www-commits
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

www gnu/gnu-linux-faq.it.html gnu/gnu-linux-faq...


From: GNUN
Subject: www gnu/gnu-linux-faq.it.html gnu/gnu-linux-faq...
Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 20:59:21 -0400 (EDT)

CVSROOT:        /web/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     GNUN <gnun>     18/05/29 20:59:20

Modified files:
        gnu            : gnu-linux-faq.it.html gnu-linux-faq.uk.html 
                         thegnuproject.it.html thegnuproject.zh-tw.html 
        gnu/po         : gnu-linux-faq.uk-diff.html 
                         thegnuproject.zh-tw-diff.html 
        philosophy     : compromise.it.html compromise.nl.html 
                         free-sw.it.html free-sw.zh-tw.html 
        philosophy/po  : free-sw.zh-tw-diff.html 
Added files:
        gnu/po         : gnu-linux-faq.it-diff.html 
                         thegnuproject.it-diff.html 
        philosophy/po  : compromise.it-diff.html compromise.nl-diff.html 
                         free-sw.it-diff.html 

Log message:
        Automatic update by GNUnited Nations.

CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.it.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.12&r2=1.13
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.uk.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.10&r2=1.11
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/gnu/thegnuproject.it.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.46&r2=1.47
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/gnu/thegnuproject.zh-tw.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.18&r2=1.19
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/gnu/po/gnu-linux-faq.uk-diff.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.5&r2=1.6
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/gnu/po/thegnuproject.zh-tw-diff.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.1&r2=1.2
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/gnu/po/gnu-linux-faq.it-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/gnu/po/thegnuproject.it-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/compromise.it.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.44&r2=1.45
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/compromise.nl.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.2&r2=1.3
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/free-sw.it.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.82&r2=1.83
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/free-sw.zh-tw.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.25&r2=1.26
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/free-sw.zh-tw-diff.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.36&r2=1.37
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/compromise.it-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/compromise.nl-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/free-sw.it-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1

Patches:
Index: gnu/gnu-linux-faq.it.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.it.html,v
retrieving revision 1.12
retrieving revision 1.13
diff -u -b -r1.12 -r1.13
--- gnu/gnu-linux-faq.it.html   16 Feb 2018 08:31:59 -0000      1.12
+++ gnu/gnu-linux-faq.it.html   30 May 2018 00:59:13 -0000      1.13
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/gnu/po/gnu-linux-faq.it.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/gnu/po/gnu-linux-faq.it.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/gnu/po/gnu-linux-faq.it-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2018-03-31" --><!--#set 
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.en.html" -->
 
 <!--#include virtual="/server/header.it.html" -->
 <!-- Parent-Version: 1.84 -->
@@ -8,6 +13,7 @@
 
 <!--#include virtual="/gnu/po/gnu-linux-faq.translist" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.it.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.it.html" -->
 <h2>Domande ricorrenti su GNU/Linux, di Richard Stallman</h2>
 
 <div class="announcement">
@@ -1613,7 +1619,7 @@
 <p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
 Ultimo aggiornamento:
 
-$Date: 2018/02/16 08:31:59 $
+$Date: 2018/05/30 00:59:13 $
 
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>

Index: gnu/gnu-linux-faq.uk.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.uk.html,v
retrieving revision 1.10
retrieving revision 1.11
diff -u -b -r1.10 -r1.11
--- gnu/gnu-linux-faq.uk.html   2 Feb 2018 17:27:58 -0000       1.10
+++ gnu/gnu-linux-faq.uk.html   30 May 2018 00:59:13 -0000      1.11
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/gnu/po/gnu-linux-faq.uk.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/gnu/po/gnu-linux-faq.uk.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/gnu/po/gnu-linux-faq.uk-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2018-03-31" --><!--#set 
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.en.html" -->
 
 <!--#include virtual="/server/header.uk.html" -->
 <!-- Parent-Version: 1.84 -->
@@ -8,6 +13,7 @@
 
 <!--#include virtual="/gnu/po/gnu-linux-faq.translist" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.uk.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.uk.html" -->
 <h2>Річард Столмен. ЧАП про GNU/Linux</h2>
 
 <div class="announcement">
@@ -1594,7 +1600,7 @@
 <p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
 Оновлено:
 
-$Date: 2018/02/02 17:27:58 $
+$Date: 2018/05/30 00:59:13 $
 
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>

Index: gnu/thegnuproject.it.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/gnu/thegnuproject.it.html,v
retrieving revision 1.46
retrieving revision 1.47
diff -u -b -r1.46 -r1.47
--- gnu/thegnuproject.it.html   20 Jan 2018 19:31:06 -0000      1.46
+++ gnu/thegnuproject.it.html   30 May 2018 00:59:13 -0000      1.47
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/gnu/thegnuproject.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/gnu/po/thegnuproject.it.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/gnu/po/thegnuproject.it.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/gnu/thegnuproject.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/gnu/po/thegnuproject.it-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2018-03-31" --><!--#set 
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/gnu/thegnuproject.en.html" -->
 
 <!--#include virtual="/server/header.it.html" -->
 <!-- Parent-Version: 1.84 -->
@@ -10,6 +15,7 @@
 
 <!--#include virtual="/gnu/po/thegnuproject.translist" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.it.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.it.html" -->
 <h2>Il progetto GNU</h2>
 
 <p>
@@ -1116,7 +1122,7 @@
 <p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
 Ultimo aggiornamento:
 
-$Date: 2018/01/20 19:31:06 $
+$Date: 2018/05/30 00:59:13 $
 
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>

Index: gnu/thegnuproject.zh-tw.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/gnu/thegnuproject.zh-tw.html,v
retrieving revision 1.18
retrieving revision 1.19
diff -u -b -r1.18 -r1.19
--- gnu/thegnuproject.zh-tw.html        27 Mar 2018 09:31:30 -0000      1.18
+++ gnu/thegnuproject.zh-tw.html        30 May 2018 00:59:13 -0000      1.19
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/gnu/thegnuproject.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/gnu/po/thegnuproject.zh-tw.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/gnu/po/thegnuproject.zh-tw.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/gnu/thegnuproject.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/gnu/po/thegnuproject.zh-tw-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2018-03-31" --><!--#set 
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/gnu/thegnuproject.en.html" -->
 
 <!--#include virtual="/server/header.zh-tw.html" -->
 <!-- Parent-Version: 1.84 -->
@@ -10,6 +15,7 @@
 
 <!--#include virtual="/gnu/po/thegnuproject.translist" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.zh-tw.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.zh-tw.html" -->
 <h2>GNU 專案</h2>
 
 <p>
@@ -592,7 +598,7 @@
 <p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
 更新時間︰
 
-$Date: 2018/03/27 09:31:30 $
+$Date: 2018/05/30 00:59:13 $
 
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>

Index: gnu/po/gnu-linux-faq.uk-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/gnu/po/gnu-linux-faq.uk-diff.html,v
retrieving revision 1.5
retrieving revision 1.6
diff -u -b -r1.5 -r1.6
--- gnu/po/gnu-linux-faq.uk-diff.html   15 Sep 2017 12:00:05 -0000      1.5
+++ gnu/po/gnu-linux-faq.uk-diff.html   30 May 2018 00:59:17 -0000      1.6
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@
 </style></head>
 <body><pre>
 &lt;!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --&gt;
-&lt;!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 --&gt;
+&lt;!-- Parent-Version: 1.84 --&gt;
 &lt;title&gt;GNU/Linux FAQ
 - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation&lt;/title&gt;
 &lt;!--#include virtual="/gnu/po/gnu-linux-faq.translist" --&gt;
@@ -33,208 +33,211 @@
 
 &lt;ul&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#why" 
id="TOCwhy"&gt;Why</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#why"&gt;Why</em></ins></span> do you call 
<span class="removed"><del><strong>it</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>the system we use</em></ins></span> GNU/Linux and not 
Linux?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#why"&gt;Why do you call the system we use GNU/Linux and 
not Linux?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#whycare" 
id="TOCwhycare"&gt;Why</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#whycare"&gt;Why</em></ins></span> is the name 
important?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#whycare"&gt;Why is the name 
important?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#howerror" 
id="TOChowerror"&gt;How</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#what"&gt;What is the real relationship between 
GNU and Linux&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#what"&gt;What is the real relationship between GNU and 
Linux?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#howerror"&gt;How</em></ins></span> did it come about 
that most
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#howerror"&gt;How did it come about that most
     people call the system &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#always" 
id="TOCalways"&gt;Should</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#always"&gt;Should</em></ins></span> we always 
say
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#always"&gt;Should we always say
 &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; instead of &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#linuxalone" 
id="TOClinuxalone"&gt;Would</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#linuxalone"&gt;Would</em></ins></span> Linux 
have achieved
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#linuxalone"&gt;Would Linux have achieved
     the same success if there had been no GNU?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#divide" 
id="TOCdivide"&gt;Wouldn't</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#divide"&gt;Wouldn't</em></ins></span> it be 
better for the
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#divide"&gt;Wouldn't it be better for the
     community if you did not divide people with this 
request?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#freespeech" 
id="TOCfreespeech"&gt;Doesn't</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#freespeech"&gt;Doesn't</em></ins></span> the 
GNU project
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#freespeech"&gt;Doesn't the GNU project
     support an individual's free speech rights to call the system by
     any name that individual chooses?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#everyoneknows" 
id="TOCeveryoneknows"&gt;Since</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#everyoneknows"&gt;Since</em></ins></span> 
everyone
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#everyoneknows"&gt;Since everyone
     knows the role of GNU in developing the system, doesn't the
     &ldquo;GNU/&rdquo; in the name go without saying?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#everyoneknows2" 
id="TOCeveryoneknows2"&gt;Since</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#everyoneknows2"&gt;Since</em></ins></span> I 
know the role of
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#everyoneknows2"&gt;Since I know the role of
     GNU in this system, why does it matter what name I 
use?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#windows" 
id="TOCwindows"&gt;Isn't</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#windows"&gt;Isn't</em></ins></span> shortening
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#windows"&gt;Isn't shortening
     &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; to &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; just like
     shortening &ldquo;Microsoft Windows&rdquo; to
     &ldquo;Windows&rdquo;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#tools" 
id="TOCtools"&gt;Isn't</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#tools"&gt;Isn't</em></ins></span> GNU a 
collection of programming
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#tools"&gt;Isn't GNU a collection of programming
     tools that were included in Linux?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#osvskernel" 
id="TOCosvskernel"&gt;What</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#osvskernel"&gt;What</em></ins></span> is the 
difference between an operating
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#osvskernel"&gt;What is the difference between an 
operating
     system and a kernel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#house" 
id="TOChouse"&gt;The</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#house"&gt;The</em></ins></span> kernel of a 
system is like the foundation
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#house"&gt;The kernel of a system is like the foundation
     of a house.  How can a house be almost complete when it doesn't have a
     foundation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#brain" 
id="TOCbrain"&gt;Isn't</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#brain"&gt;Isn't</em></ins></span> the kernel 
the brain of the
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#brain"&gt;Isn't the kernel the brain of the
     system?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#kernelmost" 
id="TOCkernelmost"&gt;Isn't</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#kernelmost"&gt;Isn't</em></ins></span> writing 
the kernel
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#kernelmost"&gt;Isn't writing the kernel
     most of the work in an operating system?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#notinstallable" 
id="TOCnotinstallable"&gt;How</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#notinstallable"&gt;How</em></ins></span> can 
GNU be an
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#notinstallable"&gt;How can GNU be an
     operating system, if I can't get something called &ldquo;GNU&rdquo;
     and install it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#afterkernel" 
id="TOCafterkernel"&gt;We're</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#afterkernel"&gt;We're</em></ins></span> 
calling the whole
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#afterkernel"&gt;We're calling the whole
     system after the kernel, Linux.  Isn't it normal to name an
     operating system after a kernel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#feel" 
id="TOCfeel"&gt;Can</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#feel"&gt;Can</em></ins></span> another system 
have &ldquo;the
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#feel"&gt;Can another system have &ldquo;the
     feel of Linux&rdquo;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#long" 
id="TOClong"&gt;The</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#long"&gt;The</em></ins></span> problem with
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#long"&gt;The problem with
     &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; is that it is too long.  How about
     recommending a shorter name?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#long1" 
id="TOClong1"&gt;How</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#long1"&gt;How</em></ins></span> about calling 
the system
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#long1"&gt;How about calling the system
     &ldquo;GliNUx&rdquo; (instead of 
&ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;)?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#long2" 
id="TOClong2"&gt;The</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#long2"&gt;The</em></ins></span> problem with
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#long2"&gt;The problem with
     &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; is that it is too long.  Why should
     I go to the trouble of saying &ldquo;GNU/&rdquo;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#long3" 
id="TOClong3"&gt;Unfortunately,</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#long3"&gt;Unfortunately,</em></ins></span>
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#long3"&gt;Unfortunately,
     &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; is five syllables. People won't use such a
     long term. Shouldn't you find a shorter one?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#justgnu" 
id="TOCjustgnu"&gt;Since</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#justgnu"&gt;Since</em></ins></span> Linux is a 
secondary
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#justgnu"&gt;Since Linux is a secondary
     contribution, would it be false to the facts to call the system
     simply &ldquo;GNU&rdquo;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#trademarkfee" 
id="TOCtrademarkfee"&gt;I</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#trademarkfee"&gt;I</em></ins></span> would 
have to pay a
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#trademarkfee"&gt;I would have to pay a
     fee if I use &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; in the name of a product, and
     that would also apply if I say &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;.  Is it
     wrong if I use &ldquo;GNU&rdquo; without &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;, to
     save the fee?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#many" 
id="TOCmany"&gt;Many</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#many"&gt;Many</em></ins></span> other projects 
contributed to the
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#many"&gt;Many other projects contributed to the
     system as it is today; it includes TeX, X11, Apache, Perl, and many
     more programs.  Don't your arguments imply we have to give them
     credit too?  (But that would lead to a name so long it is
     absurd.)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#others" 
id="TOCothers"&gt;Many</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#others"&gt;Many</em></ins></span> other 
projects contributed to
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#others"&gt;Many other projects contributed to
     the system as it is today, but they don't insist on calling it
     XYZ/Linux.  Why should we treat GNU specially?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#allsmall" 
id="TOCallsmall"&gt;GNU</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#allsmall"&gt;GNU</em></ins></span> is a small 
fraction of the system
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#allsmall"&gt;GNU is a small fraction of the system
     nowadays, so why should we mention it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#manycompanies" 
id="TOCmanycompanies"&gt;Many</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#manycompanies"&gt;Many</em></ins></span> 
companies
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#manycompanies"&gt;Many companies
     contributed to the system as it is today; doesn't that mean
     we ought to call it GNU/Red&nbsp;Hat/Novell/Linux?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#whyslash" 
id="TOCwhyslash"&gt;Why</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#whyslash"&gt;Why</em></ins></span> do you write
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#whyslash"&gt;Why do you write
     &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; instead of &ldquo;GNU
     Linux&rdquo;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#whyorder" 
id="TOCwhyorder"&gt;Why</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#whyorder"&gt;Why</em></ins></span> 
&ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#whyorder"&gt;Why &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;
 rather than &ldquo;Linux/GNU&rdquo;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#distronames0" 
id="TOCdistronames0"&gt;My</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#distronames0"&gt;My</em></ins></span> distro's 
developers call it
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#distronames0"&gt;My distro's developers call it
     &ldquo;Foobar Linux&rdquo;, but that doesn't say anything about
     what the system consists of.  Why shouldn't they call it whatever
     they like?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#distronames" 
id="TOCdistronames"&gt;My</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#distronames"&gt;My</em></ins></span> distro is 
called
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#distronames"&gt;My distro is called
     &ldquo;Foobar Linux&rdquo;; doesn't that show it's really
     Linux?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#distronames1" 
id="TOCdistronames1"&gt;My</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#distronames1"&gt;My</em></ins></span> distro's 
official
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#distronames1"&gt;My distro's official
     name is &ldquo;Foobar Linux&rdquo;; isn't it wrong to call the
     distro anything but &ldquo;Foobar Linux&rdquo;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#companies" 
id="TOCcompanies"&gt;Wouldn't</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#companies"&gt;Wouldn't</em></ins></span> it be 
more
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#companies"&gt;Wouldn't it be more
     effective to ask companies such as Mandrake, Red Hat and IBM to
     call their distributions &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; rather than
     asking individuals?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#reserve" 
id="TOCreserve"&gt;Wouldn't</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#reserve"&gt;Wouldn't</em></ins></span> it be 
better to
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#reserve"&gt;Wouldn't it be better to
     reserve the name &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; for distributions that
     are purely free software?  After all, that is the ideal of
     GNU.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#gnudist" 
id="TOCgnudist"&gt;Why</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#gnudist"&gt;Why</em></ins></span> not make a 
GNU distribution of
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#gnudist"&gt;Why not make a GNU distribution of
     Linux (sic) and call that GNU/Linux?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#linuxgnu" 
id="TOClinuxgnu"&gt;Why</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#linuxgnu"&gt;Why</em></ins></span> not just 
say &ldquo;Linux
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#linuxgnu"&gt;Why not just say &ldquo;Linux
     is the GNU kernel&rdquo; and release some existing version of
     GNU/Linux under the name &ldquo;GNU&rdquo;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#condemn" 
id="TOCcondemn"&gt;Did</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#condemn"&gt;Did</em></ins></span> the GNU 
Project condemn and
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#condemn"&gt;Did the GNU Project condemn and
     oppose use of Linux in the early days?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#wait" 
id="TOCwait"&gt;Why</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#wait"&gt;Why</em></ins></span> did you wait so 
long before
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#wait"&gt;Why did you wait so long before
     asking people to use the name GNU/Linux?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#allgpled" 
id="TOCallgpled"&gt;Should</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#allgpled"&gt;Should</em></ins></span> the 
GNU/[name] convention
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#allgpled"&gt;Should the GNU/&lt;i&gt;name&lt;/i&gt; 
convention
     be applied to all programs that are GPL'ed?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#unix" 
id="TOCunix"&gt;Since</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#unix"&gt;Since</em></ins></span> much of GNU 
comes from Unix,
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#unix"&gt;Since much of GNU comes from Unix,
     shouldn't GNU give credit to Unix by using &ldquo;Unix&rdquo; in
     its name?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#bsd" 
id="TOCbsd"&gt;Should</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#bsd"&gt;Should</em></ins></span> we say 
&ldquo;GNU/BSD&rdquo;
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#bsd"&gt;Should we say &ldquo;GNU/BSD&rdquo;
 too?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#othersys" 
id="TOCothersys"&gt;If</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#othersys"&gt;If</em></ins></span> I install 
the GNU tools on
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#othersys"&gt;If I install the GNU tools on
     Windows, does that mean I am running a GNU/Windows 
system?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#justlinux" 
id="TOCjustlinux"&gt;Can't</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#justlinux"&gt;Can't</em></ins></span> Linux be 
used without
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#justlinux"&gt;Can't Linux be used without
 GNU?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#howmuch" 
id="TOChowmuch"&gt;How</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#howmuch"&gt;How</em></ins></span> much of the 
GNU system
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#howmuch"&gt;How much of the GNU system
 is needed for the system to be GNU/Linux?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#linuxsyswithoutgnu" 
id="TOClinuxsyswithoutgnu"&gt;Are</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#linuxsyswithoutgnu"&gt;Are</em></ins></span> 
there complete Linux systems [sic] without GNU?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#linuxsyswithoutgnu"&gt;Are there complete Linux systems 
[sic] without GNU?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#helplinus" 
id="TOChelplinus"&gt;Why</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#helplinus"&gt;Why</em></ins></span> not call 
the system
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#usegnulinuxandandroid"&gt;Is it correct to say 
&ldquo;using
+    Linux&rdquo; if it refers to using GNU/Linux and using 
Android?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a</em></ins></span> href="#helplinus"&gt;Why not call the system
     &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; anyway, and strengthen Linus Torvalds' role as
     posterboy for our community?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#claimlinux" 
id="TOCclaimlinux"&gt;Isn't</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#claimlinux"&gt;Isn't</em></ins></span> it 
wrong for us to label Linus
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#claimlinux"&gt;Isn't it wrong for us to label Linus
     Torvalds' work as GNU?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#linusagreed" 
id="TOClinusagreed"&gt;Does</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#linusagreed"&gt;Does</em></ins></span> Linus 
Torvalds
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#linusagreed"&gt;Does Linus Torvalds
     agree that Linux is just the kernel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#finishhurd" 
id="TOCfinishhurd"&gt;Why</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#finishhurd"&gt;Why</em></ins></span> not finish
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#finishhurd"&gt;Why not finish
     the GNU Hurd kernel, release the GNU system as a whole,
     and forget the question of what to call GNU/Linux?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#lost" 
id="TOClost"&gt;The</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#lost"&gt;The</em></ins></span> battle is 
already
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#lost"&gt;The battle is already
     lost&mdash;society has made its decision and we can't change it,
     so why even think about it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#whatgood" 
id="TOCwhatgood"&gt;Society</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#whatgood"&gt;Society</em></ins></span> has 
made its decision
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#whatgood"&gt;Society has made its decision
     and we can't change it, so what good does it do if I say
     &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#explain" 
id="TOCexplain"&gt;Wouldn't</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#explain"&gt;Wouldn't</em></ins></span> it be 
better to call
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#explain"&gt;Wouldn't it be better to call
     the system &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; and teach people its real origin
     with a ten-minute explanation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#treatment" 
id="TOCtreatment"&gt;Some</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#treatment"&gt;Some</em></ins></span> people 
laugh at you when
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#treatment"&gt;Some people laugh at you when
     you ask them to call the system GNU/Linux.  Why do you subject yourself
     to this treatment?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#alienate" 
id="TOCalienate"&gt;Some</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#alienate"&gt;Some</em></ins></span> people 
condemn you when you
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#alienate"&gt;Some people condemn you when you
     ask them to call the system GNU/Linux.  Don't you lose by
     alienating them?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#rename" 
id="TOCrename"&gt;Whatever</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#rename"&gt;Whatever</em></ins></span> you 
contributed,
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#rename"&gt;Whatever you contributed,
     is it legitimate to rename the operating system?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
 &lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#force"&gt;Isn't it wrong to force people to call
@@ -243,29 +246,29 @@
 &lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#whynotsue"&gt;Why not sue people who call
     the whole system &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#BSDlicense" 
id="TOCBSDlicense"&gt;Since</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#BSDlicense"&gt;Since</em></ins></span> you 
objected to the original
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#BSDlicense"&gt;Since you objected to the original
     BSD license's advertising requirement to give credit to the University of
     California, isn't it hypocritical to demand credit for the GNU 
project?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#require" 
id="TOCrequire"&gt;Shouldn't</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#require"&gt;Shouldn't</em></ins></span> you 
put something in
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#require"&gt;Shouldn't you put something in
     the GNU GPL to require people to call the system
     &ldquo;GNU&rdquo;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#deserve" 
id="TOCdeserve"&gt;Since</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#deserve"&gt;Since</em></ins></span> you failed 
to put
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#deserve"&gt;Since you failed to put
     something in the GNU GPL to require people to call the system
     &ldquo;GNU&rdquo;, you deserve what happened; why are you
     complaining now?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#contradict" 
id="TOCcontradict"&gt;Wouldn't</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#contradict"&gt;Wouldn't</em></ins></span> you 
be better off
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#contradict"&gt;Wouldn't you be better off
     not contradicting what so many people believe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#somanyright" 
id="TOCsomanyright"&gt;Since</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#somanyright"&gt;Since</em></ins></span> many 
people call it
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#somanyright"&gt;Since many people call it
     &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;, doesn't that make it right?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#knownname" 
id="TOCknownname"&gt;Isn't</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#knownname"&gt;Isn't</em></ins></span> it 
better to call the
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#knownname"&gt;Isn't it better to call the
     system by the name most users already know?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
-&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#winning" 
id="TOCwinning"&gt;Many</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#winning"&gt;Many</em></ins></span> people care 
about what's convenient or
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#winning"&gt;Many people care about what's convenient or
     who's winning, not about arguments of right or wrong.  Couldn't you
     get more of their support by a different road?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 
@@ -273,7 +276,7 @@
 
