\documentclass[letterpaper]{article}
\usepackage{bulletin-new}
\begin{document}
\twocolumn[\masthead{bulletin-logo.eps}{Bulletin}{Issue 19}{November 2011}]
% Table of contents
\setcounter{secnumdepth}{-1} % no numbering on sections in the TOC
\noindent
\colorbox{Myblue}{%
  \begin{tabular}{p{1.5in}p{0.12in}}
    \Large\textbf{Contents} \\
      \\
      \raggedright\normalsize{{Born to run}} & {1}\
      \\
      \raggedright\normalsize{{The new Free Software Directory}} & {3}\
      \\
      \raggedright\normalsize{{Automating systems at the FSF}} & {4}\
      \\
      \raggedright\normalsize{{PlayFreedom campaign}} & {5}\
      \\
      \raggedright\normalsize{{Holiday Buying Guide}} & {5}\
      \\
      \raggedright\normalsize{{Growing trends in free software licensing}} & {7}\
      \\
      \raggedright\normalsize{{GNU contributors\\update}} & {7}\
      \\
      \raggedright\normalsize{{In defense of negativity}} & {8}\
      \\
      \raggedright\normalsize{{How I became aware of free software}} & {10}\
      \\
  \end{tabular}
}



\begin{figure}[htb]
  \begin{center}
    \includegraphics[width=2in]{babygnu.eps}
  \end{center}
  \caption{\small{The new baby gnu from shop.fsf.org (brick wall not included)}}
\end{figure}

% START: Born to run
\section{Born to run}
\textbf{\textit{by John Sullivan\\Executive Director}}

\subsection*{\ }

\cap{A} primary goal of the Free Software Foundation is a world where
everyone can do what they need to do with their computers using only
free software. Great progress has been made toward this goal. Free
software has reached a point where it is now easily possible to buy an
affordable computer with hardware --- including Wi-Fi and accelerated
graphics --- that is fully supported by free software (an excellent
resource for choosing appropriate hardware is \url{h-node.com}).

But just when our community has achieved this, we are faced with the
possibility that most computers in the future could be made \emph{by
design} incompatible with free software. They will be born to run only
proprietary operating systems.

Microsoft has recently announced that if computer makers wish to
distribute machines with the Windows 8 compatibility logo, they will
have to implement a measure called ``Secure Boot.'' However, it is
currently up for grabs whether this technology will live up to its
name, or will instead earn the name Restricted Boot.\footnote{\url{fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot}}

When done correctly, ``Secure Boot'' is designed to protect against
malware by preventing computers from loading unauthorized binary
programs when booting. In effect, this means that computers
implementing it won't boot unauthorized operating systems.

This could be a feature deserving of the name, as long as the user is
able to authorize the programs she wants to use, so she can run free
software written and modified by herself or people she trusts, and not
run software by people she doesn't trust. This should also extend to
the firmware (which performs much the same tasks as the BIOS on other computers); users must be able to replace their computers'
proprietary firmware with free software.

However, we are concerned that Microsoft and hardware manufacturers
will collude to implement these boot restrictions in a way that will
prevent users from changing the firmware or booting anything other than
Windows. In this case, a better name for the technology would be
Restricted Boot, since such a requirement would be a disastrous
restriction on computer users and not a security feature at all.

The specter of Restricted Boot is especially worrisome because it is
not alone. Some of the most successful mobile devices (Apple's iPhone
and iPad, and many Android phones) enforce restrictions aimed at
preventing users from installing a different or modified operating
system --- despite the fact that they are general purpose computers.
Apple seems to be moving toward a similar world for their desktop and
laptop systems.

As an FSF supporter, I don't need to tell you how frightening and
unacceptable expansion of this trend to other computers would be.
Users would have to go through complicated and risky measures to
circumvent the restrictions; the popular trend of reviving old
hardware with GNU/Linux would come to an end, causing more hardware to
be tossed in landfills; and proprietary operating system companies
would gain a giant advantage over the free software movement, because
of their connections with manufacturers.

