[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/philosophy basic-freedoms.ca.html basic-fre...
|
From: |
GNUN |
|
Subject: |
www/philosophy basic-freedoms.ca.html basic-fre... |
|
Date: |
Fri, 1 Jul 2016 12:29:26 +0000 (UTC) |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: GNUN <gnun> 16/07/01 12:29:26
Modified files:
philosophy : basic-freedoms.ca.html basic-freedoms.cs.html
basic-freedoms.el.html basic-freedoms.hr.html
basic-freedoms.nl.html basic-freedoms.pl.html
basic-freedoms.uk.html
microsoft-new-monopoly.ca.html
microsoft-new-monopoly.pl.html
open-source-misses-the-point.lt.html
open-source-misses-the-point.pl.html
open-source-misses-the-point.uk.html
surveillance-vs-democracy.uk.html ucita.nl.html
philosophy/po : basic-freedoms.ca-diff.html
basic-freedoms.cs-diff.html
basic-freedoms.nl-diff.html
microsoft-new-monopoly.ca-diff.html
open-source-misses-the-point.pl-diff.html
Added files:
philosophy/po : basic-freedoms.el-diff.html
basic-freedoms.hr-diff.html
basic-freedoms.pl-diff.html
basic-freedoms.uk-diff.html
microsoft-new-monopoly.pl-diff.html
open-source-misses-the-point.lt-diff.html
open-source-misses-the-point.uk-diff.html
surveillance-vs-democracy.uk-diff.html
ucita.nl-diff.html
Log message:
Automatic update by GNUnited Nations.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/basic-freedoms.ca.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.35&r2=1.36
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/basic-freedoms.cs.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.15&r2=1.16
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/basic-freedoms.el.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.8&r2=1.9
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/basic-freedoms.hr.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.22&r2=1.23
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/basic-freedoms.nl.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.14&r2=1.15
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/basic-freedoms.pl.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.45&r2=1.46
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/basic-freedoms.uk.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.1&r2=1.2
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/microsoft-new-monopoly.ca.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.32&r2=1.33
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/microsoft-new-monopoly.pl.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.30&r2=1.31
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.lt.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.3&r2=1.4
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.pl.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.44&r2=1.45
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.uk.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.11&r2=1.12
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/surveillance-vs-democracy.uk.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.13&r2=1.14
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/ucita.nl.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.7&r2=1.8
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.ca-diff.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.1&r2=1.2
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.cs-diff.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.7&r2=1.8
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.nl-diff.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.8&r2=1.9
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/microsoft-new-monopoly.ca-diff.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.1&r2=1.2
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.pl-diff.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.1&r2=1.2
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.el-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.hr-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.pl-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.uk-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/microsoft-new-monopoly.pl-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.lt-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.uk-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/surveillance-vs-democracy.uk-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/ucita.nl-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
Patches:
Index: basic-freedoms.ca.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/basic-freedoms.ca.html,v
retrieving revision 1.35
retrieving revision 1.36
diff -u -b -r1.35 -r1.36
--- basic-freedoms.ca.html 5 Jun 2014 15:32:08 -0000 1.35
+++ basic-freedoms.ca.html 1 Jul 2016 12:29:25 -0000 1.36
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/basic-freedoms.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.ca.po">
+ http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.ca.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/basic-freedoms.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.ca-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2016-05-02" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/basic-freedoms.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.ca.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
@@ -9,6 +14,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.ca.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.ca.html" -->
<h2>Llibertat d'expressió, premsa i associació a Internet</h2>
<p>
@@ -127,7 +133,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Updated:
-$Date: 2014/06/05 15:32:08 $
+$Date: 2016/07/01 12:29:25 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: basic-freedoms.cs.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/basic-freedoms.cs.html,v
retrieving revision 1.15
retrieving revision 1.16
diff -u -b -r1.15 -r1.16
--- basic-freedoms.cs.html 21 Dec 2014 11:59:23 -0000 1.15
+++ basic-freedoms.cs.html 1 Jul 2016 12:29:25 -0000 1.16
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/basic-freedoms.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.cs.po">
+ http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.cs.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/basic-freedoms.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.cs-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2016-05-02" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/basic-freedoms.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.cs.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
@@ -9,6 +14,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.cs.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.cs.html" -->
<h2>Svoboda slova, tisku a sdružovánà se na Internetu</h2>
<p>
@@ -126,7 +132,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Aktualizováno:
-$Date: 2014/12/21 11:59:23 $
+$Date: 2016/07/01 12:29:25 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: basic-freedoms.el.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/basic-freedoms.el.html,v
retrieving revision 1.8
retrieving revision 1.9
diff -u -b -r1.8 -r1.9
--- basic-freedoms.el.html 24 Apr 2015 15:59:55 -0000 1.8
+++ basic-freedoms.el.html 1 Jul 2016 12:29:25 -0000 1.9
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/basic-freedoms.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.el.po">
+ http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.el.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/basic-freedoms.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.el-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2016-05-02" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/basic-freedoms.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.el.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
@@ -9,6 +14,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.el.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.el.html" -->
<h2>ÎλεÏ
θεÏία ÏοÏ
λÏγοÏ
, ÏοÏ
ÏÏÏοÏ
και ÏοÏ
ÏÏ
νεÏαιÏίζεÏθαι ÏÏο ÎιαδίκÏÏ
ο</h2>
<p>
@@ -134,7 +140,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
ÎνημεÏÏθηκε:
-$Date: 2015/04/24 15:59:55 $
+$Date: 2016/07/01 12:29:25 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: basic-freedoms.hr.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/basic-freedoms.hr.html,v
retrieving revision 1.22
retrieving revision 1.23
diff -u -b -r1.22 -r1.23
--- basic-freedoms.hr.html 23 May 2015 05:09:10 -0000 1.22
+++ basic-freedoms.hr.html 1 Jul 2016 12:29:25 -0000 1.23
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/basic-freedoms.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.hr.po">
+ http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.hr.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/basic-freedoms.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.hr-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2016-05-02" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/basic-freedoms.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.hr.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
@@ -9,6 +14,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.hr.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.hr.html" -->
<h2>Sloboda govora, tiska i udruživanja na internetu</h2>
<p>
@@ -125,7 +131,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Zadnji put promijenjeno:
-$Date: 2015/05/23 05:09:10 $
+$Date: 2016/07/01 12:29:25 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: basic-freedoms.nl.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/basic-freedoms.nl.html,v
retrieving revision 1.14
retrieving revision 1.15
diff -u -b -r1.14 -r1.15
--- basic-freedoms.nl.html 9 Feb 2015 21:02:55 -0000 1.14
+++ basic-freedoms.nl.html 1 Jul 2016 12:29:25 -0000 1.15
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/basic-freedoms.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.nl.po">
+ http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.nl.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/basic-freedoms.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.nl-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2016-05-02" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/basic-freedoms.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.nl.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
@@ -9,6 +14,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.nl.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.nl.html" -->
<h2>Vrijheid van Meningsuiting op het Internet</h2>
<p>
@@ -125,7 +131,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Bijgewerkt:
-$Date: 2015/02/09 21:02:55 $
+$Date: 2016/07/01 12:29:25 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: basic-freedoms.pl.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/basic-freedoms.pl.html,v
retrieving revision 1.45
retrieving revision 1.46
diff -u -b -r1.45 -r1.46
--- basic-freedoms.pl.html 16 Jan 2016 00:04:56 -0000 1.45
+++ basic-freedoms.pl.html 1 Jul 2016 12:29:25 -0000 1.46
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/basic-freedoms.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.pl.po">
+ http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.pl.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/basic-freedoms.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.pl-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2016-05-02" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/basic-freedoms.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.pl.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
@@ -9,6 +14,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.pl.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.pl.html" -->
<h2>WolnoÅÄ sÅowa, prasy i stowarzyszania siÄ w Internecie</h2>
<p>
@@ -131,7 +137,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Aktualizowane:
-$Date: 2016/01/16 00:04:56 $
+$Date: 2016/07/01 12:29:25 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: basic-freedoms.uk.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/basic-freedoms.uk.html,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -b -r1.1 -r1.2
--- basic-freedoms.uk.html 7 Sep 2014 04:57:36 -0000 1.1
+++ basic-freedoms.uk.html 1 Jul 2016 12:29:25 -0000 1.2
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/basic-freedoms.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.uk.po">
+ http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.uk.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/basic-freedoms.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.uk-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2016-05-02" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/basic-freedoms.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.uk.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
@@ -9,6 +14,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.uk.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.uk.html" -->
<h2>Свобода Ñлова, дÑÑÐºÑ Ñ Ð°ÑоÑÑаÑÑй в
ÐнÑеÑнеÑÑ</h2>
<p>
@@ -129,7 +135,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Ðновлено:
-$Date: 2014/09/07 04:57:36 $
+$Date: 2016/07/01 12:29:25 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: microsoft-new-monopoly.ca.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/microsoft-new-monopoly.ca.html,v
retrieving revision 1.32
retrieving revision 1.33
diff -u -b -r1.32 -r1.33
--- microsoft-new-monopoly.ca.html 21 Dec 2015 19:28:49 -0000 1.32
+++ microsoft-new-monopoly.ca.html 1 Jul 2016 12:29:25 -0000 1.33
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/microsoft-new-monopoly.en.html"
-->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/microsoft-new-monopoly.ca.po">
+ http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/microsoft-new-monopoly.ca.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE"
value="/philosophy/microsoft-new-monopoly.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE"
value="/philosophy/po/microsoft-new-monopoly.ca-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2016-05-02" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/microsoft-new-monopoly.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.ca.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
@@ -8,6 +13,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/microsoft-new-monopoly.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.ca.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.ca.html" -->
<h2>El nou monopoli de Microsoft</h2>
<p>per <a href="http://www.stallman.org/";><strong>Richard
Stallman</strong></a></p>
@@ -210,7 +216,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Updated:
-$Date: 2015/12/21 19:28:49 $
+$Date: 2016/07/01 12:29:25 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: microsoft-new-monopoly.pl.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/microsoft-new-monopoly.pl.html,v
retrieving revision 1.30
retrieving revision 1.31
diff -u -b -r1.30 -r1.31
--- microsoft-new-monopoly.pl.html 16 Jan 2016 00:05:00 -0000 1.30
+++ microsoft-new-monopoly.pl.html 1 Jul 2016 12:29:25 -0000 1.31
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/microsoft-new-monopoly.en.html"
-->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/microsoft-new-monopoly.pl.po">
+ http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/microsoft-new-monopoly.pl.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE"
value="/philosophy/microsoft-new-monopoly.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE"
value="/philosophy/po/microsoft-new-monopoly.pl-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2016-05-02" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/microsoft-new-monopoly.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.pl.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
@@ -9,6 +14,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/microsoft-new-monopoly.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.pl.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.pl.html" -->
<h2>Nowy monopol Microsoftu</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.stallman.org/";><strong>Richard Stallman</strong></a></p>
@@ -232,7 +238,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Aktualizowane:
-$Date: 2016/01/16 00:05:00 $
+$Date: 2016/07/01 12:29:25 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: open-source-misses-the-point.lt.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.lt.html,v
retrieving revision 1.3
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -u -b -r1.3 -r1.4
--- open-source-misses-the-point.lt.html 19 Jan 2016 07:08:21 -0000
1.3
+++ open-source-misses-the-point.lt.html 1 Jul 2016 12:29:25 -0000
1.4
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE"
value="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.lt.po">
+ http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.lt.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE"
value="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE"
value="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.lt-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2016-05-02" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.lt.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
@@ -9,6 +14,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.translist"
-->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.lt.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.lt.html" -->
<h2>KodÄl Atviras Å¡altinis praleidžia Laisvos programinÄs įrangos
esmÄ</h2>
<p>pagal <strong>Richard Stallman</strong></p>
@@ -488,7 +494,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Atnaujinta:
-$Date: 2016/01/19 07:08:21 $
+$Date: 2016/07/01 12:29:25 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: open-source-misses-the-point.pl.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.pl.html,v
retrieving revision 1.44
retrieving revision 1.45
diff -u -b -r1.44 -r1.45
--- open-source-misses-the-point.pl.html 30 Jan 2016 03:59:04 -0000
1.44
+++ open-source-misses-the-point.pl.html 1 Jul 2016 12:29:25 -0000
1.45
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE"
value="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.pl.po">
+ http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.pl.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE"
value="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE"
value="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.pl-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2016-05-02" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.pl.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
@@ -9,6 +14,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.translist"
-->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.pl.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.pl.html" -->
<h2>Dlaczego otwartemu oprogramowaniu umyka idea Wolnego Oprogramowania</h2>
<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong></p>
@@ -527,7 +533,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Aktualizowane:
-$Date: 2016/01/30 03:59:04 $
+$Date: 2016/07/01 12:29:25 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: open-source-misses-the-point.uk.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.uk.html,v
retrieving revision 1.11
retrieving revision 1.12
diff -u -b -r1.11 -r1.12
--- open-source-misses-the-point.uk.html 1 Jan 2016 08:29:41 -0000
1.11
+++ open-source-misses-the-point.uk.html 1 Jul 2016 12:29:25 -0000
1.12
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE"
value="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.uk.po">
+ http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.uk.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE"
value="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE"
value="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.uk-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2016-05-02" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.uk.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
@@ -9,6 +14,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.translist"
-->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.uk.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.uk.html" -->
<h2>Ð§Ð¾Ð¼Ñ Ð²ÑдкÑиÑий виÑ
Ñдний код не пеÑедаÑ
понÑÑÑÑ Ð²ÑлÑна пÑогÑама</h2>
<p><strong>Ð ÑÑаÑд СÑолмен</strong></p>
@@ -486,7 +492,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Ðновлено:
-$Date: 2016/01/01 08:29:41 $
+$Date: 2016/07/01 12:29:25 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: surveillance-vs-democracy.uk.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/surveillance-vs-democracy.uk.html,v
retrieving revision 1.13
retrieving revision 1.14
diff -u -b -r1.13 -r1.14
--- surveillance-vs-democracy.uk.html 1 Apr 2016 08:59:30 -0000 1.13
+++ surveillance-vs-democracy.uk.html 1 Jul 2016 12:29:25 -0000 1.14
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE"
value="/philosophy/surveillance-vs-democracy.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/surveillance-vs-democracy.uk.po">
+ http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/surveillance-vs-democracy.uk.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE"
value="/philosophy/surveillance-vs-democracy.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE"
value="/philosophy/po/surveillance-vs-democracy.uk-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2016-05-02" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/surveillance-vs-democracy.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.uk.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
@@ -9,6 +14,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/surveillance-vs-democracy.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.uk.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.uk.html" -->
<h2>СкÑлÑки ÑÑÐµÐ¶ÐµÐ½Ñ Ð¼Ð¾Ð¶Ðµ виÑÑимаÑи
демокÑаÑÑÑ?</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.stallman.org/";>Ð ÑÑаÑд СÑолмен</a></p>
@@ -551,7 +557,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Ðновлено:
-$Date: 2016/04/01 08:59:30 $
+$Date: 2016/07/01 12:29:25 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: ucita.nl.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/ucita.nl.html,v
retrieving revision 1.7
retrieving revision 1.8
diff -u -b -r1.7 -r1.8
--- ucita.nl.html 9 Feb 2015 21:03:02 -0000 1.7
+++ ucita.nl.html 1 Jul 2016 12:29:25 -0000 1.8
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/ucita.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/ucita.nl.po">
+ http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/ucita.nl.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/ucita.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/ucita.nl-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2016-05-02" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/ucita.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.nl.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
@@ -9,6 +14,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/ucita.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.nl.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.nl.html" -->
<h2>Waarom We Ons Moeten Verzetten Tegen UCITA</h2>
<p>
@@ -266,7 +272,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Bijgewerkt:
-$Date: 2015/02/09 21:03:02 $
+$Date: 2016/07/01 12:29:25 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: po/basic-freedoms.ca-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.ca-diff.html,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -b -r1.1 -r1.2
--- po/basic-freedoms.ca-diff.html 4 Jun 2014 00:29:36 -0000 1.1
+++ po/basic-freedoms.ca-diff.html 1 Jul 2016 12:29:25 -0000 1.2
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@
</style></head>
<body><pre>
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
-<!-- Parent-Version: <span
class="removed"><del><strong>1.76</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>1.77</em></ins></span> -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
<title>Freedom of Speech, Press and Association on the Internet
- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.translist" -->
@@ -24,19 +24,26 @@
</p>
<ul>
- <li>
- The <a href="http://www.ciec.org/"> Citizens Internet Empowerment
- Coalition</a> came together to oppose Congress' first attempt to
- regulate material published on the Internet, the Communications
- Decency Act, which the U.S. Supreme Court found unconstitutional
- on June 26, 1997. Their site is being preserved as a resource on
- the landmark CDA case.
