[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/philosophy categories.html free-doc.html fr...
|
From: |
Jeanne Rasata |
|
Subject: |
www/philosophy categories.html free-doc.html fr... |
|
Date: |
Thu, 01 Jul 2010 06:11:21 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: Jeanne Rasata <jrasata> 10/07/01 06:11:21
Modified files:
philosophy : categories.html free-doc.html free-sw.html
javascript-trap.html mcvoy.html
software-literary-patents.html
words-to-avoid.html x.html
Log message:
merged "non-" prefix
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/categories.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.63&r2=1.64
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/free-doc.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.29&r2=1.30
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.95&r2=1.96
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/javascript-trap.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.23&r2=1.24
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/mcvoy.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.8&r2=1.9
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/software-literary-patents.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.20&r2=1.21
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.129&r2=1.130
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/x.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.21&r2=1.22
Patches:
Index: categories.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/categories.html,v
retrieving revision 1.63
retrieving revision 1.64
diff -u -b -r1.63 -r1.64
--- categories.html 26 Jun 2010 21:19:41 -0000 1.63
+++ categories.html 1 Jul 2010 06:11:17 -0000 1.64
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
-<title>Categories of Free and Non-Free Software - GNU Project - Free Software
Foundation (FSF)</title>
+<title>Categories of Free and Nonfree Software - GNU Project - Free Software
Foundation (FSF)</title>
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
-<h2>Categories of free and non-free software</h2>
+<h2>Categories of free and nonfree software</h2>
<!-- This document uses XHTML 1.0 Strict, but may be served as -->
<!-- text/html. Please ensure that markup style considers -->
@@ -77,7 +77,7 @@
various other languages.</p>
<p>Free software is often <a href="/software/reliability.html">more
- reliable</a> than non-free software.</p>
+ reliable</a> than nonfree software.</p>
<h3 id="OpenSource">Open source software</h3>
@@ -101,7 +101,7 @@
<p>Public domain software is software that is not copyrighted. If
the source code is in the public domain, that is a special case of
- <a href="#Non-CopyleftedFreeSoftware">non-copylefted free
+ <a href="#Non-CopyleftedFreeSoftware">noncopylefted free
software</a>, which means that some copies or modified versions
may not be free at all.</p>
@@ -163,9 +163,9 @@
license; therefore, it is good for the community if people use
a single copyleft license.</p>
-<h3 id="Non-CopyleftedFreeSoftware">Non-copylefted free software</h3>
+<h3 id="Non-CopyleftedFreeSoftware">Noncopylefted free software</h3>
- <p>Non-copylefted free software comes from the author with
+ <p>Noncopylefted free software comes from the author with
permission to redistribute and modify, and also to add additional
restrictions to it.</p>
@@ -178,17 +178,17 @@
<p>The <a href="http://www.x.org";>X Window System</a>
illustrates this. The X Consortium releases X11 with
- distribution terms that make it non-copylefted free
+ distribution terms that make it noncopylefted free
software. If you wish, you can get a copy which has those
- distribution terms and is free. However, there are non-free
+ distribution terms and is free. However, there are nonfree
versions as well, and there are (or at least were) popular
- workstations and PC graphics boards for which non-free
+ workstations and PC graphics boards for which nonfree
versions are the only ones that work. If you are using this
hardware, X11 is not free software for
you. <a href="/philosophy/x.html">The developers of X11 even
- made X11 non-free</a> for a while; they were able to do this
+ made X11 nonfree</a> for a while; they were able to do this
because others had contributed their code under the same
- non-copyleft license.</p>
+ noncopyleft license.</p>
<h3 id="LaxPermissiveLicensedSoftware">Lax permissive licensed software</h3>
@@ -234,7 +234,7 @@
kind of free software is legally suitable to include if it
helps meet technical goals. And it isn't necessary for all the
components to be GNU software, individually. GNU can and does
- include non-copylefted free software such as the X Window
+ include noncopylefted free software such as the X Window
System that were developed by other projects.</p>
<h3 id="GNUprograms">GNU programs</h3>
@@ -269,22 +269,22 @@
by the Free Software Foundation; some is copyrighted by the
contributors who wrote it.</p>
-<h3 id="non-freeSoftware">Non-free software</h3>
+<h3 id="non-freeSoftware">Nonfree software</h3>
- <p>Non-free software is any software that is not free.
+ <p>Nonfree software is any software that is not free.