This summer, we launched a local initiative we're calling Free
Software Fridays, where FSF staff and volunteers went out into the
busy Boston downtown area at lunch time, and handed out copies of
Trisquel GNU/Linux. In addition to the GNU/Linux operating system, we
have future plans to distribute copies of other useful cross-platform
free software like LibreOffice, so that even people still stuck on
proprietary operating systems can start giving free software a try.
This is the easiest, most basic form of free software activism ---
sharing software with your community. And it would be made impossible
if Restricted Boot were pushed on users under the guise of ``security.''

We will be monitoring developments in this area closely, and actively
campaigning to make sure this important freedom is protected. Our
first step is to demonstrate that people value this freedom, and will
not purchase or recommend computers that attempt to restrict it. If
you aren't one of the 20,000 people who have already signed our
statement affirming that, I hope you will take a minute to add your
name.\footnote{\url{fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/statement}}

It has been very encouraging to see so much support behind this
statement. This support has not only come in the form of signatures ---
we also welcomed 80 new members and many new donors to the FSF in the
month after publishing the statement. Such financial support empowers
us to amplify your voice and take action on critical threats like
this. If you aren't already a member, please join us at \url{fsf.org/jfb}. If you are a member, thank you! I hope you
can double your contribution this year by talking to a friend or
colleague about why you think free software is such an important
cause, and why now would be a great time for them to join you in
supporting it.

We have reason to be optimistic that Restricted Boot will not become a
reality. But this is too important to sit and wait for companies to do
the right thing. They need to hear from you. We will do as much as we
can on your behalf, but we need your support to get it done.
\ender
% END: Born to run


% START: The new Free Software Directory
\section{The new Free Software Directory}
\textbf{\textit{by Josh Gay\\Campaigns Manager}}

\subsection*{\ }

\cap{I}n September we relaunched the Free Software Directory. We have
written a lot about our new plans for the Directory and how you
can help us improve and build on more than 6,500 packages already
listed there.  What we haven't written about is how you can begin
to help improve the functionality, design, and user experience of the
Directory --- just by editing pages
on the Web site!

One of the coolest things about the new Directory is the
functionality provided by MediaWiki and over a dozen
extensions, including Semantic MediaWiki and Semantic
Forms.  Together, they offer a plethora of development tools for the wiki:

\begin{itemize}
\item template macros
\item an HTML form system to populate templates
\item typed variables
\item SQL-style queries to find and list pages
\item built-in formatting functions for HTML, RSS, JSON, and more
\item dozens of array and string functions
\end{itemize}

If you look at the source of any page on the wiki, odds are
you'll find extensive use of nested templates, conditional
statements, complex queries, and other powerful semantic features.

If you are interested in trying out some of these tools, a great place
to start is our quick hacking tutorial.\footnote{\url{directory.fsf.org/hack}} This will teach you
the basics of how to edit your user page, use and create
templates, query the directory, create and manipulate arrays,
and much more.

We hope that you will try out our tutorial and help us 
improve the look, feel, and functionality of the Free Software
Directory!
\ender
% END: The new Free Software Directory


% START: Automating systems at the FSF
\section{Automating systems at the FSF}
\textbf{\textit{by Ward Vandewege\\Chief Technology Officer}}

\subsubsection*{ }

\cap{T}he sysadmins at the FSF have put great effort into consolidating
our server infrastructure over the past 12 months. We have retired more
than a dozen servers in the process, and now host most of our
infrastructure on three potent machines with many CPU cores, ample RAM,
and plenty of disk space. As you may know, we use Xen to virtualize
our servers. Virtualization allows us to securely partition our
servers into many virtual machines, each dedicated to a limited number
of tasks.

We have also embarked on a journey to automate our systems
configuration as much as possible. We have selected Puppet, a systems
configuration management and automation tool, to help in that task.

One of the advantages of Puppet is that one can start small. Once a
system is under Puppet's control, it is easy to expand the Puppet
configuration over time, and thus automate more and more of it.
We started out with a very limited configuration that
defined some settings that are common to all our systems --- for
instance, making sure the sshd configuration is secure. Puppet makes
it easy to differentiate rules based on ``facts'' about a machine, like
the version of the operating system it runs, or whether the
system is a physical server or a virtual machine. Each system under
Puppet's control gets its own configuration stanza, so it is also
possible to do things that are specific to one machine.

