{"id":36400,"date":"2019-10-31T22:11:26","date_gmt":"2019-10-31T19:11:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/prohoster.info\/blog\/free-as-in-freedom-na-russkom-glava-7-dilemma-absolyutnoj-morali\/"},"modified":"2019-10-31T22:11:26","modified_gmt":"2019-10-31T19:11:26","slug":"free-as-in-freedom-na-russkom-glava-7-dilemma-absolyutnoj-morali","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/prohoster.info\/en\/blog\/news\/free-as-in-freedom-na-russkom-glava-7-dilemma-absolyutnoj-morali","title":{"rendered":"Free as in Freedom in Russian: Chapter 7. The Dilemma of Absolute Morality","gt_translate_keys":[{"key":"rendered","format":"text"}]},"content":{"rendered":"


\n \"Free<\/p>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Free as in Freedom in English: Chapter 1. The Fateful Printer<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/noindex><\/noindex>
\n<\/p>\n

Free as in Freedom in English: Chapter 2. 2001: A Hacker Odyssey<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/noindex>
\n<\/p>\n

Free as in Freedom in English: Chapter 3. The Portrait of a Hacker in Youth<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/noindex>
\n<\/p>\n

Free as in Freedom in English: Chapter 4. Debunking the God<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/noindex>
\n<\/p>\n

Free as in Freedom in Russian: Chapter 5. Stream of Freedom<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/noindex>
\n<\/p>\n

Free as in Freedom in English: Chapter 6. Emacs Commune<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/noindex><\/p>\n

The Dilemma of Absolute Morality<\/h1>\n

At half-past midnight on September 27, 1983, an unusual message appeared in the Usenet group net.unix-wizards, signed by rms@mit-oz. The message had a short and extremely enticing title: \u201cA New Implementation of UNIX.\u201d But instead of a ready-made new version of Unix, the reader found a call to action:<\/p>\n

\n

This Thanksgiving, I am starting to write a new, fully Unix-compatible operating system that will be called GNU (GNU\u2019s Not Unix). I will freely distribute it to anyone who wants it. I really need your time, money, code, equipment \u2013 any help.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In the eyes of an experienced Unix developer, the message appeared to be a mix of idealism and high self-esteem. The author was not just aiming to recreate a whole operating system from scratch, which was quite advanced and powerful, but also to improve it. The GNU system was to include all necessary components such as a text editor, command shell, compiler, as well as 'a number of other things'. There were promises of highly attractive features that existing Unix systems lacked: a graphical interface in the Lisp programming language, a fail-safe file system, and network protocols based on MIT's network architecture.<\/p>\n

'GNU will be able to run Unix programs, but it will not be identical to the Unix system,' the author wrote, 'we will make all the necessary improvements that have been overdue for years of work in various operating systems.'<\/p>\n

Foreseeing a skeptical reaction to his message, the author appended a brief autobiographical aside under the heading: 'Who am I?'<\/p>\n

\n

I am Richard Stallman, the creator of the original EMACS editor, one of whose clones you have certainly encountered. I work at the MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. I have extensive experience in developing compilers, editors, debuggers, command interpreters, operating systems ITS and Lisp Machine. I implemented terminal-independent screen support in ITS, as well as a fault-tolerant file system and two window systems for Lisp machines.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

It just so happened that Stallman's intricate project did not start on Thanksgiving, as promised. It was only in January 1984 that Richard fully immersed himself in developing Unix-style software. For the systems architect of ITS, it was like going from building Moorish palaces to constructing suburban shopping centers. However, the development of the Unix system brought its own advantages. Despite its power, ITS had a weak point\u2014it only worked on the PDP-10 computer from DEC. In the early 1980s, the laboratory abandoned the PDP-10, and ITS, which hackers compared to a bustling city, turned into a ghost town. Unix, on the other hand, was designed with portability from one computer architecture to another in mind, so it faced no such troubles. Developed by junior researchers at AT&T, Unix slipped under corporate radars and found a quiet home in the nonprofit world of research centers. With fewer resources than their hacker counterparts at MIT, Unix developers adapted their system to work on a mishmash of equipment. Primarily, on the 16-bit PDP-11, which the hackers at the laboratory deemed unsuitable for serious tasks, but also on 32-bit mainframes like the VAX 11\/780. By 1983, companies like Sun Microsystems had created relatively compact desktop computers\u2014\"workstations\"\u2014comparable in power to the old PDP-10 mainframe. These workstations too became home to the ubiquitous Unix.<\/p>\n