+ <span class="removed"><del><strong><li>
+ The</strong></del></span>
+ <span class="inserted"><ins><em><li>The</em></ins></span> <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.ciec.org/">
Citizens</strong></del></span>
+ <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://web.archive.org/web/19990424100121/http://www.ciec.org/">Citizens</em></ins></span>
+ Internet Empowerment Coalition</a> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>at the Wayback Machine (archived April
+ 24, 1999)</em></ins></span> came together to oppose Congress' first
attempt to regulate
+ material published on the Internet, the Communications Decency Act, which
+ the U.S. Supreme Court found unconstitutional on June 26, 1997. Their site
+ is being preserved as a resource on the landmark CDA <span
class="removed"><del><strong>case.
</li>
- <!-- removing this link.. site is dead as of June 07 2004
- <li>The <a href="http://www.vtw.org/">Voters Telecommunications
Watch</a>
- and their excellent announcement electronic mailing list.</li>
- -->
+ <!-- removing</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>case.</li>
+
+ <li><!-- activating</em></ins></span> this <span
class="removed"><del><strong>link..</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>linkâ¦</em></ins></span> site is <span
class="removed"><del><strong>dead</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>archived</em></ins></span> as of <span
class="removed"><del><strong>June 07 2004
+ <li>The</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>July 09,
1998 -->
+ The</em></ins></span> <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.vtw.org/">Voters</strong></del></span>
+ <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://web.archive.org/web/19980709161803/http://vtw.org/">Voters</em></ins></span>
+ Telecommunications Watch</a> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>at the
Wayback Machine (archived July 09,
+ 1998)</em></ins></span> and their excellent announcement electronic
mailing list.</li>
+ <span class="removed"><del><strong>--></strong></del></span>
<li>
<a href="/philosophy/censoring-emacs.html">Censoring GNU
Emacs</a>
@@ -57,13 +64,18 @@
for Online Freedom of Speech, Press and Association.
</li>
- <!-- removing this link.. site is dead as of June 07 2004
- <li>You can read <a
href="http://www.vtw.org/speech/index.html#decision">the
- June 1996 appeals court decision</a>
- rejecting censorship of the Internet. But remember, this decision
- is <em>not</em> final! First, the Supreme Court will agree
or disagree;
- then Congress gets a chance to look for another method of
censorship.</li>
- -->
+ <span class="removed"><del><strong><!-- removing</strong></del></span>
+
+ <span class="inserted"><ins><em><li><!--
activating</em></ins></span> this <span
class="removed"><del><strong>link..</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>linkâ¦</em></ins></span> site is <span
class="removed"><del><strong>dead</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>archived</em></ins></span> as of <span
class="removed"><del><strong>June 07 2004
+ <li>You</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>December
01, 2001 -->
+ You</em></ins></span> can read <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.vtw.org/speech/index.html#decision">the</strong></del></span>
+ <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://web.archive.org/web/20011201050533/http://www.vtw.org/speech/">the</em></ins></span>
+ June 1996 appeals court decision</a> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>at the Wayback Machine (archived
+ December 01, 2001)</em></ins></span> rejecting censorship of the Internet.
But remember, this
+ decision is <em>not</em> final! First, the Supreme Court will
agree or
+ disagree; then Congress gets a chance to look for another method of
+ censorship.</li>
+ <span class="removed"><del><strong>--></strong></del></span>
<li><a href="/philosophy/savingeurope.html">Saving Europe from
Software Patents</a></li>
@@ -105,21 +117,19 @@
</div>
<p>Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004,
-<span class="removed"><del><strong>2007</strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em>2007, 2014</em></ins></span> Free Software
Foundation, Inc.</p>
+2007, <span class="removed"><del><strong>2014</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2014, 2016</em></ins></span> Free Software
Foundation, Inc.</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>
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative</strong></del></span>
+<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative</em></ins></span>
+Commons <span class="removed"><del><strong>Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United
States License</a>.
+</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
License</a>.</p></em></ins></span>
<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
-<span
class="removed"><del><strong><p></p><p</strong></del></span>
-
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p</em></ins></span>
class="unprintable">Updated:
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2014/06/04 00:29:36 $
+$Date: 2016/07/01 12:29:25 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
Index: po/basic-freedoms.cs-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.cs-diff.html,v
retrieving revision 1.7
retrieving revision 1.8
diff -u -b -r1.7 -r1.8
--- po/basic-freedoms.cs-diff.html 12 Apr 2014 13:58:27 -0000 1.7
+++ po/basic-freedoms.cs-diff.html 1 Jul 2016 12:29:25 -0000 1.8
@@ -11,41 +11,39 @@
</style></head>
<body><pre>
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!-- Parent-Version: 1.77
--></em></ins></span>
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
<title>Freedom of Speech, Press and Association on the Internet
-- GNU Project - Free Software <span class="removed"><del><strong>Foundation
(FSF)</title></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Foundation</title></em></ins></span>
-<!--#include <span
class="removed"><del><strong>virtual="/server/banner.html"</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>virtual="/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.translist"</em></ins></span>
-->
-<!--#include <span
class="removed"><del><strong>virtual="/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.translist"</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>virtual="/server/banner.html"</em></ins></span> -->
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
<h2>Freedom of Speech, Press, and Association on the Internet</h2>
-<span class="removed"><del><strong><!-- This document uses XHTML 1.0
Strict, but may be served as -->
-<!-- text/html. Please ensure that markup style considers -->
-<!-- appendex C of the XHTML 1.0 standard. See validator.w3.org. -->
-
-<!-- Please ensure links are consistent with Apache's MultiView. -->
-<!-- Change include statements to be consistent with the relevant -->
-<!-- language, where necessary. --></strong></del></span>
-
<p>
The Free Software Foundation supports the freedoms of speech, press, and
association on the Internet. Please check out:
</p>
<ul>
- <li>
- The <a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href= "http://www.ciec.org/";
- >Citizens</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="http://www.ciec.org/">
Citizens</em></ins></span> Internet Empowerment
- Coalition</a> came together to oppose Congress' first attempt to
- regulate <span class="removed"><del><strong>content</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>material published</em></ins></span> on the
Internet, the Communications
- Decency Act, which the U.S. Supreme Court found unconstitutional
- on June 26, 1997. Their site is being preserved as a resource on
- the landmark CDA case.
+ <span class="removed"><del><strong><li>
+ The</strong></del></span>
+ <span class="inserted"><ins><em><li>The</em></ins></span> <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.ciec.org/">
Citizens</strong></del></span>
+ <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://web.archive.org/web/19990424100121/http://www.ciec.org/">Citizens</em></ins></span>
+ Internet Empowerment Coalition</a> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>at the Wayback Machine (archived April
+ 24, 1999)</em></ins></span> came together to oppose Congress' first
attempt to regulate
+ material published on the Internet, the Communications Decency Act, which
+ the U.S. Supreme Court found unconstitutional on June 26, 1997. Their site
+ is being preserved as a resource on the landmark CDA <span
class="removed"><del><strong>case.
</li>
- <!-- removing this link.. site is dead as of June 07 2004
- <li>The <a href="http://www.vtw.org/">Voters Telecommunications
Watch</a>
- and their excellent announcement electronic mailing list.</li>
- -->
+ <!-- removing</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>case.</li>
+
+ <li><!-- activating</em></ins></span> this <span
class="removed"><del><strong>link..</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>linkâ¦</em></ins></span> site is <span
class="removed"><del><strong>dead</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>archived</em></ins></span> as of <span
class="removed"><del><strong>June 07 2004
+ <li>The</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>July 09,
1998 -->
+ The</em></ins></span> <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.vtw.org/">Voters</strong></del></span>
+ <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://web.archive.org/web/19980709161803/http://vtw.org/">Voters</em></ins></span>
+ Telecommunications Watch</a> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>at the
Wayback Machine (archived July 09,
+ 1998)</em></ins></span> and their excellent announcement electronic
mailing list.</li>
+ <span class="removed"><del><strong>--></strong></del></span>
<li>
<a href="/philosophy/censoring-emacs.html">Censoring GNU
Emacs</a>
@@ -66,13 +64,18 @@
for Online Freedom of Speech, Press and Association.
</li>
- <!-- removing this link.. site is dead as of June 07 2004
- <li>You can read <a
href="http://www.vtw.org/speech/index.html#decision">the
- June 1996 appeals court decision</a>
- rejecting censorship of the Internet. But remember, this decision
- is <em>not</em> final! First, the Supreme Court will agree
or disagree;
- then Congress gets a chance to look for another method of
censorship.</li>
- -->
+ <span class="removed"><del><strong><!-- removing</strong></del></span>
+
+ <span class="inserted"><ins><em><li><!--
activating</em></ins></span> this <span
class="removed"><del><strong>link..</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>linkâ¦</em></ins></span> site is <span
class="removed"><del><strong>dead</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>archived</em></ins></span> as of <span
class="removed"><del><strong>June 07 2004
+ <li>You</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>December
01, 2001 -->
+ You</em></ins></span> can read <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.vtw.org/speech/index.html#decision">the</strong></del></span>
+ <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://web.archive.org/web/20011201050533/http://www.vtw.org/speech/">the</em></ins></span>
+ June 1996 appeals court decision</a> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>at the Wayback Machine (archived
+ December 01, 2001)</em></ins></span> rejecting censorship of the Internet.
But remember, this
+ decision is <em>not</em> final! First, the Supreme Court will
agree or
+ disagree; then Congress gets a chance to look for another method of
+ censorship.</li>
+ <span class="removed"><del><strong>--></strong></del></span>
<li><a href="/philosophy/savingeurope.html">Saving Europe from
Software Patents</a></li>
@@ -83,31 +86,16 @@
</li>
</ul>
-<span class="removed"><del><strong><!-- If needed, change the copyright
block at the bottom. In general, -->
-<!-- all pages on the GNU web server should have the section about -->
-<!-- verbatim copying. Please do NOT remove this without talking -->
-<!-- with the webmasters first. -->
-<!-- Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the document
-->
-<!-- and that it is like this "2001, 2002" not this "2001-2002."
--></strong></del></span>
-
</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
-<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>
-Please</strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="unprintable">
-
-<p>Please</em></ins></span> send <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>general</em></ins></span> FSF & GNU inquiries to
<a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="mailto:address@hidden"><em>address@hidden</em></a>.</strong></del></span>
-<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.</em></ins></span>
There are also <a
-href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> the FSF.
-<span class="removed"><del><strong><br />
-Please send broken</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Broken</em></ins></span> links and other
-corrections or suggestions <span class="inserted"><ins><em>can be
sent</em></ins></span> to <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="mailto:address@hidden"><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
-</p>
-
-<p></strong></del></span>
-<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.</p>
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></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"><address@hidden></a>.</p>
<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
replace it with the translation of these two:
@@ -121,36 +109,27 @@
<p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
our web pages, see <a
href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
- README</a>. --></em></ins></span>
+ README</a>. -->
Please see the <a
href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
-of this <span class="removed"><del><strong>article.
-</p>
-
-<p>
-Copyright</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>article.</p>
+of this article.</p>
</div>
-<p>Copyright</em></ins></span> © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000,
2001, 2002, 2003, 2004,
-<span class="removed"><del><strong>2007</strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em>2007, 2014</em></ins></span> Free Software
Foundation, <span class="removed"><del><strong>Inc.,
-</p>
-<address>51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110,
USA</address></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Inc.</p></em></ins></span>
+<p>Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004,
+2007, <span class="removed"><del><strong>2014</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2014, 2016</em></ins></span> Free Software
Foundation, Inc.</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>
-
-<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>
-Updated:</strong></del></span>
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative</strong></del></span>
+<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative</em></ins></span>
+Commons <span class="removed"><del><strong>Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United
States License</a>.
+</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
License</a>.</p></em></ins></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!--#include
virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
-<p class="unprintable">Updated:</em></ins></span>
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2014/04/12 13:58:27 $
+$Date: 2016/07/01 12:29:25 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
Index: po/basic-freedoms.nl-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.nl-diff.html,v
retrieving revision 1.8
retrieving revision 1.9
diff -u -b -r1.8 -r1.9
--- po/basic-freedoms.nl-diff.html 9 Oct 2014 08:58:56 -0000 1.8
+++ po/basic-freedoms.nl-diff.html 1 Jul 2016 12:29:26 -0000 1.9
@@ -11,41 +11,39 @@
</style></head>
<body><pre>
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!-- Parent-Version: 1.77
--></em></ins></span>
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
<title>Freedom of Speech, Press and Association on the Internet
-- GNU Project - Free Software <span class="removed"><del><strong>Foundation
(FSF)</title></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Foundation</title></em></ins></span>
-<!--#include <span
class="removed"><del><strong>virtual="/server/banner.html"</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>virtual="/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.translist"</em></ins></span>
-->
-<!--#include <span
class="removed"><del><strong>virtual="/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.translist"</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>virtual="/server/banner.html"</em></ins></span> -->
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
<h2>Freedom of Speech, Press, and Association on the Internet</h2>
-<span class="removed"><del><strong><!-- This document uses XHTML 1.0
Strict, but may be served as -->
-<!-- text/html. Please ensure that markup style considers -->
-<!-- appendex C of the XHTML 1.0 standard. See validator.w3.org. -->
-
-<!-- Please ensure links are consistent with Apache's MultiView. -->
-<!-- Change include statements to be consistent with the relevant -->
-<!-- language, where necessary. --></strong></del></span>
-
<p>
The Free Software Foundation supports the freedoms of speech, press, and
association on the Internet. Please check out:
</p>
<ul>
- <li>
- The <a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href= "http://www.ciec.org/";
- >Citizens</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="http://www.ciec.org/">
Citizens</em></ins></span> Internet Empowerment
- Coalition</a> came together to oppose Congress' first attempt to
- regulate <span class="removed"><del><strong>content</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>material published</em></ins></span> on the
Internet, the Communications
- Decency Act, which the U.S. Supreme Court found unconstitutional
- on June 26, 1997. Their site is being preserved as a resource on
- the landmark CDA case.
+ <span class="removed"><del><strong><li>
+ The</strong></del></span>
+ <span class="inserted"><ins><em><li>The</em></ins></span> <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.ciec.org/">
Citizens</strong></del></span>
+ <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://web.archive.org/web/19990424100121/http://www.ciec.org/">Citizens</em></ins></span>
+ Internet Empowerment Coalition</a> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>at the Wayback Machine (archived April
+ 24, 1999)</em></ins></span> came together to oppose Congress' first
attempt to regulate
+ material published on the Internet, the Communications Decency Act, which
+ the U.S. Supreme Court found unconstitutional on June 26, 1997. Their site
+ is being preserved as a resource on the landmark CDA <span
class="removed"><del><strong>case.
</li>
- <!-- removing this link.. site is dead as of June 07 2004
- <li>The <a href="http://www.vtw.org/">Voters Telecommunications
Watch</a>
- and their excellent announcement electronic mailing list.</li>
- -->
+ <!-- removing</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>case.</li>
+
+ <li><!-- activating</em></ins></span> this <span
class="removed"><del><strong>link..</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>linkâ¦</em></ins></span> site is <span
class="removed"><del><strong>dead</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>archived</em></ins></span> as of <span
class="removed"><del><strong>June 07 2004
+ <li>The</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>July 09,
1998 -->
+ The</em></ins></span> <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.vtw.org/">Voters</strong></del></span>
+ <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://web.archive.org/web/19980709161803/http://vtw.org/">Voters</em></ins></span>
+ Telecommunications Watch</a> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>at the
Wayback Machine (archived July 09,
+ 1998)</em></ins></span> and their excellent announcement electronic
mailing list.</li>
+ <span class="removed"><del><strong>--></strong></del></span>
<li>
<a href="/philosophy/censoring-emacs.html">Censoring GNU
Emacs</a>
@@ -66,13 +64,18 @@
for Online Freedom of Speech, Press and Association.
</li>
- <!-- removing this link.. site is dead as of June 07 2004
- <li>You can read <a
href="http://www.vtw.org/speech/index.html#decision">the
- June 1996 appeals court decision</a>
- rejecting censorship of the Internet. But remember, this decision
- is <em>not</em> final! First, the Supreme Court will agree
or disagree;
- then Congress gets a chance to look for another method of
censorship.</li>
- -->
+ <span class="removed"><del><strong><!-- removing</strong></del></span>
+
+ <span class="inserted"><ins><em><li><!--
activating</em></ins></span> this <span
class="removed"><del><strong>link..</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>linkâ¦</em></ins></span> site is <span
class="removed"><del><strong>dead</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>archived</em></ins></span> as of <span
class="removed"><del><strong>June 07 2004
+ <li>You</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>December
01, 2001 -->
+ You</em></ins></span> can read <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.vtw.org/speech/index.html#decision">the</strong></del></span>
+ <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://web.archive.org/web/20011201050533/http://www.vtw.org/speech/">the</em></ins></span>
+ June 1996 appeals court decision</a> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>at the Wayback Machine (archived
+ December 01, 2001)</em></ins></span> rejecting censorship of the Internet.