Here are some of the things that we now do with Puppet, rather than by
hand:

\begin{itemize}
\item install appropriate software packages, and standard GNU/FSF
configurations for them
\item create and manage user accounts
\item distribute SSH public keys and SSL certificates
\item update xen-tools configurations on virtualization host systems
\end{itemize}

We create new virtual machines with xen-tools, which pulls in the
Puppet packages. We then add the new virtual machine to our Puppet
configuration, which pulls in the default GNU/FSF configuration
without any additional work on our part. We save a lot of time setting
up new machines, and we get peace of mind: all our systems under
Puppet's control are guaranteed to have our standard configuration.

We are currently working towards the goal of generating our automated
systems monitoring configuration from our Puppet configuration. This
requires us to migrate more service configurations to Puppet. With
enough of that done, it should be possible for Puppet
to know that, for instance, \url{www.gnu.org} runs a web server on
port 80.  With that knowledge, Puppet can instruct our monitoring hosts to check for the
availability of that service, all without manual intervention from the
sysadmins.

I would like to conclude this article with a brief word of thanks to
Bernie Innocenti, who left the FSF for
another job in September. We are extremely grateful for his
contributions as an FSF sysadmin; he was instrumental in the server
consolidation and Puppet setup efforts described here.
\ender
% END: Automating systems at the FSF


% START: PlayFreedom campaign
\section{PlayFreedom campaign}
\textbf{\textit{by Matt Lee\\Campaigns Manager}}

\subsubsection*{ }

\cap{P}layFreedom is a new campaign from the Free Software Foundation. You
can think of it as the successor to our PlayOgg campaign; our
efforts there will be rolled into PlayFreedom.

PlayFreedom aims to promote all kinds of free media formats: for now,
that means Google's new WebM
format and the entire Ogg family from Xiph, including Theora, Vorbis,
Speex, and FLAC. The Web site will have three main sections: Tools, Showcase
and Activism.

``Tools'' provides information about free software you can use to produce, edit, and work with
free media formats.  Whether you're simply looking for a program to
play video, or the tools you need to edit and publish a movie with
free formats, you'll find what you need here.

``Showcase'' is an area of the site where we'll be showing you some of the
best video and audio around, all in free formats. Part of this will include
an exhaustive list of all known free media sites, including radio
stations, music download services, bands, filmmakers, and community
sites.

``Activism'' helps us all push free media formats to
success in new areas. Here, PlayFreedom supporters will find
links to blog posts, action items, and suggestions on how to get involved and promote
free media formats.

While we put the finishing touches on this campaign, you can let us
know about any sites you'd like to see featured on the Web site, or any tools
you think we might not have heard of by emailing us at \url{campaigns@fsf.org}. To stay up to date on our progress, join the mailing list at \url{playfreedom.org}.
\ender
% END: PlayFreedom campaign

% START: Holiday Buying Guide
\section{Holiday Buying Guide}
\textbf{\textit{by Josh Gay\\Campaigns Manager}}

\subsection*{ }

\cap{W}ith the holidays fast approaching, we thought a holiday buyer's guide
was appropriate. People often buy expensive electronic
gadgets as gifts, but many of these gadgets are bad for your freedom. 

Here's our guide to the best and worst gifts this season:

\textbf{Video games} --- With all of the big game console manufacturers supporting and using more Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) in their products, there aren't good options here. But in particular, avoid Sony, since they have been aggressively prosecuting users (\url{defectivebydesign.org/sony}), and Nintendo, since they claim the right to remotely ``brick'' some devices (\url{defectivebydesign.org/nintendo}).

\textbf{Blu-Ray} --- Avoid Blu-Ray discs. They cannot be used with free software, and buying them is supporting Old Media's latest system for controlling every step of what users can do with media they buy.

\textbf{Music players} --- For music this season, don't look to Apple for anything; all their portable music players support DRM and many devices refuse to work on GNU/Linux without serious tinkering or jailbreaking. 

\textbf{Cars} --- If you're thinking of buying a new car, be sure to avoid cars with the MyFord Touch and MyLincoln Touch software. Glitches in this proprietary software have led Ford to issue an update. This means the car can be infected with malicious software and is best avoided.

\textbf{Smartphones} --- Replicant, the project to produce a fully free distribution of Android recently added more phones to its list of supported models.  Here at the FSF, we scored a bounty of HTC Dream phones, and many of us use them as our day-to-day cell phones. These phones are still problematic, because they include a proprietary firmware that could monitor all activity on the phone, but the ability to have a fully free application environment is a great step forward.