 &lt;dl&gt;
 
-&lt;dt id="why"&gt;Why do you call <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>it</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>the system we use</em></ins></span> GNU/Linux and not
+&lt;dt id="why"&gt;Why do you call the system we use GNU/Linux and not
     Linux? &lt;span class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#why"&gt;#why&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
 
 &lt;dd&gt;Most operating system distributions based on Linux as kernel are
@@ -308,14 +311,14 @@
 practical importance of these ideals&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
 &lt;/dd&gt;
 
-&lt;dt <span class="inserted"><ins><em>id="what"&gt;What is the real 
relationship between GNU and Linux? &lt;span 
class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#what"&gt;#what&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+&lt;dt id="what"&gt;What is the real relationship between GNU and Linux? 
&lt;span class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#what"&gt;#what&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
 
 &lt;dd&gt;The GNU operating system and the Linux kernel are separate
 software projects that do complementary jobs.  Typically they are
 packaged in a &lt;a href="/distros/distros.html"&gt;GNU/Linux 
distribution&lt;/a&gt;, and used
 together.&lt;/dd&gt;
 
-&lt;dt</em></ins></span> id="howerror"&gt;How did it come about that most
+&lt;dt id="howerror"&gt;How did it come about that most
     people call the system &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;? &lt;span 
class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#howerror"&gt;#howerror&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
 
 &lt;dd&gt;Calling the system &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; is a confusion that has 
spread faster
@@ -433,8 +436,8 @@
 those values of freedom brought the system into existence.
 &lt;/dd&gt;
 
-&lt;dt id="everyoneknows"&gt;Since everyone knows
-    GNU's role in developing the system, doesn't the &ldquo;GNU/&rdquo; in the
+&lt;dt id="everyoneknows"&gt;Since everyone knows the role
+    of GNU in developing the system, doesn't the &ldquo;GNU/&rdquo; in the
     name go without saying? &lt;span class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#everyoneknows"&gt;#everyoneknows&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
 
 &lt;dd&gt;Experience shows that the system's users, and the computer-using
@@ -864,13 +867,13 @@
 than &ldquo;Linux/GNU&rdquo;? &lt;span class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#whyorder"&gt;#whyorder&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
 
 &lt;dd&gt;
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;p&gt;</em></ins></span>
+&lt;p&gt;
 It is right and proper to mention the principal contribution first.
 The GNU contribution to the system is not only bigger than Linux and
-prior to Linux, we actually started the whole <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>activity.</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>activity.&lt;/p&gt;
+prior to Linux, we actually started the whole activity.&lt;/p&gt;
 &lt;p&gt;
 In addition, &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; fits the fact that Linux is the
-lowest level of the system and GNU fills technically higher 
levels.&lt;/p&gt;</em></ins></span>
+lowest level of the system and GNU fills technically higher levels.&lt;/p&gt;
 &lt;p&gt;
 However, if you prefer to call the system &ldquo;Linux/GNU&rdquo;, that is a 
lot
 better than what people usually do, which is to omit GNU entirely and
@@ -1190,7 +1193,28 @@
 are from GNU/Linux.
 &lt;/dd&gt;
 
-&lt;dt id="linuxsyswithoutgnu"&gt;Are there complete Linux systems [sic] 
without GNU? &lt;span class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#linuxsyswithoutgnu"&gt;#linuxsyswithoutgnu&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+&lt;dt <span class="inserted"><ins><em>id="howmuch"&gt;How much of the GNU 
system is needed for the system
+to be
+GNU/Linux? &lt;span class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#howmuch"&gt;#howmuch&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+&ldquo;How much&rdquo; is not a meaningful question because the GNU
+system does not have precise boundaries.
+&lt;p&gt;
+GNU is an operating system maintained by a community.  It includes far
+more than just the GNU software packages (of which we have a specific
+list), and people add more packages constantly.  Despite these
+changes, it remains the GNU system, and adding Linux to that yields
+GNU/Linux.  If you use part of the GNU system and omit part, there is
+no meaningful way to say &ldquo;how much&rdquo; you used.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+If we look at the level of packages, Linux is one important package in
+the GNU/Linux system.  The inclusion of one important GNU package is
+enough to justify our request for equal mention.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt</em></ins></span> id="linuxsyswithoutgnu"&gt;Are there complete Linux 
systems [sic] without GNU? &lt;span class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#linuxsyswithoutgnu"&gt;#linuxsyswithoutgnu&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
 
 &lt;dd&gt;
 There are complete systems that contain Linux and not GNU; Android is
@@ -1212,25 +1236,47 @@
 from GNU/Linux is the absence of GNU.&lt;/p&gt;
 &lt;/dd&gt;
 
-&lt;dt id="howmuch"&gt;How much of the GNU system is needed for the system
-to be
-GNU/Linux? &lt;span class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#howmuch"&gt;#howmuch&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
-
-&lt;dd&gt;
-&ldquo;How much&rdquo; is not a meaningful question because the GNU
-system does not have precise boundaries.
-&lt;p&gt;
-GNU is an operating system maintained by a community.  It includes far
-more than just the GNU software packages (of which we have a specific
-list), and people add more packages constantly.  Despite these
-changes, it remains the GNU system, and adding Linux to that yields
-GNU/Linux.  If you use part of the GNU system and omit part, there is
-no meaningful way to say &ldquo;how much&rdquo; you used.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;dt <span class="removed"><del><strong>id="howmuch"&gt;How much of the GNU 
system is needed for the system</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>id="usegnulinuxandandroid"&gt;Is it 
correct</em></ins></span> to <span class="removed"><del><strong>be
+GNU/Linux?</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>say 
&ldquo;using Linux&rdquo; if it refers to using GNU/Linux and
+using Android?</em></ins></span> &lt;span 
class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>href="#howmuch"&gt;#howmuch&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;</strong></del></span>
 <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#usegnulinuxandandroidlinuxsyswithoutgnu"&gt;#usegnulinuxandandroidlinuxsyswithoutgnu&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;</em></ins></span>
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>&ldquo;How much&rdquo;</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>Far from it.  That usage</em></ins></span> is 
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>so strained that
+people will</em></ins></span> not <span class="inserted"><ins><em>understand 
the intended meaning.
+&lt;p&gt;
+The public will find it very strange to speak of using Android as
+&ldquo;using Linux&rdquo;.  It's like having</em></ins></span> a <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>meaningful question because</strong></del></span> 
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>conversation, then
+saying you were conversing with</em></ins></span> the <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>GNU
+system does not have precise boundaries.</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>person's intestines or the
+person's circulatory system.&lt;/p&gt;</em></ins></span>
+&lt;p&gt;
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>GNU is an operating system 
maintained</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>The public &lt;em&gt;will&lt;/em&gt; 
understand the idea of &ldquo;using
+Linux&rdquo; when it's really GNU/Linux,</em></ins></span> by <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>a community.  It includes far
+more than just</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>way 
of</em></ins></span> the <span class="removed"><del><strong>GNU software 
packages (of which we have</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>usual
+misunderstanding: thinking of the whole system as
+&ldquo;Linux&rdquo;.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Use of Android and use of GNU/Linux are totally different, as
+different as driving</em></ins></span> a <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>specific
+list),</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>car</em></ins></span> and <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>people add more packages constantly.  Despite these
+changes, it remains</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>riding a bicycle.  The fact that</em></ins></span> 
the <span class="removed"><del><strong>GNU system, and 
adding</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>first two both contain</em></ins></span> Linux 
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>is irrelevant</em></ins></span> to <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>using them, just as the
+fact</em></ins></span> that <span class="removed"><del><strong>yields
+GNU/Linux.</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>a car and a 
bicycle both have a structure of metal is
+irrelevant to using those two.</em></ins></span>  If you <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>use part</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>wish to talk about using cars
+and bikes, you wouldn't speak</em></ins></span> of <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>&ldquo;riding metal objects&rdquo;
+&mdash; not unless you're playing games with</em></ins></span> the <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>GNU system</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>reader.  You would
+say, &ldquo;using cars</em></ins></span> and <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>omit part, there is
+no meaningful</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>bikes.&rdquo; Likewise, the clear</em></ins></span> 
way to <span class="removed"><del><strong>say &ldquo;how much&rdquo; you 
used.&lt;/p&gt;
 &lt;p&gt;
 If we look at the level of packages, Linux is one important package in
-the GNU/Linux system.  The inclusion of one important GNU package is
-enough to justify our request for equal mention.
-&lt;/p&gt;
+the</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>talk about using</em></ins></span> GNU/Linux 
<span class="removed"><del><strong>system.  The inclusion of one important GNU 
package</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>and 
Android</em></ins></span> is
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>enough</strong></del></span> to <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>justify our request for equal mention.
+&lt;/p&gt;</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>say 
&ldquo;using
+GNU/Linux and Android.&rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;</em></ins></span>
 &lt;/dd&gt;
 
 &lt;dt id="helplinus"&gt;Why not call the system
@@ -1559,7 +1605,7 @@
      There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
      Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --&gt;
 
-&lt;p&gt;Copyright &copy; 2001, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 
2015, <span class="removed"><del><strong>2016</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>2016, 2017</em></ins></span>
+&lt;p&gt;Copyright &copy; 2001, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 
2015, 2016, 2017, 2018
 Free Software Foundation, Inc.&lt;/p&gt;
 
 &lt;p&gt;This page is licensed under a &lt;a rel="license"
@@ -1570,7 +1616,7 @@
 
 &lt;p class="unprintable"&gt;Updated:
 &lt;!-- timestamp start --&gt;
-$Date: 2017/09/15 12:00:05 $
+$Date: 2018/05/30 00:59:17 $
 &lt;!-- timestamp end --&gt;
 &lt;/p&gt;
 &lt;/div&gt;

Index: gnu/po/thegnuproject.zh-tw-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/gnu/po/thegnuproject.zh-tw-diff.html,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -b -r1.1 -r1.2
--- gnu/po/thegnuproject.zh-tw-diff.html        2 Mar 2018 06:35:49 -0000       
1.1
+++ gnu/po/thegnuproject.zh-tw-diff.html        30 May 2018 00:59:17 -0000      
1.2
@@ -863,7 +863,9 @@
 compressed &lt;acronym title="Graphics Interchange 
Format"&gt;GIF&lt;/acronym&gt;s.
 [As of 2009 they have expired.]  In 1998, a free program to produce
 &lt;acronym title="MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3"&gt;MP3&lt;/acronym&gt; compressed 
audio
-was removed from distribution under threat of a patent suit.&lt;/p&gt;
+was removed from distribution under threat of a patent <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>suit.&lt;/p&gt;</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>suit.  [As of
+2017, these patents have expired.  Look how long we had to wait.]
+&lt;/p&gt;</em></ins></span>
 &lt;p&gt;
 There are ways to cope with patents: we can search for evidence that a
 patent is invalid, and we can look for alternative ways to do a job.
@@ -1059,7 +1061,7 @@
      There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
      Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --&gt;
 
-&lt;p&gt;Copyright &copy; 1998, 2001, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 
2014, 2015, <span class="removed"><del><strong>2017</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>2017, 2018</em></ins></span>
+&lt;p&gt;Copyright &copy; 1998, 2001, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 
2014, 2015, 2017, 2018
 Richard Stallman&lt;/p&gt;
 
 &lt;p&gt;This page is licensed under a &lt;a rel="license"
@@ -1070,7 +1072,7 @@
 
 &lt;p class="unprintable"&gt;Updated:
 &lt;!-- timestamp start --&gt;
-$Date: 2018/03/02 06:35:49 $
+$Date: 2018/05/30 00:59:17 $
 &lt;!-- timestamp end --&gt;
 &lt;/p&gt;
 &lt;/div&gt;

Index: philosophy/compromise.it.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/compromise.it.html,v
retrieving revision 1.44
retrieving revision 1.45
diff -u -b -r1.44 -r1.45
--- philosophy/compromise.it.html       30 Sep 2017 21:00:09 -0000      1.44
+++ philosophy/compromise.it.html       30 May 2018 00:59:18 -0000      1.45
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/compromise.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/compromise.it.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/compromise.it.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/compromise.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/compromise.it-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2018-03-31" --><!--#set 
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/compromise.en.html" -->
 
 <!--#include virtual="/server/header.it.html" -->
 <!-- Parent-Version: 1.84 -->
@@ -26,6 +31,7 @@
 
 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/compromise.translist" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.it.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.it.html" -->
 <h2>Evitare compromessi disastrosi</h2>
 
