Fonte tex da segunda prova

[Imre Simon <is@ime.usp.br>]

As referências para a segunda questão são:

  http://kerneltrap.org/article.php?sid=398

  http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/12/02/1252209&mode=thread



\documentclass{article}
\usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}
\usepackage[brazil]{babel}

\setlength{\parindent}{0pt}
\setlength{\textheight}{22cm}
\setlength{\textwidth}{18cm}
\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-1cm}
\setlength{\parskip}{0.2cm}
\pagestyle{empty}
\begin{document}

\begin{center}
{\large {\bf MAC 339 -- Informação, Comunicação e a Sociedade do Conhecimento}}

Segunda  Prova -- 4 de dezembro de 2001

\begin{tabular}{|lll|}
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\phantom{XXXXXXXXXXXXXX}} & 
\phantom{XXXXXXXXXXXxx} & 
\multicolumn{1}{c}{\phantom{XXXXXXXXXXXXX}} \\
\hline
& & \\NOME DO ALUNO : & & \\ & & \\ 
\hline
& & \\CURSO (BCC, PÓS, etc) : & & \\ & & \\
\hline
& & \\NUSP : & & \\ & & \\
\hline
& & \\ASSINATURA: &  &\\ & &  \\
\hline
\end{tabular}

\vspace{.4cm}

{\bf INSTRUÇÕES }

\begin{enumerate}
\item Preencha o cabeçalho acima. Não se esqueça da sua assinatura. 
\item A prova deve ser feita sem consulta a apontamentos, cadernos, livros
ou colegas.
\item {\em Em cada uma das duas primeiras questões inspire-se no texto
    apresentado e faça uma redação de 20 a 30 linhas contendo as suas
    reflexões. A sua redação deve ser sucinta e objetiva, tendo em vista o
    tipo de argumentação desenvolvida nesta disciplina.  Apenas aspectos não
    diretamente mencionados no texto, quer concordantes quer discordantes com
    o mesmo, serão valorizados, desde que a sua relação com o texto seja
    próxima e esteja clara.
    
    Dê preferência para uma reflexão coesa contendo a maior variedade possível
    de argumentos e aspectos, que devem ser expressados no menor espaço
    possível sem perder a fluidez e a conectividade da argumentação.}

\end{enumerate}

\vspace{0.1cm}


{\bf DURA\c C\~AO DA PROVA: 1 hora e 40 minutos}

{\large
\vspace{.4cm}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
& \ \ \ Nota \ \ \ \\
\hline
&\\[-0.2ex] Quest\~ao 1 & \\[2ex]
\hline
&\\[-0.2ex] Quest\~ao 2  & \\[2ex]
\hline
&\\[-0.2ex] Quest\~ao 3  & \\[2ex]
%\hline
%&\\[-0.2ex] Quest\~ao 4  &  \\[2ex]
\hline\hline
&\\[-0.2ex] TOTAL & \\[2ex]
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\vspace{.4cm}

{\bf B O A \ \ \ \   P R O V A} 
\end{center}
\pagebreak

\begin{enumerate}

\item (valor 3.0 pontos) \\

  O texto para esta questão é o artigo ``Freedom or Power'', de Kuhn e
  Stallman, em anexo. 
  
  Este artigo é parte de uma recente controvérsia que houve na rede sobre
  licenças que acompanham softwares. Considerando os argumentos do artigo
  procure tomar uma posição sobre a questão e justifique a sua
  posição.

  [Nota: Maiores informações sobre a controvérsia Você encontra em\\
  {\tt <http://www.oreillynet.com/cs/weblog/view/wlg/526>},\\
  veja também
  {\tt <http://lwn.net/2001/0823/a/esr-freedom.php3>}.]

\pagebreak
\item (valor 3.0 pontos) \\
  
  O texto para esta questão é parte de uma outra controvérsia sobre a
  existência ou não de padrões de programação e de planejamento atrás do
  Linux. O texto está em anexo.
  
  De que forma a argumentação de Linus Torvalds se relaciona com as questões
  discutidas nesta disciplina?
  
\pagebreak

\item (valor 4.0 pontos) \\
  
  Explique os aspectos mais importantes da obra de Shapiro e Varian,
  Information Rules do ponto de vista da disciplina.

  Procure seguir os critérios de redação enunciados no preâmbulo da prova.