But remember, this
+ decision is <em>not</em> final! First, the Supreme Court will
agree or
+ disagree; then Congress gets a chance to look for another method of
+ censorship.</li>
+ <span class="removed"><del><strong>--></strong></del></span>
<li><a href="/philosophy/savingeurope.html">Saving Europe from
Software Patents</a></li>
@@ -83,31 +86,16 @@
</li>
</ul>
-<span class="removed"><del><strong><!-- If needed, change the copyright
block at the bottom. In general, -->
-<!-- all pages on the GNU web server should have the section about -->
-<!-- verbatim copying. Please do NOT remove this without talking -->
-<!-- with the webmasters first. -->
-<!-- Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the document
-->
-<!-- and that it is like this "2001, 2002" not this "2001-2002."
--></strong></del></span>
-
</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
-<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>
-Please</strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="unprintable">
-
-<p>Please</em></ins></span> send <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>general</em></ins></span> FSF & GNU inquiries to
<a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="mailto:address@hidden"><em>address@hidden</em></a>.</strong></del></span>
-<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.</em></ins></span>
There are also <a
-href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> the FSF.
-<span class="removed"><del><strong><br />
-Please send broken</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Broken</em></ins></span> links and other
-corrections or suggestions <span class="inserted"><ins><em>can be
sent</em></ins></span> to <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="mailto:address@hidden"><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
-</p>
-
-<p></strong></del></span>
-<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.</p>
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></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"><address@hidden></a>.</p>
<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
replace it with the translation of these two:
@@ -121,36 +109,27 @@
<p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
our web pages, see <a
href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
- README</a>. --></em></ins></span>
+ README</a>. -->
Please see the <a
href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
-of this <span class="removed"><del><strong>article.
-</p>
-
-<p>
-Copyright</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>article.</p>
+of this article.</p>
</div>
-<p>Copyright</em></ins></span> © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000,
2001, 2002, 2003, 2004,
-<span class="removed"><del><strong>2007</strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em>2007, 2014</em></ins></span> Free Software
Foundation, <span class="removed"><del><strong>Inc.,
-</p>
-<address>51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110,
USA</address></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Inc.</p></em></ins></span>
+<p>Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004,
+2007, <span class="removed"><del><strong>2014</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2014, 2016</em></ins></span> Free Software
Foundation, Inc.</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>
-
-<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>
-Updated:</strong></del></span>
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative</strong></del></span>
+<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative</em></ins></span>
+Commons <span class="removed"><del><strong>Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United
States License</a>.
+</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
License</a>.</p></em></ins></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!--#include
virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
-<p class="unprintable">Updated:</em></ins></span>
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2014/10/09 08:58:56 $
+$Date: 2016/07/01 12:29:26 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
Index: po/microsoft-new-monopoly.ca-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/microsoft-new-monopoly.ca-diff.html,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -b -r1.1 -r1.2
--- po/microsoft-new-monopoly.ca-diff.html 15 Dec 2015 18:59:07 -0000
1.1
+++ po/microsoft-new-monopoly.ca-diff.html 1 Jul 2016 12:29:26 -0000
1.2
@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@
different policy in 2006, so the specific policies described below and
the specific criticisms of them are only of historical significance.
The overall problem remains, however:
-<a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections#Patent_rights_to_implement_the_Ecma_376_specification_have_not_been_granted"></strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120831070708/http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections#Patent_rights_to_implement_the_Ecma_376_specification_have_not_been_granted"></em></ins></span>
+<a
href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120831070708/http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections#Patent_rights_to_implement_the_Ecma_376_specification_have_not_been_granted">
Microsoft's cunningly worded new policy does not give anyone clear
permission to implement OOXML.</a>
</p>
@@ -69,8 +69,10 @@
technique that Microsoft claims to hold a patent on. Microsoft offers
a royalty-free patent license for certain limited purposes, but it is
so limited that it does not allow free software. You can see the
-license here: <a
href="http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/xps/xpspatentlic.mspx">
-http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/xps/xpspatentlic.mspx</a>.</p>
+license here: <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/xps/xpspatentlic.mspx">
+http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/xps/xpspatentlic.mspx</a>.</p></strong></del></span>
+<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/hardware/gg463420.aspx">
+https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/hardware/gg463420.aspx</a>.</p></em></ins></span>
<p>Free software is defined as software that respects four
fundamental freedoms: (0) freedom to run the software as you wish,
@@ -179,7 +181,7 @@
<!-- 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 <span class="removed"><del><strong>3.0
US.</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>4.0.</em></ins></span> Please do NOT change or
remove this
+ be under CC BY-ND 4.0. 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
@@ -194,18 +196,17 @@
There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
-<p>Copyright © 2005, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2009</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2009, 2015</em></ins></span> Richard
Stallman</p>
+<p>Copyright © 2005, 2009, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2015</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2015, 2016</em></ins></span> Richard
Stallman</p>
<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
-<span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative</strong></del></span>
-<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative</em></ins></span>
-Commons <span class="removed"><del><strong>Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United
States</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0
International</em></ins></span> License</a>.</p>
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
License</a>.</p>
<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2015/12/15 18:59:07 $
+$Date: 2016/07/01 12:29:26 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
Index: po/open-source-misses-the-point.pl-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.pl-diff.html,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -b -r1.1 -r1.2
--- po/open-source-misses-the-point.pl-diff.html 31 Oct 2015 20:29:44
-0000 1.1
+++ po/open-source-misses-the-point.pl-diff.html 1 Jul 2016 12:29:26
-0000 1.2
@@ -106,14 +106,14 @@
<h3>Practical Differences between Free Software and Open
Source</h3>
-<p>In practice, open source stands for criteria a little weaker than
-those of free software. As far as we know, all existing free software
-would qualify as open source. Nearly all open source software is free
-software, but there are exceptions. First, some open source licenses
-are too restrictive, so they do not qualify as free licenses. For
-example, “Open Watcom” is nonfree because its license does
-not allow making a modified version and using it privately.
-Fortunately, few programs use such licenses.</p>
+<p>In practice, open source stands for criteria a little looser than
+those of free software. As far as we know, all existing released free
+software source code would qualify as open source. Nearly all open
+source software is free software, but there are exceptions. First,
+some open source licenses are too restrictive, so they do not qualify
+as free licenses. For example, “Open Watcom” is nonfree
+because its license does not allow making a modified version and using
+it privately. Fortunately, few programs use such licenses.</p>
<p>Second, and more important in practice, many products containing
computers check signatures on their executable programs to block users
@@ -153,7 +153,7 @@
“free software” has some kind of semantic problem—and
this includes “open source software.”</p>
-<p>The <a href="http://opensource.org/docs/osd">official
definition of
+<p>The <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://opensource.org/docs/osd">official</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://opensource.org/definition/">official</em></ins></span>
definition of
“open source software”</a> (which is published by the Open
Source Initiative and is too long to include here) was derived
indirectly from our criteria for free software. It is not the same;
@@ -172,30 +172,29 @@
misunderstand the term. According to writer Neal Stephenson,
“Linux is ‘open source’ software meaning, simply,
that anyone can get copies of its source code files.” I don't
-think he deliberately sought to reject or dispute the
-official definition. I think he simply applied the
-conventions of the English language to come up with a meaning for the
-term. The state of Kansas published a similar definition:
-<!-- It was from http://da.state.ks.us/itec/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf, but
-that page is no longer available. --> “Make use of open-source
-software (OSS). OSS is software for which the source code is freely
-and publicly available, though the specific licensing agreements vary
-as to what one is allowed to do with that code.”</p>
-
-<p>The <i>New York Times</i>
-has <a
-href="http://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-design-37415.html">
-run an article that stretches the meaning of the term</a> to refer to
+think he deliberately sought to reject or dispute the official
+definition. I think he simply applied the conventions of the English
+language to come up with a meaning for the term. The <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="https://web.archive.org/web/@*20001011193422/http://da.state.ks.us/ITEC/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf">state</strong></del></span>
+<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://web.archive.org/web/20001011193422/http://da.state.ks.us/ITEC/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf">state</em></ins></span>
+of Kansas</a> published a similar definition: “Make use of
+open-source software (OSS). OSS is software for which the source code
+is freely and publicly available, though the specific licensing
+agreements vary as to what one is allowed to do with that
+code.”</p>
+
+<p>The <i>New York
+Times</i> <a
href="http://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-design-37415.html">
+ran an article that stretched the meaning of the term</a> to refer to
user beta testing—letting a few users try an early version and
give confidential feedback—which proprietary software developers
have practiced for decades.</p>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p>The term has even been stretched to
include designs for equipment
+<p>The term has even been stretched to include designs for equipment
that
are <a
href="http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/aug/27/texas-teenager-water-purifier-toxic-e-waste-pollution">published
-without a patent</a>. Patent-free equipment designs can be laudible
+without a patent</a>. Patent-free equipment designs can be laudable
contributions to society, but the term “source code” does
-not pertain to it.</p></em></ins></span>
+not pertain to them.</p>
<p>Open source supporters try to deal with this by pointing to their
official definition, but that corrective approach is less effective
@@ -325,6 +324,12 @@
certain free software, they might be able to “sell” the
software more effectively to certain users, especially business.</p>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p>When open source proponents talk
about anything deeper than that,
+it is usually the idea of making a “gift” of source code
+to humanity. Presenting this as a special good deed, beyond what is
+morally required, presumes that distributing proprietary software
+without source code is morally legitimate.</p></em></ins></span>
+
<p>This approach has proved effective, in its own terms. The rhetoric
of open source has convinced many businesses and individuals to use,
and even develop, free software, which has extended our
@@ -391,11 +396,11 @@
<p>Thus, free software activists are well advised to decline to work
on an activity that calls itself “open.” Even if the
activity is good in and of itself, each contribution you make does a
-little harm on the side. There are plenty of other good activities
-which call themselves “free” or “libre.” Each
-contribution to those projects does a little extra good on the side.
-With so many useful projects to choose from, why not choose one
-which does extra good?</p>
+little harm on the <span
class="removed"><del><strong>side.</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>side by promoting the open source
idea.</em></ins></span> There are
+plenty of other good activities which call themselves
+“free” or “libre.” Each contribution to those
+projects does a little extra good on the side. With so many useful
+projects to choose from, why not choose one which does extra good?</p>
<h3>Conclusion</h3>
@@ -456,18 +461,17 @@
of this article.</p>
</div>
-<p>Copyright © 2007, 2010, 2012, 2015 Richard Stallman</p>
+<p>Copyright © 2007, 2010, 2012, 2015, 2016 Richard
Stallman</p>
<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
-<span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative</strong></del></span>
-<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative</em></ins></span>
-Commons <span class="removed"><del><strong>Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United
States</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0
International</em></ins></span> License</a>.</p>
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
License</a>.</p>
<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2015/10/31 20:29:44 $
+$Date: 2016/07/01 12:29:26 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
Index: po/basic-freedoms.el-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/basic-freedoms.el-diff.html
diff -N po/basic-freedoms.el-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/basic-freedoms.el-diff.html 1 Jul 2016 12:29:26 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,139 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/philosophy/basic-freedoms.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+<title>Freedom of Speech, Press and Association on the Internet
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>Freedom of Speech, Press, and Association on the Internet</h2>
+
+<p>
+ The Free Software Foundation supports the freedoms of speech, press, and
+ association on the Internet. Please check out:
+</p>
+
+<ul>
+ <span class="removed"><del><strong><li>
+ The</strong></del></span>
+ <span class="inserted"><ins><em><li>The</em></ins></span> <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.ciec.org/">
Citizens</strong></del></span>
+ <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://web.archive.org/web/19990424100121/http://www.ciec.org/">Citizens</em></ins></span>
+ Internet Empowerment Coalition</a> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>at the Wayback Machine (archived April
+ 24, 1999)</em></ins></span> came together to oppose Congress' first
attempt to regulate
+ material published on the Internet, the Communications Decency Act, which
+ the U.S. Supreme Court found unconstitutional on June 26, 1997. Their site
+ is being preserved as a resource on the landmark CDA <span
class="removed"><del><strong>case.
+ </li>
+
+ <!-- removing</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>case.</li>
+
+ <li><!-- activating</em></ins></span> this <span
class="removed"><del><strong>link..</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>linkâ¦</em></ins></span> site is <span
class="removed"><del><strong>dead</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>archived</em></ins></span> as of <span
class="removed"><del><strong>June 07 2004
+ <li>The</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>July 09,
1998 -->
+ The</em></ins></span> <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.vtw.org/">Voters</strong></del></span>
+ <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://web.archive.org/web/19980709161803/http://vtw.org/">Voters</em></ins></span>
+ Telecommunications Watch</a> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>at the
Wayback Machine (archived July 09,
+ 1998)</em></ins></span> and their excellent announcement electronic
mailing list.</li>
+ <span class="removed"><del><strong>--></strong></del></span>
+
+ <li>
+ <a href="/philosophy/censoring-emacs.html">Censoring GNU
Emacs</a>
+ describes how the Communications Decency Act required the GNU
+ Project to censor GNU Emacs—and how this paradoxically had
+ the opposite of the effect that the censors wanted.
+ </li>
+
+ <li>
+ <a href="http://www.factnet.org/">F.A.C.T.Net Inc.</a>
+ is a non-profit Internet digest, news service, library, dialogue
+ center, and archive dedicated to the promotion and defense of
+ international free thought, free speech, and privacy rights.
+ </li>
+
+ <li>
+ The <a href="http://www.eff.org/blueribbon.html">Blue Ribbon
Campaign</a>
+ for Online Freedom of Speech, Press and Association.
+ </li>
+
+ <span class="removed"><del><strong><!-- removing</strong></del></span>
+
+ <span class="inserted"><ins><em><li><!--
activating</em></ins></span> this <span
class="removed"><del><strong>link..</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>linkâ¦</em></ins></span> site is <span
class="removed"><del><strong>dead</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>archived</em></ins></span> as of <span
class="removed"><del><strong>June 07 2004
+ <li>You</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>December
01, 2001 -->
+ You</em></ins></span> can read <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.vtw.org/speech/index.html#decision">the</strong></del></span>
+ <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://web.archive.org/web/20011201050533/http://www.vtw.org/speech/">the</em></ins></span>
+ June 1996 appeals court decision</a> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>at the Wayback Machine (archived
+ December 01, 2001)</em></ins></span> rejecting censorship of the Internet.
But remember, this
+ decision is <em>not</em> final! First, the Supreme Court will
agree or
+ disagree; then Congress gets a chance to look for another method of
+ censorship.</li>
+ <span class="removed"><del><strong>--></strong></del></span>
+
+ <li><a href="/philosophy/savingeurope.html">Saving Europe from
Software Patents</a></li>
+
+ <li>
+ <a
href="/links/links.html#FreedomOrganizations">Organizations</a>
+ that work for freedom in computer development and electronic
+ communications.
+ </li>
+</ul>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></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"><address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:address@hidden">
+ <address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ 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>
+</div>
+
+<p>Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004,
+2007, <span class="removed"><del><strong>2014</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2014, 2016</em></ins></span> Free Software
Foundation, Inc.</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative</strong></del></span>
+<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative</em></ins></span>
+Commons <span class="removed"><del><strong>Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United
States License</a>.
+</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
License</a>.</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2016/07/01 12:29:26 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: po/basic-freedoms.hr-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/basic-freedoms.hr-diff.html
diff -N po/basic-freedoms.hr-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/basic-freedoms.hr-diff.html 1 Jul 2016 12:29:26 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,139 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/philosophy/basic-freedoms.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+<title>Freedom of Speech, Press and Association on the Internet
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>Freedom of Speech, Press, and Association on the Internet</h2>
+
+<p>
+ The Free Software Foundation supports the freedoms of speech, press, and
+ association on the Internet. Please check out:
+</p>
+
+<ul>
+ <span class="removed"><del><strong><li>
+ The</strong></del></span>
+ <span class="inserted"><ins><em><li>The</em></ins></span> <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.ciec.org/">
Citizens</strong></del></span>
+ <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://web.archive.org/web/19990424100121/http://www.ciec.org/">Citizens</em></ins></span>
+ Internet Empowerment Coalition</a> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>at the Wayback Machine (archived April
+ 24, 1999)</em></ins></span> came together to oppose Congress' first
attempt to regulate
+ material published on the Internet, the Communications Decency Act, which
+ the U.S. Supreme Court found unconstitutional on June 26, 1997. Their site
+ is being preserved as a resource on the landmark CDA <span
class="removed"><del><strong>case.
+ </li>
+
+ <!-- removing</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>case.</li>
+
+ <li><!-- activating</em></ins></span> this <span
class="removed"><del><strong>link..</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>linkâ¦</em></ins></span> site is <span
class="removed"><del><strong>dead</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>archived</em></ins></span> as of <span
class="removed"><del><strong>June 07 2004
+ <li>The</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>July 09,
1998 -->
+ The</em></ins></span> <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.vtw.org/">Voters</strong></del></span>
+ <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://web.archive.org/web/19980709161803/http://vtw.org/">Voters</em></ins></span>
+ Telecommunications Watch</a> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>at the
Wayback Machine (archived July 09,
+ 1998)</em></ins></span> and their excellent announcement electronic
mailing list.</li>
+ <span class="removed"><del><strong>--></strong></del></span>
+
+ <li>
+ <a href="/philosophy/censoring-emacs.html">Censoring GNU
Emacs</a>
+ describes how the Communications Decency Act required the GNU
+ Project to censor GNU Emacs—and how this paradoxically had
+ the opposite of the effect that the censors wanted.