 <p>di <strong>Richard Stallman</strong></p>
@@ -274,7 +280,7 @@
 <p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
 Ultimo aggiornamento:
 
-$Date: 2017/09/30 21:00:09 $
+$Date: 2018/05/30 00:59:18 $
 
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>

Index: philosophy/compromise.nl.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/compromise.nl.html,v
retrieving revision 1.2
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -b -r1.2 -r1.3
--- philosophy/compromise.nl.html       17 Sep 2017 21:30:10 -0000      1.2
+++ philosophy/compromise.nl.html       30 May 2018 00:59:18 -0000      1.3
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/compromise.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/compromise.nl.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/compromise.nl.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/compromise.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/compromise.nl-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2018-03-31" --><!--#set 
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/compromise.en.html" -->
 
 <!--#include virtual="/server/header.nl.html" -->
 <!-- Parent-Version: 1.84 -->
@@ -26,6 +31,7 @@
 
 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/compromise.translist" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.nl.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.nl.html" -->
 <h2>Schadelijke compromissen vermijden</h2>
 
 <p>door <strong>Richard Stallman</strong></p>
@@ -267,7 +273,7 @@
 <p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
 Bijgewerkt:
 
-$Date: 2017/09/17 21:30:10 $
+$Date: 2018/05/30 00:59:18 $
 
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>

Index: philosophy/free-sw.it.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/free-sw.it.html,v
retrieving revision 1.82
retrieving revision 1.83
diff -u -b -r1.82 -r1.83
--- philosophy/free-sw.it.html  25 Jan 2018 21:30:52 -0000      1.82
+++ philosophy/free-sw.it.html  30 May 2018 00:59:18 -0000      1.83
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/free-sw.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/free-sw.it.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/free-sw.it.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/free-sw.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/free-sw.it-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2018-03-31" --><!--#set 
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/free-sw.en.html" -->
 
 <!--#include virtual="/server/header.it.html" -->
 <!-- Parent-Version: 1.84 -->
@@ -15,6 +20,7 @@
 
 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/free-sw.translist" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.it.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.it.html" -->
 <h2>Cos'è il Software Libero?</h2>
 
 <blockquote class="note" id="fsf-licensing"><p style="font-size: 80%">
@@ -663,7 +669,7 @@
 <p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
 Ultimo aggiornamento:
 
-$Date: 2018/01/25 21:30:52 $
+$Date: 2018/05/30 00:59:18 $
 
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>

Index: philosophy/free-sw.zh-tw.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/free-sw.zh-tw.html,v
retrieving revision 1.25
retrieving revision 1.26
diff -u -b -r1.25 -r1.26
--- philosophy/free-sw.zh-tw.html       27 Mar 2018 09:31:31 -0000      1.25
+++ philosophy/free-sw.zh-tw.html       30 May 2018 00:59:18 -0000      1.26
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/free-sw.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/free-sw.zh-tw.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/free-sw.zh-tw.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/free-sw.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/free-sw.zh-tw-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2018-03-31" --><!--#set 
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/free-sw.en.html" -->
 
 <!--#include virtual="/server/header.zh-tw.html" -->
 <!-- Parent-Version: 1.84 -->
@@ -13,6 +18,7 @@
 
 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/free-sw.translist" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.zh-tw.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.zh-tw.html" -->
 <h2>自由軟體是什麼?</h2>
 
 <blockquote class="note" id="fsf-licensing"><p style="font-size: 80%">
@@ -443,7 +449,7 @@
 <p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
 更新時間︰
 
-$Date: 2018/03/27 09:31:31 $
+$Date: 2018/05/30 00:59:18 $
 
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>

Index: philosophy/po/free-sw.zh-tw-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/free-sw.zh-tw-diff.html,v
retrieving revision 1.36
retrieving revision 1.37
diff -u -b -r1.36 -r1.37
--- philosophy/po/free-sw.zh-tw-diff.html       2 Mar 2018 06:35:53 -0000       
1.36
+++ philosophy/po/free-sw.zh-tw-diff.html       30 May 2018 00:59:20 -0000      
1.37
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@
 </style></head>
 <body><pre>
 &lt;!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --&gt;
-&lt;!-- Parent-Version: 1.84 --&gt;
+&lt;!-- Parent-Version: <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>1.84</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>1.85</em></ins></span> --&gt;
 &lt;title&gt;What is free software?
 - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation&lt;/title&gt;
 
@@ -41,6 +41,15 @@
 below for a list of changes that affect the definition of free
 software.
 &lt;/p&gt;
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;p&gt;
+&ldquo;Open source&rdquo; is something different: it has a very
+different philosophy based on different values.  Its practical
+definition is different too, but nearly all open source programs are
+in fact free.  We explain the
+difference in &lt;a href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html"&gt;
+Why &ldquo;Open Source&rdquo; misses the point of Free Software&lt;/a&gt;.
+&lt;/p&gt;</em></ins></span>
 &lt;/blockquote&gt;
 
 &lt;p&gt;
@@ -71,7 +80,7 @@
 
 &lt;p&gt;
 A program is free software if the program's users have the
-four essential freedoms:
+four essential freedoms: <span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;a 
href="#f1"&gt;[1]&lt;/a&gt;</em></ins></span>
 &lt;/p&gt;
 
 &lt;ul&gt;
@@ -81,7 +90,7 @@
       does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source
       code is a precondition for this.
   &lt;/li&gt;
-  &lt;li&gt;The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
+  &lt;li&gt;The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>your neighbor</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>others</em></ins></span>
       (freedom 2).
   &lt;/li&gt;
   &lt;li&gt;The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions
@@ -557,6 +566,14 @@
 the &lt;a 
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;view=log"&gt;cvsweb
 interface&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
 
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;h3 
style="font-size:1em"&gt;Footnote&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;ol&gt;
+&lt;li id="f1"&gt;The reason they are numbered 0, 1, 2 and 3 is historical. 
Around
+1990 there were three freedoms, numbered 1, 2 and 3. Then we realized that
+the freedom to run the program needed to be mentioned explicitly.
+It was clearly more basic than the other three, so it properly should
+precede them. Rather than renumber the others, we made it 
freedom&nbsp;0.&lt;/li&gt;
+&lt;/ol&gt;</em></ins></span>
 
 &lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --&gt;
 &lt;!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --&gt;
@@ -605,7 +622,7 @@
      There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
      Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --&gt;
 
-&lt;p&gt;Copyright &copy; 1996, 2002, 2004-2007, <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>2009-2017</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>2009-2018</em></ins></span>
+&lt;p&gt;Copyright &copy; 1996, 2002, 2004-2007, 2009-2018
 Free Software Foundation, Inc.&lt;/p&gt;
 
 &lt;p&gt;This page is licensed under a &lt;a rel="license"
@@ -616,7 +633,7 @@
 
 &lt;p class="unprintable"&gt;Updated:
 &lt;!-- timestamp start --&gt;
-$Date: 2018/03/02 06:35:53 $
+$Date: 2018/05/30 00:59:20 $
 &lt;!-- timestamp end --&gt;
 &lt;/p&gt;
 &lt;/div&gt;

