www/philosophy microsoft.html

[Richard M. Stallman]

CVSROOT:        /web/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     Richard M. Stallman <rms>       17/06/25 08:07:21

Modified files:
        philosophy     : microsoft.html 

Log message:
        Minor changes.

CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/microsoft.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.45&r2=1.46

Patches:
Index: microsoft.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/microsoft.html,v
retrieving revision 1.45
retrieving revision 1.46
diff -u -b -r1.45 -r1.46
--- microsoft.html      12 Apr 2014 12:40:23 -0000      1.45
+++ microsoft.html      25 Jun 2017 12:07:21 -0000      1.46
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@
 
 <p>This is not meant to excuse Microsoft.  Rather, it is meant as a
 reminder that Microsoft is the natural development of a software
-industry based on <a href="/philosophy/shouldbefree.html">keeping
+industry based on <a 
href="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html">keeping
 users divided and subjugating them</a>.  When criticizing Microsoft,
 we should not focus so narrowly on Microsoft that we let other
 proprietary software developers off the hook.</p>
@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@
 protest, of products that are otherwise acceptable.  Rejecting a
 product because it hurts you is not a boycott, just ordinary
 rationality.  To maintain your freedom, you need to
-reject <em>all</em> proprietary software, regardless of who developed
+reject the software that takes away freedom, regardless of who developed
 it or who distributes it.</p>
 
 <p>There is no need to reject Microsoft non-software products, or
@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@
 <a href="/philosophy/javascript-trap.html">non-free JavaScript
 programs</a> that it may try to slip into your browser.)  When
 Microsoft releases free programs, which it occasionally does, they are
-acceptable in theory; but most of them depend fundamentally on
+acceptable in theory.  Alas, most of them depend fundamentally on
 Microsoft proprietary software, which we do need to reject, and that
 makes them useless for anyone that chooses to live in freedom.</p>
 
@@ -68,7 +68,7 @@
 
 <p>But Microsoft's patents are not the only patents that threaten us
 (and software developers and users generally)&mdash;consider the harm
-that the MP3 patent has done.  Thus, defending against specific
+that the MP3 patents did.  Thus, defending against specific
 attacks is necessary but not sufficient.  The only full solution is
 to <a href="http://endsoftpatents.org/";>eliminate software
 patents</a>.
@@ -154,7 +154,7 @@
 
 <p class="unprintable">Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2014/04/12 12:40:23 $
+$Date: 2017/06/25 12:07:21 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>