+ </li>
+
+ <li>
+ <a href="http://www.factnet.org/">F.A.C.T.Net Inc.</a>
+ is a non-profit Internet digest, news service, library, dialogue
+ center, and archive dedicated to the promotion and defense of
+ international free thought, free speech, and privacy rights.
+ </li>
+
+ <li>
+ The <a href="http://www.eff.org/blueribbon.html">Blue Ribbon
Campaign</a>
+ for Online Freedom of Speech, Press and Association.
+ </li>
+
+ <span class="removed"><del><strong><!-- removing</strong></del></span>
+
+ <span class="inserted"><ins><em><li><!--
activating</em></ins></span> this <span
class="removed"><del><strong>link..</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>linkâ¦</em></ins></span> site is <span
class="removed"><del><strong>dead</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>archived</em></ins></span> as of <span
class="removed"><del><strong>June 07 2004
+ <li>You</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>December
01, 2001 -->
+ You</em></ins></span> can read <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.vtw.org/speech/index.html#decision">the</strong></del></span>
+ <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://web.archive.org/web/20011201050533/http://www.vtw.org/speech/">the</em></ins></span>
+ June 1996 appeals court decision</a> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>at the Wayback Machine (archived
+ December 01, 2001)</em></ins></span> rejecting censorship of the Internet.
But remember, this
+ decision is <em>not</em> final! First, the Supreme Court will
agree or
+ disagree; then Congress gets a chance to look for another method of
+ censorship.</li>
+ <span class="removed"><del><strong>--></strong></del></span>
+
+ <li><a href="/philosophy/savingeurope.html">Saving Europe from
Software Patents</a></li>
+
+ <li>
+ <a
href="/links/links.html#FreedomOrganizations">Organizations</a>
+ that work for freedom in computer development and electronic
+ communications.
+ </li>
+</ul>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></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"><address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:address@hidden">
+ <address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ 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>
+</div>
+
+<p>Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004,
+2007, <span class="removed"><del><strong>2014</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2014, 2016</em></ins></span> Free Software
Foundation, Inc.</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative</strong></del></span>
+<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative</em></ins></span>
+Commons <span class="removed"><del><strong>Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United
States License</a>.
+</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
License</a>.</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2016/07/01 12:29:26 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: po/basic-freedoms.pl-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/basic-freedoms.pl-diff.html
diff -N po/basic-freedoms.pl-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/basic-freedoms.pl-diff.html 1 Jul 2016 12:29:26 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,139 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/philosophy/basic-freedoms.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+<title>Freedom of Speech, Press and Association on the Internet
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>Freedom of Speech, Press, and Association on the Internet</h2>
+
+<p>
+ The Free Software Foundation supports the freedoms of speech, press, and
+ association on the Internet. Please check out:
+</p>
+
+<ul>
+ <span class="removed"><del><strong><li>
+ The</strong></del></span>
+ <span class="inserted"><ins><em><li>The</em></ins></span> <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.ciec.org/">
Citizens</strong></del></span>
+ <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://web.archive.org/web/19990424100121/http://www.ciec.org/">Citizens</em></ins></span>
+ Internet Empowerment Coalition</a> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>at the Wayback Machine (archived April
+ 24, 1999)</em></ins></span> came together to oppose Congress' first
attempt to regulate
+ material published on the Internet, the Communications Decency Act, which
+ the U.S. Supreme Court found unconstitutional on June 26, 1997. Their site
+ is being preserved as a resource on the landmark CDA <span
class="removed"><del><strong>case.
+ </li>
+
+ <!-- removing</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>case.</li>
+
+ <li><!-- activating</em></ins></span> this <span
class="removed"><del><strong>link..</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>linkâ¦</em></ins></span> site is <span
class="removed"><del><strong>dead</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>archived</em></ins></span> as of <span
class="removed"><del><strong>June 07 2004
+ <li>The</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>July 09,
1998 -->
+ The</em></ins></span> <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.vtw.org/">Voters</strong></del></span>
+ <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://web.archive.org/web/19980709161803/http://vtw.org/">Voters</em></ins></span>
+ Telecommunications Watch</a> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>at the
Wayback Machine (archived July 09,
+ 1998)</em></ins></span> and their excellent announcement electronic
mailing list.</li>
+ <span class="removed"><del><strong>--></strong></del></span>
+
+ <li>
+ <a href="/philosophy/censoring-emacs.html">Censoring GNU
Emacs</a>
+ describes how the Communications Decency Act required the GNU
+ Project to censor GNU Emacs—and how this paradoxically had
+ the opposite of the effect that the censors wanted.
+ </li>
+
+ <li>
+ <a href="http://www.factnet.org/">F.A.C.T.Net Inc.</a>
+ is a non-profit Internet digest, news service, library, dialogue
+ center, and archive dedicated to the promotion and defense of
+ international free thought, free speech, and privacy rights.
+ </li>
+
+ <li>
+ The <a href="http://www.eff.org/blueribbon.html">Blue Ribbon
Campaign</a>
+ for Online Freedom of Speech, Press and Association.
+ </li>
+
+ <span class="removed"><del><strong><!-- removing</strong></del></span>
+
+ <span class="inserted"><ins><em><li><!--
activating</em></ins></span> this <span
class="removed"><del><strong>link..</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>linkâ¦</em></ins></span> site is <span
class="removed"><del><strong>dead</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>archived</em></ins></span> as of <span
class="removed"><del><strong>June 07 2004
+ <li>You</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>December
01, 2001 -->
+ You</em></ins></span> can read <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.vtw.org/speech/index.html#decision">the</strong></del></span>
+ <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://web.archive.org/web/20011201050533/http://www.vtw.org/speech/">the</em></ins></span>
+ June 1996 appeals court decision</a> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>at the Wayback Machine (archived
+ December 01, 2001)</em></ins></span> rejecting censorship of the Internet.
But remember, this
+ decision is <em>not</em> final! First, the Supreme Court will
agree or
+ disagree; then Congress gets a chance to look for another method of
+ censorship.</li>
+ <span class="removed"><del><strong>--></strong></del></span>
+
+ <li><a href="/philosophy/savingeurope.html">Saving Europe from
Software Patents</a></li>
+
+ <li>
+ <a
href="/links/links.html#FreedomOrganizations">Organizations</a>
+ that work for freedom in computer development and electronic
+ communications.
+ </li>
+</ul>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></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"><address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:address@hidden">
+ <address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ 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>
+</div>
+
+<p>Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004,
+2007, <span class="removed"><del><strong>2014</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2014, 2016</em></ins></span> Free Software
Foundation, Inc.</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative</strong></del></span>
+<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative</em></ins></span>
+Commons <span class="removed"><del><strong>Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United
States License</a>.
+</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
License</a>.</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2016/07/01 12:29:26 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: po/basic-freedoms.uk-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/basic-freedoms.uk-diff.html
diff -N po/basic-freedoms.uk-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/basic-freedoms.uk-diff.html 1 Jul 2016 12:29:26 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,139 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/philosophy/basic-freedoms.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+<title>Freedom of Speech, Press and Association on the Internet
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>Freedom of Speech, Press, and Association on the Internet</h2>
+
+<p>
+ The Free Software Foundation supports the freedoms of speech, press, and
+ association on the Internet. Please check out:
+</p>
+
+<ul>
+ <span class="removed"><del><strong><li>
+ The</strong></del></span>
+ <span class="inserted"><ins><em><li>The</em></ins></span> <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.ciec.org/">
Citizens</strong></del></span>
+ <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://web.archive.org/web/19990424100121/http://www.ciec.org/">Citizens</em></ins></span>
+ Internet Empowerment Coalition</a> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>at the Wayback Machine (archived April
+ 24, 1999)</em></ins></span> came together to oppose Congress' first
attempt to regulate
+ material published on the Internet, the Communications Decency Act, which
+ the U.S. Supreme Court found unconstitutional on June 26, 1997. Their site
+ is being preserved as a resource on the landmark CDA <span
class="removed"><del><strong>case.
+ </li>
+
+ <!-- removing</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>case.</li>
+
+ <li><!-- activating</em></ins></span> this <span
class="removed"><del><strong>link..</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>linkâ¦</em></ins></span> site is <span
class="removed"><del><strong>dead</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>archived</em></ins></span> as of <span
class="removed"><del><strong>June 07 2004
+ <li>The</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>July 09,
1998 -->
+ The</em></ins></span> <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.vtw.org/">Voters</strong></del></span>
+ <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://web.archive.org/web/19980709161803/http://vtw.org/">Voters</em></ins></span>
+ Telecommunications Watch</a> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>at the
Wayback Machine (archived July 09,
+ 1998)</em></ins></span> and their excellent announcement electronic
mailing list.</li>
+ <span class="removed"><del><strong>--></strong></del></span>
+
+ <li>
+ <a href="/philosophy/censoring-emacs.html">Censoring GNU
Emacs</a>
+ describes how the Communications Decency Act required the GNU
+ Project to censor GNU Emacs—and how this paradoxically had
+ the opposite of the effect that the censors wanted.
+ </li>
+
+ <li>
+ <a href="http://www.factnet.org/">F.A.C.T.Net Inc.</a>
+ is a non-profit Internet digest, news service, library, dialogue
+ center, and archive dedicated to the promotion and defense of
+ international free thought, free speech, and privacy rights.
+ </li>
+
+ <li>
+ The <a href="http://www.eff.org/blueribbon.html">Blue Ribbon
Campaign</a>
+ for Online Freedom of Speech, Press and Association.
+ </li>
+
+ <span class="removed"><del><strong><!-- removing</strong></del></span>
+
+ <span class="inserted"><ins><em><li><!--
activating</em></ins></span> this <span
class="removed"><del><strong>link..</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>linkâ¦</em></ins></span> site is <span
class="removed"><del><strong>dead</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>archived</em></ins></span> as of <span
class="removed"><del><strong>June 07 2004
+ <li>You</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>December
01, 2001 -->
+ You</em></ins></span> can read <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.vtw.org/speech/index.html#decision">the</strong></del></span>
+ <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://web.archive.org/web/20011201050533/http://www.vtw.org/speech/">the</em></ins></span>
+ June 1996 appeals court decision</a> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>at the Wayback Machine (archived
+ December 01, 2001)</em></ins></span> rejecting censorship of the Internet.
But remember, this
+ decision is <em>not</em> final! First, the Supreme Court will
agree or
+ disagree; then Congress gets a chance to look for another method of
+ censorship.</li>
+ <span class="removed"><del><strong>--></strong></del></span>
+
+ <li><a href="/philosophy/savingeurope.html">Saving Europe from
Software Patents</a></li>
+
+ <li>
+ <a
href="/links/links.html#FreedomOrganizations">Organizations</a>
+ that work for freedom in computer development and electronic
+ communications.
+ </li>
+</ul>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></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"><address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:address@hidden">
+ <address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ 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>
+</div>
+
+<p>Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004,
+2007, <span class="removed"><del><strong>2014</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2014, 2016</em></ins></span> Free Software
Foundation, Inc.</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative</strong></del></span>
+<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative</em></ins></span>
+Commons <span class="removed"><del><strong>Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United
States License</a>.
+</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
License</a>.</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2016/07/01 12:29:26 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: po/microsoft-new-monopoly.pl-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/microsoft-new-monopoly.pl-diff.html
diff -N po/microsoft-new-monopoly.pl-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/microsoft-new-monopoly.pl-diff.html 1 Jul 2016 12:29:26 -0000
1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,216 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/philosophy/microsoft-new-monopoly.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+<title>Microsoft's New Monopoly
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/microsoft-new-monopoly.translist"
-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>Microsoft's New Monopoly</h2>
+
+<p>by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/"><strong>Richard
Stallman</strong></a></p>
+
+<blockquote>
+<p>This article was written in July 2005. Microsoft adopted a
+different policy in 2006, so the specific policies described below and
+the specific criticisms of them are only of historical significance.
+The overall problem remains, however:
+<a
href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120831070708/http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections#Patent_rights_to_implement_the_Ecma_376_specification_have_not_been_granted">
+Microsoft's cunningly worded new policy does not give anyone clear
+permission to implement OOXML.</a>
+</p>
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>European legislators who endorse software patents frequently claim
+that those wouldn't affect free software (or “open
+source”). Microsoft's lawyers are determined to prove they are
+mistaken.</p>
+
+<p>Leaked internal documents in 1998 said that Microsoft considered
+the free software GNU/Linux operating system (referred to therein as
+“Linux”) as the principal competitor to Windows, and spoke
+of using patents and secret file formats to hold us back.</p>
+
+<p>Because Microsoft has so much market power, it can often impose
+new standards at will. It need only patent some minor idea, design
+a file format, programming language, or communication protocol
+based on it, and then pressure users to adopt it. Then we in the
+free software community will be forbidden to provide software that
+does what these users want; they will be locked in to Microsoft,
+and we will be locked out from serving them.</p>
+<p>Previously Microsoft tried to get its patented scheme for
+spam blocking adopted as an Internet standard, so as to exclude free
+software from handling email. The standards committee in charge
+rejected the proposal, but Microsoft said it would try to convince
+large <abbr title="Internet service provider">ISP</abbr>s to use
the
+scheme anyway.</p>
+
+<p>Now Microsoft is planning to try something similar for Word
+files.</p>
+
+<p>Several years ago, Microsoft abandoned its documented format for
+saving documents, and switched to a new format which was secret.
+However, the developers of free software word processors such as
+AbiWord and OpenOffice.org experimented assiduously for years to
+figure out the format, and now those programs can read most Word
+files. But Microsoft isn't licked yet.</p>
+
+<p>The next version of Microsoft Word will use formats that involve a
+technique that Microsoft claims to hold a patent on. Microsoft offers
+a royalty-free patent license for certain limited purposes, but it is
+so limited that it does not allow free software. You can see the
+license here: <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/xps/xpspatentlic.mspx">
+http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/xps/xpspatentlic.mspx</a>.</p></strong></del></span>
+<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/hardware/gg463420.aspx">
+https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/hardware/gg463420.aspx</a>.</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>Free software is defined as software that respects four
+fundamental freedoms: (0) freedom to run the software as you wish,
+(1) freedom to study the source code and modify it to do what you
+wish, (2) freedom to make and redistribute copies, and (3) freedom
+to publish modified versions. Only programmers can directly
+exercise freedoms 1 and 3, but all users can exercise freedoms 0
+and 2, and all users benefit from the modifications that
+programmers write and publish.</p>
+
+<p>Distributing an application under Microsoft's patent license
+imposes license terms that prohibit most possible modifications of the
+software. Lacking freedom 3, the freedom to publish modified versions,
+it would not be free software. (I think it could not be “open
+source” software either, since that definition is similar; but
+it is not identical, and I cannot speak for the advocates of open
+source.)</p>
+
+<p>The Microsoft license also requires inclusion of a specific
+statement. That requirement would not in itself prevent the program
+from being free: it is normal for free software to carry license
+notices that cannot be changed, and this statement could be included
+in one of them. The statement is biased and confusing, since it uses
+the term “intellectual property”; fortunately,
+one is not required to endorse the statement as true or even meaningful, only
to
+include it. The software developer could cancel its misleading effect
+with a disclaimer like this: “The following misleading statement
+has been imposed on us by Microsoft; please be advised that it is
+propaganda. See <a href="/philosophy/not-ipr.html">
+http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html</a> for more
+explanation.”</p>
+
+<p>However, the requirement to include a fixed piece of text is
+actually quite cunning, because anyone who does so has explicitly
+accepted and applied the restrictions of the Microsoft patent
+license. The resulting program is clearly not free software.</p>
+
+<p>Some free software licenses, such as the most popular GNU General
+Public License (GNU GPL), forbid publication of a modified version if it isn't
+free software in the same way. (We call that the “liberty or
+death” clause, since it ensures the program will remain free or
+die.) To apply Microsoft's license to a program under the GNU GPL
+would violate the program's license; it would be illegal. Many other
+free software licenses permit nonfree modified versions. It wouldn't
+be illegal to modify such a program and publish the modified version
+under Microsoft's patent license. But that modified version, with its
+modified license, wouldn't be free software.</p>
+
+<p>Microsoft's patent covering the new Word format is a US patent.
+It doesn't restrict anyone in Europe; Europeans are free to make
+and use software that can read this format. Europeans that develop
+or use software currently enjoy an advantage over Americans:
+Americans can be sued for patent infringement for their software
+activities in the US, but the Europeans cannot be sued for their
+activities in Europe. Europeans can already get US software patents
+and sue Americans, but Americans cannot get European software
+patents if Europe doesn't allow them.