Its use, redistribution or modification is prohibited, or
requires you to ask for permission, or is restricted so much
that you effectively can't do it freely.</p>
<h3 id="ProprietarySoftware">Proprietary software</h3>
- <p>Proprietary software is another name for non-free software.
- In the past we subdivided non-free software into
+ <p>Proprietary software is another name for nonfree software.
+ In the past we subdivided nonfree software into
“semi-free software”, which could be modified and
redistributed noncommercially, and “ proprietary
software”, which could not be. But we have dropped that
distinction and now use “proprietary software” as
- synonymous with non-free software.</p>
+ synonymous with nonfree software.</p>
<p>The Free Software Foundation follows the rule that we cannot
install any proprietary program on our computers except temporarily
@@ -296,7 +296,7 @@
computer in the 1980s, because we were using it to write a free
replacement for Unix. Nowadays, since free operating systems are
available, the excuse is no longer applicable; we do not use any
- non-free operating systems, and any new computer we install
+ nonfree operating systems, and any new computer we install
must run a completely free operating system.</p>
<p>We don't insist that users of GNU, or contributors to GNU, have
@@ -358,8 +358,8 @@
“proprietary” are not the same thing! Most
commercial software
is <a href="#ProprietarySoftware">proprietary</a>, but there
- is commercial free software, and there is non-commercial
- non-free software.</p>
+ is commercial free software, and there is noncommercial
+ nonfree software.</p>
<p>For example, GNU Ada is developed by a company. It is always
distributed under the terms of the GNU GPL, and every copy is
@@ -417,7 +417,7 @@
<p>
Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2010/06/26 21:19:41 $
+$Date: 2010/07/01 06:11:17 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
Index: free-doc.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/free-doc.html,v
retrieving revision 1.29
retrieving revision 1.30
diff -u -b -r1.29 -r1.30
--- free-doc.html 26 Jun 2010 21:20:56 -0000 1.29
+++ free-doc.html 1 Jul 2010 06:11:17 -0000 1.30
@@ -135,7 +135,7 @@
We can also encourage commercial publishers to sell free, copylefted
manuals instead of proprietary ones. One way you can help this is to
check the distribution terms of a manual before you buy it, and
-prefer copylefted manuals to non-copylefted ones.</p>
+prefer copylefted manuals to noncopylefted ones.</p>
<p>
[Note: We maintain a <a href="/doc/other-free-books.html">page
that lists free books available from other publishers</a>].</p>
@@ -165,7 +165,7 @@
<p>
Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2010/06/26 21:20:56 $
+$Date: 2010/07/01 06:11:17 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
Index: free-sw.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/free-sw.html,v
retrieving revision 1.95
retrieving revision 1.96
diff -u -b -r1.95 -r1.96
--- free-sw.html 29 Jun 2010 12:21:59 -0000 1.95
+++ free-sw.html 1 Jul 2010 06:11:17 -0000 1.96
@@ -175,10 +175,10 @@
In the GNU project, we use
<a href="/copyleft/copyleft.html">copyleft</a>
to protect these freedoms legally for everyone. But
-<a href="/philosophy/categories.html#Non-CopyleftedFreeSoftware">non-copylefted
+<a href="/philosophy/categories.html#Non-CopyleftedFreeSoftware">noncopylefted
free software</a> also exists. We believe there are important reasons why
<a href="/philosophy/pragmatic.html">it is better to use copyleft</a>,
-but if your program is non-copylefted free software, it is still basically
+but if your program is noncopylefted free software, it is still basically
ethical.
</p>
@@ -422,7 +422,7 @@
<p>
Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2010/06/29 12:21:59 $
+$Date: 2010/07/01 06:11:17 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
Index: javascript-trap.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/javascript-trap.html,v
retrieving revision 1.23
retrieving revision 1.24
diff -u -b -r1.23 -r1.24
--- javascript-trap.html 28 Jun 2010 12:12:44 -0000 1.23
+++ javascript-trap.html 1 Jul 2010 06:11:17 -0000 1.24
@@ -6,17 +6,17 @@
<p>by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/";>Richard Stallman</a></p>
-<p><strong>You may be running non-free programs on your computer every
+<p><strong>You may be running nonfree programs on your computer every
day without realizing it—through your web browser.</strong></p>
-<p>In the free software community, the idea that non-free programs
+<p>In the free software community, the idea that nonfree programs
mistreat their users is familiar. Some of us refuse entirely to
-install proprietary software, and many others consider non-freedom a
+install proprietary software, and many others consider nonfreedom a
strike against the program. Many users are aware that this issue
applies to the plug-ins that browsers offer to install, since they can
-be free or non-free.</p>
+be free or nonfree.</p>
-<p>But browsers run other non-free programs which they don't ask you
+<p>But browsers run other nonfree programs which they don't ask you
about or even tell you about—programs that web pages contain or
link to. These programs are most often written in JavaScript, though
other languages are also used.</p>
@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@
<p>Browsers don't normally tell you when they load JavaScript programs.
