www/philosophy selling-exceptions.html

[Richard M. Stallman]

CVSROOT:        /webcvs/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     Richard M. Stallman <rms>       10/08/22 22:38:25

Modified files:
        philosophy     : selling-exceptions.html 

Log message:
        Clarify that selling exceptions typically allows LESS than the X11
        license would allow, not the same range.

CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.5&r2=1.6

Patches:
Index: selling-exceptions.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /webcvs/www/www/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html,v
retrieving revision 1.5
retrieving revision 1.6
diff -u -b -r1.5 -r1.6
--- selling-exceptions.html     4 Mar 2010 17:29:17 -0000       1.5
+++ selling-exceptions.html     22 Aug 2010 22:38:22 -0000      1.6
@@ -103,10 +103,11 @@
 this implication.  Using a noncopyleft license is weak, and usually an
 inferior choice, but it's not wrong.</p>
 
-<p>In other words, selling exceptions permits some embedding in
-proprietary software, and the X11 license permits even more embedding.
-If this doesn't make the X11 license unacceptable, it doesn't make
-selling exceptions unacceptable.</p>
+<p>In other words, selling exceptions permits limited embedding of the
+code in proprietary software, but the X11 license goes even further,
+permitting unlimited use of the code (and modified versions of it) in
+proprietary software.  If this doesn't make the X11 license
+unacceptable, it doesn't make selling exceptions unacceptable.</p>
 
 <p>There are three reasons why the FSF doesn't practice selling
 exceptions.  One is that it doesn't lead to the FSF's goal: assuring
@@ -179,7 +180,7 @@
 
 <p>Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2010/03/04 17:29:17 $
+$Date: 2010/08/22 22:38:22 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>