Unix portability was achieved through an additional layer of abstraction between applications and hardware. Instead of writing programs in the specific machine codes of a particular computer, as hackers at the Lab did while developing programs for ITS on the PDP-10, Unix developers used the high-level programming language C, which was not tied to any specific hardware platform. The developers focused on standardizing the interfaces through which different parts of the operating system interacted with each other. As a result, a system emerged where any part could be modified without affecting all other parts or disrupting their functionality. To port the system from one hardware architecture to another, it was sufficient to redesign only one part of the system, rather than rewriting the whole thing. Experts appreciated this incredible level of flexibility and convenience, which is why Unix quickly spread throughout the computing world.<\/p>\n

Stallman decided to create the GNU system due to the demise of ITS, the beloved creation of the AI Lab hackers. The death of ITS was a blow to them, including Richard. While the incident with the Xerox laser printer opened his eyes to the injustice of proprietary licenses, the demise of ITS pushed him from rejecting closed software to actively opposing it.<\/p>\n

The reasons for the demise of ITS, like its code, went far back in time. By 1980, most of the Lab's hackers were already working on a Lisp machine and the operating system for it.<\/p>\n

Lisp \u2013 an elegant programming language that is well-suited for working with data structures whose formats are not known in advance. It was created by the pioneer of artificial intelligence research and the originator of the term \"artificial intelligence,\" John McCarthy, who worked at MIT in the late 1950s. The name of the language is a shortening of \"LISt Processing.\" After McCarthy left MIT for Stanford, hackers at the Lab made some modifications to Lisp, creating its local dialect, MACLISP, where the first three letters referred to the MAC project, which led to the establishment of the AI Lab at MIT. Under the guidance of system architect Richard Greenblatt, the hackers developed a Lisp machine\u2014a specialized computer for running programs written in Lisp\u2014as well as an operating system for this computer, also written in Lisp.<\/p>\n

By the early 1980s, competing hacker groups had established two companies for the production and sale of Lisp machines. Greenblatt's company was called Lisp Machines Incorporated or simply LMI. He aimed to operate without external investments and create a purely \"hacker company.\" However, most hackers joined Symbolics, a typical commercial startup. By 1982, they had completely left MIT.<\/p>\n

Those who remained could be counted on one hand, so programs and machines took longer and longer to repair, or weren't repaired at all. And worse yet, according to Stallman, \"demographic changes\" began at the Lab. The hackers, who were already in the minority, nearly vanished, leaving the Lab entirely in the hands of faculty and students, whose attitude towards the PDP-10 was openly hostile.<\/p>\n

In 1982, the AI Lab replaced its 12-year-old PDP-10 with a DECSYSTEM 20. Applications written for the PDP-10 ran seamlessly on the new computer because the DECSYSTEM 20 was essentially an upgraded PDP-10, but the previous operating system was completely unsuitable \u2014 ITS needed to be ported to the new computer, which meant almost a complete rewrite. This was at a time when most of the hackers who could have tackled this were gone from the Lab. So a commercial operating system, Twenex, quickly took over the new machine. The few hackers left at MIT had no choice but to accept this.<\/p>\n

\"Without hackers to take on the creation and maintenance of the operating system, we are doomed,\" said faculty members and students, \"we need a commercial system backed by a company to handle the issues with it.\" Stallman recalls that this argument turned out to be a cruel mistake, but at that moment it sounded convincing.<\/p>\n

