[gnu-pl] wwwgnudiff - raport nr 41

[Wojciech Kotwica]

--- prev/root/provide.html      Mon Oct 21 22:51:37 2002
+++ curr/./root/provide.html    Wed Mar  5 05:12:25 2003
@@ -35,5 +35,17 @@
 ]
 <P>
-What we provide...
+What the FSF provides to computer users, above all, is the chance to
+use a computer in freedom--using <A HREF="/philosophy/free-sw.html">
+free software</A>.
+
+Since 1985 the FSF has sponsored the development of the free software
+operating system <A HREF="/gnu/gnu-history.html">GNU </A>.  The <A
+HREF="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</A> variant of GNU is already
+widely used.  The GNU/Hurd system, based on our <A
+HREF="/software/hurd/hurd.html"> GNU Hurd</A> kernel, is ready for
+wizards and enthusiasts to try.
+
+<P>
+More concretely, the things you can obtain from the FSF include...
 
 <UL>
@@ -43,10 +55,11 @@
 </UL>
 
-How to get what we provide..
+There are various ways to get the software:
 
 <UL>
   <LI><A HREF="/order/deluxe.html">Deluxe distributions</A>
-  <LI><A HREF="http://order.fsf.org/";>Ordering</A>
-  <LI><A HREF="/order/ftp.html">How to get GNU Software</A>
+  <LI><A HREF="http://order.fsf.org/";>Ordering by mail, phone or net</A>
+  <LI><A HREF="/software/software.html#HowToGetSoftware">Other ways to
+  get GNU Software</A>
 </UL>
 
@@ -93,5 +106,5 @@
 Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2002/10/21 20:51:37 $ $Author: brett $
+$Date: 2003/03/04 14:34:57 $ $Author: rms $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 <HR>
--- prev/copyleft/copyleft.html Mon Jul 29 23:27:41 2002
+++ curr/./copyleft/copyleft.html       Wed Mar  5 05:12:28 2003
@@ -143,5 +143,5 @@
 (but not all) GNU libraries. This license was formerly called the
 Library GPL, but we changed the name, because the old name encouraged
-to use this license more often than it should be used. For an
+developers to use this license more often than it should be used. For an
 explanation of why this change was necessary, read the article <A
 HREF="/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html"><CITE>Why you shouldn't use the Library
@@ -427,5 +427,5 @@
 Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2002/07/29 21:27:41 $ $Author: brett $
+$Date: 2003/03/04 14:35:47 $ $Author: rms $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 <HR>
--- prev/help/help.html Sun Feb  9 05:12:23 2003
+++ curr/./help/help.html       Wed Mar  5 05:12:58 2003
@@ -77,8 +77,5 @@
       <li> <a href="/directory/dumb.html">GNU dumb</a></li>
       <li><a href="/directory/hyperbole.html">The Hyperbole GNU Emacs 
Package</a></li>
-      <li><a href="/directory/gcl.html">GNU Common Lisp</a></li>
-      <li><a href="/directory/queue.html">GNU Queue</a></li>
-      <li><a href="/directory/acct.html">GNU acct</a></li>
-        <li><a href="/software/unrtf/unrtf.html">GNU UnRTF</a></li>
+      <li><a href="/software/unrtf/unrtf.html">GNU UnRTF</a></li>
     </ul>
   </li>
@@ -363,5 +360,5 @@
 Last updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2003/02/08 09:19:03 $ $Author: rps $
+$Date: 2003/03/04 14:39:48 $ $Author: rms $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 <HR>
--- prev/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html Sat Feb  8 05:13:53 2003
+++ curr/./philosophy/words-to-avoid.html       Wed Mar  5 05:13:16 2003
@@ -258,17 +258,23 @@
 
 Publishers and lawyers like to describe copyright as ``intellectual
-property.''  This term carries a hidden assumption---that the most
-natural way to think about the issue of copying is based on an analogy
-with physical objects, and our ideas of them as property.
-<P>
-
-But this analogy overlooks the crucial difference between material
-objects and information: information can be copied and shared almost
-effortlessly, while material objects can't be.  Basing your thinking
-on this analogy is tantamount to ignoring that difference.
-<P>
-
-Even the US legal system does not entirely accept this analogy, since
-it does not treat copyrights like physical object property rights.
+property''---a term that also includes patents, trademarks, and other
+more obscure areas of law.  These laws have so little in common, and
+differ so much, that it is ill-advised to generalize about them.  It
+is best to talk specifically about ``copyright,'' or about
+``patents,'' or about ``trademarks.''
+
+<P>
+The term ``intellectual property'' carries a hidden assumption---that
+the way to think about all these disparate issues is based on an
+analogy with physical objects, and our ideas of physical property.
+
+<P>
+When it comes to copying, this analogy disregards the crucial
+difference between material objects and information: information can
+be copied and shared almost effortlessly, while material objects can't
+be.  Basing your thinking on this analogy is tantamount to ignoring
+that difference.  (Even the US legal system does not entirely accept
+the analogy, since it does not treat copyrights or patents like
+physical object property rights.)
 
 <P>
@@ -278,27 +284,24 @@
 
 <P>
-There is another problem with ``intellectual property'': it is a
-catch-all that lumps together several disparate legal systems,
+``Intellectual property'' is also an unwise generalization.  The term
+is a catch-all that lumps together several disparate legal systems,
 including copyright, patents, trademarks, and others, which have very
 little in common.  These systems of law originated separately, cover
 different activities, operate in different ways, and raise different
-public policy issues.  For instance, if you learn a fact about
-copyright law, you would do well to assume it is <em>not</em>the same for
-patent law, since that is almost always true.
+public policy issues.  If you learn a fact about copyright law, you
+would do well to assume it does <em>not</em> apply to patent law,
+since that is almost always so.
 <P>
 
 Since these laws are so different, the term ``intellectual property''
-is an invitation to simplistic overgeneralization.  Any opinion about
-``intellectual property'' is almost surely foolish.  At that broad
-level, you can't even see the specific public policy issues raised
-by copyright law, or the different issues raised by patent law,
-or any of the others.
-
-<P>
-The term ``intellectual property'' leads people to focus on the meager
-common aspect of these disparate laws, which is that they establish
-various abstractions that can be bought and sold, and ignore the
-important aspect, which is the restrictions they place on the public
-and what good or harm those restrictions cause.
+is an invitation to simplistic thinking.  It leads people to focus on
+the meager common aspect of these disparate laws, which is that they
+establish monopolies that can be bought and sold, and ignore their
+substance--the different restrictions they place on the public and the
+different consequences that result.  At that broad level, you can't
+even see the specific public policy issues raised by copyright law, or
+the different issues raised by patent law, or any of the others.
+Thus, any opinion about ``intellectual property'' is almost surely
+foolish.
 
 <P>
@@ -480,5 +483,5 @@
 Updated:
 <!-- hhmts start -->
-$Date: 2003/02/07 14:16:47 $ $Author: rps $
+$Date: 2003/03/04 14:54:02 $ $Author: rms $
 <!-- hhmts end -->
 <HR>