www-commits
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

www/philosophy shouldbefree.html


From: Jeanne Rasata
Subject: www/philosophy shouldbefree.html
Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2010 00:19:46 +0000

CVSROOT:        /web/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     Jeanne Rasata <jrasata> 10/07/03 00:19:46

Modified files:
        philosophy     : shouldbefree.html 

Log message:
        changed "vs." to "v." and to "versus" when it was not part of a case 
title

CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/shouldbefree.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.42&r2=1.43

Patches:
Index: shouldbefree.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/shouldbefree.html,v
retrieving revision 1.42
retrieving revision 1.43
diff -u -b -r1.42 -r1.43
--- shouldbefree.html   1 Jul 2010 06:17:26 -0000       1.42
+++ shouldbefree.html   3 Jul 2010 00:19:41 -0000       1.43
@@ -85,7 +85,7 @@
 proprietary program with that of no program, and then concludes that
 proprietary software development is, on the whole, beneficial, and
 should be encouraged.  The fallacy here is in comparing only two
-outcomes&mdash;proprietary software vs. no software&mdash;and assuming
+outcomes&mdash;proprietary software versus no software&mdash;and assuming
 there are no other possibilities.</p>
 <p>
    Given a system of software copyright, software development is
@@ -95,7 +95,7 @@
 not inherent or inevitable; it is a consequence of the specific
 social/legal policy decision that we are questioning: the decision to
 have owners.  To formulate the choice as between proprietary software
-vs. no software is begging the question.</p>
+versus no software is begging the question.</p>
 
 <h3 id="against-having-owners">The Argument against Having Owners</h3>
 <p>
@@ -774,8 +774,8 @@
 <p>
    Thus, the Constitution says that the purpose of copyright is to
 &ldquo;promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts.&rdquo; The
-Supreme Court has elaborated on this, stating in &lsquo;Fox Film
-vs. Doyal&rsquo; that &ldquo;The sole interest of the United States
+Supreme Court has elaborated on this, stating in <em>Fox Film
+v. Doyal</em>; that &ldquo;The sole interest of the United States
 and the primary object in conferring the [copyright] monopoly lie in
 the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of
 authors.&rdquo;</p>
@@ -881,7 +881,7 @@
 <p>
 Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2010/07/01 06:17:26 $
+$Date: 2010/07/03 00:19:41 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]