Index: gnu/po/gnu-linux-faq.it-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: gnu/po/gnu-linux-faq.it-diff.html
diff -N gnu/po/gnu-linux-faq.it-diff.html
--- /dev/null   1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ gnu/po/gnu-linux-faq.it-diff.html   30 May 2018 00:59:15 -0000      1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,1626 @@
+<!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>/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.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>
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --&gt;
+&lt;!-- Parent-Version: 1.84 --&gt;
+&lt;title&gt;GNU/Linux FAQ
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation&lt;/title&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/gnu/po/gnu-linux-faq.translist" --&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --&gt;
+&lt;h2&gt;GNU/Linux FAQ by Richard Stallman&lt;/h2&gt;
+
+&lt;div class="announcement"&gt;
+  &lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;To learn more about this issue, you can also read
+our page on &lt;a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html"&gt;Linux and the GNU 
Project&lt;/a&gt;, our
+ page on &lt;a href="/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html"&gt;Why GNU/Linux?&lt;/a&gt;
+and our page on &lt;a href="/gnu/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.html"&gt;GNU
+Users Who Have Never Heard of GNU&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+When people see that we use and recommend the name GNU/Linux for a
+system that many others call just &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;, they ask many questions.
+Here are common questions, and our answers.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;ul&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#why"&gt;Why do you call the system we use GNU/Linux and 
not Linux?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#whycare"&gt;Why is the name 
important?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#what"&gt;What is the real relationship between GNU and 
Linux?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#howerror"&gt;How did it come about that most
+    people call the system &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#always"&gt;Should we always say
+&ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; instead of &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#linuxalone"&gt;Would Linux have achieved
+    the same success if there had been no GNU?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#divide"&gt;Wouldn't it be better for the
+    community if you did not divide people with this 
request?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#freespeech"&gt;Doesn't the GNU project
+    support an individual's free speech rights to call the system by
+    any name that individual chooses?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#everyoneknows"&gt;Since everyone
+    knows the role of GNU in developing the system, doesn't the
+    &ldquo;GNU/&rdquo; in the name go without saying?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#everyoneknows2"&gt;Since I know the role of
+    GNU in this system, why does it matter what name I 
use?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#windows"&gt;Isn't shortening
+    &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; to &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; just like
+    shortening &ldquo;Microsoft Windows&rdquo; to
+    &ldquo;Windows&rdquo;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#tools"&gt;Isn't GNU a collection of programming
+    tools that were included in Linux?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#osvskernel"&gt;What is the difference between an 
operating
+    system and a kernel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#house"&gt;The kernel of a system is like the foundation
+    of a house.  How can a house be almost complete when it doesn't have a
+    foundation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#brain"&gt;Isn't the kernel the brain of the
+    system?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#kernelmost"&gt;Isn't writing the kernel
+    most of the work in an operating system?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#notinstallable"&gt;How can GNU be an
+    operating system, if I can't get something called &ldquo;GNU&rdquo;
+    and install it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#afterkernel"&gt;We're calling the whole
+    system after the kernel, Linux.  Isn't it normal to name an
+    operating system after a kernel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#feel"&gt;Can another system have &ldquo;the
+    feel of Linux&rdquo;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#long"&gt;The problem with
+    &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; is that it is too long.  How about
+    recommending a shorter name?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#long1"&gt;How about calling the system
+    &ldquo;GliNUx&rdquo; (instead of 
&ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;)?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#long2"&gt;The problem with
+    &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; is that it is too long.  Why should
+    I go to the trouble of saying &ldquo;GNU/&rdquo;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#long3"&gt;Unfortunately,
+    &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; is five syllables. People won't use such a
+    long term. Shouldn't you find a shorter one?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#justgnu"&gt;Since Linux is a secondary
+    contribution, would it be false to the facts to call the system
+    simply &ldquo;GNU&rdquo;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#trademarkfee"&gt;I would have to pay a
+    fee if I use &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; in the name of a product, and
+    that would also apply if I say &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;.  Is it
+    wrong if I use &ldquo;GNU&rdquo; without &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;, to
+    save the fee?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#many"&gt;Many other projects contributed to the
+    system as it is today; it includes TeX, X11, Apache, Perl, and many
+    more programs.  Don't your arguments imply we have to give them
+    credit too?  (But that would lead to a name so long it is
+    absurd.)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#others"&gt;Many other projects contributed to
+    the system as it is today, but they don't insist on calling it
+    XYZ/Linux.  Why should we treat GNU specially?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#allsmall"&gt;GNU is a small fraction of the system
+    nowadays, so why should we mention it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#manycompanies"&gt;Many companies
+    contributed to the system as it is today; doesn't that mean
+    we ought to call it GNU/Red&nbsp;Hat/Novell/Linux?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#whyslash"&gt;Why do you write
+    &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; instead of &ldquo;GNU
+    Linux&rdquo;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#whyorder"&gt;Why &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;
+rather than &ldquo;Linux/GNU&rdquo;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#distronames0"&gt;My distro's developers call it
+    &ldquo;Foobar Linux&rdquo;, but that doesn't say anything about
+    what the system consists of.  Why shouldn't they call it whatever
+    they like?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#distronames"&gt;My distro is called
+    &ldquo;Foobar Linux&rdquo;; doesn't that show it's really
+    Linux?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#distronames1"&gt;My distro's official
+    name is &ldquo;Foobar Linux&rdquo;; isn't it wrong to call the
+    distro anything but &ldquo;Foobar Linux&rdquo;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#companies"&gt;Wouldn't it be more
+    effective to ask companies such as Mandrake, Red Hat and IBM to
+    call their distributions &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; rather than
+    asking individuals?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#reserve"&gt;Wouldn't it be better to
+    reserve the name &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; for distributions that
+    are purely free software?  After all, that is the ideal of
+    GNU.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#gnudist"&gt;Why not make a GNU distribution of
+    Linux (sic) and call that GNU/Linux?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#linuxgnu"&gt;Why not just say &ldquo;Linux
+    is the GNU kernel&rdquo; and release some existing version of
+    GNU/Linux under the name &ldquo;GNU&rdquo;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#condemn"&gt;Did the GNU Project condemn and
+    oppose use of Linux in the early days?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#wait"&gt;Why did you wait so long before
+    asking people to use the name GNU/Linux?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#allgpled"&gt;Should the GNU/&lt;i&gt;name&lt;/i&gt; 
convention
+    be applied to all programs that are GPL'ed?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#unix"&gt;Since much of GNU comes from Unix,
+    shouldn't GNU give credit to Unix by using &ldquo;Unix&rdquo; in
+    its name?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#bsd"&gt;Should we say &ldquo;GNU/BSD&rdquo;
+too?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#othersys"&gt;If I install the GNU tools on
+    Windows, does that mean I am running a GNU/Windows 
system?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#justlinux"&gt;Can't Linux be used without
+GNU?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#howmuch"&gt;How much of the GNU system
+is needed for the system to be GNU/Linux?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#linuxsyswithoutgnu"&gt;Are there complete Linux systems 
[sic] without GNU?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#usegnulinuxandandroid"&gt;Is it correct to say 
&ldquo;using
+    Linux&rdquo; if it refers to using GNU/Linux and using 
Android?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a</em></ins></span> href="#helplinus"&gt;Why not call the system
+    &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; anyway, and strengthen Linus Torvalds' role as
+    posterboy for our community?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#claimlinux"&gt;Isn't it wrong for us to label Linus
+    Torvalds' work as GNU?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#linusagreed"&gt;Does Linus Torvalds
+    agree that Linux is just the kernel?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#finishhurd"&gt;Why not finish
+    the GNU Hurd kernel, release the GNU system as a whole,
+    and forget the question of what to call GNU/Linux?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#lost"&gt;The battle is already
+    lost&mdash;society has made its decision and we can't change it,
+    so why even think about it?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#whatgood"&gt;Society has made its decision
+    and we can't change it, so what good does it do if I say
+    &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#explain"&gt;Wouldn't it be better to call
+    the system &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; and teach people its real origin
+    with a ten-minute explanation?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#treatment"&gt;Some people laugh at you when
+    you ask them to call the system GNU/Linux.  Why do you subject yourself
+    to this treatment?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#alienate"&gt;Some people condemn you when you
+    ask them to call the system GNU/Linux.  Don't you lose by
+    alienating them?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#rename"&gt;Whatever you contributed,
+    is it legitimate to rename the operating system?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#force"&gt;Isn't it wrong to force people to call
+    the system &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#whynotsue"&gt;Why not sue people who call
+    the whole system &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#BSDlicense"&gt;Since you objected to the original
+    BSD license's advertising requirement to give credit to the University of
+    California, isn't it hypocritical to demand credit for the GNU 
project?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#require"&gt;Shouldn't you put something in
+    the GNU GPL to require people to call the system
+    &ldquo;GNU&rdquo;?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#deserve"&gt;Since you failed to put
+    something in the GNU GPL to require people to call the system
+    &ldquo;GNU&rdquo;, you deserve what happened; why are you
+    complaining now?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#contradict"&gt;Wouldn't you be better off
+    not contradicting what so many people believe?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#somanyright"&gt;Since many people call it
+    &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;, doesn't that make it right?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#knownname"&gt;Isn't it better to call the
+    system by the name most users already know?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a href="#winning"&gt;Many people care about what's convenient or
+    who's winning, not about arguments of right or wrong.  Couldn't you
+    get more of their support by a different road?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;/ul&gt;
+
+&lt;dl&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="why"&gt;Why do you call the system we use GNU/Linux and not
+    Linux? &lt;span class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#why"&gt;#why&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;Most operating system distributions based on Linux as kernel are
+basically modified versions of the GNU operating system.  We began
+developing GNU in 1984, years before Linus Torvalds started to write
+his kernel.  Our goal was to develop a complete free operating system.
+Of course, we did not develop all the parts ourselves&mdash;but we led the way.
+We developed most of the central components, forming the largest single
+contribution to the whole system.  The basic vision was ours too.
+&lt;p&gt;
+In fairness, we ought to get at least equal mention.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;See &lt;a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html"&gt;Linux and the GNU 
System&lt;/a&gt;
+and &lt;a href="/gnu/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.html"&gt;GNU Users Who Have
+Never Heard of GNU&lt;/a&gt; for more explanation, and &lt;a
+href="/gnu/the-gnu-project.html"&gt;The GNU Project&lt;/a&gt; for the
+history.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="whycare"&gt;Why is the name
+    important? &lt;span class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#whycare"&gt;#whycare&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;Although the developers of Linux, the kernel, are contributing to
+the free software community, many of them do not care about freedom.
+People who think the whole system is Linux tend to get confused and
+assign to those developers a role in the history of our community
+which they did not actually play.  Then they give inordinate weight to
+those developers' views.
+&lt;p&gt;
+Calling the system GNU/Linux recognizes the role that our idealism
+played in building our community, and
+&lt;a href="/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html"&gt;helps the public recognize the
+practical importance of these ideals&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="what"&gt;What is the real relationship between GNU and Linux? 
&lt;span class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#what"&gt;#what&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;The GNU operating system and the Linux kernel are separate
+software projects that do complementary jobs.  Typically they are
+packaged in a &lt;a href="/distros/distros.html"&gt;GNU/Linux 
distribution&lt;/a&gt;, and used
+together.&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="howerror"&gt;How did it come about that most
+    people call the system &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;? &lt;span 
class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#howerror"&gt;#howerror&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;Calling the system &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; is a confusion that has 
spread faster
+than the corrective information.
+&lt;p&gt;
+The people who combined Linux with the GNU system were not aware that
+that's what their activity amounted to.  They focused their attention
+on the piece that was Linux and did not realize that more of the
+combination was GNU.  They started calling it &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; even though 
that
+name did not fit what they had.  It took a few years for us to realize
+what a problem this was and ask people to correct the practice.  By
+that time, the confusion had a big head start.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Most of the people who call the system &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; have never heard why
+that's not the right thing.  They saw others using that name and
+assume it must be right.  The name &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; also spreads a false
+picture of the system's origin, because people tend to suppose that
+the system's history was such as to fit that name.  For
+instance, they often believe its development was started by Linus
+Torvalds in 1991.  This false picture tends to reinforce the idea
+that the system should be called &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Many of the questions in this file represent people's attempts to
+justify the name they are accustomed to using.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="always"&gt;Should we always say
+    &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; instead of &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;? &lt;span 
class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#always"&gt;#always&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+&lt;dd&gt;
+Not always&mdash;only when you're talking about the whole system.  When
+you're referring specifically to the kernel, you should call it
+&ldquo;Linux&rdquo;, the name its developer chose.
+&lt;p&gt;
+When people call the whole system &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;, as a consequence
+they call the whole system by the same name as the kernel.
+This causes many kinds of confusion, because only experts can tell
+whether a statement is about the kernel or the whole system.
+By calling the whole system &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;, and calling the kernel
+&ldquo;Linux&rdquo;, you avoid the ambiguity.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="linuxalone"&gt;Would Linux have
+    achieved the same success if there had been no
+    GNU? &lt;span class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#linuxalone"&gt;#linuxalone&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+In that alternative world, there would be nothing today like the
+GNU/Linux system, and probably no free operating system at all.  No
+one attempted to develop a free operating system in the 1980s except
+the GNU Project and (later) Berkeley CSRG, which had been specifically
+asked by the GNU Project to start freeing its code.
+&lt;p&gt;
+Linus Torvalds was partly influenced by a speech about GNU in Finland
+in 1990.  It's possible that even without this influence he might have
+written a Unix-like kernel, but it probably would not have been free
+software.  Linux became free in 1992 when Linus rereleased it under
+the GNU GPL.  (See the release notes for version 0.12.)&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Even if Torvalds had released Linux under some other free software
+license, a free kernel alone would not have made much difference to
+the world.  The significance of Linux came from  fitting into a larger
+framework, a complete free operating system: GNU/Linux.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="divide"&gt;Wouldn't it be better for the
+    community if you did not divide people with this request? &lt;span 
class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#divide"&gt;#divide&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+When we ask people to say &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;, we are not dividing people. 
 We
+are asking them to give the GNU Project credit for the GNU operating
+system.  This does not criticize anyone or push anyone away.
+&lt;p&gt;
+However, there are people who do not like our saying this.  Sometimes
+those people push us away in response.  On occasion they are so rude
+that one wonders if they are intentionally trying to intimidate us
+into silence.  It doesn't silence us, but it does tend to divide the
+community, so we hope you can convince them to stop.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+However, this is only a secondary cause of division in our community.
+The largest division in the community is between people who appreciate
+free software as a social and ethical issue and consider proprietary
+software a social problem (supporters of the free software movement),
+and those who cite only practical benefits and present free software
+only as an efficient development model (the open source movement).&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+This disagreement is not just a matter of names&mdash;it is a matter
+of differing basic values.  It is essential for the community to see
+and think about this disagreement.  The names &ldquo;free
+software&rdquo; and &ldquo;open source&rdquo; are the banners of the
+two positions.
+See &lt;a href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html"&gt;Why Open
+Source misses the point of Free Software&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+The disagreement over values partially aligns with the amount of
+attention people pay to the GNU Project's role in our community.
+People who value freedom are more likely to call the system
+&ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;, and people who learn that the system is 
&ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; are
+more likely to pay attention to our philosophical arguments for
+freedom and community (which is why the choice of name for the system
+makes a real difference for society).  However, the disagreement would
+probably exist even if everyone knew the system's real origin and its
+proper name, because the issue is a real one.  It can only go away if
+we who value freedom either persuade everyone (which won't be easy) or
+are defeated entirely (let's hope not).&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="freespeech"&gt;Doesn't the GNU project
+          support an individual's free speech rights to call the system by
+          any name that individual chooses? &lt;span 
class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#freespeech"&gt;#freespeech&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+&lt;dd&gt;
+Yes, indeed, we believe you have a free speech right to call the
+operating system by any name you wish.  We ask that people call it
+GNU/Linux as a matter of doing justice to the GNU project, to promote
+the values of freedom that GNU stands for, and to inform others that
+those values of freedom brought the system into existence.
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="everyoneknows"&gt;Since everyone knows the role
+    of GNU in developing the system, doesn't the &ldquo;GNU/&rdquo; in the
+    name go without saying? &lt;span class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#everyoneknows"&gt;#everyoneknows&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;Experience shows that the system's users, and the computer-using
+public in general, often know nothing about the GNU system.  Most
+articles about the system do not mention the name &ldquo;GNU&rdquo;, or the 
ideals
+that GNU stands for.  &lt;a
+href="/gnu/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.html"&gt;GNU Users Who Have Never
+Heard of GNU&lt;/a&gt; explains further.
+&lt;p&gt;
+The people who say this are probably geeks thinking of the geeks they
+know.  Geeks often do know about GNU, but many have a completely wrong
+idea of what GNU is.  For instance, many think it is a collection
+of &lt;a href="#tools"&gt;&ldquo;tools&rdquo;&lt;/a&gt;, or a project to 
develop tools.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+The wording of this question, which is typical, illustrates another
+common misconception.  To speak of &ldquo;GNU's role&rdquo; in developing
+something assumes that GNU is a group of people.  GNU is an operating
+system.  It would make sense to talk about the GNU Project's role in
+this or some other activity, but not that of GNU.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="everyoneknows2"&gt;Since I know the role of GNU in this system,
+    why does it matter what name I use? &lt;span 
class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#everyoneknows2"&gt;#everyoneknows2&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+If your words don't reflect your knowledge, you don't teach others.
+Most people who have heard of the GNU/Linux system think it is
+&ldquo;Linux&rdquo;, that it was started by Linus Torvalds, and that
+it was intended to be &ldquo;open source&rdquo;.  If you don't tell
+them, who will?
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="windows"&gt;Isn't shortening &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;
+    to &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; just like shortening &ldquo;Microsoft 
Windows&rdquo; to &ldquo;Windows&rdquo;? &lt;span 
class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#windows"&gt;#windows&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+It's useful to shorten a frequently-used name, but not if the
+abbreviation is misleading.
+&lt;p&gt;
+Almost everyone in developed countries really does know that the
+&ldquo;Windows&rdquo; system is made by Microsoft, so shortening 
&ldquo;Microsoft
+Windows&rdquo; to &ldquo;Windows&rdquo; does not mislead anyone as to that 
system's
+nature and origin.  Shortening &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; to &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; 
does give the
+wrong idea of where the system comes from.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+The question is itself misleading because GNU and Microsoft are
+not the same kind of thing.  Microsoft is a company;
+GNU is an operating system.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="tools"&gt;Isn't GNU a collection of
+    programming tools that were included in Linux? &lt;span 
class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#tools"&gt;#tools&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+People who think that Linux is an entire operating system, if they
+hear about GNU at all, often get a wrong idea of what GNU is.  They
+may think that GNU is the name of a collection of programs&mdash;often they
+say &ldquo;programming tools&rdquo;, since some of our programming tools became
+popular on their own.  The idea that &ldquo;GNU&rdquo; is the name of an 
operating
+system is hard to fit into a conceptual framework in which that
+operating system is labeled &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;.
+&lt;p&gt;
+The GNU Project was named after the GNU operating system&mdash;it's the project
+to develop the GNU system.  (See &lt;a
+href="/gnu/initial-announcement.html"&gt;the 1983 initial 
announcement&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+We developed programs such as GCC, GNU Emacs, GAS, GLIBC, BASH, etc.,
+because we needed them for the GNU operating system.  GCC, the GNU
+Compiler Collection is the compiler that we wrote for the GNU
+operating system.  We, the many people working on the GNU Project,
+developed Ghostscript, GNUCash, GNU Chess and GNOME for the GNU system
+too.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="osvskernel"&gt;What is the difference
+between an operating system and a kernel? &lt;span 
class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#osvskernel"&gt;#osvskernel&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+An operating system, as we use the term, means a collection of
+programs that are sufficient to use the computer to do a wide variety
+of jobs.  A general purpose operating system, to be complete, ought to
+handle all the jobs that many users may want to do.
+&lt;p&gt;
+The kernel is one of the programs in an operating system&mdash;the program
+that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that are
+running.  The kernel also takes care of starting and stopping other
+programs.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+To confuse matters, some people use the term &ldquo;operating system&rdquo; to
+mean &ldquo;kernel&rdquo;.  Both uses of the term go back many years.  The
+use of &ldquo;operating system&rdquo; to mean &ldquo;kernel&rdquo; is found in 
a number of
+textbooks on system design, going back to the 80s.  At the same time,
+in the 80s, the &ldquo;Unix operating system&rdquo; was understood to include 
all
+the system programs, and Berkeley's version of Unix included even
+games. Since we intended GNU to be a Unix-like operating system, we
+use the term &ldquo;operating system&rdquo; in the same way.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Most of the time when people speak of the &ldquo;Linux operating system&rdquo;
+they are using &ldquo;operating system&rdquo; in the same sense we use: they 
mean
+the whole collection of programs.  If that's what you are referring
+to, please call it &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;.  If you mean just the kernel, then
+&ldquo;Linux&rdquo; is the right name for it, but please say 
&ldquo;kernel&rdquo; also to
+avoid ambiguity about which body of software you mean.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+If you prefer to use some other term such as &ldquo;system distribution&rdquo; 
for
+the entire collection of programs, instead of &ldquo;operating system&rdquo;,
+that's fine.  Then you would talk about GNU/Linux system
+distributions.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="house"&gt;The kernel of a system is like the foundation of a
+    house.  How can a house be almost complete when it doesn't have a
+    foundation? &lt;span class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#house"&gt;#house&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+A kernel is not much like the foundation of a house because building
+an operating system is not much like building a house.
+