Most browsers have a way to turn off JavaScript entirely, but none of
them can check for JavaScript programs that are nontrivial and
-non-free. Even if you're aware of this issue, it would take you
+nonfree. Even if you're aware of this issue, it would take you
considerable trouble to identify and then block those programs.
However, even in the free software community most users are not aware
of this issue; the browsers' silence tends to conceal it.</p>
@@ -57,7 +57,7 @@
JavaScript. We will need to study the issue of Flash to make suitable
recommendations. Silverlight seems likely to create a problem similar
to Flash, except worse, since Microsoft uses it as a platform for
-non-free codecs. A free replacement for Silverlight does not do the job
+nonfree codecs. A free replacement for Silverlight does not do the job
for the free world unless it normally comes with free replacement codecs.</p>
<p>Java applets also run in the browser, and raise similar issues. In
@@ -78,7 +78,7 @@
programs transmitted to the user” must become part of the criterion
for proper behavior by web sites.</p>
-<p>Silently loading and running non-free programs is one among several
+<p>Silently loading and running nonfree programs is one among several
issues raised by "web applications". The term "web
application" was designed to disregard the fundamental
distinction between software delivered to users and software running
@@ -91,7 +91,7 @@
only the issue of the client-side software. We are addressing the
server issue separately.</p>
-<p>In practical terms, how can we deal with the problem of non-free
+<p>In practical terms, how can we deal with the problem of nonfree
JavaScript programs in web sites? Here's a plan of action.</p>
<p>First, we need a practical criterion for nontrivial JavaScript
@@ -110,7 +110,7 @@
<p>Finally, we need to change free browsers to support freedom for
users of pages with JavaScript. First of all, browsers should be able
-to tell the user about nontrivial non-free JavaScript programs, rather
+to tell the user about nontrivial nonfree JavaScript programs, rather
than running them.
Perhaps <a
href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/722";>NoScript</a>
could be adapted to do this.</p>
@@ -131,8 +131,8 @@
in a web page to be free in a real and practical sense. JavaScript
will no longer be a particular obstacle to our freedom—no more than
C and Java are now. We will be able to reject and even replace the
-non-free nontrivial JavaScript programs, just as we reject and replace
-non-free packages that are offered for installation in the usual way.
+nonfree nontrivial JavaScript programs, just as we reject and replace
+nonfree packages that are offered for installation in the usual way.
Our campaign for web sites to free their JavaScript can then begin.</p>
<p><strong>Thank you to <a href="/people/people.html#mattlee">Matt Lee</a>
@@ -226,7 +226,7 @@
<p>
Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2010/06/28 12:12:44 $
+$Date: 2010/07/01 06:11:17 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
Index: mcvoy.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/mcvoy.html,v
retrieving revision 1.8
retrieving revision 1.9
diff -u -b -r1.8 -r1.9
--- mcvoy.html 29 Jun 2010 02:20:38 -0000 1.8
+++ mcvoy.html 1 Jul 2010 06:11:17 -0000 1.9
@@ -9,9 +9,9 @@
For the first time in my life, I want to thank Larry McVoy. He
recently eliminated a major weakness of the free software community,
by announcing the end of his campaign to entice free software projects
-to use and promote his non-free software. Soon, Linux development
+to use and promote his nonfree software. Soon, Linux development
will no longer use this program, and no longer spread the message that
-non-free software is a good thing if it's convenient.
+nonfree software is a good thing if it's convenient.
</p>
<p>
@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@
</p>
<p>
-There are thousands of non-free programs, and most merit no special
+There are thousands of nonfree programs, and most merit no special
attention, other than developing a free replacement. What made this
program, BitKeeper, infamous and dangerous was its marketing approach:
inviting high-profile free software projects to use it, so as to
@@ -98,10 +98,10 @@
</p>
<p>
-Fortunately, not everyone in Linux development considered a non-free
+Fortunately, not everyone in Linux development considered a nonfree
program acceptable, and there was continuing pressure for a free
alternative. Finally Andrew Tridgell developed an interoperating free
-program, so Linux developers would no longer need to use a non-free
+program, so Linux developers would no longer need to use a nonfree
program.