Initially, hackers viewed Twenex as yet another embodiment of authoritarian corporatocracy that they longed to break. Even the name reflected the hackers' disdain \u2014 the system was actually called TOPS-20, indicating a continuity with TOPS-10, another commercial DEC system for the PDP-10. But architecturally, TOPS-20 had nothing in common with TOPS-10. It was based on the Tenex system, developed by Bolt, Beranek and Newman for the PDP-10. Stallman began calling the system 'Twenex' simply to avoid naming it TOPS-20. \"The system was far from top-notch, so I couldn't bring myself to call it by its official name,\" recalls Stallman, \"so I added a 'w' to 'Tenex' to make it 'Twenex'.\" (This name plays on the word 'twenty', i.e., '\u0434\u0432\u0430\u0434\u0446\u0430\u0442\u044c').<\/p>\n

The computer running Twenex\/TOPS-20 was ironically dubbed 'Oz'. The reason was that the DECSYSTEM 20 required a small PDP-11 machine for terminal operations. One hacker, upon first seeing the PDP-11 connected to this computer, compared it to the grand presentation of the Wizard of Oz. \"I am the great and powerful Oz!\" he proclaimed. \"Just don't look at the little people who are doing the work!\"<\/p>\n

However, in the operating system of the new computer, there was nothing funny anymore. Security and access control were built into Twenex at a fundamental level, and its utilities with applications were also designed with security in mind. The condescending jokes about the security systems at the Laboratory turned into a serious battle for control over the computer. Administrators argued that without security systems, Twenex would be unstable and prone to errors. Hackers insisted that stability and reliability could be achieved much faster by editing the system's source code. However, they were so few in the Laboratory that nobody listened to them.<\/p>\n

Hackers thought they could bypass security restrictions by granting all users «admin privileges» \u2013 elevated rights that enabled them to do many things that a regular user was forbidden from doing. However, in this case, any user could take the «admin privileges» from any other user, and the latter could not regain them due to lack of access rights. Therefore, the hackers decided to take control of the system by stripping «admin privileges» from everyone except themselves.<\/p>\n

Password cracking and launching a debugger during system boot yielded no results. Failing in «coup d'\u00e9tat<\/em>», Stallman sent a message to all employees of the Laboratory.<\/p>\n

«The aristocrats have been defeated so far, – he wrote, – but now they have gained the upper hand, and the attempt to seize power has failed.» Richard signed the message: «Radio Free OZ», so that no one would guess it was him. An excellent disguise, considering that everyone in the Laboratory knew about Stallman's views on security systems and his jokes about passwords. However, Richard's aversion to passwords was known far beyond MIT. The Laboratory's computers were accessible under Stallman's account to nearly the entire ARPAnet \u2013 the precursor to the internet of that time. One such «tourist» was, for example, Don Hopkins, a programmer from California, who learned through hacker grapevine that one could access the renowned ITS system at MIT simply by entering Stallman's 3 initials as both the login and the password.<\/p>\n

«I am infinitely grateful to MIT for allowing me and many others to freely use their computers, – says Hopkins, – it meant a lot to all of us.»<\/p>\n

This «tourist» policy lasted for many years while the ITS system was alive, and the MIT administration looked upon it leniently. But when the Oz machine became the main bridge from the Laboratory to ARPAnet, everything changed. Stallman still provided access to his account under the well-known login and password, but administrators demanded that he change the password and not share it with anyone anymore. Richard, citing his ethics, refused to work on the Oz machine altogether.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhen passwords started appearing on the computers of the AI Laboratory, I decided to stick to my belief that there should be no passwords,\u201d Stallman later said, \u201cand since I believed that computers did not need security systems, I should not support the implementation of those measures.\u201d<\/p>\n