+&lt;p&gt;A house is built from lots of little general parts that are cut and
+put together in situ.  They have to be put together from the bottom
+up.  Thus, when the foundation has not been built, no substantial part
+has been built; all you have is a hole in the ground.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+By contrast, an operating system consists of complex
+components that can be developed in any order.  When you have
+developed most of the components, most of the work is done.  This is
+much more like the International Space Station than like a house.  If
+most of the Space Station modules were in orbit but awaiting one other
+essential module, that would be like the GNU system in 1992.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="brain"&gt;Isn't the kernel the brain of the system? &lt;span 
class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#brain"&gt;#brain&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+A computer system is not much like a human body,
+and no part of it plays a role comparable to that of
+the brain in a human.
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="kernelmost"&gt;Isn't writing the kernel most of the work in an
+operating system? &lt;span class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#kernelmost"&gt;#kernelmost&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+No, many components take a lot of work.
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="notinstallable"&gt;How can GNU be an
+    operating system, if I can't get something called &ldquo;GNU&rdquo;
+    and install it? &lt;span class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#notinstallable"&gt;#notinstallable&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+Many &lt;a href="/distros/distros.html"&gt; packaged and installable
+versions of GNU&lt;/a&gt; are available.  None of them is called simply
+&ldquo;GNU&rdquo;, but GNU is what they basically are.
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+We expected to release the GNU system packaged for installation, but
+this plan was overtaken by events: in 1992 others were already
+packaging GNU variants containing Linux.  Starting in 1993 we
+sponsored an effort to make a better and freer GNU/Linux distribution,
+called &lt;a href="/distros/common-distros.html#Debian"&gt;Debian
+GNU/Linux&lt;/a&gt;.  The founder of Debian had already chosen that name.
+We did not ask him to call it just &ldquo;GNU&rdquo; because that was
+to be the name of a system version with the GNU Hurd kernel&mdash;which
+wasn't ready yet.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+The GNU Hurd kernel never became sufficiently ready; we only recommend
+it to those interested in working on it.  So we never packaged GNU
+with the GNU Hurd kernel.  However, Debian packaged this combination
+as Debian GNU/Hurd.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+We are now developing an advanced Scheme-based package manager called
+Guix and a complete system distribution based on it called the
+&lt;a href="/software/guix"&gt;Guix System Distribution&lt;/a&gt; or GuixSD.
+This includes repackaging a substantial part of the GNU system.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+We never took the last step of packaging GNU under the name
+&ldquo;GNU&rdquo;, but that doesn't alter what kind of thing GNU is.
+GNU is an operating system.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="afterkernel"&gt;We're calling the
+    whole system after the kernel, Linux.  Isn't it normal to name an
+    operating system after a kernel? &lt;span 
class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#afterkernel"&gt;#afterkernel&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+That practice seems to be very rare&mdash;we can't find any examples other
+than the misuse of the name &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;.  Normally an operating system 
is
+developed as a single unified project, and the developers choose a
+name for the system as a whole.  The kernel usually does not have a
+name of its own&mdash;instead, people say &ldquo;the kernel of 
such-and-such&rdquo; or
+&ldquo;the such-and-such kernel&rdquo;.
+&lt;p&gt;
+Because those two constructions are used synonymously, the expression
+&ldquo;the Linux kernel&rdquo; can easily be misunderstood as meaning 
&ldquo;the kernel
+of Linux&rdquo; and implying that Linux must be more than a kernel.  You can
+avoid the possibility of this misunderstanding by saying or writing
+&ldquo;the kernel, Linux&rdquo; or &ldquo;Linux, the kernel.&rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="feel"&gt;Can another system have &ldquo;the
+    feel of Linux&rdquo;? &lt;span class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#feel"&gt;#feel&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+There is no such thing as the &ldquo;feel of Linux&rdquo; because
+Linux has no user interfaces.  Like any modern kernel, Linux is a base
+for running programs; user interfaces belong elsewhere in the system.
+Human interaction with GNU/Linux always goes through other programs,
+and the &ldquo;feel&rdquo; comes from them.
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="long"&gt;The problem with &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; is that it is too 
long.
+    How about recommending a shorter name? &lt;span 
class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#long"&gt;#long&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+For a while we tried the name &ldquo;LiGNUx&rdquo;, which combines the words 
&ldquo;GNU&rdquo;
+and &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;.  The reaction was very bad.  People accept 
&ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;
+much better.
+&lt;p&gt;
+The shortest legitimate name for this system is &ldquo;GNU&rdquo;, but
+we call it &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; &lt;a href="#justgnu"&gt; for the reasons
+given below&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="long1"&gt;How about calling the system
+    &ldquo;GliNUx&rdquo; (instead of &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;)?
+   &lt;span class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#long1"&gt;#long1&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;The name &ldquo;GNU&rdquo; does not visibly appear in
+&ldquo;Glinux,&rdquo; so most people would not notice it is there.
+Even if it is capitalized as &ldquo;GliNUx,&rdquo; most people would
+not realize that it contains a reference to GNU.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;It would be comparable to writing &ldquo;GNU/Linux,&rdquo; but
+putting &ldquo;GNU/&rdquo; in print so small that most people could
+not read it.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="long2"&gt;The problem with &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; is that it is 
too long.
+    Why should I go to the trouble of saying &ldquo;GNU/&rdquo;?
+    &lt;span class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#long2"&gt;#long2&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;It only takes a second to say or type &ldquo;GNU/&rdquo;.  If you
+appreciate the system that we developed, can't you take one second
+to recognize our work?&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="long3"&gt;Unfortunately, &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; is five
+  syllables. People won't use such a long term. Shouldn't you find a
+  shorter one?
+  &lt;span class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#long3"&gt;#long3&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+&lt;dd&gt;&lt;p&gt;Actually, &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; is only four syllables.
+  &ldquo;Unfortunately&rdquo; is five syllables, yet people show no
+  sign of reluctance to use that word.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="justgnu"&gt;Since Linux is a secondary
+    contribution, would it be false to the facts to call the system simply
+    &ldquo;GNU&rdquo;? &lt;span class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#justgnu"&gt;#justgnu&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+It would not be false to the facts, but it is not the best thing to
+do.  Here are the reasons we call that system version &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;
+rather than just &ldquo;GNU&rdquo;:
+
+&lt;ul&gt;
+&lt;li&gt;
+It's not exactly GNU&mdash;it has a different kernel (that is, Linux).
+Distinguishing GNU/Linux from GNU is useful.&lt;/li&gt;
+&lt;li&gt;
+It would be ungentlemanly to ask people to &lt;em&gt;stop&lt;/em&gt; giving any
+credit to Linus Torvalds.  He did write an important component of the
+system.  We want to get credit for launching and sustaining the
+system's development, but this doesn't mean we should treat Linus the
+same way those who call the system &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; treat us.  We strongly
+disagree with his political views, but we deal with that disagreement
+honorably and openly, rather than by trying to cut him out of the
+credit for his contribution to the system.&lt;/li&gt;
+&lt;li&gt;
+Since many people know of the system as &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;, if we say 
&ldquo;GNU&rdquo; they
+may simply not recognize we're talking about the same system.  If we
+say &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;, they can make a connection to what they have heard
+about.&lt;/li&gt;
+&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="trademarkfee"&gt;I would have
+    to pay a fee if I use &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; in the name of a product, and 
that
+    would also apply if I say &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;.  Is it wrong if I use 
&ldquo;GNU&rdquo;
+    without &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;, to save the fee? &lt;span 
class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#trademarkfee"&gt;#trademarkfee&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+&lt;dd&gt;
+There's nothing wrong in calling the system &ldquo;GNU&rdquo;; basically, 
that's
+what it is.  It is nice to give Linus Torvalds a share of the credit
+as well, but you have no obligation to pay for the privilege of doing
+so.
+&lt;p&gt;
+So if you want to refer to the system simply as &ldquo;GNU&rdquo;, to avoid 
paying
+the fee for calling it &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;, we won't criticize you.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="many"&gt;Many other projects contributed to
+    the system as it is today; it includes TeX, X11, Apache, Perl, and many
+    more programs.  Don't your arguments imply we have to give them credit
+    too?  (But that would lead to a name so long it is
+    absurd.) &lt;span class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#many"&gt;#many&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+What we say is that you ought to give the system's principal developer
+a share of the credit.  The principal developer is the GNU Project,
+and the system is basically GNU.
+&lt;p&gt;
+If you feel even more strongly about giving credit where it is due,
+you might feel that some secondary contributors also deserve credit in
+the system's name.  If so, far be it from us to argue against it.  If
+you feel that X11 deserves credit in the system's name, and you want
+to call the system GNU/X11/Linux, please do.  If you feel that Perl
+simply cries out for mention, and you want to write GNU/Linux/Perl, go
+ahead.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Since a long name such as GNU/X11/Apache/Linux/TeX/Perl/Python/FreeCiv
+becomes absurd, at some point you will have to set a threshold and
+omit the names of the many other secondary contributions.  There is no
+one obvious right place to set the threshold, so wherever you set it,
+we won't argue against it.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Different threshold levels would lead to different choices of name for
+the system.  But one name that cannot result from concerns of fairness
+and giving credit, not for any possible threshold level, is 
&ldquo;Linux&rdquo;.
+It can't be fair to give all the credit to one secondary contribution
+(Linux) while omitting the principal contribution (GNU).&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="others"&gt;Many other projects contributed to
+    the system as it is today, but they don't insist on calling it
+    XYZ/Linux.  Why should we treat GNU specially? &lt;span 
class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#others"&gt;#others&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+Thousands of projects have developed programs commonly included in
+today's GNU/Linux systems.  They all deserve credit for their
+contributions, but they aren't the principal developers of the system
+as a whole, so they don't ask to be credited as such.
+&lt;p&gt;
+GNU is different because it is more than just a contributed program,
+more than just a collection of contributed programs.  GNU is the
+framework on which the system was made.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="allsmall"&gt;GNU is a small fraction of the system nowadays,
+    so why should we mention it? &lt;span 
class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#allsmall"&gt;#allsmall&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+&lt;dd&gt;
+In 2008, we found that GNU packages made up 15% of the
+&ldquo;main&rdquo; repository of the gNewSense GNU/Linux distribution.
+Linux made up 1.5%.  So the same argument would apply even more
+strongly to calling it &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;.
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+GNU is a small fraction of the system nowadays, and Linux is an
+even smaller fraction.  But they are the system's core; the system
+was made by combining them.  Thus, the name &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;
+remains appropriate.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="manycompanies"&gt;Many companies
+    contributed to the system as it is today; doesn't that mean
+    we ought to call it GNU/Red&nbsp;Hat/Novell/Linux? &lt;span
+    class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a
+    href="#manycompanies"&gt;#manycompanies&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+GNU is not comparable to Red Hat or Novell; it is not a company, or an
+organization, or even an activity.  GNU is an operating system.  (When
+we speak of the GNU Project, that refers to the project to develop the
+GNU system.)  The GNU/Linux system is based on GNU, and that's why GNU
+ought to appear in its name.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Much of those companies' contribution to the GNU/Linux system lies in
+the code they have contributed to various GNU packages including GCC
+and GNOME.  Saying GNU/Linux gives credit to those companies along
+with all the rest of the GNU developers.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="whyslash"&gt;Why do you write &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;
+instead of &ldquo;GNU Linux&rdquo;? &lt;span 
class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#whyslash"&gt;#whyslash&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+Following the rules of English, in the construction &ldquo;GNU Linux&rdquo; the
+word &ldquo;GNU&rdquo; modifies &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;.  This can mean either 
&ldquo;GNU's version of
+Linux&rdquo; or &ldquo;Linux, which is a GNU package.&rdquo;  Neither of those 
meanings
+fits the situation at hand.
+&lt;p&gt;
+Linux is not a GNU package; that is, it wasn't developed under the GNU
+Project's aegis or contributed specifically to the GNU Project.  Linus
+Torvalds wrote Linux independently, as his own project.  So the
+&ldquo;Linux, which is a GNU package&rdquo; meaning is not right.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+We're not talking about a distinct GNU version of Linux, the kernel.
+The free GNU/Linux distros do have
+a &lt;a href="http://directory.fsf.org/project/linux"&gt;separate version of
+Linux&lt;/a&gt;, since the &ldquo;standard&rdquo; version contains non-free
+firmware &ldquo;blobs&rdquo;.  If this were part of the GNU Project,
+it could be considered &ldquo;GNU Linux&rdquo;; but we would not want
+to call it that, because it would be too confusing.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+We're talking about a version of GNU, the operating system,
+distinguished by having Linux as the kernel.  A slash fits the
+situation because it means &ldquo;combination.&rdquo; (Think of
+&ldquo;Input/Output&rdquo;.)  This system is the combination of GNU
+and Linux; hence, &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+There are other ways to express &ldquo;combination&rdquo;.  If you
+think that a plus-sign is clearer, please use that.  In French, a
+hyphen is clear: &ldquo;GNU-Linux&rdquo;.  In Spanish, we sometimes
+say &ldquo;GNU con Linux&rdquo;.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="whyorder"&gt;Why &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; rather
+than &ldquo;Linux/GNU&rdquo;? &lt;span class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#whyorder"&gt;#whyorder&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+It is right and proper to mention the principal contribution first.
+The GNU contribution to the system is not only bigger than Linux and
+prior to Linux, we actually started the whole activity.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+In addition, &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; fits the fact that Linux is the
+lowest level of the system and GNU fills technically higher levels.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+However, if you prefer to call the system &ldquo;Linux/GNU&rdquo;, that is a 
lot
+better than what people usually do, which is to omit GNU entirely and
+make it seem that the whole system is Linux.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="distronames0"&gt;My distro's developers call it
+    &ldquo;Foobar Linux&rdquo;, but that doesn't say anything about
+    what the system consists of.  Why shouldn't they call it whatever
+    they like? &lt;span class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#distronames0"&gt;#distronames0&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+&lt;dd&gt;
+Calling a system &ldquo;Foobar Linux&rdquo; implies that it's a flavor
+of &ldquo;Linux,&rdquo; and people &lt;a href="#distronames"&gt;understand
+it that way&lt;/a&gt;.
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+If they called a GNU/Linux distro &ldquo;Foobar BSD,&rdquo; you would
+call that a mistake.  &ldquo;This system is not BSD,&rdquo; you
+would tell them.  Well, it's not Linux either.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="distronames"&gt;My distro is called
+    &ldquo;Foobar Linux&rdquo;; doesn't that show it's really Linux? &lt;span 
class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#distronames"&gt;#distronames&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;It means that the people who make the &ldquo;Foobar Linux&rdquo; 
distro are
+repeating the common mistake. We appreciate that distributions like Debian, 
Dragora, Musix, Trisquel, and Venenux have adopted
+GNU/Linux as part of their official name, and we hope that if you are involved 
with a different distribution, you will
+encourage it to do the same.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="distronames1"&gt;My distro's official name is &ldquo;Foobar
+    Linux&rdquo;; isn't it wrong to call the distro
+    anything but &ldquo;Foobar Linux&rdquo;? &lt;span 
class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#distronames1"&gt;#distronames1&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;&lt;p&gt;When they spread misinformation by changing 
&ldquo;GNU&rdquo;
+to &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;, and call their version of it &ldquo;Foobar
+Linux&rdquo;, it's proper for you to correct the misinformation by
+calling it &ldquo;Foobar GNU/Linux&rdquo;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="companies"&gt;Wouldn't it be more
+    effective to ask companies such as Mandrake, Red Hat and IBM to
+    call their distributions &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; rather than asking
+    individuals? &lt;span class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#companies"&gt;#companies&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+It isn't a choice of one or the other&mdash;we ask companies and
+organizations and individuals to help spread the word about this.  In
+fact, we have asked all three of those companies.  Mandrake said it
+would use the term &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; some of the time, but IBM
+and Red Hat were unwilling to help.  One executive said, &ldquo;This
+is a pure commercial decision; we expect to make more money calling it
+&lsquo;Linux&rsquo;.&rdquo; In other words, that company did not care
+what was right.
+&lt;p&gt;
+We can't make them do this right, but we're not the sort to give up
+just because the road isn't easy.  You may not have as much influence
+at your disposal as IBM or Red Hat, but you can still help.  Together
+we can change the situation to the point where companies will make
+more profit calling it &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="reserve"&gt;Wouldn't it be better to
+    reserve the name &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; for distributions that are purely
+    free software?  After all, that is the ideal of GNU. &lt;span 
class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#reserve"&gt;#reserve&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+The widespread practice of adding non-free software to the GNU/Linux
+system is a major problem for our community.  It teaches the users
+that non-free software is ok, and that using it is part of the spirit
+of &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;.  Many &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; User Groups make it part of 
their mission to
+help users use non-free add-ons, and may even invite salesmen to come
+and make sales pitches for them.  They adopt goals such as &ldquo;helping
+the users&rdquo; of GNU/Linux (including helping them use non-free
+applications and drivers), or making the system more popular even at
+the cost of freedom.
+&lt;p&gt;
+The question is how to try to change this.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Given that most of the community which uses GNU with Linux already
+does not realize that's what it is, for us to disown these adulterated
+versions, saying they are not really GNU, would not teach the users to
+value freedom more.  They would not get the intended message.  They
+would only respond they never thought these systems were GNU in the
+first place.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+The way to lead these users to see a connection with freedom is
+exactly the opposite: to inform them that all these system
+versions &lt;em&gt;are&lt;/em&gt; versions of GNU, that they all are based on a
+system that exists specifically for the sake of the users' freedom.
+With this understanding, they can start to recognize the distributions
+that include non-free software as perverted, adulterated versions of
+GNU, instead of thinking they are proper and appropriate &ldquo;versions of
+Linux&rdquo;.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+It is very useful to start GNU/Linux User Groups, which call the
+system GNU/Linux and adopt the ideals of the GNU Project as a basis
+for their activities.  If the Linux User Group in your area has the
+problems described above, we suggest you either campaign within the
+group to change its orientation (and name) or start a new group.  The
+people who focus on the more superficial goals have a right to their
+views, but don't let them drag you along!&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="gnudist"&gt;Why not make a GNU
+    distribution of Linux (sic) and call that GNU/Linux? &lt;span 
class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#gnudist"&gt;#gnudist&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+All the &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; distributions are actually versions of the GNU 
system
+with Linux as the kernel.  The purpose of the term &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; is 
to
+communicate this point.  To develop one new distribution and call that
+alone &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; would obscure the point we want to make.
+&lt;p&gt;
+As for developing a distribution of GNU/Linux, we already did this
+once, when we funded the early development of Debian GNU/Linux.  To do
+it again now does not seem useful; it would be a lot of work, and
+unless the new distribution had substantial practical advantages over
+other distributions, it would serve no purpose.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Instead we help the developers of 100% free GNU/Linux distributions,
+such as gNewSense and Ututo.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="linuxgnu"&gt;Why not just say &ldquo;Linux is
+    the GNU kernel&rdquo; and release some existing version of GNU/Linux under
+    the name &ldquo;GNU&rdquo;? &lt;span class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#linuxgnu"&gt;#linuxgnu&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+It might have been a good idea to adopt Linux as the GNU kernel back
+in 1992.  If we had realized, then, how long it would take to get the
+GNU Hurd to work, we might have done that.  (Alas, that is hindsight.)
+&lt;p&gt;
+If we were to take an existing version of GNU/Linux and relabel it as
+&ldquo;GNU&rdquo;, that would be somewhat like making a version of the GNU 
system
+and labeling it &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;.  That wasn't right, and we don't
+want to act like that.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="condemn"&gt;Did the GNU Project condemn
+    and oppose use of Linux in the early days? &lt;span 
class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#condemn"&gt;#condemn&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+We did not adopt Linux as our kernel, but we didn't condemn or oppose
+it.  In 1993 we started discussing the arrangements to sponsor the
+development of Debian GNU/Linux.  We also sought to cooperate with the
+people who were changing some GNU packages for use with Linux.  We
+wanted to include their changes in the standard releases so that these
+GNU packages would work out-of-the-box in combination with Linux.  But
+the changes were often ad-hoc and nonportable; they needed to be cleaned
+up for installation.
+&lt;p&gt;
+The people who had made the changes showed little interest in
+cooperating with us.  One of them actually told us that he didn't care
+about working with the GNU Project because he was a &ldquo;Linux user&rdquo;.
+That came as a shock, because the people who ported GNU packages to
+other systems had generally wanted to work with us to get their
+changes installed.  Yet these people, developing a system that was
+primarily based on GNU, were the first (and still practically the
+only) group that was unwilling to work with us.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+It was this experience that first showed us that people were calling a
+version of the GNU system &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;, and that this confusion was
+obstructing our work.  Asking you to call the system &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; is
+our response to that problem, and to the other problems caused by the
+&ldquo;Linux&rdquo; misnomer.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="wait"&gt;Why did you wait so
+    long before asking people to use the name GNU/Linux? &lt;span 
class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#wait"&gt;#wait&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;Actually we didn't.  We began talking privately with developers and
+distributors about this in 1994, and made a more public campaign in
+1996.  We will continue for as long as it's necessary.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="allgpled"&gt;Should the GNU/&lt;i&gt;name&lt;/i&gt;
+    convention be applied to all programs that are GPL'ed? &lt;span 
class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#allgpled"&gt;#allgpled&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+We never refer to individual programs as 
&ldquo;GNU/&lt;i&gt;name&lt;/i&gt;&rdquo;.  When a program
+is a GNU package, we may call it &ldquo;GNU &lt;i&gt;name&lt;/i&gt;&rdquo;.
+&lt;p&gt;
+GNU, the operating system, is made up of many different programs.
+Some of the programs in GNU were written as part of the GNU Project or
+specifically contributed to it; these are the GNU packages, and we
+often use &ldquo;GNU&rdquo; in their names.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+It's up to the developers of a program to decide if they want to contribute
+it and make it a GNU package.  If you have developed a program and you
+would like it to be a GNU package, please write to
+&lt;a href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;&lt;address@hidden&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, so we 
can evaluate it
+and decide whether we want it.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+It wouldn't be fair to put the name GNU on every individual program
+that is released under the GPL.  If you write a program and release it
+under the GPL, that doesn't mean the GNU Project wrote it or that you
+wrote it for us.  For instance, the kernel, Linux, is released under
+the GNU GPL, but Linus did not write it as part of the GNU Project&mdash;he
+did the work independently.  If something is not a GNU package, the
+GNU Project can't take credit for it, and putting &ldquo;GNU&rdquo; in its name
+would be improper.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+In contrast, we do deserve the overall credit for the GNU operating
+system as a whole, even though not for each and every program in it.
+The system exists as a system because of our determination and
+persistence, starting in 1984, many years before Linux was begun.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+The operating system in which Linux became popular was basically the
+same as the GNU operating system.  It was not entirely the same,
+because it had a different kernel, but it was mostly the same system.
+It was a variant of GNU.  It was the GNU/Linux system.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Linux continues to be used primarily in derivatives of that system&mdash;in
+today's versions of the GNU/Linux system.  What gives these systems
+their identity is GNU and Linux at the center of them, not particularly
+Linux alone.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="unix"&gt;Since much of GNU comes
+from Unix, shouldn't GNU give credit
+to Unix by using &ldquo;Unix&rdquo; in its name? &lt;span 
class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#unix"&gt;#unix&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+Actually, none of GNU comes from Unix.  Unix was proprietary software