\end{enumerate}

\newpage

Freedom or Power?

by Bradley M. Kuhn and Richard M. Stallman

"The love of liberty is the love of others; the love of power is the love of
ourselves." -- William Hazlitt

In the Free Software Movement, we stand for freedom for the users of
software. We formulated our views by looking at what freedoms are necessary
for a good way of life, and permit useful programs to foster a community of
goodwill, cooperation, and collaboration. Our criteria for Free Software
specify the freedoms that a program's users need so that they can cooperate in
a community.

We stand for freedom for programmers as well as for other users. Most of us
are programmers, and we want freedom for ourselves as well as for you. But
each of us uses software written by others, and we want freedom when using
that software, not just when using our own code. We stand for freedom for all
users, whether they program often, occasionally, or not at all.

However, one so-called freedom that we do not advocate is the "freedom to
choose any license you want for software you write". We reject this because it
is really a form of power, not a freedom.

This oft-overlooked distinction is crucial. Freedom is being able to make
decisions that affect mainly you. Power is being able to make decisions that
affect others more than you. If we confuse power with freedom, we will fail to
uphold real freedom.

Proprietary software is an exercise of power. Copyright law today grants
software developers that power, so they and only they choose the rules to
impose on everyone else--a relatively few people make the basic software
decisions for everyone, typically by denying their freedom. When users lack
the freedoms that define Free Software, they can't tell what the software is
doing, can't check for back doors, can't monitor possible viruses and worms,
can't find out what personal information is being reported (or stop the
reports, even if they do find out). If it breaks, they can't fix it; they have
to wait for the developer to exercise its power to do so. If it simply isn't
quite what they need, they are stuck with it. They can't help each other
improve it.

Proprietary software developers are often businesses. We in the Free Software
Movement are not opposed to business, but we have seen what happens when a
software business has the "freedom" to impose arbitrary rules on the users of
software. Microsoft is an egregious example of how denying users' freedoms can
lead to direct harm, but it is not the only example. Even when there is no
monopoly, proprietary software harms society. A choice of masters is not
freedom.

Discussions of rights and rules for software have often concentrated on the
interests of programmers alone. Few people in the world program regularly, and
fewer still are owners of proprietary software businesses. But the entire
developed world now needs and uses software, so software developers now
control the way the world lives, does business, communicates and is
entertained. The ethical and political issues are not addressed by the slogan
of "freedom of choice (for developers only)".

If code is law, as Professor Lawrence Lessig (of Stanford Law School) has
stated, then the real question we face is: who should control the code you
use--you, or an elite few? We believe you are entitled to control the software
you use, and giving you that control is the goal of Free Software.

We believe you should decide what to do with the software you use; however,
that is not what today's law says. Current copyright law places us in the
position of power over users of our code, whether we like it or not. The
ethical response to this situation is to proclaim freedom for each user, just
as the Bill of Rights was supposed to exercise government power by
guaranteeing each citizen's freedoms. That is what the GNU GPL is for: it puts
you in control of your usage of the software, while protecting you from others
who would like to take control of your decisions.

As more and more users realize that code is law, and come to feel that they
too deserve freedom, they will see the importance of the freedoms we stand
for, just as more and more users have come to appreciate the practical value
of the Free Software we have developed.

\newpage

\begin{verbatim}

From: Linus Torvalds
Subject: Re: Coding style - a non-issue
Date:   Fri, 30 Nov 2001 16:50:34 -0800 (PST)

On Fri, 30 Nov 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> I'm very interested too, though I'll have to agree with Larry
> that Linux really isn't going anywhere in particular and seems
> to be making progress through sheer luck.

Hey, that's not a bug, that's a FEATURE!

You know what the most complex piece of engineering known to man in the
whole solar system is?

Guess what - it's not Linux, it's not Solaris, and it's not your car.

It's you. And me.

And think about how you and me actually came about - not through any
complex design.

Right. "sheer luck".

Well, sheer luck, AND:
 - free availability and _crosspollination_ through sharing of "source
   code", although biologists call it DNA.
 - a rather unforgiving user environment, that happily replaces bad
   versions of us with better working versions and thus culls the herd
   (biologists often call this "survival of the fittest")
 - massive undirected parallel development ("trial and error")

I'm deadly serious: we humans have _never_ been able to replicate
something more complicated than what we ourselves are, yet natural
selection did it without even thinking.

Don't underestimate the power of survival of the fittest.

And don't EVER make the mistake that you can design something better than
what you get from ruthless massively parallel trial-and-error with a
feedback cycle. That's giving your intelligence _much_ too much credit.

Quite frankly, Sun is doomed. And it has nothing to do with their
engineering practices or their coding style.

                Linus
\end{verbatim}

\end{document}