Stallman's refusal to bow down to the great and terrible Oz machine showed that tension was growing between the hackers and the Lab management. But this tension was just a pale shadow of the conflict that raged within the hacker collective itself, which had split into two camps: LMI (Lisp Machines Incorporated) and Symbolics.<\/p>\n

Symbolics received considerable outside funding, attracting many hackers from the Lab. They worked on the Lisp machine system both at MIT and beyond. By the end of 1980, the company hired 14 Lab employees as consultants to develop their own version of the Lisp machine. The remaining hackers, except for Stallman, worked for LMI. Richard chose not to take sides and, as usual, was on his own.<\/p>\n

For a time, hackers hired by Symbolics continued to work at MIT, refining the Lisp machine system. They, like the hackers from LMI, used the MIT license for their code. It required returning changes to MIT but did not require MIT to distribute those changes. Nevertheless, throughout 1981, hackers adhered to a gentlemen's agreement whereby all their improvements were incorporated into the MIT Lisp machine and shared among all users of these machines. This arrangement still maintained some stability within the hacker collective.<\/p>\n

But on March 16, 1982 \u2013 Stallman remembers this day well because it was his birthday \u2013 the gentleman's agreement came to an end. This happened at the behest of Symbolics management, which wanted to stifle its competitor, LMI, which had far fewer hackers working for it. The leaders of Symbolics reasoned that if LMI had significantly fewer employees, it meant that the overall work on the Lisp machine benefited them, and if they ceased this exchange of developments, LMI would be destroyed. To achieve this, they decided to abuse the wording of the license. Instead of making changes to the MIT version of the system that LMI could use, they began supplying the MIT version of the system that they could modify however they wanted. It turned out that any testing and editing of the Lisp machine code at MIT was solely in favor of Symbolics.<\/p>\n

As the person responsible for maintaining the laboratory's Lisp machine (for the first few months with the help of Greenblatt), Stallman was furious. The Symbolics hackers provided code with hundreds of changes that caused errors. Considering this an ultimatum, Stallman cut off the Laboratory's communication line with Symbolics, vowed never to work on machines from that company again, and announced his joining the MIT Lisp machine project to support LMI. \u201cIn my eyes, the Laboratory was a neutral country, like Belgium in World War II,\u201d Stallman recounts, \u201cand if Germany invades Belgium, it declares war on Germany and joins Britain and France.\u201d<\/p>\n

When the executives at Symbolics noticed that their latest innovations were still appearing on the MIT version of the Lisp machine, they became angry and started accusing the Lab hackers of code theft. However, Stallman did not violate copyright law in any way. He studied the code provided by Symbolics and made logical assumptions about future fixes and improvements, which he then implemented from scratch for the MIT Lisp machine. The leaders of Symbolics did not believe this. They installed spyware on Stallman's terminal that recorded everything Richard did. They hoped to gather evidence of code theft to present to the MIT administration, but even by early 1983, they had almost nothing to show. All they had were a dozen instances where the code from the two systems looked somewhat similar.<\/p>\n

When the administrators of the Laboratory showed evidence to Stallman from Symbolics, he disputed it, claiming that the code was similar but not identical. He turned the logic of Symbolics' management against itself: if these bits of similar code were all they could find, then it only proves that Stallman did not actually steal the code. This was enough for the Laboratory managers to approve Stallman's work, and he continued it until the end of 1983.<\/p>\n

But Stallman changed his approach. To protect himself and the project from any claims by Symbolics, he completely stopped looking at their source codes. He began writing code solely based on documentation. The biggest innovations were not what he awaited from Symbolics, but what he implemented himself, later adding interfaces for compatibility with Symbolics' implementation based on their documentation. He also reviewed the change logs in Symbolics' code to understand what errors they were fixing, and he corrected those errors on his own, using different methods.<\/p>\n