+(and still is), so using any of its code in GNU would have been
+illegal.  This is not a coincidence; this is why we developed GNU:
+since you could not have freedom in using Unix, or any of the other
+operating systems of the day, we needed a free system to replace it.
+We could not copy programs, or even parts of them, from Unix;
+everything had to be written afresh.
+&lt;p&gt;
+No code in GNU comes from Unix, but GNU is a Unix-compatible system;
+therefore, many of the ideas and specifications of GNU do come from
+Unix.  The name &ldquo;GNU&rdquo;, which stands for &ldquo;GNU's Not
+Unix&rdquo;, is a humorous way of giving credit to Unix for this,
+following a hacker tradition of recursive acronyms that started in the
+70s.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+The first such recursive acronym was TINT, &ldquo;TINT Is Not
+TECO&rdquo;.  The author of TINT wrote another implementation of TECO
+(there were already many of them, for various systems), but instead of
+calling it by a dull name like &ldquo;&lt;em&gt;somethingorother&lt;/em&gt; 
TECO&rdquo;, he
+thought of a clever amusing name.  (That's what hacking
+means: &lt;a href="http://stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html"&gt;playful
+cleverness&lt;/a&gt;.)&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Other hackers enjoyed that name so much that we imitated the approach.
+It became a tradition that, when you were writing from scratch a
+program that was similar to some existing program (let's imagine its
+name was &ldquo;Klever&rdquo;), you could give it a recursive acronym name, 
such
+as &ldquo;MINK&rdquo; for &ldquo;MINK Is Not Klever.&rdquo;  In this same 
spirit we called our
+replacement for Unix &ldquo;GNU's Not Unix&rdquo;.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Historically, AT&amp;T which developed Unix did not want anyone to
+give it credit by using &ldquo;Unix&rdquo; in the name of a similar
+system, not even in a system 99% copied from Unix.  AT&amp;T actually
+threatened to sue anyone giving AT&amp;T credit in that way.  This is
+why each of the various modified versions of Unix (all proprietary,
+like Unix) had a completely different name that didn't include
+&ldquo;Unix&rdquo;.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="bsd"&gt;Should we say &ldquo;GNU/BSD&rdquo;
+too? &lt;span class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#bsd"&gt;#bsd&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+We don't call the BSD systems (FreeBSD, etc.) &ldquo;GNU/BSD&rdquo; systems,
+because that term does not fit the history of the BSD systems.
+&lt;p&gt;
+The BSD system was developed by UC Berkeley as non-free software in
+the 80s, and became free in the early 90s.  A free operating system
+that exists today is almost certainly either a variant of the GNU
+system, or a kind of BSD system.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+People sometimes ask whether BSD too is a variant of GNU, as GNU/Linux
+is.  It is not.  The BSD developers were inspired to make their code
+free software by the example of the GNU Project, and explicit appeals
+from GNU activists helped convince them to start, but the code had
+little overlap with GNU.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+BSD systems today use some GNU packages, just as the GNU system and
+its variants use some BSD programs; however, taken as wholes, they are
+two different systems that evolved separately.  The BSD developers did
+not write a kernel and add it to the GNU system, so a name like
+GNU/BSD would not fit the situation.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+The connection between GNU/Linux and GNU is much closer, and that's
+why the name &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; is appropriate for it.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+There is a version of GNU which uses the kernel from NetBSD.  Its
+developers call it &ldquo;Debian GNU/NetBSD&rdquo;, but 
&ldquo;GNU/kernelofNetBSD&rdquo;
+would be more accurate, since NetBSD is an entire system, not just
+the kernel.  This is not a BSD system, since most of the system
+is the same as the GNU/Linux system.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="othersys"&gt;If I install the GNU tools
+on Windows, does that mean I am running a GNU/Windows system? &lt;span 
class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#othersys"&gt;#othersys&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+Not in the same sense that we mean by &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;.  The tools of 
GNU
+are just a part of the GNU software, which is just a part of the GNU
+system, and underneath them you would still have another complete
+operating system which has no code in common with GNU.  All in all,
+that's a very different situation from GNU/Linux.
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="justlinux"&gt;Can't Linux be used without GNU? &lt;span 
class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#justlinux"&gt;#justlinux&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+Linux is used by itself, or with small other programs, in some
+appliances.  These small software systems are a far cry from the
+GNU/Linux system.  Users do not install them on PCs, for instance, and
+would find them rather disappointing.  It is useful to say that these
+appliances run just Linux, to show how different those small platforms
+are from GNU/Linux.
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt <span class="inserted"><ins><em>id="howmuch"&gt;How much of the GNU 
system is needed for the system
+to be
+GNU/Linux? &lt;span class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#howmuch"&gt;#howmuch&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+&ldquo;How much&rdquo; is not a meaningful question because the GNU
+system does not have precise boundaries.
+&lt;p&gt;
+GNU is an operating system maintained by a community.  It includes far
+more than just the GNU software packages (of which we have a specific
+list), and people add more packages constantly.  Despite these
+changes, it remains the GNU system, and adding Linux to that yields
+GNU/Linux.  If you use part of the GNU system and omit part, there is
+no meaningful way to say &ldquo;how much&rdquo; you used.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+If we look at the level of packages, Linux is one important package in
+the GNU/Linux system.  The inclusion of one important GNU package is
+enough to justify our request for equal mention.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt</em></ins></span> id="linuxsyswithoutgnu"&gt;Are there complete Linux 
systems [sic] without GNU? &lt;span class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#linuxsyswithoutgnu"&gt;#linuxsyswithoutgnu&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+There are complete systems that contain Linux and not GNU; Android is
+an example.  But it is a mistake to call them &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;
+systems, just as it is a mistake to call GNU a &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; system.
+&lt;p&gt;
+Android is very different from the GNU/Linux system&mdash;because
+the two have very little code in common.  In fact, the only thing they
+have in common is Linux.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+If you call the whole GNU/Linux system &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;,
+you will find it necessary to say things like, &ldquo;Android contains
+Linux, but it isn't Linux, because it doesn't have the usual Linux
+[sic] libraries and utilities [meaning the GNU system].&rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Android contains just as much of Linux as GNU/Linux does.  What it
+doesn't have is the GNU system.  Android replaces that with Google
+software that works quite differently.  What makes Android different
+from GNU/Linux is the absence of GNU.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt <span class="removed"><del><strong>id="howmuch"&gt;How much of the GNU 
system is needed for the system</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>id="usegnulinuxandandroid"&gt;Is it 
correct</em></ins></span> to <span class="removed"><del><strong>be
+GNU/Linux?</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>say 
&ldquo;using Linux&rdquo; if it refers to using GNU/Linux and
+using Android?</em></ins></span> &lt;span 
class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>href="#howmuch"&gt;#howmuch&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;</strong></del></span>
 <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#usegnulinuxandandroidlinuxsyswithoutgnu"&gt;#usegnulinuxandandroidlinuxsyswithoutgnu&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;</em></ins></span>
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>&ldquo;How much&rdquo;</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>Far from it.  That usage</em></ins></span> is 
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>so strained that
+people will</em></ins></span> not <span class="inserted"><ins><em>understand 
the intended meaning.
+&lt;p&gt;
+The public will find it very strange to speak of using Android as
+&ldquo;using Linux&rdquo;.  It's like having</em></ins></span> a <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>meaningful question because</strong></del></span> 
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>conversation, then
+saying you were conversing with</em></ins></span> the <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>GNU
+system does not have precise boundaries.</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>person's intestines or the
+person's circulatory system.&lt;/p&gt;</em></ins></span>
+&lt;p&gt;
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>GNU is an operating system 
maintained</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>The public &lt;em&gt;will&lt;/em&gt; 
understand the idea of &ldquo;using
+Linux&rdquo; when it's really GNU/Linux,</em></ins></span> by <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>a community.  It includes far
+more than just</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>way 
of</em></ins></span> the <span class="removed"><del><strong>GNU software 
packages (of which we have</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>usual
+misunderstanding: thinking of the whole system as
+&ldquo;Linux&rdquo;.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Use of Android and use of GNU/Linux are totally different, as
+different as driving</em></ins></span> a <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>specific
+list),</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>car</em></ins></span> and <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>people add more packages constantly.  Despite these
+changes, it remains</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>riding a bicycle.  The fact that</em></ins></span> 
the <span class="removed"><del><strong>GNU system, and 
adding</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>first two both contain</em></ins></span> Linux 
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>is irrelevant</em></ins></span> to <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>using them, just as the
+fact</em></ins></span> that <span class="removed"><del><strong>yields
+GNU/Linux.</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>a car and a 
bicycle both have a structure of metal is
+irrelevant to using those two.</em></ins></span>  If you <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>use part</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>wish to talk about using cars
+and bikes, you wouldn't speak</em></ins></span> of <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>&ldquo;riding metal objects&rdquo;
+&mdash; not unless you're playing games with</em></ins></span> the <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>GNU system</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>reader.  You would
+say, &ldquo;using cars</em></ins></span> and <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>omit part, there is
+no meaningful</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>bikes.&rdquo; Likewise, the clear</em></ins></span> 
way to <span class="removed"><del><strong>say &ldquo;how much&rdquo; you 
used.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+If we look at the level of packages, Linux is one important package in
+the</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>talk about using</em></ins></span> GNU/Linux 
<span class="removed"><del><strong>system.  The inclusion of one important GNU 
package</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>and 
Android</em></ins></span> is
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>enough</strong></del></span> to <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>justify our request for equal mention.
+&lt;/p&gt;</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>say 
&ldquo;using
+GNU/Linux and Android.&rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;</em></ins></span>
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="helplinus"&gt;Why not call the system
+    &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; anyway, and strengthen Linus Torvalds' role as 
posterboy for our
+    community? &lt;span class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#helplinus"&gt;#helplinus&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+Linus Torvalds is the &ldquo;posterboy&rdquo; (other people's choice of word, 
not
+ours) for his goals, not ours.  His goal is to make the system more
+popular, and he believes its value to society lies merely in the
+practical advantages it offers: its power, reliability and easy
+availability.  He has never advocated
+&lt;a href="/philosophy/why-free.html"&gt;freedom to cooperate&lt;/a&gt; as an
+ethical principle, which is why the public does not connect the name
+&ldquo;Linux&rdquo; with that principle.
+&lt;p&gt;
+Linus publicly states his disagreement with the free software
+movement's ideals.  He developed non-free software in his job for many
+years (and said so to a large audience at a &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;World show), and
+publicly invited fellow developers of Linux, the kernel, to use
+non-free software to work on it with him.  He goes even further, and
+rebukes people who suggest that engineers and scientists should
+consider social consequences of our technical work&mdash;rejecting the
+lessons society learned from the development of the atom bomb.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+There is nothing wrong with writing a free program for the motivations
+of learning and having fun; the kernel Linus wrote for those reasons
+was an important contribution to our community.  But those motivations
+are not the reason why the complete free system, GNU/Linux, exists,
+and they won't secure our freedom in the future.  The public needs to
+know this.  Linus has the right to promote his views; however, people
+should be aware that the operating system in question
+stems from ideals of freedom, not from his views.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="claimlinux"&gt;Isn't it wrong for us to label Linus Torvalds'
+    work as GNU? &lt;span class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#claimlinux"&gt;#claimlinux&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+It would be wrong, so we don't do that.  Torvalds' work is Linux, the
+kernel; we are careful not to attribute that work to the GNU Project
+or label it as &ldquo;GNU&rdquo;.  When we talk about the whole
+system, the name &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; gives him a share of the
+credit.
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+
+&lt;dt id="linusagreed"&gt;Does Linus Torvalds
+    agree that Linux is just the kernel? &lt;span 
class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#linusagreed"&gt;#linusagreed&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;He recognized this at the beginning.  The earliest Linux release notes
+said, &lt;a
+href="http://ftp.funet.fi/pub/linux/historical/kernel/old-versions/RELNOTES-0.01"&gt;
+&ldquo;Most of the tools used with linux are GNU software and are under the
+GNU copyleft. These tools aren't in the distribution - ask me (or GNU)
+for more info&rdquo;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="finishhurd"&gt;Why not finish the GNU Hurd kernel, release the GNU 
system
+    as a whole, and forget the question of what to call GNU/Linux?
+    &lt;span class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#finishhurd"&gt;#finishhurd&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+We would like credit for the GNU operating system no matter which
+kernel is used with it.
+
+&lt;p&gt;Making the GNU Hurd work well enough to compete with Linux would be
+a big job, and it's not clearly necessary.  The only thing ethically
+wrong with Linux as a kernel is its inclusion of firmware
+&ldquo;blobs&rdquo;; the best fix for that problem
+is &lt;a href="http://fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects"&gt; developing
+free replacement for the blobs&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="lost"&gt;The battle is already lost&mdash;society
+    has made its decision and we can't change it, so why even think about
+    it? &lt;span class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#lost"&gt;#lost&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+This isn't a battle, it is a campaign of education.  What to call the
+system is not a single decision, to be made at one moment by
+&ldquo;society&rdquo;: each person, each organization, can decide what
+name to use.  You can't make others say &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;, but
+you can decide to call the system &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;
+yourself&mdash;and by doing so, you will help educate others.
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="whatgood"&gt;Society has made its
+    decision and we can't change it, so what good does it do if I say
+    &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;? &lt;span class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#whatgood"&gt;#whatgood&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+This is not an all-or-nothing situation: correct and incorrect
+pictures are being spread more or less by various people.  If you call
+the system &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;, you will help others learn the system's 
true
+history, origin, and reason for being.  You can't correct the misnomer
+everywhere on your own, any more than we can, but you can help.  If
+only a few hundred people see you use the term &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;, you 
will
+have educated a substantial number of people with very little work.
+And some of them will spread the correction to others.
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="explain"&gt;Wouldn't it be better to call
+    the system &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; and teach people its real origin with a 
ten-minute
+    explanation? &lt;span class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#explain"&gt;#explain&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+If you help us by explaining to others in that way, we appreciate your
+effort, but that is not the best method.  It is not as effective as
+calling the system &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;, and uses your time inefficiently.
+&lt;p&gt;
+It is ineffective because it may not sink in, and surely will not
+propagate.  Some of the people who hear your explanation will pay
+attention, and they may learn a correct picture of the system's
+origin.  But they are unlikely to repeat the explanation to others
+whenever they talk about the system.  They will probably just call it
+&ldquo;Linux&rdquo;.  Without particularly intending to, they will help spread 
the
+incorrect picture.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+It is inefficient because it takes a lot more time.  Saying and
+writing &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; will take you only a few seconds a day, not
+minutes, so you can afford to reach far more people that way.
+Distinguishing between Linux and GNU/Linux when you write and speak is
+by far the easiest way to help the GNU Project effectively.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="treatment"&gt;Some people laugh at you
+    when you ask them to call the system GNU/Linux.  Why do you subject
+    yourself to this treatment? &lt;span class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#treatment"&gt;#treatment&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+Calling the system &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; tends to give people a mistaken picture 
of
+the system's history and reason for existence.  People who laugh at
+our request probably have picked up that mistaken picture&mdash;they think
+our work was done by Linus, so they laugh when we ask for credit for
+it.  If they knew the truth, they probably wouldn't laugh.
+&lt;p&gt;
+Why do we take the risk of making a request that sometimes leads
+people to ridicule us?  Because often it has useful results that help
+the GNU Project.  We will run the risk of undeserved abuse to achieve
+our goals.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+If you see such an ironically unfair situation occurring, please don't
+sit idly by.  Please teach the laughing people the real history.  When
+they see why the request is justified, those who have any sense will
+stop laughing.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="alienate"&gt;Some people condemn you
+    when you ask them to call the system GNU/Linux.  Don't you lose by
+    alienating them? &lt;span class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#alienate"&gt;#alienate&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+Not much.  People who don't appreciate our role in developing the
+system are unlikely to make substantial efforts to help us.  If they
+do work that advances our goals, such as releasing free software, it
+is probably for other unrelated reasons, not because we asked them.
+Meanwhile, by teaching others to attribute our work to someone else,
+they are undermining our ability to recruit the help of others.
+&lt;p&gt;
+It makes no sense to worry about alienating people who are already
+mostly uncooperative, and it is self-defeating to be deterred from
+correcting a major problem lest we anger the people who perpetuate it.
+Therefore, we will continue trying to correct the misnomer.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="rename"&gt;Whatever you contributed,
+    is it legitimate to rename the operating system? &lt;span 
class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#rename"&gt;#rename&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+We are not renaming anything; we have been calling this system 
&ldquo;GNU&rdquo;
+ever since we announced it in 1983.  The people who tried to rename
+it to &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; should not have done so.&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="force"&gt;Isn't it wrong to force people to call
+the system &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;? &lt;span 
class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#force"&gt;#force&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+It would be wrong to force them, and we don't try.  We call the system
+&ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;, and we ask you to do it too.
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="whynotsue"&gt;Why not sue people who call
+the whole system &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;? &lt;span 
class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#whynotsue"&gt;#whynotsue&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+There are no legal grounds to sue them, but since we believe in
+freedom of speech, we wouldn't want to do that anyway.  We ask people
+to call the system &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo; because that is the right thing to 
do.
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="require"&gt;Shouldn't you put something in
+    the GNU GPL to require people to call the system &ldquo;GNU&rdquo;? 
&lt;span class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#require"&gt;#require&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+The purpose of the GNU GPL is to protect the users' freedom from those
+who would make proprietary versions of free software.  While it is
+true that those who call the system &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; often do things that 
limit
+the users' freedom, such as bundling non-free software with the
+GNU/Linux system or even developing non-free software for such use,
+the mere act of calling the system &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; does not, in itself, 
deny
+users their freedom.  It seems improper to make the GPL restrict what
+name people can use for the system.
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="BSDlicense"&gt;Since you objected to the original BSD license's
+advertising requirement to give credit to the University of California,
+isn't it hypocritical to demand credit for the GNU project? &lt;span 
class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#BSDlicense"&gt;#BSDlicense&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+It would be hypocritical to make the name GNU/Linux a license
+requirement, and we don't.  We only &lt;em&gt;ask&lt;/em&gt; you to give us the
+credit we deserve.
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+Please note that there are at least &lt;a href="/licenses/bsd.html"&gt;
+two different BSD licenses&lt;/a&gt;.  For clarity's sake, please don't use
+the term &ldquo;BSD license&rdquo; without specifying which one.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="deserve"&gt;Since you failed to put
+    something in the GNU GPL to require people to call the system 
&ldquo;GNU&rdquo;,
+    you deserve what happened; why are you complaining now? &lt;span 
class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#deserve"&gt;#deserve&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+The question presupposes a rather controversial general ethical
+premise: that if people do not force you to treat them fairly, you are
+entitled to take advantage of them as much as you like.  In other
+words, it assumes that might makes right.
+&lt;p&gt;
+We hope you disagree with that premise just as we do.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="contradict"&gt;Wouldn't you be better
+    off not contradicting what so many people believe? &lt;span 
class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#contradict"&gt;#contradict&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+We don't think we should go along with large numbers of people because
+they have been misled.  We hope you too will decide that truth is
+important.
+&lt;p&gt;
+We could never have developed a free operating system without first
+denying the belief, held by most people, that proprietary software
+was legitimate and acceptable.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="somanyright"&gt;Since many people call
+it &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;, doesn't that make it right? &lt;span 
class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#somanyright"&gt;#somanyright&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+We don't think that the popularity of an error makes it the truth.
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="knownname"&gt;Isn't it better to call the
+    system by the name most users already know? &lt;span 
class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#knownname"&gt;#knownname&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+Users are not incapable of learning.  Since &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;
+includes &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;, they will recognize what you're talking
+about.  If you add &ldquo;(often erroneously referred to as
+&lsquo;Linux&rsquo;)&rdquo; once in a while, they will all understand.
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;dt id="winning"&gt;Many people care about what's
+    convenient or who's winning, not about arguments of right or wrong.
+    Couldn't you get more of their support by a different
+    road? &lt;span class="anchor-reference-id"&gt;(&lt;a 
href="#winning"&gt;#winning&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/dt&gt;
+
+&lt;dd&gt;
+To care only about what's convenient or who's winning is an amoral
+approach to life.  Non-free software is an example of that amoral
+approach and thrives on it.  Thus, in the long run it would be
+self-defeating for us to adopt that approach.  We will continue
+talking in terms of right and wrong.
+&lt;p&gt;
+We hope that you are one of those for whom right and wrong do matter.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/dd&gt;
+
+&lt;/dl&gt;
+
+&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --&gt;
+&lt;div id="footer"&gt;
+&lt;div class="unprintable"&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to
+&lt;a href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;&lt;address@hidden&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.
+There are also &lt;a href="/contact/"&gt;other ways to contact&lt;/a&gt;
+the FSF.  Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to &lt;a 
href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;&lt;address@hidden&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- 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 &lt;a href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;
+        &lt;address@hidden&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+        &lt;p&gt;For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+        our web pages, see &lt;a
+        href="/server/standards/README.translations.html"&gt;Translations
+        README&lt;/a&gt;. --&gt;
+Please see the &lt;a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html"&gt;Translations
+README&lt;/a&gt; for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;
+
+&lt;!-- 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. --&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Copyright &copy; 2001, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 
2015, 2016, 2017, 2018
+Free Software Foundation, Inc.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;This page is licensed under a &lt;a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/"&gt;Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International 
License&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --&gt;
+
+&lt;p class="unprintable"&gt;Updated:
+&lt;!-- timestamp start --&gt;
+$Date: 2018/05/30 00:59:15 $
+&lt;!-- timestamp end --&gt;
+&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;
+&lt;/body&gt;
+&lt;/html&gt;
+</pre></body></html>