+</p>
+
+<p>All that will change if the European Parliament authorizes
+software patents. Microsoft will be one of thousands of foreign
+software patent holders that will bring their patents over to
+Europe to sue the software developers and computer users there. Of
+the 50,000-odd putatively invalid software patents issued by the
+European Patent Office, around 80 percent do not belong to Europeans. The
+European Parliament should vote to keep these patents invalid, and
+keep Europeans safe.</p>
+
+<p>
+[2009 note]: the EU directive to allow software patents was
+rejected, but the European Patent Office has continued issuing them
+and some countries treat them as valid.
+See <a href="http://ffii.org"> ffii.org</a> for more information
and
+to participate in the campaign against software patents in Europe.
+</p>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></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"><address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:address@hidden">
+ <address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ 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>
+</div>
+
+<!-- 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 4.0. 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 © 2005, 2009, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2015</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2015, 2016</em></ins></span> Richard
Stallman</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2016/07/01 12:29:26 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: po/open-source-misses-the-point.lt-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/open-source-misses-the-point.lt-diff.html
diff -N po/open-source-misses-the-point.lt-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/open-source-misses-the-point.lt-diff.html 1 Jul 2016 12:29:26
-0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,481 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+<title>Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software - GNU Project -
+Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software</h2>
+
+<p>by <strong>Richard Stallman</strong></p>
+
+<p>When we call software “free,” we mean that it respects
+the <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">users' essential
freedoms</a>:
+the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute
+copies with or without changes. This is a matter of freedom, not
+price, so think of “free speech,” not “free
+beer.”</p>
+
+<p>These freedoms are vitally important. They are essential, not just
+for the individual users' sake, but for society as a whole because they
+promote social solidarity—that is, sharing and cooperation. They
+become even more important as our culture and life activities are
+increasingly digitized. In a world of digital sounds, images, and words,
+free software becomes increasingly essential for freedom in general.</p>
+
+<p>Tens of millions of people around the world now use free software;
+the public schools of some regions of India and Spain now teach all
+students to use the free <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux
+operating system</a>. Most of these users, however, have never heard of
+the ethical reasons for which we developed this system and built the free
+software community, because nowadays this system and community are more
+often spoken of as “open source”, attributing them to a
+different philosophy in which these freedoms are hardly mentioned.</p>
+
+<p>The free software movement has campaigned for computer users'
+freedom since 1983. In 1984 we launched the development of the free
+operating system GNU, so that we could avoid the nonfree operating systems
+that deny freedom to their users. During the 1980s, we developed most
+of the essential components of the system and designed
+the <a href="/licenses/gpl.html">GNU General Public License</a>
(GNU GPL)
+to release them under—a license designed specifically to protect
+freedom for all users of a program.</p>
+
+<p>Not all of the users and developers of free software
+agreed with the goals of the free software movement. In 1998, a part
+of the free software community splintered off and began campaigning in
+the name of “open source.” The term was originally
+proposed to avoid a possible misunderstanding of the term “free
+software,” but it soon became associated with philosophical
+views quite different from those of the free software movement.</p>
+
+<p>Some of the supporters of open source considered the term a
+“marketing campaign for free software,” which would appeal
+to business executives by highlighting the software's practical
+benefits, while not raising issues of right and wrong that they might
+not like to hear. Other supporters flatly rejected the free software
+movement's ethical and social values. Whichever their views, when
+campaigning for open source, they neither cited nor advocated those
+values. The term “open source” quickly became associated
+with ideas and arguments based only on practical values, such as
+making or having powerful, reliable software. Most of the supporters
+of open source have come to it since then, and they make the same
+association.</p>
+
+<p>The two terms
+describe almost the same category of software, but they stand for
+views based on fundamentally different values. Open source is a
+development methodology; free software is a social movement. For the
+free software movement, free software is an ethical imperative,
+essential respect for the users' freedom. By contrast,
+the philosophy of open source considers issues in terms of how to make
+software “better”—in a practical sense only. It
+says that nonfree software is an inferior solution to the practical
+problem at hand. Most discussion of “open source” pays no
+attention to right and wrong, only to popularity and success; here's
+a <a
href="http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/Open-Source-Is-Woven-Into-the-Latest-Hottest-Trends-78937.html">
+typical example</a>.</p>
+
+<p>For the free software movement, however, nonfree software is a
+social problem, and the solution is to stop using it and move to free
+software.</p>
+
+<p>“Free software.” “Open source.” If it's the
same
+software (<a href="/philosophy/free-open-overlap.html">or nearly
so</a>),
+does it matter which name you use? Yes, because different words convey
+different ideas. While a free program by any other name would give you the
+same freedom today, establishing freedom in a lasting way depends above all
+on teaching people to value freedom. If you want to help do this, it is
+essential to speak of “free software.”</p>
+
+<p>We in the free software movement don't think of the open source
+camp as an enemy; the enemy is proprietary (nonfree) software. But
+we want people to know we stand for freedom, so we do not accept being
+mislabeled as open source supporters.</p>
+
+<h3>Practical Differences between Free Software and Open
Source</h3>
+
+<p>In practice, open source stands for criteria a little looser than
+those of free software. As far as we know, all existing released free
+software source code would qualify as open source. Nearly all open
+source software is free software, but there are exceptions. First,
+some open source licenses are too restrictive, so they do not qualify
+as free licenses. For example, “Open Watcom” is nonfree
+because its license does not allow making a modified version and using
+it privately. Fortunately, few programs use such licenses.</p>
+
+<p>Second, and more important in practice, many products containing
+computers check signatures on their executable programs to block users
+from installing different executables; only one privileged company can
+make executables that can run in the device or can access its full
+capabilities. We call these devices “tyrants”, and the
+practice is called “tivoization” after the product (Tivo)
+where we first saw it. Even if the executable is made from free
+source code, the users cannot run modified versions of it, so the
+executable is nonfree.</p>
+
+<p>The criteria for open source do not recognize this issue; they are
+concerned solely with the licensing of the source code. Thus, these
+unmodifiable executables, when made from source code such as Linux
+that is open source and free, are open source but not free. Many
+Android products contain nonfree tivoized executables of Linux.</p>
+
+<h3>Common Misunderstandings of “Free Software” and
+“Open Source”</h3>
+
+<p>The term “free software” is prone to misinterpretation:
+an unintended meaning, “software you can get
+for zero price,” fits the term just as well as the intended
+meaning, “software which gives the user certain freedoms.”
+We address this problem by publishing the definition of free software,
+and by saying “Think of ‘free speech,’ not ‘free
+beer.’” This is not a perfect solution; it cannot completely
+eliminate the problem. An unambiguous and correct term would be better, if
+it didn't present other problems.</p>
+
+<p>Unfortunately, all the alternatives in English have problems of
+their own. We've looked at many that people have
+suggested, but none is so clearly “right” that switching
+to it would be a good idea. (For instance, in some contexts the
+French and Spanish word “libre” works well, but people in India
+do not recognize it at all.) Every proposed replacement for
+“free software” has some kind of semantic problem—and
+this includes “open source software.”</p>
+
+<p>The <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://opensource.org/docs/osd">official</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://opensource.org/definition/">official</em></ins></span>
definition of
+“open source software”</a> (which is published by the Open
+Source Initiative and is too long to include here) was derived
+indirectly from our criteria for free software. It is not the same;
+it is a little looser in some respects. Nonetheless, their definition
+agrees with our definition in most cases.</p>
+
+<p>However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source
+software”—and the one most people seem to think it
+means—is “You can look at the source code.” That
+criterion is much weaker than the free software definition, much
+weaker also than the official definition of open source. It includes
+many programs that are neither free nor open source.</p>
+
+<p>Since the obvious meaning for “open source” is not the
+meaning that its advocates intend, the result is that most people
+misunderstand the term. According to writer Neal Stephenson,
+“Linux is ‘open source’ software meaning, simply,
+that anyone can get copies of its source code files.” I don't
+think he deliberately sought to reject or dispute the official
+definition. I think he simply applied the conventions of the English
+language to come up with a meaning for the term. The <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="https://web.archive.org/web/@*20001011193422/http://da.state.ks.us/ITEC/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf">state</strong></del></span>
+<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://web.archive.org/web/20001011193422/http://da.state.ks.us/ITEC/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf">state</em></ins></span>
+of Kansas</a> published a similar definition: “Make use of
+open-source software (OSS). OSS is software for which the source code
+is freely and publicly available, though the specific licensing
+agreements vary as to what one is allowed to do with that
+code.”</p>
+
+<p>The <i>New York
+Times</i> <a
href="http://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-design-37415.html">
+ran an article that stretched the meaning of the term</a> to refer to
+user beta testing—letting a few users try an early version and
+give confidential feedback—which proprietary software developers
+have practiced for decades.</p>
+
+<p>The term has even been stretched to include designs for equipment
+that
+are <a
href="http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/aug/27/texas-teenager-water-purifier-toxic-e-waste-pollution">published
+without a patent</a>. Patent-free equipment designs can be laudable
+contributions to society, but the term “source code” does
+not pertain to them.</p>
+
+<p>Open source supporters try to deal with this by pointing to their
+official definition, but that corrective approach is less effective
+for them than it is for us. The term “free software” has
+two natural meanings, one of which is the intended meaning, so a
+person who has grasped the idea of “free speech, not free
+beer” will not get it wrong again. But the term “open
+source” has only one natural meaning, which is different from
+the meaning its supporters intend. So there is no succinct way to
+explain and justify its official definition. That makes for worse
+confusion.</p>
+
+<p>Another misunderstanding of “open source” is the idea
+that it means “not using the GNU GPL.” This tends to
+accompany another misunderstanding that “free software”
+means “GPL-covered software.” These are both mistaken,
+since the GNU GPL qualifies as an open source license and most of the
+open source licenses qualify as free software licenses. There
+are <a href="/licenses/license-list.html"> many free software
+licenses</a> aside from the GNU GPL.</p>
+
+<p>The term “open source” has been further stretched by
+its application to other activities, such as government, education,
+and science, where there is no such thing as source code, and where
+criteria for software licensing are simply not pertinent. The only
+thing these activities have in common is that they somehow invite
+people to participate. They stretch the term so far that it only
+means “participatory” or “transparent”, or
+less than that. At worst, it
+has <a
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/opinion/sunday/morozov-open-and-closed.html">
+become a vacuous buzzword</a>.</p>
+
+<h3>Different Values Can Lead to Similar Conclusions…but Not
Always</h3>
+
+<p>Radical groups in the 1960s had a reputation for factionalism: some
+organizations split because of disagreements on details of strategy,
+and the two daughter groups treated each other as enemies despite
+having similar basic goals and values. The right wing made much of
+this and used it to criticize the entire left.</p>
+
+<p>Some try to disparage the free software movement by comparing our
+disagreement with open source to the disagreements of those radical
+groups. They have it backwards. We disagree with the open source
+camp on the basic goals and values, but their views and ours lead in
+many cases to the same practical behavior—such as developing
+free software.</p>
+
+<p>As a result, people from the free software movement and the open
+source camp often work together on practical projects such as software
+development. It is remarkable that such different philosophical views
+can so often motivate different people to participate in the same
+projects. Nonetheless, there are situations where these fundamentally
+different views lead to very different actions.</p>
+
+<p>The idea of open source is that allowing users to change and
+redistribute the software will make it more powerful and reliable.
+But this is not guaranteed. Developers of proprietary software are
+not necessarily incompetent. Sometimes they produce a program that
+is powerful and reliable, even though it does not respect the users'
+freedom. Free software activists and open source enthusiasts will
+react very differently to that.</p>
+
+<p>A pure open source enthusiast, one that is not at all influenced by
+the ideals of free software, will say, “I am surprised you were able
+to make the program work so well without using our development model,
+but you did. How can I get a copy?” This attitude will reward
+schemes that take away our freedom, leading to its loss.</p>
+
+<p>The free software activist will say, “Your program is very
+attractive, but I value my freedom more. So I reject your program. I
+will get my work done some other way, and support a project to develop
+a free replacement.” If we value our freedom, we can act to
+maintain and defend it.</p>
+
+<h3>Powerful, Reliable Software Can Be Bad</h3>
+
+<p>The idea that we want software to be powerful and reliable comes
+from the supposition that the software is designed to serve its users.
+If it is powerful and reliable, that means it serves them better.</p>
+
+<p>But software can be said to serve its users only if it respects
+their freedom. What if the software is designed to put chains on its
+users? Then powerfulness means the chains are more constricting,
+and reliability that they are harder to remove. Malicious features,
+such as spying on the users, restricting the users, back doors, and
+imposed upgrades are common in proprietary software, and some open
+source supporters want to implement them in open source programs.</p>
+
+<p>Under pressure from the movie and record companies, software for
+individuals to use is increasingly designed specifically to restrict
+them. This malicious feature is known as Digital Restrictions
+Management (DRM) (see <a
+href="http://defectivebydesign.org/">DefectiveByDesign.org</a>) and is
+the antithesis in spirit of the freedom that free software aims
+to provide. And not just in spirit: since the goal of DRM is to
+trample your freedom, DRM developers try to make it hard, impossible,
+or even illegal for you to change the software that implements the
DRM.</p>
+
+<p>Yet some open source supporters have proposed “open source
+DRM” software. Their idea is that, by publishing the source code
+of programs designed to restrict your access to encrypted media and by
+allowing others to change it, they will produce more powerful and
+reliable software for restricting users like you. The software would then
+be delivered to you in devices that do not allow you to change it.</p>
+
+<p>This software might be open source and use the open
+source development model, but it won't be free software since it
+won't respect the freedom of the users that actually run it. If the
+open source development model succeeds in making this software more
+powerful and reliable for restricting you, that will make it even
+worse.</p>
+
+<h3>Fear of Freedom</h3>
+
+<p>The main initial motivation of those who split off the open source
+camp from the free software movement was that the ethical ideas of
+“free software” made some people uneasy. That's true: raising
+ethical issues such as freedom, talking about responsibilities as well as
+convenience, is asking people to think about things they might prefer
+to ignore, such as whether their conduct is ethical. This can trigger
+discomfort, and some people may simply close their minds to it. It
+does not follow that we ought to stop talking about these issues.</p>
+
+<p>That is, however, what the leaders of open source
+decided to do. They figured that by keeping quiet about ethics and
+freedom, and talking only about the immediate practical benefits of
+certain free software, they might be able to “sell” the
+software more effectively to certain users, especially business.</p>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p>When open source proponents talk
about anything deeper than that,
+it is usually the idea of making a “gift” of source code
+to humanity. Presenting this as a special good deed, beyond what is
+morally required, presumes that distributing proprietary software
+without source code is morally legitimate.</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>This approach has proved effective, in its own terms. The rhetoric
+of open source has convinced many businesses and individuals to use,
+and even develop, free software, which has extended our
+community—but only at the superficial, practical level. The
+philosophy of open source, with its purely practical values, impedes
+understanding of the deeper ideas of free software; it brings many
+people into our community, but does not teach them to defend it. That
+is good, as far as it goes, but it is not enough to make freedom
+secure. Attracting users to free software takes them just part of the
+way to becoming defenders of their own freedom.</p>
+
+<p>Sooner or later these users will be invited to switch back to
+proprietary software for some practical advantage. Countless
+companies seek to offer such temptation, some even offering copies
+gratis. Why would users decline? Only if they have learned to value
+the freedom free software gives them, to value freedom in and of itself
+rather than the technical and practical convenience of specific free
+software. To spread this idea, we have to talk about freedom. A
+certain amount of the “keep quiet” approach to business can be
+useful for the community, but it is dangerous if it becomes so common
+that the love of freedom comes to seem like an eccentricity.</p>
+
+<p>That dangerous situation is exactly what we have. Most people
+involved with free software, especially its distributors, say little about
+freedom—usually because they seek to be “more acceptable to
+business.” Nearly all GNU/Linux operating system distributions add
+proprietary packages to the basic free system, and they invite users to
+consider this an advantage rather than a flaw.</p>
+
+<p>Proprietary add-on software and partially nonfree GNU/Linux
+distributions find fertile ground because most of our community does
+not insist on freedom with its software. This is no coincidence.
+Most GNU/Linux users were introduced to the system through “open
+source” discussion, which doesn't say that freedom is a goal.
+The practices that don't uphold freedom and the words that don't talk
+about freedom go hand in hand, each promoting the other. To overcome
+this tendency, we need more, not less, talk about freedom.</p>
+
+<h3>“FLOSS” and “FOSS”</h3>
+
+<p> The terms “FLOSS” and “FOSS” are used to
+be <a href="/philosophy/floss-and-foss.html"> neutral between free
+software and open source</a>. If neutrality is your goal,
+“FLOSS” is the better of the two, since it really is
+neutral. But if you want to stand up for freedom, using a neutral
+term isn't the way. Standing up for freedom entails showing people
+your support for freedom.</p>
+
+<h3>Rivals for Mindshare</h3>
+
+<p>“Free” and “open” are rivals for mindshare.
+“Free software” and “open source” are
+different ideas but, in most people's way of looking at software, they
+compete for the same conceptual slot. When people become habituated
+to saying and thinking “open source,” that is an obstacle
+to their grasping the free software movement's philosophy and thinking
+about it. If they have already come to associate us and our software
+with the word “open,” we may need to shock them intellectually
+before they recognize that we stand for something <em>else</em>.