What happened strengthened Stallman's resolve. By creating analogs of Symbolics' new features, he persuaded the Laboratory staff to use the MIT version of the Lisp machine, which provided a good level of testing and debugging. And the MIT version was completely open to LMI. \u201cI wanted to punish Symbolics at any cost,\u201d Stallman recalls. This statement reflects not only that Richard's character is far from pacifism, but also that the conflict surrounding the Lisp machine struck a nerve with him.<\/p>\n

Stallman's desperate resolve can be understood when taking into account how events appeared to him \u2013 as a \u201cdestruction\u201d of his \u201chome,\u201d meaning the hacker community and the culture of the AI Laboratory. Later, Levy interviewed Stallman via email, and Richard compared himself to Ishi \u2013 the last known member of the Yahi Indian tribe, which was exterminated in the Indian wars of 1860-1870. This analogy gives the events a grand, almost mythical scope. The hackers working for Symbolics saw this in a slightly different light: their company was not destroying or exterminating, but merely doing what had long needed to be done. By moving the Lisp machine into the realm of commerce, Symbolics changed the approach to software design \u2013 instead of cutting them according to the hard-nosed templates of hackers, more gentle and humane norms of managers were adopted. And they did not view Stallman as a fighting opponent defending a noble cause, but rather as a bearer of outdated thinking.<\/p>\n

Personal conflicts added fuel to the fire. Even before Symbolics emerged, many hackers avoided Stallman, and now the situation has worsened significantly. \u201cI was no longer invited on trips to Chinatown,\u201d Richard recalls, \u201cGreenblatt started a tradition: when you want to have lunch, you go around your colleagues and invite them to join you, or you send them a message. Somewhere around 1980-1981, I stopped being invited. They not only didn\u2019t invite me, but as one person later admitted to me, they pressured others not to mention the planned lunch trips.\u201d<\/p>\n