Index: gnu/po/thegnuproject.it-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: gnu/po/thegnuproject.it-diff.html
diff -N gnu/po/thegnuproject.it-diff.html
--- /dev/null   1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ gnu/po/thegnuproject.it-diff.html   30 May 2018 00:59:17 -0000      1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,1082 @@
+<!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>/gnu/thegnuproject.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>
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --&gt;
+&lt;!-- Parent-Version: 1.84 --&gt;
+&lt;title&gt;About the GNU Project
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation&lt;/title&gt;
+&lt;meta http-equiv="Keywords" content="GNU, GNU Project, FSF, Free Software, 
Free Software Foundation, History" /&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/gnu/po/thegnuproject.translist" --&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --&gt;
+&lt;h2&gt;The GNU Project&lt;/h2&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+by &lt;a href="http://www.stallman.org/"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Richard 
Stallman&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;blockquote&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Originally published in the book &lt;em&gt;Open Sources&lt;/em&gt;.  Richard
+Stallman was &lt;a href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html"&gt;
+never a supporter of &ldquo;open source&rdquo;&lt;/a&gt;, but contributed
+this article so that the ideas of the free software movement would not
+be entirely absent from that book.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Why it is even more important than ever
+&lt;a href="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html"&gt;to insist
+that the software we use be free&lt;/a&gt;.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/blockquote&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;The first software-sharing community&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+When I started working at the 
+&lt;acronym title="Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology"&gt;MIT&lt;/acronym&gt;
+Artificial Intelligence Lab in 1971, I became part of a
+software-sharing community that had existed for many years.  Sharing
+of software was not limited to our particular community; it is as old
+as computers, just as sharing of recipes is as old as cooking.  But we
+did it more than most.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+The AI Lab used a timesharing operating system called
+&lt;acronym title="Incompatible Timesharing System"&gt;ITS&lt;/acronym&gt; (the
+Incompatible Timesharing System) that the lab's staff hackers (1) had
+designed and written in assembler language for the Digital
+&lt;acronym title="Programmed Data Processor"&gt;PDP&lt;/acronym&gt;-10, one of
+the large computers of the era.  As a member of this community, an AI
+Lab staff system hacker, my job was to improve this system.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+We did not call our software &ldquo;free software&rdquo;, because that
+term did not yet exist; but that is what it was.  Whenever people from
+another university or a company wanted to port and use a program, we
+gladly let them.  If you saw someone using an unfamiliar and
+interesting program, you could always ask to see the source code, so
+that you could read it, change it, or cannibalize parts of it to make
+a new program.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+(1) The use of &ldquo;hacker&rdquo; to mean &ldquo;security
+breaker&rdquo; is a confusion on the part of the mass media.  We
+hackers refuse to recognize that meaning, and continue using the word
+to mean someone who loves to program, someone who enjoys playful
+cleverness, or the combination of the two.  See my
+article, &lt;a href="http://stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html"&gt;On
+Hacking&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;The collapse of the community&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+The situation changed drastically in the early 1980s when Digital
+discontinued the PDP-10 series.  Its architecture, elegant and
+powerful in the 60s, could not extend naturally to the larger address
+spaces that were becoming feasible in the 80s.  This meant that nearly
+all of the programs composing ITS were obsolete.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+The AI Lab hacker community had already collapsed, not long before.
+In 1981, the spin-off company Symbolics had hired away nearly all of
+the hackers from the AI Lab, and the depopulated community was unable
+to maintain itself.  (The book Hackers, by Steve Levy, describes these
+events, as well as giving a clear picture of this community in its
+prime.)  When the AI Lab bought a new PDP-10 in 1982, its
+administrators decided to use Digital's nonfree timesharing system
+instead of ITS.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+The modern computers of the era, such as the VAX or the 68020, had
+their own operating systems, but none of them were free software: you
+had to sign a nondisclosure agreement even to get an executable copy.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+This meant that the first step in using a computer was to promise not
+to help your neighbor.  A cooperating community was forbidden.  The
+rule made by the owners of proprietary software was, &ldquo;If you
+share with your neighbor, you are a pirate.  If you want any changes,
+beg us to make them.&rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+The idea that the proprietary software social system&mdash;the system
+that says you are not allowed to share or change software&mdash;is
+antisocial, that it is unethical, that it is simply wrong, may come as
+a surprise to some readers.  But what else could we say about a system
+based on dividing the public and keeping users helpless?  Readers who
+find the idea surprising may have taken the proprietary software
+social system as a given, or judged it on the terms suggested by
+proprietary software businesses.  Software publishers have worked long
+and hard to convince people that there is only one way to look at the
+issue.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+When software publishers talk about &ldquo;enforcing&rdquo; their
+&ldquo;rights&rdquo; or &ldquo;stopping &lt;a 
href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Piracy"&gt;piracy&lt;/a&gt;&rdquo;, what 
they
+actually &lt;em&gt;say&lt;/em&gt; is secondary.  The real message of these 
statements is
+in the unstated assumptions they take for granted, which the public is
+asked to accept without examination.  Let's therefore examine them.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+One assumption is that software companies have an unquestionable natural
+right to own software and thus have power over all its users.  (If
+this were a natural right, then no matter how much harm it does to the
+public, we could not object.)  Interestingly, the US Constitution and
+legal tradition reject this view; copyright is not a natural right,
+but an artificial government-imposed monopoly that limits the users'
+natural right to copy.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Another unstated assumption is that the only important thing about
+software is what jobs it allows you to do&mdash;that we computer users
+should not care what kind of society we are allowed to have.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+A third assumption is that we would have no usable software (or would
+never have a program to do this or that particular job) if we did not
+offer a company power over the users of the program.  This assumption
+may have seemed plausible, before the free software movement
+demonstrated that we can make plenty of useful software without
+putting chains on it.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+If we decline to accept these assumptions, and judge these issues
+based on ordinary commonsense morality while placing the users first,
+we arrive at very different conclusions.  Computer users should be
+free to modify programs to fit their needs, and free to share
+software, because helping other people is the basis of society.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+There is no room here for an extensive statement of the reasoning
+behind this conclusion, so I refer the reader to the web pages
+&lt;a href="/philosophy/why-free.html"&gt;
+http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html&lt;/a&gt; and
+&lt;a href="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html"&gt;
+http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html&lt;/a&gt;.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;A stark moral choice&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+With my community gone, to continue as before was impossible.
+Instead, I faced a stark moral choice.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+The easy choice was to join the proprietary software world, signing
+nondisclosure agreements and promising not to help my fellow hacker.
+Most likely I would also be developing software that was released
+under nondisclosure agreements, thus adding to the pressure on other
+people to betray their fellows too.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+I could have made money this way, and perhaps amused myself writing
+code.  But I knew that at the end of my career, I would look back on
+years of building walls to divide people, and feel I had spent my life
+making the world a worse place.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+I had already experienced being on the receiving end of a
+nondisclosure agreement, when someone refused to give me and the MIT
+AI Lab the source code for the control program for our printer.  (The
+lack of certain features in this program made use of the printer
+extremely frustrating.)  So I could not tell myself that nondisclosure
+agreements were innocent.  I was very angry when he refused to share
+with us; I could not turn around and do the same thing to everyone
+else.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Another choice, straightforward but unpleasant, was to leave the
+computer field.  That way my skills would not be misused, but they
+would still be wasted.  I would not be culpable for dividing and
+restricting computer users, but it would happen nonetheless.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+So I looked for a way that a programmer could do something for the
+good.  I asked myself, was there a program or programs that I could
+write, so as to make a community possible once again?&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+The answer was clear: what was needed first was an operating system.
+That is the crucial software for starting to use a computer.  With an
+operating system, you can do many things; without one, you cannot run
+the computer at all.  With a free operating system, we could again
+have a community of cooperating hackers&mdash;and invite anyone to join.
+And anyone would be able to use a computer without starting out by
+conspiring to deprive his or her friends.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+As an operating system developer, I had the right skills for this job.
+So even though I could not take success for granted, I realized that I
+was elected to do the job.  I chose to make the system compatible with
+Unix so that it would be portable, and so that Unix users could easily
+switch to it.  The name GNU was chosen, following a hacker tradition, as
+a recursive acronym for &ldquo;GNU's Not Unix.&rdquo; It is pronounced
+as &lt;a href="/gnu/pronunciation.html"&gt;one syllable with a hard 
g&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+An operating system does not mean just a kernel, barely enough to run
+other programs.  In the 1970s, every operating system worthy of the
+name included command processors, assemblers, compilers, interpreters,
+debuggers, text editors, mailers, and much more.  ITS had them,
+Multics had them, VMS had them, and Unix had them.  The GNU operating
+system would include them too.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Later I heard these words, attributed to Hillel (1):&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;
+     If I am not for myself, who will be for me?&lt;br /&gt;
+     If I am only for myself, what am I?&lt;br /&gt;
+     If not now, when?
+&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+The decision to start the GNU Project was based on a similar spirit.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+(1) As an Atheist, I don't follow any religious leaders, but I
+sometimes find I admire something one of them has said.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;Free as in freedom&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+The term &ldquo;free software&rdquo; is sometimes misunderstood&mdash;it
+has nothing to do with price.  It is about freedom.  Here, therefore,
+is the definition of free software.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;A program is free software, for you, a particular user, if:&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;ul&gt;
+  &lt;li&gt;You have the freedom to run the program as you wish, for any 
purpose.&lt;/li&gt;
+
+  &lt;li&gt;You have the freedom to modify the program to suit your needs.
+     (To make this freedom effective in practice, you must have access
+     to the source code, since making changes in a program without
+     having the source code is exceedingly difficult.)&lt;/li&gt;
+
+  &lt;li&gt;You have the freedom to redistribute copies, either gratis
+     or for a fee.&lt;/li&gt;
+
+  &lt;li&gt;You have the freedom to distribute modified versions of the 
program,
+     so that the community can benefit from your improvements.&lt;/li&gt;
+&lt;/ul&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Since &ldquo;free&rdquo; refers to freedom, not to price, there is no
+contradiction between selling copies and free software.  In fact, the
+freedom to sell copies is crucial: collections of free software sold
+on CD-ROMs are important for the community, and selling them is an
+important way to raise funds for free software development.
+Therefore, a program which people are not free to include on these
+collections is not free software.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Because of the ambiguity of &ldquo;free&rdquo;, people have long
+looked for alternatives, but no one has found a better term.
+The English language has more words and nuances than any other, but it
+lacks a simple, unambiguous, word that means &ldquo;free&rdquo;, as in
+freedom&mdash;&ldquo;unfettered&rdquo; being the word that comes closest in
+meaning.  Such alternatives as &ldquo;liberated&rdquo;,
+&ldquo;freedom&rdquo;, and &ldquo;open&rdquo; have either the wrong
+meaning or some other disadvantage.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;GNU software and the GNU system&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Developing a whole system is a very large project.  To bring it into
+reach, I decided to adapt and use existing pieces of free software
+wherever that was possible.  For example, I decided at the very
+beginning to use TeX as the principal text formatter; a few years
+later, I decided to use the X Window System rather than writing
+another window system for GNU.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Because of these decisions, and others like them,
+the GNU system is not the same as the collection of all
+GNU software.  The GNU system includes programs that are not GNU
+software, programs that were developed by other people and projects
+for their own purposes, but which we can use because they are free
+software.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;Commencing the project&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+In January 1984 I quit my job at MIT and began writing GNU software.
+Leaving MIT was necessary so that MIT would not be able to interfere
+with distributing GNU as free software.  If I had remained on the
+staff, MIT could have claimed to own the work, and could have imposed
+their own distribution terms, or even turned the work into a
+proprietary software package.  I had no intention of doing a large
+amount of work only to see it become useless for its intended purpose:
+creating a new software-sharing community.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+However, Professor Winston, then the head of the MIT AI Lab, kindly
+invited me to keep using the lab's facilities.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;The first steps&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Shortly before beginning the GNU Project, I heard about the Free
+University Compiler Kit, also known as VUCK.  (The Dutch word for
+&ldquo;free&rdquo; is written with a &lt;em&gt;v&lt;/em&gt;.)  This was a 
compiler
+designed to handle multiple languages, including C and Pascal, and to
+support multiple target machines.  I wrote to its author asking if GNU
+could use it.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+He responded derisively, stating that the university was free but the
+compiler was not.  I therefore decided that my first program for the
+GNU Project would be a multilanguage, multiplatform compiler.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Hoping to avoid the need to write the whole compiler myself, I
+obtained the source code for the Pastel compiler, which was a
+multiplatform compiler developed at Lawrence Livermore Lab.  It
+supported, and was written in, an extended version of Pascal, designed
+to be a system-programming language.  I added a C front end, and began
+porting it to the Motorola 68000 computer.  But I had to give that
+up when I discovered that the compiler needed many megabytes of stack
+space, and the available 68000 Unix system would only allow 64k.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+I then realized that the Pastel compiler functioned by parsing the
+entire input file into a syntax tree, converting the whole syntax tree
+into a chain of &ldquo;instructions&rdquo;, and then generating the
+whole output file, without ever freeing any storage.  At this point, I
+concluded I would have to write a new compiler from scratch.  That new
+compiler is now known as &lt;acronym title="GNU Compiler 
Collection"&gt;GCC&lt;/acronym&gt;;
+none of the Pastel compiler is used in it, but I managed to adapt and
+use the C front end that I had written.  But that was some years
+later; first, I worked on GNU Emacs.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;GNU Emacs&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+I began work on GNU Emacs in September 1984, and in early 1985 it was
+beginning to be usable.  This enabled me to begin using Unix systems
+to do editing; having no interest in learning to use vi or ed, I had
+done my editing on other kinds of machines until then.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+At this point, people began wanting to use GNU Emacs, which raised the
+question of how to distribute it.  Of course, I put it on the
+anonymous ftp server on the MIT computer that I used.  (This computer,
+prep.ai.mit.edu, thus became the principal GNU ftp distribution site;
+when it was decommissioned a few years later, we transferred the name
+to our new ftp server.)  But at that time, many of the interested
+people were not on the Internet and could not get a copy by ftp.  So
+the question was, what would I say to them?&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+I could have said, &ldquo;Find a friend who is on the net and who will make
+a copy for you.&rdquo;  Or I could have done what I did with the original
+PDP-10 Emacs: tell them, &ldquo;Mail me a tape and a
+&lt;acronym title="Self-addressed Stamped Envelope"&gt;SASE&lt;/acronym&gt;, 
and I
+will mail it back with Emacs on it.&rdquo; But I had no job, and I was
+looking for ways to make money from free software.  So I announced
+that I would mail a tape to whoever wanted one, for a fee of $150.  In
+this way, I started a free software distribution business, the
+precursor of the companies that today distribute entire GNU/Linux
+system distributions.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;Is a program free for every user?&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+If a program is free software when it leaves the hands of its author,
+this does not necessarily mean it will be free software for everyone
+who has a copy of it.  For example,
+&lt;a href="/philosophy/categories.html#PublicDomainSoftware"&gt; public domain
+software&lt;/a&gt; (software that is not copyrighted) is free software; but
+anyone can make a proprietary modified version of it.  Likewise, many
+free programs are copyrighted but distributed under simple permissive
+licenses which allow proprietary modified versions.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+The paradigmatic example of this problem is the X Window System.
+Developed at MIT, and released as free software with a permissive
+license, it was soon adopted by various computer companies.  They
+added X to their proprietary Unix systems, in binary form only, and
+covered by the same nondisclosure agreement.  These copies of X were
+no more free software than Unix was.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+The developers of the X Window System did not consider this a
+problem&mdash;they expected and intended this to happen.  Their goal was
+not freedom, just &ldquo;success&rdquo;, defined as &ldquo;having many
+users.&rdquo; They did not care whether these users had freedom, only
+that they should be numerous.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+This led to a paradoxical situation where two different ways of
+counting the amount of freedom gave different answers to the question,
+&ldquo;Is this program free?&rdquo; If you judged based on the freedom
+provided by the distribution terms of the MIT release, you would say
+that X was free software.  But if you measured the freedom of the
+average user of X, you would have to say it was proprietary software.
+Most X users were running the proprietary versions that came with Unix
+systems, not the free version.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;Copyleft and the GNU GPL&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+The goal of GNU was to give users freedom, not just to be popular.  So
+we needed to use distribution terms that would prevent GNU software
+from being turned into proprietary software.  The method we use is
+called &ldquo;copyleft&rdquo;.(1)&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Copyleft uses copyright law, but flips it over to serve the opposite
+of its usual purpose: instead of a means for restricting a program, it
+becomes a means for keeping the program free.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+The central idea of copyleft is that we give everyone permission to
+run the program, copy the program, modify the program, and distribute
+modified versions&mdash;but not permission to add restrictions of their
+own.  Thus, the crucial freedoms that define &ldquo;free
+software&rdquo; are guaranteed to everyone who has a copy; they become
+inalienable rights.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+For an effective copyleft, modified versions must also be free.  This
+ensures that work based on ours becomes available to our community if
+it is published.  When programmers who have jobs as programmers
+volunteer to improve GNU software, it is copyleft that prevents their
+employers from saying, &ldquo;You can't share those changes, because
+we are going to use them to make our proprietary version of the
+program.&rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+The requirement that changes must be free is essential if we want to
+ensure freedom for every user of the program.  The companies that
+privatized the X Window System usually made some changes to port it to
+their systems and hardware.  These changes were small compared with
+the great extent of X, but they were not trivial.  If making changes
+were an excuse to deny the users freedom, it would be easy for anyone
+to take advantage of the excuse.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+A related issue concerns combining a free program with nonfree code.
+Such a combination would inevitably be nonfree; whichever freedoms
+are lacking for the nonfree part would be lacking for the whole as
+well.  To permit such combinations would open a hole big enough to
+sink a ship.  Therefore, a crucial requirement for copyleft is to plug
+this hole: anything added to or combined with a copylefted program
+must be such that the larger combined version is also free and
+copylefted.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+The specific implementation of copyleft that we use for most GNU
+software is the GNU General Public License, or GNU GPL for short.  We
+have other kinds of copyleft that are used in specific circumstances.
+GNU manuals are copylefted also, but use a much simpler kind of
