenses provide a legal means to allow works to circulate so that people can create something new. /{Share, reuse, and remix, legally}/, as Creative Commons puts it.
author	Ralph Amissah <ralph@amissah.com>	2012-12-12 10:22:32 -0500
committer	Ralph Amissah <ralph@amissah.com>	2012-12-12 10:22:32 -0500
commit	1b5bf4d71a339d98ec97996920eb81b526f1d626 (patch)
tree	7af9beabd4841dd670e018cb872fad765db8bb59 /data
parent	v3: markup samples, introduce branch to retain and allow for v4 samples (diff)