+Any activity that promotes the word “open” tends to
+extend the curtain that hides the ideas of the free software
+movement.</p>
+
+<p>Thus, free software activists are well advised to decline to work
+on an activity that calls itself “open.” Even if the
+activity is good in and of itself, each contribution you make does a
+little harm on the <span
class="removed"><del><strong>side.</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>side by promoting the open source
idea.</em></ins></span> There are
+plenty of other good activities which call themselves
+“free” or “libre.” Each contribution to those
+projects does a little extra good on the side. With so many useful
+projects to choose from, why not choose one which does extra good?</p>
+
+<h3>Conclusion</h3>
+
+<p>As the advocates of open source draw new users into our community,
+we free software activists must shoulder the task of bringing the issue
+of freedom to their attention. We have to say, “It's
+free software and it gives you freedom!”—more and louder
+than ever. Every time you say “free software” rather than
+“open source,” you help our cause.</p>
+
+<h4>Notes</h4>
+
+<!-- The article is incomplete (#793776) as of 21st January 2013.
+<p>
+Joe Barr's article,
+<a href="http://www.itworld.com/LWD010523vcontrol4">“Live and
+let license,”</a> gives his perspective on this issue.</p>
+-->
+<p>
+Lakhani and Wolf's <a
+href="http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/lakhaniwolf.pdf">
+paper on the motivation of free software developers</a> says that a
+considerable fraction are motivated by the view that software should be
+free. This is despite the fact that they surveyed the developers on
+SourceForge, a site that does not support the view that this is an ethical
+issue.</p>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></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"><address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:address@hidden">
+ <address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ 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>
+</div>
+
+<p>Copyright © 2007, 2010, 2012, 2015, 2016 Richard
Stallman</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2016/07/01 12:29:26 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: po/open-source-misses-the-point.uk-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/open-source-misses-the-point.uk-diff.html
diff -N po/open-source-misses-the-point.uk-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/open-source-misses-the-point.uk-diff.html 1 Jul 2016 12:29:26
-0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,481 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+<title>Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software - GNU Project -
+Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software</h2>
+
+<p>by <strong>Richard Stallman</strong></p>
+
+<p>When we call software “free,” we mean that it respects
+the <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">users' essential
freedoms</a>:
+the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute
+copies with or without changes. This is a matter of freedom, not
+price, so think of “free speech,” not “free
+beer.”</p>
+
+<p>These freedoms are vitally important. They are essential, not just
+for the individual users' sake, but for society as a whole because they
+promote social solidarity—that is, sharing and cooperation. They
+become even more important as our culture and life activities are
+increasingly digitized. In a world of digital sounds, images, and words,
+free software becomes increasingly essential for freedom in general.</p>
+
+<p>Tens of millions of people around the world now use free software;
+the public schools of some regions of India and Spain now teach all
+students to use the free <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux
+operating system</a>. Most of these users, however, have never heard of
+the ethical reasons for which we developed this system and built the free
+software community, because nowadays this system and community are more
+often spoken of as “open source”, attributing them to a
+different philosophy in which these freedoms are hardly mentioned.</p>
+
+<p>The free software movement has campaigned for computer users'
+freedom since 1983. In 1984 we launched the development of the free
+operating system GNU, so that we could avoid the nonfree operating systems
+that deny freedom to their users. During the 1980s, we developed most
+of the essential components of the system and designed
+the <a href="/licenses/gpl.html">GNU General Public License</a>
(GNU GPL)
+to release them under—a license designed specifically to protect
+freedom for all users of a program.</p>
+
+<p>Not all of the users and developers of free software
+agreed with the goals of the free software movement. In 1998, a part
+of the free software community splintered off and began campaigning in
+the name of “open source.” The term was originally
+proposed to avoid a possible misunderstanding of the term “free
+software,” but it soon became associated with philosophical
+views quite different from those of the free software movement.</p>
+
+<p>Some of the supporters of open source considered the term a
+“marketing campaign for free software,” which would appeal
+to business executives by highlighting the software's practical
+benefits, while not raising issues of right and wrong that they might
+not like to hear. Other supporters flatly rejected the free software
+movement's ethical and social values. Whichever their views, when
+campaigning for open source, they neither cited nor advocated those
+values. The term “open source” quickly became associated
+with ideas and arguments based only on practical values, such as
+making or having powerful, reliable software. Most of the supporters
+of open source have come to it since then, and they make the same
+association.</p>
+
+<p>The two terms
+describe almost the same category of software, but they stand for
+views based on fundamentally different values. Open source is a
+development methodology; free software is a social movement. For the
+free software movement, free software is an ethical imperative,
+essential respect for the users' freedom. By contrast,
+the philosophy of open source considers issues in terms of how to make
+software “better”—in a practical sense only. It
+says that nonfree software is an inferior solution to the practical
+problem at hand. Most discussion of “open source” pays no
+attention to right and wrong, only to popularity and success; here's
+a <a
href="http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/Open-Source-Is-Woven-Into-the-Latest-Hottest-Trends-78937.html">
+typical example</a>.</p>
+
+<p>For the free software movement, however, nonfree software is a
+social problem, and the solution is to stop using it and move to free
+software.</p>
+
+<p>“Free software.” “Open source.” If it's the
same
+software (<a href="/philosophy/free-open-overlap.html">or nearly
so</a>),
+does it matter which name you use? Yes, because different words convey
+different ideas. While a free program by any other name would give you the
+same freedom today, establishing freedom in a lasting way depends above all
+on teaching people to value freedom. If you want to help do this, it is
+essential to speak of “free software.”</p>
+
+<p>We in the free software movement don't think of the open source
+camp as an enemy; the enemy is proprietary (nonfree) software. But
+we want people to know we stand for freedom, so we do not accept being
+mislabeled as open source supporters.</p>
+
+<h3>Practical Differences between Free Software and Open
Source</h3>
+
+<p>In practice, open source stands for criteria a little looser than
+those of free software. As far as we know, all existing released free
+software source code would qualify as open source. Nearly all open
+source software is free software, but there are exceptions. First,
+some open source licenses are too restrictive, so they do not qualify
+as free licenses. For example, “Open Watcom” is nonfree
+because its license does not allow making a modified version and using
+it privately. Fortunately, few programs use such licenses.</p>
+
+<p>Second, and more important in practice, many products containing
+computers check signatures on their executable programs to block users
+from installing different executables; only one privileged company can
+make executables that can run in the device or can access its full
+capabilities. We call these devices “tyrants”, and the
+practice is called “tivoization” after the product (Tivo)
+where we first saw it. Even if the executable is made from free
+source code, the users cannot run modified versions of it, so the
+executable is nonfree.</p>
+
+<p>The criteria for open source do not recognize this issue; they are
+concerned solely with the licensing of the source code. Thus, these
+unmodifiable executables, when made from source code such as Linux
+that is open source and free, are open source but not free. Many
+Android products contain nonfree tivoized executables of Linux.</p>
+
+<h3>Common Misunderstandings of “Free Software” and
+“Open Source”</h3>
+
+<p>The term “free software” is prone to misinterpretation:
+an unintended meaning, “software you can get
+for zero price,” fits the term just as well as the intended
+meaning, “software which gives the user certain freedoms.”
+We address this problem by publishing the definition of free software,
+and by saying “Think of ‘free speech,’ not ‘free
+beer.’” This is not a perfect solution; it cannot completely
+eliminate the problem. An unambiguous and correct term would be better, if
+it didn't present other problems.</p>
+
+<p>Unfortunately, all the alternatives in English have problems of
+their own. We've looked at many that people have
+suggested, but none is so clearly “right” that switching
+to it would be a good idea. (For instance, in some contexts the
+French and Spanish word “libre” works well, but people in India
+do not recognize it at all.) Every proposed replacement for
+“free software” has some kind of semantic problem—and
+this includes “open source software.”</p>
+
+<p>The <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://opensource.org/docs/osd">official</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://opensource.org/definition/">official</em></ins></span>
definition of
+“open source software”</a> (which is published by the Open
+Source Initiative and is too long to include here) was derived
+indirectly from our criteria for free software. It is not the same;
+it is a little looser in some respects. Nonetheless, their definition
+agrees with our definition in most cases.</p>
+
+<p>However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source
+software”—and the one most people seem to think it
+means—is “You can look at the source code.” That
+criterion is much weaker than the free software definition, much
+weaker also than the official definition of open source. It includes
+many programs that are neither free nor open source.</p>
+
+<p>Since the obvious meaning for “open source” is not the
+meaning that its advocates intend, the result is that most people
+misunderstand the term. According to writer Neal Stephenson,
+“Linux is ‘open source’ software meaning, simply,
+that anyone can get copies of its source code files.” I don't
+think he deliberately sought to reject or dispute the official
+definition. I think he simply applied the conventions of the English
+language to come up with a meaning for the term. The <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="https://web.archive.org/web/@*20001011193422/http://da.state.ks.us/ITEC/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf">state</strong></del></span>
+<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://web.archive.org/web/20001011193422/http://da.state.ks.us/ITEC/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf">state</em></ins></span>
+of Kansas</a> published a similar definition: “Make use of
+open-source software (OSS). OSS is software for which the source code
+is freely and publicly available, though the specific licensing
+agreements vary as to what one is allowed to do with that
+code.”</p>
+
+<p>The <i>New York
+Times</i> <a
href="http://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-design-37415.html">
+ran an article that stretched the meaning of the term</a> to refer to
+user beta testing—letting a few users try an early version and
+give confidential feedback—which proprietary software developers
+have practiced for decades.</p>
+
+<p>The term has even been stretched to include designs for equipment
+that
+are <a
href="http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/aug/27/texas-teenager-water-purifier-toxic-e-waste-pollution">published
+without a patent</a>. Patent-free equipment designs can be laudable
+contributions to society, but the term “source code” does
+not pertain to them.</p>
+
+<p>Open source supporters try to deal with this by pointing to their
+official definition, but that corrective approach is less effective
+for them than it is for us. The term “free software” has
+two natural meanings, one of which is the intended meaning, so a
+person who has grasped the idea of “free speech, not free
+beer” will not get it wrong again. But the term “open
+source” has only one natural meaning, which is different from
+the meaning its supporters intend. So there is no succinct way to
+explain and justify its official definition. That makes for worse
+confusion.</p>
+
+<p>Another misunderstanding of “open source” is the idea
+that it means “not using the GNU GPL.” This tends to
+accompany another misunderstanding that “free software”
+means “GPL-covered software.” These are both mistaken,
+since the GNU GPL qualifies as an open source license and most of the
+open source licenses qualify as free software licenses. There
+are <a href="/licenses/license-list.html"> many free software
+licenses</a> aside from the GNU GPL.</p>
+
+<p>The term “open source” has been further stretched by
+its application to other activities, such as government, education,
+and science, where there is no such thing as source code, and where
+criteria for software licensing are simply not pertinent. The only
+thing these activities have in common is that they somehow invite
+people to participate. They stretch the term so far that it only
+means “participatory” or “transparent”, or
+less than that. At worst, it
+has <a
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/opinion/sunday/morozov-open-and-closed.html">
+become a vacuous buzzword</a>.</p>
+
+<h3>Different Values Can Lead to Similar Conclusions…but Not
Always</h3>
+
+<p>Radical groups in the 1960s had a reputation for factionalism: some
+organizations split because of disagreements on details of strategy,
+and the two daughter groups treated each other as enemies despite
+having similar basic goals and values. The right wing made much of
+this and used it to criticize the entire left.</p>
+
+<p>Some try to disparage the free software movement by comparing our
+disagreement with open source to the disagreements of those radical
+groups. They have it backwards. We disagree with the open source
+camp on the basic goals and values, but their views and ours lead in
+many cases to the same practical behavior—such as developing
+free software.</p>
+
+<p>As a result, people from the free software movement and the open
+source camp often work together on practical projects such as software
+development. It is remarkable that such different philosophical views
+can so often motivate different people to participate in the same
+projects. Nonetheless, there are situations where these fundamentally
+different views lead to very different actions.</p>
+
+<p>The idea of open source is that allowing users to change and
+redistribute the software will make it more powerful and reliable.
+But this is not guaranteed. Developers of proprietary software are
+not necessarily incompetent. Sometimes they produce a program that
+is powerful and reliable, even though it does not respect the users'
+freedom. Free software activists and open source enthusiasts will
+react very differently to that.</p>
+
+<p>A pure open source enthusiast, one that is not at all influenced by
+the ideals of free software, will say, “I am surprised you were able
+to make the program work so well without using our development model,
+but you did. How can I get a copy?” This attitude will reward
+schemes that take away our freedom, leading to its loss.</p>
+
+<p>The free software activist will say, “Your program is very
+attractive, but I value my freedom more. So I reject your program. I
+will get my work done some other way, and support a project to develop
+a free replacement.” If we value our freedom, we can act to
+maintain and defend it.</p>
+
+<h3>Powerful, Reliable Software Can Be Bad</h3>
+
+<p>The idea that we want software to be powerful and reliable comes
+from the supposition that the software is designed to serve its users.
+If it is powerful and reliable, that means it serves them better.</p>
+
+<p>But software can be said to serve its users only if it respects
+their freedom. What if the software is designed to put chains on its
+users? Then powerfulness means the chains are more constricting,
+and reliability that they are harder to remove. Malicious features,
+such as spying on the users, restricting the users, back doors, and
+imposed upgrades are common in proprietary software, and some open
+source supporters want to implement them in open source programs.</p>
+
+<p>Under pressure from the movie and record companies, software for
+individuals to use is increasingly designed specifically to restrict
+them. This malicious feature is known as Digital Restrictions
+Management (DRM) (see <a
+href="http://defectivebydesign.org/">DefectiveByDesign.org</a>) and is
+the antithesis in spirit of the freedom that free software aims
+to provide. And not just in spirit: since the goal of DRM is to
+trample your freedom, DRM developers try to make it hard, impossible,
+or even illegal for you to change the software that implements the
DRM.</p>
+
+<p>Yet some open source supporters have proposed “open source
+DRM” software. Their idea is that, by publishing the source code
+of programs designed to restrict your access to encrypted media and by
+allowing others to change it, they will produce more powerful and
+reliable software for restricting users like you. The software would then
+be delivered to you in devices that do not allow you to change it.</p>
+
+<p>This software might be open source and use the open
+source development model, but it won't be free software since it
+won't respect the freedom of the users that actually run it. If the
+open source development model succeeds in making this software more
+powerful and reliable for restricting you, that will make it even
+worse.</p>
+
+<h3>Fear of Freedom</h3>
+
+<p>The main initial motivation of those who split off the open source
+camp from the free software movement was that the ethical ideas of
+“free software” made some people uneasy. That's true: raising
+ethical issues such as freedom, talking about responsibilities as well as
+convenience, is asking people to think about things they might prefer
+to ignore, such as whether their conduct is ethical. This can trigger
+discomfort, and some people may simply close their minds to it. It
+does not follow that we ought to stop talking about these issues.</p>
+
+<p>That is, however, what the leaders of open source
+decided to do. They figured that by keeping quiet about ethics and
+freedom, and talking only about the immediate practical benefits of
+certain free software, they might be able to “sell” the
+software more effectively to certain users, especially business.</p>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p>When open source proponents talk
about anything deeper than that,
+it is usually the idea of making a “gift” of source code
+to humanity. Presenting this as a special good deed, beyond what is
+morally required, presumes that distributing proprietary software
+without source code is morally legitimate.</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>This approach has proved effective, in its own terms. The rhetoric
+of open source has convinced many businesses and individuals to use,
+and even develop, free software, which has extended our
+community—but only at the superficial, practical level. The
+philosophy of open source, with its purely practical values, impedes
+understanding of the deeper ideas of free software; it brings many
+people into our community, but does not teach them to defend it. That
+is good, as far as it goes, but it is not enough to make freedom
+secure. Attracting users to free software takes them just part of the
+way to becoming defenders of their own freedom.</p>
+
+<p>Sooner or later these users will be invited to switch back to
+proprietary software for some practical advantage. Countless
+companies seek to offer such temptation, some even offering copies
+gratis. Why would users decline? Only if they have learned to value
+the freedom free software gives them, to value freedom in and of itself
+rather than the technical and practical convenience of specific free
+software. To spread this idea, we have to talk about freedom. A
+certain amount of the “keep quiet” approach to business can be
+useful for the community, but it is dangerous if it becomes so common
+that the love of freedom comes to seem like an eccentricity.</p>
+
+<p>That dangerous situation is exactly what we have. Most people
+involved with free software, especially its distributors, say little about
+freedom—usually because they seek to be “more acceptable to
+business.” Nearly all GNU/Linux operating system distributions add
+proprietary packages to the basic free system, and they invite users to
+consider this an advantage rather than a flaw.</p>
+
+<p>Proprietary add-on software and partially nonfree GNU/Linux
+distributions find fertile ground because most of our community does
+not insist on freedom with its software. This is no coincidence.
+Most GNU/Linux users were introduced to the system through “open
+source” discussion, which doesn't say that freedom is a goal.