</p>
@@ -110,14 +110,14 @@
and take his ball with him: he withdrew permission for gratis use by
free software projects, and Linux developers will move to other
software. The program they no longer use will remain unethical as
-long as it is non-free, but they will no longer promote it, nor by
+long as it is nonfree, but they will no longer promote it, nor by
using it teach others to give freedom low priority. We can begin to
forget about that program.
</p>
<p>
-We should not forget the lesson we have learned from it: Non-free
+We should not forget the lesson we have learned from it: Nonfree
programs are dangerous to you and to your community. Don't let them
get a place in your life.
</p>
@@ -155,7 +155,7 @@
<p>
Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2010/06/29 02:20:38 $
+$Date: 2010/07/01 06:11:17 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
Index: software-literary-patents.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/software-literary-patents.html,v
retrieving revision 1.20
retrieving revision 1.21
diff -u -b -r1.20 -r1.21
--- software-literary-patents.html 23 Jun 2010 13:50:39 -0000 1.20
+++ software-literary-patents.html 1 Jul 2010 06:11:17 -0000 1.21
@@ -189,7 +189,7 @@
character of Jean Valjean, because he could not even have considered
writing a novel of this kind.</p>
-<p>This analogy can help non-programmers see what software patents
+<p>This analogy can help nonprogrammers see what software patents
do. Software patents cover features, such as defining abbreviations in
a word processor, or natural order recalculation in a spreadsheet.
Patents cover algorithms that programs need to use. Patents cover
@@ -256,7 +256,7 @@
<p>
Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2010/06/23 13:50:39 $
+$Date: 2010/07/01 06:11:17 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
Index: words-to-avoid.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html,v
retrieving revision 1.129
retrieving revision 1.130
diff -u -b -r1.129 -r1.130
--- words-to-avoid.html 1 Jul 2010 00:45:43 -0000 1.129
+++ words-to-avoid.html 1 Jul 2010 06:11:18 -0000 1.130
@@ -651,7 +651,7 @@
<div class="announcement">
Also note <a href="/philosophy/categories.html">Categories
-of Free Software</a>.</div>
+of Free and Nonfree Software</a>.</div>
<hr />
<h4>This essay is published
@@ -692,7 +692,7 @@
<p>
Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2010/07/01 00:45:43 $
+$Date: 2010/07/01 06:11:18 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
Index: x.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/x.html,v
retrieving revision 1.21
retrieving revision 1.22
diff -u -b -r1.21 -r1.22
--- x.html 30 Dec 2009 20:01:39 -0000 1.21
+++ x.html 1 Jul 2010 06:11:18 -0000 1.22
@@ -22,11 +22,11 @@
GPL) is one example of a copyleft license.</p>
<p>
-Some free software developers prefer non-copyleft distribution.
-Non-copyleft licenses such as the XFree86 and
+Some free software developers prefer noncopyleft distribution.
+Noncopyleft licenses such as the XFree86 and
<a href="/philosophy/bsd.html">BSD</a> licenses are based on the idea
of never saying no to anyone—not even to someone who seeks to
-use your work as the basis for restricting other people. Non-copyleft
+use your work as the basis for restricting other people. Noncopyleft
licensing does nothing wrong, but it misses the opportunity to
actively protect our freedom to change and redistribute software. For
that, we need copyleft.</p>
@@ -90,13 +90,13 @@
<p>
In September 1998, several months after X11R6.4 was released with
nonfree distribution terms, the Open Group reversed its decision and
-rereleased it under the same non-copyleft free software license that
+rereleased it under the same noncopyleft free software license that
was used for X11R6.3. Thus, the Open Group therefore eventually did
what was right, but that does not alter the general issue.</p>
<p>
Even if the X Consortium and the Open Group had never planned to
-restrict X, someone else could have done it. Non-copylefted software
+restrict X, someone else could have done it. Noncopylefted software
is vulnerable from all directions; it lets anyone make a nonfree
version dominant, if he will invest sufficient resources to add
significantly important features using proprietary code. Users who
@@ -184,7 +184,7 @@
<p>
Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2009/12/30 20:01:39 $
+$Date: 2010/07/01 06:11:18 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- www/philosophy categories.html free-doc.html fr...,
Jeanne Rasata <=