www/philosophy funding-art-vs-funding-software....

[Pavel Kharitonov]

CVSROOT:        /web/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     Pavel Kharitonov <ineiev>       13/02/09 16:57:01

Modified files:
        philosophy     : funding-art-vs-funding-software.html 

Log message:
        Update boilerplate to 1.72; use &ldquo;, &rdquo; and &mdash;;
        use double spaces after ends of sentences; rewrap long lines.

CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/funding-art-vs-funding-software.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.7&r2=1.8

Patches:
Index: funding-art-vs-funding-software.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/funding-art-vs-funding-software.html,v
retrieving revision 1.7
retrieving revision 1.8
diff -u -b -r1.7 -r1.8
--- funding-art-vs-funding-software.html        9 Feb 2013 06:11:16 -0000       
1.7
+++ funding-art-vs-funding-software.html        9 Feb 2013 16:57:01 -0000       
1.8
@@ -1,25 +1,25 @@
 <!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
-<!-- Parent-Version: 1.71 -->
-<title>Funding Art vs Funding Software</title>
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.72 -->
+<title>Funding Art vs Funding Software
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
 <!--#set var="article_name" 
value="/philosophy/funding-art-vs-funding-software" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/gnun/initial-translations-list.html" -->
 
-<h2>Funding Art vs Funding Software </h2>
+<h2>Funding Art vs Funding Software</h2>
 
 <p>by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/";><strong>Richard
 Stallman</strong></a></p>
 
-
 <p>I've proposed two new systems to fund artists in a world where we have
 legalized sharing (noncommercial redistribution of exact copies) of
 published works. One is for the state to collect taxes for the
 purpose, and divide the money among artists in proportion to the cube
 root of the popularity of each one (as measured by surveying samples
-of the population). The other is for each player to have a "donate"
-button to anonymously send a small sum (perhaps 50 cents, in the US)
-to the artists who made the last work played. These funds would go to
-artists, not to their publishers.</p>
+of the population).  The other is for each player to have a
+&ldquo;donate&rdquo; button to anonymously send a small sum (perhaps
+50 cents, in the US) to the artists who made the last work played.
+These funds would go to artists, not to their publishers.</p>
 
 <p>People often wonder why I don't propose these methods for free
 software. There's a reason for that: it is hard to adapt them to
@@ -28,8 +28,9 @@
 <p>In my view, works designed to be used to do practical jobs must be
 free. The people who use them deserve to have control over the jobs
 they do, which requires control over the works they use to do them,
-which requires the four freedoms (see
-<a 
href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html";>http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html</a>).
 Works to do practical
+which requires the four freedoms (see <a
+href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html";>
+http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html</a>).  Works to do practical
 jobs include educational resources, reference works, recipes, text
 fonts and, of course, software; these works must be free.</p>
 
@@ -43,16 +44,16 @@
 and changing that information can be illegal.</p>
 
 <p>That crucial point enables my proposed funding systems to work. It
-means that if you play a song and push the "donate" button, the system
-can be sure who should get your donation. Likewise, if you
-participate in the survey that calculates popularities, the system
-will know who to credit with a little more popularity because you
-listened to that song or made a copy of it.</p>
+means that if you play a song and push the &ldquo;donate&rdquo;
+button, the system can be sure who should get your donation.  Likewise,
+if you participate in the survey that calculates popularities, the
+system will know who to credit with a little more popularity because
+you listened to that song or made a copy of it.</p>
 
 <p>When one song is made by multiple artists (for instance, several
 musicians and a songwriter), that doesn't happen by accident. They
 know they are working together, and they can decide in advance how to
-divide up the popularity that song later develops &mdash; or use the
+divide up the popularity that song later develops&mdash;or use the
 standard default rules for this division. This case creates no
 problem for those two funding proposals because the work, once made,
 is not changed by others.</p>
@@ -68,7 +69,7 @@
 
 <p>Consider, for example, the free program GNU Emacs. Our records of
 contributions to the code of GNU Emacs are incomplete in the period
-before we started using version control -- before that we have only
+before we started using version control&mdash;before that we have only
 the change logs. But let's imagine we still had every version and
 could determine precisely what code contribution is due to each of
 the hundreds of contributors. We'd still be stuck.</p>
@@ -77,7 +78,7 @@
 it be characters?), then it would be straightforward, once we decide
 how to handle a line that was written by A and then changed by B. But
 that assumes each line as important as every other line. I am sure
-that is wrong &mdash; some pieces of the code do more important jobs
+that is wrong&mdash;some pieces of the code do more important jobs
 and others less; some code is harder to write and other code is
 easier. But I see no way to quantify these distinctions, and the
 developers could argue about them forever. I might deserve some
@@ -116,20 +117,22 @@
 <em>projects</em> for the work <em>they propose to do</em>. That
 system is simple.</p>
 
-<p>The Free Software Foundation asks for donations in two ways. We ask
-for <a href="https://my.fsf.org/donate/";>general donations to support the 
foundation's work</a>, and we invite
-<a href="https://my.fsf.org/donate/directed-donations";>targeted donations for 
certain specific projects</a>. Other free software
+<p>The Free Software Foundation asks for donations in two ways.  We
+ask for <a href="https://my.fsf.org/donate/";> general donations to
+support the foundation's work</a>, and we invite <a
+href="https://my.fsf.org/donate/directed-donations";> targeted
+donations for certain specific projects</a>.  Other free software
 organizations do this too.</p>
 
 </div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
 <div id="footer">
 
-<p>Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to <a
-href="mailto:address@hidden";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>.  There are also <a
-href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> the FSF.  Broken links and other
-corrections or suggestions can be sent to <a
-href="mailto:address@hidden";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>.</p>
+<p>Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>.
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
+the FSF.  Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to <a href="mailto:address@hidden";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>.</p>
 
 <p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
         replace it with the translation of these two:
@@ -145,21 +148,38 @@
         href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
         README</a>. -->
 Please see the <a
-href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations README</a> for
-information on coordinating and submitting translations of this article.</p>
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.</p>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+     files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+     be under CC BY-ND 3.0 US.  Please do NOT change or remove this
+     without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+     Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+     document.  For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+     document was modified, or published.
+     
+     If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+     Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+     years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+     year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+     being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+     
+     There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+     Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
 
 <p>Copyright &copy; 2013 Richard Stallman</p>
 
 <p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
 href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/";>Creative
-Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>.
-</p>
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>.</p>
 
 <!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
 
 <p>Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2013/02/09 06:11:16 $
+$Date: 2013/02/09 16:57:01 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>