\textbf{Ebook readers} --- All the ebook readers sold through Amazon and Barnes \& Noble use DRM and proprietary software. Even if a user manages to only use these devices to read DRM-free materials, purchase of the device includes licenses for DRM and proprietary software.

\textbf{Laptops and Desktops} --- There are a couple of companies who will sell you a computer with a fully-free GNU/Linux distribution preinstalled. Some of these companies even donate a small amount of money to the FSF. One such company is Los Alamos Computers, \url{laclinux.com/gnu}.

Instead of buying gifts that reward companies who restrict our freedom, consider making a donation to a charity that fights for your freedom -- other than ourselves, we're especially fond of the work done by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Creative Commons, and Public Knowledge.
\ender
% END: Holiday Buying Guide



\begin{figure}[htb]
  \begin{center}
    \includegraphics[width=2in]{holiday.eps}
  \end{center}
  \caption{\small{http://defectivebydesign.org/holiday}}
\end{figure}

\vspace*{0.5in}
% START: Growing trends in free software licensing
\section{Growing trends in free software licensing}
\textbf{\textit{by Brett Smith\\License Compliance Engineer}}

\subsubsection*{ }

\cap{L}ately I've noticed an uptick in the number of pundits who claim that
free software developers have begun to prefer using lax free software
licenses that don't have copyleft (like the Apache License) over ones
that do (like the GPL) for their projects.  They back up this claim by
pointing to surveys that show increased adoption of lax
licenses in free software projects, or high-profile projects that have
recently adopted such licenses.  That evidence tells a different
story, however, when you better understand its background.

Typically, surveys show upticks in lax license adoption when they start
counting projects on sites that are more specialized than
general-purpose hosting sites like Savannah and SourceForge.  For
example, one such survey saw a huge one-month increase in the use of
Microsoft's free software licenses simply because they started
counting projects on the Microsoft-backed CodePlex hosting site.
These projects deserve to be counted just like any other, but their
dramatic one-time effect on a survey doesn't represent the kind of
licensing sea change the accompanying headlines would suggest.  I have not seen a survey
rigorous enough to demonstrate that new projects choose copyleft
licenses in fewer numbers than before.

Similarly, news about high-profile projects adopting lax licenses
often fails to tell the whole story.  The most recent example I'm
aware of is Ruby, which recently started using a 2-clause BSD license
where they used to use GPLv2.  However, much like Perl before it,
Ruby has always been dual licensed, and the second license has never
provided a strong copyleft.  The developers didn't make this switch to
move away from copyleft, but to make Ruby code compatible with
more licenses: they even specifically mentioned GPLv3 compatibility in
their rationale.

It seems undeniable that lax licenses like the Apache License
are used by more projects today than before, but that growth doesn't
necessarily come at copyleft's expense.  Instead, I see this growth
coming from two places.  First, as more new free software projects are
constantly released, of course some of them will be under lax
licenses --- that's always been true.  Second, more developers understand the
importance of license compatibility, and are switching from 
unpopular so-called ``vanity licenses'' to standard
licenses that are widely recognized and respected.  These migrations help
users to better understand their rights, and developers to know how
they can combine the code with other projects.

Increased use of lax licenses doesn't mean that copyleft is
losing.  It means that free software is gaining ground.
\ender
% END: Growing trends in free software licensing


% START: GNU contributors\\update
\section{GNU contributors\\update}
\textbf{\textit{by Donald Robertson\\Copyright Administrator}}

\subsubsection*{ }

\cap{A}s part of our mission to protect and promote free software, the FSF
has for many years taken copyright assignments on many GNU packages.
Thousands have contributed to FSF-assigned packages like the GNU
Compiler Collection (GCC) and GNU Emacs, but the assignment process
has always created a slight barrier for new contributors.  That is why
we were so happy in October when we announced two major changes
to how we handle copyright assignments at the FSF.

Our lawyers at the Software Freedom Law Center have given us the
go-ahead to begin accepting scanned copies of assignments from
contributors located in the United States. We are in the process of
researching if we can accept scanned documents from
contributors based in other countries. As we hear back from lawyers
from around the world, we will be updating our list of countries where
scanned documents can be accepted.