+The practices that don't uphold freedom and the words that don't talk
+about freedom go hand in hand, each promoting the other. To overcome
+this tendency, we need more, not less, talk about freedom.</p>
+
+<h3>“FLOSS” and “FOSS”</h3>
+
+<p> The terms “FLOSS” and “FOSS” are used to
+be <a href="/philosophy/floss-and-foss.html"> neutral between free
+software and open source</a>. If neutrality is your goal,
+“FLOSS” is the better of the two, since it really is
+neutral. But if you want to stand up for freedom, using a neutral
+term isn't the way. Standing up for freedom entails showing people
+your support for freedom.</p>
+
+<h3>Rivals for Mindshare</h3>
+
+<p>“Free” and “open” are rivals for mindshare.
+“Free software” and “open source” are
+different ideas but, in most people's way of looking at software, they
+compete for the same conceptual slot. When people become habituated
+to saying and thinking “open source,” that is an obstacle
+to their grasping the free software movement's philosophy and thinking
+about it. If they have already come to associate us and our software
+with the word “open,” we may need to shock them intellectually
+before they recognize that we stand for something <em>else</em>.
+Any activity that promotes the word “open” tends to
+extend the curtain that hides the ideas of the free software
+movement.</p>
+
+<p>Thus, free software activists are well advised to decline to work
+on an activity that calls itself “open.” Even if the
+activity is good in and of itself, each contribution you make does a
+little harm on the <span
class="removed"><del><strong>side.</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>side by promoting the open source
idea.</em></ins></span> There are
+plenty of other good activities which call themselves
+“free” or “libre.” Each contribution to those
+projects does a little extra good on the side. With so many useful
+projects to choose from, why not choose one which does extra good?</p>
+
+<h3>Conclusion</h3>
+
+<p>As the advocates of open source draw new users into our community,
+we free software activists must shoulder the task of bringing the issue
+of freedom to their attention. We have to say, “It's
+free software and it gives you freedom!”—more and louder
+than ever. Every time you say “free software” rather than
+“open source,” you help our cause.</p>
+
+<h4>Notes</h4>
+
+<!-- The article is incomplete (#793776) as of 21st January 2013.
+<p>
+Joe Barr's article,
+<a href="http://www.itworld.com/LWD010523vcontrol4">“Live and
+let license,”</a> gives his perspective on this issue.</p>
+-->
+<p>
+Lakhani and Wolf's <a
+href="http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/lakhaniwolf.pdf">
+paper on the motivation of free software developers</a> says that a
+considerable fraction are motivated by the view that software should be
+free. This is despite the fact that they surveyed the developers on
+SourceForge, a site that does not support the view that this is an ethical
+issue.</p>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></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"><address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:address@hidden">
+ <address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ 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>
+</div>
+
+<p>Copyright © 2007, 2010, 2012, 2015, 2016 Richard
Stallman</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2016/07/01 12:29:26 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: po/surveillance-vs-democracy.uk-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/surveillance-vs-democracy.uk-diff.html
diff -N po/surveillance-vs-democracy.uk-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/surveillance-vs-democracy.uk-diff.html 1 Jul 2016 12:29:26 -0000
1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,553 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/philosophy/surveillance-vs-democracy.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+<title>How Much Surveillance Can Democracy Withstand?
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/surveillance-vs-democracy.translist"
-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>How Much Surveillance Can Democracy Withstand?</h2>
+
+<p>by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/">Richard
Stallman</a></p>
+
+<!-- rms: I deleted the link because of Wired's announced
+ anti-ad-block system -->
+<blockquote><p>A version of this article was first published in
Wired
+in October 2013.</p></blockquote>
+
+<p>Thanks to Edward Snowden's disclosures, we know that the current
+level of general surveillance in society is incompatible with human
+rights. The repeated harassment and prosecution of dissidents,
+sources, and journalists in the US and elsewhere provides
+confirmation. We need to reduce the level of general surveillance,
+but how far? Where exactly is the
+<em>maximum tolerable level of surveillance</em>, which we must
ensure
+is not exceeded? It is the level beyond which surveillance starts to
+interfere with the functioning of democracy, in that whistleblowers
+(such as Snowden) are likely to be caught.</p>
+
+<p>Faced with government secrecy, we the people depend on
+whistleblowers
+to <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/reddit-tpp-ama">tell
+us what the state is doing</a>. However, today's surveillance
+intimidates potential whistleblowers, which means it is too much. To
+recover our democratic control over the state, we must reduce
+surveillance to the point where whistleblowers know they are safe.</p>
+
+<p>Using free/libre
+software, <a href="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html">as
+I've advocated for 30 years</a>, is the first step in taking control
+of our digital lives, and that includes preventing surveillance. We
+can't trust nonfree software; the NSA
+<a
href="http://www.computerworlduk.com/blogs/open-enterprise/how-can-any-company-ever-trust-microsoft-again-3569376/">uses</a>
+and
+even <a
href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/nsa-gchq-encryption-codes-security">creates</a>
+security weaknesses in nonfree software to invade our own computers
+and routers. Free software gives us control of our own computers,
+but <a href="http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/10/149481/">that won't
+protect our privacy once we set foot on the Internet</a>.</p>
+
+<p><a
+href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/10/nsa-surveillance-patriot-act-author-bill">Bipartisan
+legislation to “curtail the domestic surveillance
+powers”</a> in the U.S. is being drawn up, but it relies on
+limiting the government's use of our virtual dossiers. That won't
+suffice to protect whistleblowers if “catching the
+whistleblower” is grounds for access sufficient to identify him
+or her. We need to go further.</p>
+
+<h3>The Upper Limit on Surveillance in a Democracy</h3>
+
+<p>If whistleblowers don't dare reveal crimes and lies, we lose the
+last shred of effective control over our government and institutions.
+That's why surveillance that enables the state to find out who has
+talked with a reporter is too much surveillance—too much for
+democracy to endure.</p>
+
+<p>An unnamed U.S. government official ominously told journalists in
+2011 that
+the <a
href="http://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/news-media-law/news-media-and-law-summer-2011/lessons-wye-river">U.S.
would
+not subpoena reporters because “We know who you're talking
+to.”</a>
+Sometimes <a
href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/sep/24/yemen-leak-sachtleben-guilty-associated-press">journalists'
+phone call records are subpoenaed</a> to find this out, but Snowden
+has shown us that in effect they subpoena all the phone call records
+of everyone in the U.S., all the
+time, <a
href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/jun/06/verizon-telephone-data-court-order">from
+Verizon</a>
+and <a
href="http://www.marketwatch.com/story/nsa-data-mining-digs-into-networks-beyond-verizon-2013-06-07">from
+other companies too</a>.</p>
+
+<p>Opposition and dissident activities need to keep secrets from
+states that are willing to play dirty tricks on them. The ACLU has
+demonstrated the U.S. government's <a
+href="http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/Spyfiles_2_0.pdf">systematic
+practice of infiltrating peaceful dissident groups</a> on the pretext
+that there might be terrorists among them. The point at which
+surveillance is too much is the point at which the state can find who
+spoke to a known journalist or a known dissident.</p>
+
+<h3>Information, Once Collected, Will Be Misused</h3>
+
+<p>When people recognize that the level of general surveillance is too
+high, the first response is to propose limits on access to the
+accumulated data. That sounds nice, but it won't fix the problem, not
+even slightly, even supposing that the government obeys the rules.
+(The NSA has misled the FISA court, which said it
+was <a
href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/09/nsa-violations/">unable
+to effectively hold the NSA accountable</a>.) Suspicion of a crime
+will be grounds for access, so once a whistleblower is accused of
+“espionage,” finding the “spy” will provide an
+excuse to access the accumulated material.</p>
+
+<p>In addition, the state's surveillance staff will misuse the data for
+personal reasons. Some NSA
+agents <a
href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/24/nsa-analysts-abused-surveillance-systems">used
+U.S. surveillance systems to track their lovers</a>—past,
+present, or wished-for—in a practice called
+“LOVEINT.” The NSA says it has caught and punished this a
+few times; we don't know how many other times it wasn't caught. But
+these events shouldn't surprise us, because police have
+long <a href="http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/privacy/lein1.htm">used
+their access to driver's license records to track down someone
+attractive</a>, a practice known as “running a plate for a
+date.” This practice has expanded with <a
href="https://theyarewatching.org/issues/risks-increase-once-data-shared">new
digital systems</a>.
+</p>
+
+<p>Surveillance data will always be used for other purposes, even if
+this is prohibited. Once the data has been accumulated and the state
+has the possibility of access to it, it can misuse that data in
+dreadful ways, as shown by examples
+from <a
href="http://falkvinge.net/2012/03/17/collected-personal-data-will-always-be-used-against-the-citizens/">Europe</a>
+and <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment">the
+US </a>.</p>
+
+<p>Personal data collected by the state is also likely to be obtained
+by outside crackers that break the security of the servers, even
+by <a
href="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150612/16334231330/second-opm-hack-revealed-even-worse-than-first.shtml">crackers
+working for hostile states</a>.</p>
+
+<p>Governments can easily use massive surveillance capability
+to <a
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/22/world/europe/macedonia-government-is-blamed-for-wiretapping-scandal.html">subvert
+democracy directly</a>.</p>
+
+<p>Total surveillance accessible to the state enables the state to
+launch a massive fishing expedition against any person. To make
+journalism and democracy safe, we must limit the accumulation of data
+that is easily accessible to the state.</p>
+
+<h3>Robust Protection for Privacy Must Be Technical</h3>
+
+<p>The Electronic Frontier Foundation and other organizations propose
+a set of legal principles designed to <a
+href="https://en.necessaryandproportionate.org/text">prevent the
+abuses of massive surveillance</a>. These principles include,
+crucially, explicit legal protection for whistleblowers; as a
+consequence, they would be adequate for protecting democratic
+freedoms—if adopted completely and enforced without exception
+forever.</p>
+
+<p>However, such legal protections are precarious: as recent history
+shows, they can be repealed (as in the FISA Amendments Act),
+suspended, or <a
+href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/us/16nsa.html">ignored</a>.</p>
+
+<p>Meanwhile, demagogues will cite the usual excuses as grounds for
+total surveillance; any terrorist attack, even one that kills just a
+handful of people, can be hyped to provide an opportunity.</p>
+
+<p>If limits on access to the data are set aside, it will be as if
+they had never existed: years worth of dossiers would suddenly become
+available for misuse by the state and its agents and, if collected by
+companies, for their private misuse as well. If, however, we stop the
+collection of dossiers on everyone, those dossiers won't exist, and
+there will be no way to compile them retroactively. A new illiberal
+regime would have to implement surveillance afresh, and it would only
+collect data starting at that date. As for suspending or momentarily
+ignoring this law, the idea would hardly make sense.</p>
+
+<h3>First, Don't Be Foolish</h3>
+
+<p>To have privacy, you must not throw it away: the first one who has
+to protect your privacy is you. Avoid identifying yourself to web
+sites, contact them with Tor, and use browsers that block the schemes
+they use to track visitors. Use the GNU Privacy Guard to encrypt the
+contents of your email. Pay for things with cash.</p>
+
+<p>Keep your own data; don't store your data in a company's
+“convenient” server. It's safe, however, to entrust a
+data backup to a commercial service, provided you put the files in an
+archive and encrypt the whole archive, including the names of the
+files, with free software on your own computer before uploading
+it.</p>
+
+<p>For privacy's sake, you must avoid nonfree software since, as a
+consequence of giving others control of your computing, it
+is <a href="/philosophy/proprietary-surveillance.html">likely to spy
+on you</a>.
+Avoid <a
href="/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html">service
+as a software substitute</a>; as well as giving others control of your
+computing, it requires you to hand over all the pertinent data to the
+server.</p>
+
+<p>Protect your friends' and acquaintances' privacy,
+too. <a
href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/21/in-cybersecurity-sometimes-the-weakest-link-is-a-family-member/">Don't
+give out their personal information</a> except how to contact them,
+and never give any web site your list of email or phone contacts.
+Don't tell a company such as Facebook anything about your friends that
+they might not wish to publish in a newspaper. Better yet, don't be
+used by Facebook at all. Reject communication systems that require
+users to give their real names, even if you are going to give yours,
+since they pressure other people to surrender their privacy.</p>
+
+<p>Self-protection is essential, but even the most rigorous
+self-protection is insufficient to protect your privacy on or from
+systems that don't belong to you. When we communicate with others or
+move around the city, our privacy depends on the practices of society.
+We can avoid some of the systems that surveil our communications and
+movements, but not all of them. Clearly, the better solution is to
+make all these systems stop surveilling people other than legitimate
+suspects.</p>
+
+<h3>We Must Design Every System for Privacy</h3>
+
+<p>If we don't want a total surveillance society, we must consider
+surveillance a kind of social pollution, and limit the surveillance
+impact of each new digital system just as we limit the environmental
+impact of physical construction.</p>
+
+<p>For example: “smart” meters for electricity are touted
+for sending the power company moment-by-moment data about each
+customer's electric usage, including how usage compares with users in
+general. This is implemented based on general surveillance, but does
+not require any surveillance. It would be easy for the power company
+to calculate the average usage in a residential neighborhood by
+dividing the total usage by the number of subscribers, and send that
+to the meters. Each customer's meter could compare her usage, over
+any desired period of time, with the average usage pattern for that
+period. The same benefit, with no surveillance!</p>
+
+<p>We need to design such privacy into all our digital systems.</p>
+
+<h3>Remedy for Collecting Data: Leaving It Dispersed</h3>
+
+<p>One way to make monitoring safe for privacy is
+to <a name="dispersal">keep the data dispersed and inconvenient to
+access</a>. Old-fashioned security cameras were no threat to
privacy(<a href="#privatespace">*</a>).
+The recording was stored on the premises, and kept for a few weeks at
+most. Because of the inconvenience of accessing these recordings, it
+was never done massively; they were accessed only in the places where
+someone reported a crime. It would not be feasible to physically
+collect millions of tapes every day and watch them or copy them.</p>
+
+<p>Nowadays, security cameras have become surveillance cameras: they
+are connected to the Internet so recordings can be collected in a data
+center and saved forever. This is already dangerous, but it is going
+to get worse. Advances in face recognition may bring the day when
+suspected journalists can be tracked on the street all the time to see
+who they talk with.</p>
+
+<p>Internet-connected cameras often have lousy digital security
+themselves,
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>so</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>which
+means</em></ins></span> <a
href="http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/cia-wants-spy-you-through-your-appliances">anyone
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>could</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>can</em></ins></span> watch what <span
class="removed"><del><strong>the camera sees</a>. To restore
privacy,</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>those cameras
see</a>. This makes internet-connected
+cameras a major threat to security as well as privacy. For privacy's
+sake,</em></ins></span> we should ban the use of Internet-connected cameras
aimed where
+and when the public is admitted, except when carried by people.
+Everyone must be free to post photos and video recordings
+occasionally, but the systematic accumulation of such data on the
+Internet must be limited.</p>
+
+<p><a name="privatespace"><b>*</b></a>I assume
here that the security
+camera points at the inside of a store, or at the street. Any camera
+pointed at someone's private space by someone else violates privacy,
+but that is another issue.</p>
+
+<h3 id="digitalcash">Remedy for Internet Commerce Surveillance</h3>
+
+<p>Most data collection comes from people's own digital activities.
+Usually the data is collected first by companies. But when it comes
+to the threat to privacy and democracy, it makes no difference whether
+surveillance is done directly by the state or farmed out to a
+business, because the data that the companies collect is
+systematically available to the state.</p>
+
+<p>The NSA, through PRISM,
+has <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/08/23-2">gotten
+into the databases of many large Internet corporations</a>. AT&T
+has saved all its phone call records since 1987
+and <a
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/02/us/drug-agents-use-vast-phone-trove-eclipsing-nsas.html?_r=0">makes
+them available to the DEA</a> to search on request. Strictly
+speaking, the U.S. government does not possess that data, but in
+practical terms it may as well possess it. Some companies are praised
+for <a
href="https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-back-government-data-requests-2015">resisting
+government data requests to the limited extent they can</a>, but that
+can only partly compensate for the harm they do to by collecting that
+data in the first place. In addition, many of those companies misuse
+the data directly or provide it to data brokers.</p>
+
+<p>The goal of making journalism and democracy safe therefore requires
+that we reduce the data collected about people by any organization,
+not just by the state. We must redesign digital systems so that they
+do not accumulate data about their users. If they need digital data
+about our transactions, they should not be allowed to keep them more
+than a short time beyond what is inherently necessary for their
+dealings with us.</p>
+
+<p>One of the motives for the current level of surveillance of the
+Internet is that sites are financed through advertising based on
+tracking users' activities and propensities. This converts a mere
+annoyance—advertising that we can learn to ignore—into a
+surveillance system that harms us whether we know it or not.