Source: linux.org.ru<\/a><\/p>","protected":false,"gt_translate_keys":[{"key":"rendered","format":"html"}]},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Free as in Freedom \u043d\u0430 \u0440\u0443\u0441\u0441\u043a\u043e\u043c: \u0413\u043b\u0430\u0432\u0430 1. \u0420\u043e\u043a\u043e\u0432\u043e\u0439 \u043f\u0440\u0438\u043d\u0442\u0435\u0440 Free as in Freedom \u043d\u0430 \u0440\u0443\u0441\u0441\u043a\u043e\u043c: \u0413\u043b\u0430\u0432\u0430 2. 2001: \u0425\u0430\u043a\u0435\u0440\u0441\u043a\u0430\u044f \u043e\u0434\u0438\u0441\u0441\u0435\u044f Free as in Freedom \u043d\u0430 \u0440\u0443\u0441\u0441\u043a\u043e\u043c: \u0413\u043b\u0430\u0432\u0430 3. \u041f\u043e\u0440\u0442\u0440\u0435\u0442 \u0445\u0430\u043a\u0435\u0440\u0430 \u0432 \u044e\u043d\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0438 Free as in Freedom \u043d\u0430 \u0440\u0443\u0441\u0441\u043a\u043e\u043c: \u0413\u043b\u0430\u0432\u0430 4. \u0420\u0430\u0437\u0432\u0435\u043d\u0447\u0430\u0439 \u0431\u043e\u0433\u0430 Free as in Freedom \u043d\u0430 \u0440\u0443\u0441\u0441\u043a\u043e\u043c: \u0413\u043b\u0430\u0432\u0430 5. \u0420\u0443\u0447\u0435\u0451\u043a \u0441\u0432\u043e\u0431\u043e\u0434\u044b Free as […]<\/p>\n","protected":false,"gt_translate_keys":[{"key":"rendered","format":"html"}]},"author":1,"featured_media":27240,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[702],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-36400","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\n","aioseo_head_json":{"title":"\ud83e\udd47Free as in Freedom in Russian: Chapter 7. The Dilemma of Absolute Morality | ProHoster","description":"","canonical_url":"https:\/\/prohoster.info\/en\/blog\/news\/free-as-in-freedom-na-russkom-glava-7-dilemma-absolyutnoj-morali","robots":"max-image-preview:large","keywords":"","webmasterTools":{"miscellaneous":""},"schema":null,"og:locale":"en_US","og:site_name":"ProHoster | \u041a\u0443\u043f\u0438\u0442\u044c \u043d\u0430\u0434\u0435\u0436\u043d\u044b\u0439 \u0445\u043e\u0441\u0442\u0438\u043d\u0433 \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0441\u0430\u0439\u0442\u043e\u0432 \u0441 \u0437\u0430\u0449\u0438\u0442\u043e\u0439 \u043e\u0442 DDoS, VPS VDS \u0441\u0435\u0440\u0432\u0435\u0440\u044b","og:type":"article","og:title":"\ud83e\udd47Free as in Freedom \u043d\u0430 \u0440\u0443\u0441\u0441\u043a\u043e\u043c: \u0413\u043b\u0430\u0432\u0430 7. \u0414\u0438\u043b\u0435\u043c\u043c\u0430 \u0430\u0431\u0441\u043e\u043b\u044e\u0442\u043d\u043e\u0439 \u043c\u043e\u0440\u0430\u043b\u0438 | ProHoster","og:url":"https:\/\/prohoster.info\/en\/blog\/news\/free-as-in-freedom-na-russkom-glava-7-dilemma-absolyutnoj-morali","og:image":"https:\/\/prohoster.info\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/logo-350.jpg","og:image:secure_url":"https:\/\/prohoster.info\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/11\/logo-350.jpg","og:image:width":350,"og:image:height":350,"article:published_time":"2019-10-31T19:11:26+00:00","article:modified_time":"2019-10-31T19:11:26+00:00","article:publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/prohoster","article:author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/prohoster"},"aioseo_meta_data":{"post_id":"36400","title":null,"description":null,"keywords":null,"keyphrases":null,"primary_term":null,"canonical_url":null,"og_title":null,"og_description":null,"og_object_type":"default","og_image_type":"default","og_image_url":null,"og_image_width":null,"og_image_height":null,"og_image_custom_url":null,"og_image_custom_fields":null,"og_video":null,"og_custom_url":null,"og_article_section":null,"og_article_tags":null,"twitter_use_og":false,"twitter_card":"default","twitter_image_type":"default","twitter_image_url":null,"twitter_image_custom_url":null,"twitter_image_custom_fields":null,"twitter_title":null,"twitter_description":null,"schema":{"blockGraphs":[],"customGraphs":[],"default":{"data":{"Article":[],"Course":[],"Dataset":[],"FAQPage":[],"Movie":[],"Person":[],"Product":[],"ProductReview":[],"Car":[],"Recipe":[],"Service":[],"SoftwareApplication":[],"WebPage":[]},"graphName":"","isEnabled":true},"graphs":[]},"schema_type":null,"schema_type_options":null,"pillar_content":false,"robots_default":true,"robots_noindex":false,"robots_noarchive":false,"robots_nosnippet":false,"robots_nofollow":false,"robots_noimageindex":false,"robots_noodp":false,"robots_notranslate":false,"robots_max_snippet":null,"robots_max_videopreview":null,"robots_max_imagepreview":"large","priority":null,"frequency":null,"local_seo":null,"seo_analyzer_scan_date":"2026-01-22 03:09:19","breadcrumb_settings":null,"limit_modified_date":false,"reviewed_by":null,"ai":null,"created":"2021-03-01 01:45:36","updated":"2026-01-22 03:09:19","focus_keyword":null,"additional_keywords":null,"truseo_locale":null},"gt_translate_keys":[{"key":"link","format":"url"}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/prohoster.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36400","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/prohoster.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/prohoster.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/prohoster.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/prohoster.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=36400"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/prohoster.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36400\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/prohoster.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/27240"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/prohoster.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=36400"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/prohoster.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=36400"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/prohoster.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=36400"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}