But even for contributors in countries where scanned assignments
cannot be accepted, we have implemented a change that significantly
speeds up the assignment process. Instead of mailing forms via the
postal service to each contributor, we now simply email a PDF of the
assignment that the contributor can print themselves. Previously, we
would only accept forms that were printed on our letterhead, in order
to ensure that the form was not changed. As the number
of contributors from around the world grows, relying on the postal
service is increasingly inefficient.  Hence, we decided to start sending
forms electronically, reducing transit times and ensuring more
consistent delivery.

Accepting scanned documents will greatly cut down delays in
the assignment process, and using electronic forms wherever
possible will help avoid the vagaries of the international postal
system. 

Together, these changes will make it easier than ever to contribute,
and hopefully encourage more hackers to help the GNU
Project.
\ender
% END: GNU contributors\\update


% START: In defense of negativity
\section{In defense of negativity}
\textbf{\textit{by Mako Hill\\Director, Free Software Foundation}}

\subsubsection*{ }

\cap{I} often hear criticism of ``negative campaigning'' in the free software
movement. For example, in reply to a blog post I once wrote about an
FSF campaign, several people argued against ``negative campaigning of
any sort, in any realm.'' Drawing an analogy to political smear
campaigns, some members of the free software community have taken the
position that negative campaigning in general is not useful and that
negativity has no place in our advocacy.

First, it is important to be clear on what we mean by a negative
campaigns. I believe that there is a fundamental difference between
speaking out against policies or actions and smear campaigns that
employ untrue claims, ad hominem attacks, and that attempt to avoid a
real conversation about issues. I will categorically condemn the
latter form of smear campaigning in campaigns for software freedom or
for anything else.

That said, negativity directed at negativity has had a positive effect
in many social movements. I have supported and participated in
``negative'' campaigns against proprietary software, software patents,
DRM, centralized network services, and the firms behind these
practices. I've done so because I believe that if one is taking an
ethical position, it is justified, and often necessary, to not only
speak about the benefits of freedom but against acts of dispossession
and disenfranchisement.

In some of the most effective social movements, unambiguously negative
messages have been central. Should a campaign for abolishing child
labor talk only about how valuable adult workers are to their
employers, or how happy kids are when they don't work? Should a
campaign trying to abolish land mines talk only about the benefits of
bomb-free fields and intact lower limbs? Should a free speech
organization only speak out about the social welfare brought by a free
press and never against acts of censorship? These may seem like
outlandish comparisons but you can find people writing, only a couple
centuries ago, about how slavery should be abolished by arguing in
favor of the benefits of paid labor. Even if the economic arguments in
favor of paid work are strong, these arguments seem irrelevant and
offensive today. Whether slavery is more or less efficient is a moot
point. Society has rejected it because it is wrong.

We have made important strides toward eliminating injustices like
child labor and slavery because activists waged decidedly negative
campaigns against them and convinced others to join in opposition. In
doing so, activists declared the status quo unconscionable and created
an ethical responsibility to find alternatives and to redefine what
was ``realistic.'' While I will not suggest that the movement for
software freedom is comparable in ethical weight to these other
causes, I know that the free software mission is similar in kind.

Of course, if one does not think that user control over technology is
an ethical issue but is instead merely a matter of choice, one will
probably oppose negative campaigns. It is also possible that a
particular negative campaign is tactically unwise in that it is
unlikely to reach a large audience, unlikely to change people's minds,
or difficult to carry out successfully. But such campaigns are a
bad idea because they are ineffective, not because they are
negative. Additionally, a movement that is purely negative and offers
no reasonable alternative to the stated ill may also be unlikely to
succeed. This is why, for example, I believe it is good that the FSF
uses the large majority of its resources in the ``positive'' role of
supporting free software.