+Purchases over the Internet also track their users. And we are all
+aware that “privacy policies” are more excuses to violate
+privacy than commitments to uphold it.</p>
+
+<p>We could correct both problems by adopting a system of anonymous
+payments—anonymous for the payer, that is. (We don't want to
+help the payee dodge
+taxes.) <a
href="http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/05/lets-cut-through-the-bitcoin-hype/">Bitcoin
+is not anonymous</a>, though there are efforts to develop ways to pay
+anonymously with Bitcoin. However, technology
+for <a
href="http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.12/emoney_pr.html">digital
+cash was first developed in the 1980s</a>; we need only suitable
+business arrangements, and for the state not to obstruct them.</p>
+
+<p>A further threat from sites' collection of personal data is that
+security breakers might get in, take it, and misuse it. This includes
+customers' credit card details. An anonymous payment system would end
+this danger: a security hole in the site can't hurt you if the site
+knows nothing about you.</p>
+
+<h3>Remedy for Travel Surveillance</h3>
+
+<p>We must convert digital toll collection to anonymous payment (using
+digital cash, for instance). License-plate recognition systems
+recognize all license plates, and
+the <a
href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/whos_watching_you/8064333.stm">data
+can be kept indefinitely</a>; they should be required by law to notice
+and record only those license numbers that are on a list of cars
+sought by court orders. A less secure alternative would record all
+cars locally but only for a few days, and not make the full data
+available over the Internet; access to the data should be limited to
+searching for a list of court-ordered license-numbers.</p>
+
+<p>The U.S. “no-fly” list must be abolished because it is
+<a
href="https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty-racial-justice/victory-federal-court-recognizes">punishment
+without trial</a>.</p>
+
+<p>It is acceptable to have a list of people whose person and luggage
+will be searched with extra care, and anonymous passengers on domestic
+flights could be treated as if they were on this list. It is also
+acceptable to bar non-citizens, if they are not permitted to enter the
+country at all, from boarding flights to the country. This ought to
+be enough for all legitimate purposes.</p>
+
+<p>Many mass transit systems use some kind of smart cards or RFIDs for
+payment. These systems accumulate personal data: if you once make the
+mistake of paying with anything but cash, they associate the card
+permanently with your name. Furthermore, they record all travel
+associated with each card. Together they amount to massive
+surveillance. This data collection must be reduced.</p>
+
+<p>Navigation services do surveillance: the user's computer tells the
+map service the user's location and where the user wants to go; then
+the server determines the route and sends it back to the user's
+computer, which displays it. Nowadays, the server probably records
+the user's locations, since there is nothing to prevent it. This
+surveillance is not inherently necessary, and redesign could avoid it:
+free/libre software in the user's computer could download map data for
+the pertinent regions (if not downloaded previously), compute the
+route, and display it, without ever telling anyone where the user is
+or wants to go.</p>
+
+<p>Systems for borrowing bicycles, etc., can be designed so that the
+borrower's identity is known only inside the station where the item
+was borrowed. Borrowing would inform all stations that the item is
+“out,” so when the user returns it at any station (in
+general, a different one), that station will know where and when that
+item was borrowed. It will inform the other station that the item is
+no longer “out.” It will also calculate the user's bill,
+and send it (after waiting some random number of minutes) to
+headquarters along a ring of stations, so that headquarters would not
+find out which station the bill came from. Once this is done, the
+return station would forget all about the transaction. If an item
+remains “out” for too long, the station where it was
+borrowed can inform headquarters; in that case, it could send the
+borrower's identity immediately.</p>
+
+<h3>Remedy for Communications Dossiers</h3>
+
+<p>Internet service providers and telephone companies keep extensive
+data on their users' contacts (browsing, phone calls, etc). With
+mobile phones, they
+also <a
href="http://www.zeit.de/digital/datenschutz/2011-03/data-protection-malte-spitz">record
+the user's physical location</a>. They keep these dossiers for a long
+time: over 30 years, in the case of AT&T. Soon they will
+even <a
href="http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/10/the-trojan-horse-of-the-latest-iphone-with-the-m7-coprocessor-we-all-become-qs-activity-trackers/">record
+the user's body activities</a>. It appears that
+the <a
href="https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/it-sure-sounds-nsa-tracking-your-location">NSA
+collects cell phone location data</a> in bulk.</p>
+
+<p>Unmonitored communication is impossible where systems create such
+dossiers. So it should be illegal to create or keep them. ISPs and
+phone companies must not be allowed to keep this information for very
+long, in the absence of a court order to surveil a certain party.</p>
+
+<p>This solution is not entirely satisfactory, because it won't
+physically stop the government from collecting all the information
+immediately as it is generated—which is what
+the <a
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order">U.S.
does
+with some or all phone companies</a>. We would have to rely on
+prohibiting that by law. However, that would be better than the
+current situation, where the relevant law (the PAT RIOT Act) does not
+clearly prohibit the practice. In addition, if the government did
+resume this sort of surveillance, it would not get data about
+everyone's phone calls made prior to that time.</p>
+
+<p>For privacy about who you exchange email with, a simple partial
+solution is for you and others to use email services in a country that
+would never cooperate with your own government, and which communicate
+with each other using encryption. However, Ladar Levison (owner of
+the mail service Lavabit that US surveillance sought to corrupt
+completely) has a more sophisticated idea for an encryption system
+through which your email service would know only that you sent mail to
+some user of my email service, and my email service would know only
+that I received mail from some user of your email service, but it
+would be hard to determine that you had sent mail to me.</p>
+
+<h3>But Some Surveillance Is Necessary</h3>
+
+<p>For the state to find criminals, it needs to be able to investigate
+specific crimes, or specific suspected planned crimes, under a court
+order. With the Internet, the power to tap phone conversations would
+naturally extend to the power to tap Internet connections. This power
+is easy to abuse for political reasons, but it is also necessary.
+Fortunately, this won't make it possible to find whistleblowers after
+the fact, if (as I recommend) we prevent digital systems from accumulating
+massive dossiers before the fact.</p>
+
+<p>Individuals with special state-granted power, such as police,
+forfeit their right to privacy and must be monitored. (In fact,
+police have their own jargon term for perjury,
+“<a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Police_perjury&oldid=552608302">testilying</a>,”
+since they do it so frequently, particularly about protesters
+and <a
href="http://photographyisnotacrime.com/">photographers</a>.)
+One city in California that required police to wear video cameras all
+the time
+found <a
href="http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/08/ubiquitous-surveillance-police-edition">their
+use of force fell by 60%</a>. The ACLU is in favor of this.</p>
+
+<p><a
+href="http://action.citizen.org/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=12266">Corporations
+are not people, and not entitled to human rights</a>. It is
+legitimate to require businesses to publish the details of processes
+that might cause chemical, biological, nuclear, fiscal, computational
+(e.g., <a href="http://DefectiveByDesign.org">DRM</a>) or political
+(e.g., lobbying) hazards to society, to whatever level is needed for
+public well-being. The danger of these operations (consider the BP
+oil spill, the Fukushima meltdowns, and the 2008 fiscal crisis) dwarfs
+that of terrorism.</p>
+
+<p>However, journalism must be protected from surveillance even when
+it is carried out as part of a business.</p>
+
+<hr />
+
+<p>Digital technology has brought about a tremendous increase in the
+level of surveillance of our movements, actions, and communications.
+It is far more than we experienced in the 1990s, and <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2013/06/your_iphone_works_for_the_secret_police.html">far</strong></del></span>
+<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://hbr.org/2013/06/your-iphone-works-for-the-secret-police">far</em></ins></span>
+more than people behind the Iron Curtain experienced</a> in the 1980s,
+and proposed legal limits on state use of the accumulated data would
+not alter that.</p>
+
+<p>Companies are designing even more intrusive surveillance. Some
+project that pervasive surveillance, hooked to companies such as
+Facebook, could have deep effects on <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/aug/10/internet-of-things-predictable-people">how</strong></del></span>
+<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/aug/10/internet-of-things-predictable-people">how</em></ins></span>
+people think</a>. Such possibilities are imponderable; but the threat
+to democracy is not speculation. It exists and is visible today.</p>
+
+<p>Unless we believe that our free countries previously suffered from
+a grave surveillance deficit, and ought to be surveilled more than the
+Soviet Union and East Germany were, we must reverse this increase.
+That requires stopping the accumulation of big data about people.</p>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></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"><address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:address@hidden">
+ <address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ 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>
+</div>
+
+<!-- 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 4.0. 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 © 2015, 2016 Richard Stallman</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2016/07/01 12:29:26 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: po/ucita.nl-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/ucita.nl-diff.html
diff -N po/ucita.nl-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/ucita.nl-diff.html 1 Jul 2016 12:29:26 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,270 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/philosophy/ucita.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+<title>Why We Must Fight UCITA - GNU Project
+- Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/ucita.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>Why We Must Fight UCITA</h2>
+
+<p>
+UCITA is a proposed law, designed by the proprietary software
+developers, who are now asking all 50 states of the US to adopt it.
+If UCITA is adopted, it will threaten the free software community
+<a href="#Note1">(1)</a> with disaster. To understand why, please
+read on.</p>
+<p>
+We generally believe that big companies ought to be held to a strict
+standard of liability to their customers, because they can afford it
+and because it will keep them honest. On the other hand, individuals,
+amateurs, and good samaritans should be treated more favorably.</p>
+<p>
+UCITA does exactly the opposite. It makes individuals, amateurs, and
+good samaritans liable, but not big companies.</p>
+<p>
+You see, UCITA says that by default a software developer or
+distributor is completely liable for flaws in a program; but it also
+allows a shrink-wrap license to override the default. Sophisticated
+software companies that make proprietary software will use shrink-wrap
+licenses to avoid liability entirely. But amateurs, and self-employed
+contractors who develop software for others, will often be shafted
+because they didn't know about this problem. And we free software
+developers won't have any reliable way to avoid the problem.</p>
+<p>
+What could we do about this? We could try to change our licenses to
+avoid it. But since we don't use shrink-wrap licenses, we cannot
+override the UCITA default. Perhaps we can prohibit distribution in
+the states that adopt UCITA. That might solve the problem—for
+the software we release in the future. But we can't do this
+retroactively for software we have already released. Those versions
+are already available, people are already licensed to distribute them
+in these states—and when they do so, under UCITA, they would
+make us liable. We are powerless to change this situation by changing
+our licenses now; we will have to make complex legal arguments that
+may or may not work.</p>
+<p>
+UCITA has another indirect consequence that would hamstring free
+software development in the long term—it gives proprietary
+software developers the power to prohibit reverse engineering. This
+would make it easy for them to establish secret file formats and
+protocols, which there would be no lawful way for us to figure
+out.</p>
+<p>
+That could be a disastrous obstacle for development of free software
+that can serve users' practical needs, because communicating with
+users of non-free software is one of those needs. Many users today
+feel that they must run Windows, simply so they can read and write
+files in Word format. Microsoft's “Halloween documents”
+announced a plan to use secret formats and protocols as a weapon to
+obstruct the development of the GNU/Linux system
+<a href="#Note2">(2)</a>.</p>
+<p>
+Precisely this kind of restriction is now being used in Norway to
+prosecute 16-year-old Jon Johansen, who figured out the format of DVDs
+to make it possible to write free software to play them on free
+operating systems. (The Electronic Frontier Foundation is helping
+with his defense; see <a
href="http://www.eff.org/">http://www.eff.org</a>
+for further information.)</p>
+<p>
+Some friends of free software have argued that UCITA would benefit our
+community, by making non-free software intolerably restrictive, and
+thus driving users to us. Realistically speaking, this is unlikely,
+because it assumes that proprietary software developers will act
+against their own interests. They may be greedy and ruthless, but
+they are not stupid.</p>
+<p>
+Proprietary software developers intend to use the additional power
+UCITA would give them to increase their profits. Rather than using
+this power at full throttle all the time, they will make an effort to
+find the most profitable way to use it. Those applications of UCITA
+power that make users stop buying will be abandoned; those that most
+users tolerate will become the norm. UCITA will not help us.</p>
+<p>
+UCITA does not apply only to software. It applies to any sort of
+computer-readable information. Even if you use only free software,
+you are likely to read articles on your computer, and access data
+bases. UCITA will allow the publishers to impose the most outrageous
+restrictions on you. They could change the license retroactively at
+any time, and force you to delete the material if you don't accept the
+change. They could even prohibit you from describing what you see as
+flaws in the material.</p>
+<p>
+This is too outrageous an injustice to wish on anyone, even if it
+would indirectly benefit a good cause. As ethical beings, we must not
+favor the infliction of hardship and injustice on others on the
+grounds that it will drive them to join our cause. We must not be
+Machiavellian. The point of free software is concern for each other.</p>
+<p>
+Our only smart plan, our only ethical plan, is…to defeat
UCITA!</p>
+<p>
+If you want to help the fight against UCITA, by meeting with state
+legislators in your state, send mail to Skip Lockwood
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>. He
can tell you how to
+contribute effectively.</p>
+<p>
+Volunteers are needed most urgently in Virginia and
+Maryland <a href="#Note3">(3)</a>, but California and Oklahoma are
+coming soon. There will probably be a battle in every state sooner or
+later.</p>
+<p>
+For more information about UCITA, see
+<a
href="http://web.archive.org/web/20000520080750/http://www.badsoftware.com/uccindex.htm">http://www.badsoftware.com
+[Archived Page]</a> or read the UCITA page on
+Wikipedia: <a
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Computer_Information_Transactions_Act">
+http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Computer_Information_Transactions_Act</a>.
</p>
+<!-- Link broken as of 21 Oct 2012
+InfoWorld magazine is also helping to fight
+against UCITA; see
+<a
href="http://archive.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayStory.pl?/features/990531ucita_home.htm">
+http://archive.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayStory.pl?/features/990531ucita_home.htm</a>
+-->
+<h4>Notes</h4>
+<ol>
+<li id="Note1">Other people have been using the term “open
+source” to describe a similar category of software. I use the
+term “free software” to show that the Free Software
+Movement still exists—that the Open Source Movement has not
+replaced or absorbed us.
+<p>
+If you value your freedom as well as your convenience, I suggest you
+use the term “free software”, not “open
+source”, to describe your own work, so as to stand up clearly
+for your values.</p>
+<p>
+If you value accuracy, please use the term “free
+software”, not “open source”, to describe the work
+of the Free Software Movement. The GNU operating system, its
+GNU/Linux variant, the many GNU software packages, and the GNU GPL,
+are all primarily the work of the Free Software Movement. The
+supporters of the Open Source Movement have the right to promote their
+views, but they should not do so on the basis of our achievements.</p>
+<p>
+See <a href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">
+http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html</a> for
+more explanation.</p></li>
+
+<li id="Note2">The system is often called “Linux”, but
+properly speaking Linux is actually the kernel, one major component of
+the system (see
+<a
href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html</a>).</li>
+
+<li id="Note3">The Maryland lower house has approved UCITA; there is a
+push to get the state senate to approve it before the end of the
+legislative session, on April 10.
+<p>
+To rush the consideration of this bill is even more obviously foolish
+than the bill itself. So if you live in Maryland, please phone or
+write to your state senator, saying the senate should at least defer
+UCITA for summer study, if it is not rejected outright.</p>
+<p>
+If you know anyone in Maryland who works with computers, please
+forward this message to that person and ask for per
support.</p></li>
+</ol>
+
+<hr />
+<p style="text-align:center">
+If you support the anti UCITA campaign, <em>please make prominent links
to
+ this page,
+ <span class="removed"><del><strong><a
href="http://web.archive.org/web/20001009121702/http://www.4cite.org/">http://www.4cite.org[Archived
+ Page]</a>.
+ <!-- Link broken as of 21 October 2012
+ and
+ to <a
href="http://archive.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayStory.pl?/features/990531ucita_home.htm">
+
http://archive.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayStory.pl?/features/990531ucita_home.htm</a>!
+ -->
+</em></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>http://www.4cite.org
[closed].</em></em></ins></span>
+</p>
+
+<hr />
+<h4>Links to other articles</h4>
+<ul>
+ <li><a href="http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/issues/UCITA/">IEEE
+ supports the movement to oppose UCITA</a></li>
+
+ <li><a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/41623/CIOs_join_fight_to_kill_Ucita">CIOs</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="http://www.computerworld.com/article/2593115/app-development/cios-join-fight-to-kill-ucita.html">CIOs</em></ins></span>
+ join fight to kill UCITA</a></li>
+
+ <li><a
href="http://web.archive.org/web/20010818101424/http://interlog.com/~cjazz/bnews7.htm">Anti
+UCITA, and other interesting links maintained by Citizens on the Web
+[Archived Page]</a>
+</li>
+
+</ul>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></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"><address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:address@hidden">
+ <address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ 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>
+</div>
+
+<!-- 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 <span class="removed"><del><strong>3.0
US.</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>4.0.</em></ins></span> 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 © 2000, 2008, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2013</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2013, 2016</em></ins></span> Free Software
Foundation, Inc.</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative</strong></del></span>
+<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative</em></ins></span>
+Commons <span class="removed"><del><strong>Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United
States</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0
International</em></ins></span> License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2016/07/01 12:29:26 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- www/philosophy basic-freedoms.ca.html basic-fre...,
GNUN <=