For those that do treat technological empowerment as an ethical ideal,
it is both justified and essential to condemn the systematic
disempowerment of others through nonfree software just as we
celebrate the benefits of software freedom. ``Negative'' campaigns
against proprietary software, software patents, and DRM in music have
already led our community to important --- if incomplete ---
victories. The desire to right wrongs has been a critical part of our
movement's success and of many others'. We would be wise not to give
it up.
\ender
% END: In defense of negativity



\begin{figure}[htb]
  \begin{center}
    \includegraphics[width=2in]{gang.eps}
  \end{center}
  \caption{\small{Working together for free software by othree on Flickr}}
\end{figure}

\vspace*{0.75in}
% START: How I became aware of free software
\section{How I became aware of free software}
\textbf{\textit{by Ali Razeen\\Free Software Activist}}

\subsection*{\ }

\cap{I} entered college four years ago, and like most college students, I
relied heavily on my laptop, which ran Windows XP. One day, when I turned it on to get some work done, I was
greeted with an error message; something failed during the boot 
process and Windows couldn't load, not even in Safe Mode. I tried to
fix the issue by using the repair option on the Windows XP setup disc, but that
didn't work either.

I was frustrated because everything was fine the last time I used my
laptop. The usual recovery methods weren't working.  Reinstalling
Windows wasn't an option because doing so would have erased my
school work. My assignment was due very soon and I really needed to
work on it. Racking my mind desperately for solutions, I remembered
discussions on Slashdot about how people used GNU/Linux to fix their
Windows problems.

I found a GNU/Linux distribution and used it to boot
my laptop. It started up correctly and detected my hard disk. Feeling
optimistic, I tried copying my files onto a thumb drive, and it worked!
I was extremely relieved. This meant I didn't have to redo my
assignment from scratch after all. As I stared at the pop-up showing
me the copy's progress, it suddenly struck me that all along, Microsoft
was holding me hostage to my own data!

An operating system stores files on a hard disk in some structured
format. In Windows XP and later versions of the operating system, the format used is usually NTFS. As
the NTFS specifications have not been released by Microsoft, it turns
out I depended on Microsoft to be able to access and modify my own
data. I was able to use GNU/Linux to get back my files only because
talented hackers spent countless hours figuring out how NTFS works. I
wouldn't be as lucky next time if Microsoft used a format that was
tougher to reverse engineer in the future.

This realization didn't sit well with me, and a couple of things
happened. First, when I reinstalled Windows on my laptop, I made a
separate partition using the Extended file system, a format whose specifications are
freely available, and stored all my data there. That ensured I
didn't need Microsoft's help to access my own work should Windows fail
again. Second, I paid close attention to the numerous discussions held
on sites such as Slashdot. Very quickly, I became a fan of open
source and extolled its benefits to my friends.

But before long, I started having issues with open source. The way I
understood it, open source was supposed to be superior compared to
closed source software because anyone could take part in the
development process, fix bugs, and innovate. But there were plenty of
instances where I felt the closed sourced software was clearly better
than its open source counterpart. For example, it was much easier to
create high-quality presentations in Microsoft PowerPoint 2007
compared to OpenOffice.org at the time. Why was it that companies such as Apple and
Microsoft were regularly able to create software that was technically
superior to the open
source movement's if open source was supposed to be better?

While searching for satisfying answers to my questions, I noticed
something interesting in discussions about open source: a few people
often used the terms ``FOSS'' or ``FLOSS.'' I found they stood for ``free/open
source software'' and ``free/libre/open source software'' respectively. I
wondered why anyone would attach ``free'' next to ``open source,'' and I
found ``libre'' just confusing. So I looked up free
software and found that it was backed by the Free Software Foundation
(FSF).

Intrigued by what this foundation stood for, I explored their Web site
and found that they were going to release new editions of their books
explaining free software and its motivations soon. A few months ago,
the books became available for purchase, and I bought them almost
immediately.

Everything started to click in my mind when I read the books. The
fundamental principle of free software is that users should have 
basic freedoms over their software. This includes the freedom to study
how a software works, to modify it, and to share the software and any
modifications with others. This idea strongly resonated with me because
of the incident with my laptop. Free software would ensure that users
are not beholden to companies to use their own computers.

Free software even addresses the issues I had with open source.  It
doesn't matter if proprietary software is technically superior; it
fails the most basic test of providing freedom to users. We just have
to develop alternatives that do. The idea of free software sits very
well with me. There truly is something magical about being able to
study how any of the software I'm using works and make changes.

I'm taking steps to contribute to free software and advance
it. Countless like-minded people have done so despite
facing tremendous challenges and discouragement. In the process, they
have made society a better and freer place. I don't see why I can't
join them and do the same.
\ender
% END: How I became aware of free software


\verbatimcopyright{2011}
\donate{foo}
\end{document}