+copyleft, because the complexity of the GNU GPL is not necessary
+for manuals.(2)&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+(1) In 1984 or 1985, Don Hopkins (a very imaginative fellow) mailed me
+a letter.  On the envelope he had written several amusing sayings,
+including this one: &ldquo;Copyleft&mdash;all rights reversed.&rdquo; I
+used the word &ldquo;copyleft&rdquo; to name the distribution concept
+I was developing at the time.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+(2) We now use the &lt;a href="/licenses/fdl.html"&gt;GNU Free
+Documentation License&lt;/a&gt; for documentation.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;The Free Software Foundation&lt;/h3&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;As interest in using Emacs was growing, other people became
+involved in the GNU project, and we decided that it was time to seek
+funding once again.  So in 1985 we created
+the &lt;a href="http://www.fsf.org/"&gt;Free Software Foundation&lt;/a&gt; 
(FSF),
+a tax-exempt charity for free software development.  The
+&lt;acronym title="Free Software Foundation"&gt;FSF&lt;/acronym&gt; also took 
over
+the Emacs tape distribution business; later it extended this by adding
+other free software (both GNU and non-GNU) to the tape, and by selling
+free manuals as well.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Most of the FSF's income used to come from sales of copies of free
+software and of other related services (CD-ROMs of source code,
+CD-ROMs with binaries, nicely printed manuals, all with the freedom to
+redistribute and modify), and Deluxe Distributions (distributions for
+which we built the whole collection of software for the customer's
+choice of platform).  Today the FSF
+still &lt;a href="http://shop.fsf.org/"&gt; sells manuals and other
+gear&lt;/a&gt;, but it gets the bulk of its funding from members' dues.  You
+can join the FSF at &lt;a 
href="http://fsf.org/join"&gt;fsf.org&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Free Software Foundation employees have written and maintained a
+number of GNU software packages.  Two notable ones are the C library
+and the shell.  The GNU C library is what every program running on a
+GNU/Linux system uses to communicate with Linux.  It was developed by
+a member of the Free Software Foundation staff, Roland McGrath.  The
+shell used on most GNU/Linux systems is
+&lt;acronym title="Bourne Again Shell"&gt;BASH&lt;/acronym&gt;, the Bourne 
Again
+Shell(1), which was developed by FSF employee Brian Fox.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;We funded development of these programs because the GNU Project was
+not just about tools or a development environment.  Our goal was a
+complete operating system, and these programs were needed for that
+goal.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;(1) &ldquo;Bourne Again Shell&rdquo; is a play on the name
+&ldquo;Bourne Shell&rdquo;, which was the usual shell on Unix.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;Free software support&lt;/h3&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;The free software philosophy rejects a specific widespread business
+practice, but it is not against business.  When businesses respect the
+users' freedom, we wish them success.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Selling copies of Emacs demonstrates one kind of free software
+business.  When the FSF took over that business, I needed another way
+to make a living.  I found it in selling services relating to the free
+software I had developed.  This included teaching, for subjects such
+as how to program GNU Emacs and how to customize GCC, and software
+development, mostly porting GCC to new platforms.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Today each of these kinds of free software business is practiced by a
+number of corporations.  Some distribute free software collections on
+CD-ROM; others sell support at levels ranging from answering user
+questions, to fixing bugs, to adding major new features.  We are even
+beginning to see free software companies based on launching new free
+software products.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Watch out, though&mdash;a number of companies that associate 
themselves
+with the term &ldquo;open source&rdquo; actually base their business
+on nonfree software that works with free software.  These are not
+free software companies, they are proprietary software companies whose
+products tempt users away from freedom.  They call these programs
+&ldquo;value-added packages&rdquo;, which shows the values they
+would like us to adopt: convenience above freedom.  If we value freedom
+more, we should call them &ldquo;freedom-subtracted&rdquo; packages.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;Technical goals&lt;/h3&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;The principal goal of GNU is to be free software.  Even if GNU had no
+technical advantage over Unix, it would have a social advantage,
+allowing users to cooperate, and an ethical advantage, respecting the
+user's freedom.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But it was natural to apply the known standards of good practice to
+the work&mdash;for example, dynamically allocating data structures to avoid
+arbitrary fixed size limits, and handling all the possible 8-bit codes
+wherever that made sense.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;In addition, we rejected the Unix focus on small memory size, by
+deciding not to support 16-bit machines (it was clear that 32-bit
+machines would be the norm by the time the GNU system was finished),
+and to make no effort to reduce memory usage unless it exceeded a
+megabyte.  In programs for which handling very large files was not
+crucial, we encouraged programmers to read an entire input file into
+core, then scan its contents without having to worry about I/O.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;These decisions enabled many GNU programs to surpass their Unix
+counterparts in reliability and speed.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;Donated computers&lt;/h3&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;As the GNU Project's reputation grew, people began offering to donate
+machines running Unix to the project.  These were very useful, because
+the easiest way to develop components of GNU was to do it on a Unix
+system, and replace the components of that system one by one.  But
+they raised an ethical issue: whether it was right for us to have a
+copy of Unix at all.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Unix was (and is) proprietary software, and the GNU Project's
+philosophy said that we should not use proprietary software.  But,
+applying the same reasoning that leads to the conclusion that violence
+in self defense is justified, I concluded that it was legitimate to
+use a proprietary package when that was crucial for developing a free
+replacement that would help others stop using the proprietary 
package.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But, even if this was a justifiable evil, it was still an evil.  Today
+we no longer have any copies of Unix, because we have replaced them
+with free operating systems.  If we could not replace a machine's
+operating system with a free one, we replaced the machine instead.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;The GNU Task List&lt;/h3&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;As the GNU Project proceeded, and increasing numbers of system
+components were found or developed, eventually it became useful to
+make a list of the remaining gaps.  We used it to recruit developers
+to write the missing pieces.  This list became known as the GNU Task
+List.  In addition to missing Unix components, we listed various
+other useful software and documentation projects that, we thought, a
+truly complete system ought to have.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Today (1), hardly any Unix components are left in the GNU Task
+List&mdash;those jobs had been done, aside from a few inessential
+ones.  But the list is full of projects that some might call
+&ldquo;applications&rdquo;.  Any program that appeals to more than a
+narrow class of users would be a useful thing to add to an operating
+system.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Even games are included in the task list&mdash;and have been since the
+beginning.  Unix included games, so naturally GNU should too.  But
+compatibility was not an issue for games, so we did not follow the
+list of games that Unix had.  Instead, we listed a spectrum of
+different kinds of games that users might like.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;(1) That was written in 1998.  In 2009 we no longer maintain a long
+task list.  The community develops free software so fast that we can't
+even keep track of it all.  Instead, we have a list of High Priority
+Projects, a much shorter list of projects we really want to encourage
+people to write.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;The GNU Library GPL&lt;/h3&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;The GNU C library uses a special kind of copyleft called the GNU
+Library General Public License(1), which gives permission to link
+proprietary software with the library.  Why make this exception?&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;It is not a matter of principle; there is no principle that says
+proprietary software products are entitled to include our code.  (Why
+contribute to a project predicated on refusing to share with us?)
+Using the LGPL for the C library, or for any library, is a matter of
+strategy.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;The C library does a generic job; every proprietary system or compiler
+comes with a C library.  Therefore, to make our C library available
+only to free software would not have given free software any
+advantage&mdash;it would only have discouraged use of our library.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;One system is an exception to this: on the GNU system (and this
+includes GNU/Linux), the GNU C library is the only C library.  So the
+distribution terms of the GNU C library determine whether it is
+possible to compile a proprietary program for the GNU system.  There
+is no ethical reason to allow proprietary applications on the GNU
+system, but strategically it seems that disallowing them would do more
+to discourage use of the GNU system than to encourage development of
+free applications.  That is why using the Library GPL is a good
+strategy for the C library.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;For other libraries, the strategic decision needs to be
+considered on a case-by-case basis.  When a library does a special job
+that can help write certain kinds of programs, then releasing it under
+the GPL, limiting it to free programs only, is a way of helping other
+free software developers, giving them an advantage against proprietary
+software.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Consider GNU Readline, a library that was developed to provide
+command-line editing for BASH.  Readline is released under the
+ordinary GNU GPL, not the Library GPL.  This probably does reduce the
+amount Readline is used, but that is no loss for us.  Meanwhile, at
+least one useful application has been made free software specifically
+so it could use Readline, and that is a real gain for the
+community.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Proprietary software developers have the advantages money provides;
+free software developers need to make advantages for each other.  I
+hope some day we will have a large collection of GPL-covered libraries
+that have no parallel available to proprietary software, providing
+useful modules to serve as building blocks in new free software, and
+adding up to a major advantage for further free software development.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;(1) This license is now called the GNU Lesser General Public License,
+to avoid giving the idea that all libraries ought to use it. 
+See &lt;a href="/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html"&gt;Why you shouldn't use the
+Lesser GPL for your next library&lt;/a&gt; for more information.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;Scratching an itch?&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Eric Raymond says that &ldquo;Every good work of software starts by
+scratching a developer's personal itch.&rdquo;  Maybe that happens
+sometimes, but many essential pieces of GNU software were developed in
+order to have a complete free operating system.  They come from a
+vision and a plan, not from impulse.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+For example, we developed the GNU C library because a Unix-like system
+needs a C library, BASH because a Unix-like
+system needs a shell, and GNU tar because a Unix-like system needs a
+tar program.  The same is true for my own programs&mdash;the GNU C
+compiler, GNU Emacs, GDB and GNU Make.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Some GNU programs were developed to cope with specific threats to our
+freedom.  Thus, we developed gzip to replace the Compress program,
+which had been lost to the community because of
+the &lt;acronym title="Lempel-Ziv-Welch"&gt;LZW&lt;/acronym&gt; patents.  We 
found
+people to develop LessTif, and more recently started
+&lt;acronym title="GNU Network Object Model 
Environment"&gt;GNOME&lt;/acronym&gt;
+and Harmony, to address the problems caused by certain proprietary
+libraries (see below).  We are developing the GNU Privacy Guard to
+replace popular nonfree encryption software, because users should not
+have to choose between privacy and freedom.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Of course, the people writing these programs became interested in the
+work, and many features were added to them by various people for the
+sake of their own needs and interests.  But that is not why the
+programs exist.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;Unexpected developments&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+At the beginning of the GNU Project, I imagined that we would develop
+the whole GNU system, then release it as a whole.  That is not how it
+happened.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Since each component of the GNU system was implemented on a Unix
+system, each component could run on Unix systems long before a
+complete GNU system existed.  Some of these programs became popular,
+and users began extending them and porting them&mdash;to the various
+incompatible versions of Unix, and sometimes to other systems as 
well.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+The process made these programs much more powerful, and attracted both
+funds and contributors to the GNU Project.  But it probably also
+delayed completion of a minimal working system by several years, as
+GNU developers' time was put into maintaining these ports and adding
+features to the existing components, rather than moving on to write
+one missing component after another.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;The GNU Hurd&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+By 1990, the GNU system was almost complete; the only major missing
+component was the kernel.  We had decided to implement our kernel as a
+collection of server processes running on top of Mach.  Mach is a
+microkernel developed at Carnegie Mellon University and then at the
+University of Utah; the GNU Hurd is a collection of servers (i.e., a
+herd of GNUs) that run on top of Mach, and do the
+various jobs of the Unix kernel.  The start of development was delayed
+as we waited for Mach to be released as free software, as had been
+promised.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+One reason for choosing this design was to avoid what seemed to be the
+hardest part of the job: debugging a kernel program without a
+source-level debugger to do it with.  This part of the job had been
+done already, in Mach, and we expected to debug the Hurd servers as
+user programs, with GDB.  But it took a long time to make that possible,
+and the multithreaded servers that send messages to each other have
+turned out to be very hard to debug.  Making the Hurd work solidly has
+stretched on for many years.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;Alix&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+The GNU kernel was not originally supposed to be called the Hurd.  Its
+original name was Alix&mdash;named after the woman who was my sweetheart at
+the time.  She, a Unix system administrator, had pointed out how her
+name would fit a common naming pattern for Unix system versions; as a
+joke, she told her friends, &ldquo;Someone should name a kernel after
+me.&rdquo; I said nothing, but decided to surprise her with a kernel
+named Alix.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+It did not stay that way.  Michael (now Thomas) Bushnell, the main
+developer of the kernel, preferred the name Hurd, and redefined Alix
+to refer to a certain part of the kernel&mdash;the part that would trap
+system calls and handle them by sending messages to Hurd servers.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Later, Alix and I broke up, and she changed her name;
+independently, the Hurd design was changed so that the C library would
+send messages directly to servers, and this made the Alix component
+disappear from the design.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+But before these things happened, a friend of hers came across the
+name Alix in the Hurd source code, and mentioned it to her.  So
+she did have the chance to find a kernel named after her.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;Linux and GNU/Linux&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+The GNU Hurd is not suitable for production use, and we don't know
+if it ever will be.  The capability-based design has problems that
+result directly from the flexibility of the design, and it is not
+clear whether solutions exist.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+Fortunately, another kernel is available.  In 1991, Linus Torvalds
+developed a Unix-compatible kernel and called it Linux.  It was
+proprietary at first, but in 1992, he made it free software; combining
+Linux with the not-quite-complete GNU system resulted in a complete
+free operating system.  (Combining them was a substantial job in
+itself, of course.)  It is due to Linux that we can actually run a
+version of the GNU system today.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+We call this system version &lt;a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html"&gt;
+GNU/Linux&lt;/a&gt;, to express its composition as a combination of the GNU
+system with Linux as the kernel.  Please don't fall into the practice
+of calling the whole system &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;, since that means
+attributing our work to someone else.
+Please &lt;a href="/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html"&gt; give us equal
+mention&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;Challenges in our future&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+We have proved our ability to develop a broad spectrum of free
+software.  This does not mean we are invincible and unstoppable.
+Several challenges make the future of free software uncertain; meeting
+them will require steadfast effort and endurance, sometimes lasting
+for years.  It will require the kind of determination that people
+display when they value their freedom and will not let anyone take it
+away.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+The following four sections discuss these challenges.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;Secret hardware&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Hardware manufacturers increasingly tend to keep hardware
+specifications secret.  This makes it difficult to write free drivers
+so that Linux and XFree86 can support new hardware.  We have complete
+free systems today, but we will not have them tomorrow if we cannot
+support tomorrow's computers.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+There are two ways to cope with this problem.  Programmers can do
+reverse engineering to figure out how to support the hardware.  The
+rest of us can choose the hardware that is supported by free software;
+as our numbers increase, secrecy of specifications will become a
+self-defeating policy.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Reverse engineering is a big job; will we have programmers with
+sufficient determination to undertake it?  Yes&mdash;if we have built up a
+strong feeling that free software is a matter of principle, and
+nonfree drivers are intolerable.  And will large numbers of us spend
+extra money, or even a little extra time, so we can use free drivers?
+Yes, if the determination to have freedom is widespread.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+(2008 note: this issue extends to the BIOS as well.  There is a free
+BIOS, &lt;a href="http://www.libreboot.org/"&gt;LibreBoot&lt;/a&gt; (a 
distribution of coreboot); the problem is getting specs for machines so that
+LibreBoot can support them without nonfree &ldquo;blobs&rdquo;.)&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;Nonfree libraries&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+A nonfree library that runs on free operating systems acts as a trap
+for free software developers.  The library's attractive features are
+the bait; if you use the library, you fall into the trap, because your
+program cannot usefully be part of a free operating system.  (Strictly
+speaking, we could include your program, but it
+won't &lt;em&gt;run&lt;/em&gt; with the library missing.)  Even worse, if
+a program that uses the proprietary library becomes popular, it can
+lure other unsuspecting programmers into the trap.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+The first instance of this problem was the Motif toolkit, back in the
+80s.  Although there were as yet no free operating systems, it was
+clear what problem Motif would cause for them later on.  The GNU
+Project responded in two ways: by asking individual free software
+projects to support the free X Toolkit widgets as well as Motif, and
+by asking for someone to write a free replacement for Motif.  The job
+took many years; LessTif, developed by the Hungry Programmers, became
+powerful enough to support most Motif applications only in 1997.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Between 1996 and 1998, another nonfree 
+&lt;acronym title="Graphical User Interface"&gt;GUI&lt;/acronym&gt; toolkit
+library, called Qt, was used in a substantial collection of free
+software, the desktop
+&lt;acronym title="K Desktop Environment"&gt;KDE&lt;/acronym&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Free GNU/Linux systems were unable to use KDE, because we could not
+use the library.  However, some commercial distributors of GNU/Linux
+systems who were not strict about sticking with free software added
+KDE to their systems&mdash;producing a system with more capabilities,
+but less freedom.  The KDE group was actively encouraging more
+programmers to use Qt, and millions of new &ldquo;Linux users&rdquo;
+had never been exposed to the idea that there was a problem in this.
+The situation appeared grim.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+The free software community responded to the problem in two ways:
+GNOME and Harmony.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+GNOME, the GNU Network Object Model Environment, is GNU's desktop
+project.  Started in 1997 by Miguel de Icaza, and developed with the
+support of Red Hat Software, GNOME set out to provide similar desktop
+facilities, but using free software exclusively.  It has technical
+advantages as well, such as supporting a variety of languages, not
+just C++.  But its main purpose was freedom: not to require the use of
+any nonfree software.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Harmony is a compatible replacement library, designed to make it
+possible to run KDE software without using Qt.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+In November 1998, the developers of Qt announced a change of license
+which, when carried out, should make Qt free software.  There is no
+way to be sure, but I think that this was partly due to the
+community's firm response to the problem that Qt posed when it was
+nonfree.  (The new license is inconvenient and inequitable, so it
+remains desirable to avoid using Qt.)&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+[Subsequent note: in September 2000, Qt was rereleased under the GNU GPL,
+which essentially solved this problem.]&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+How will we respond to the next tempting nonfree library?  Will the
+whole community understand the need to stay out of the trap?  Or will
+many of us give up freedom for convenience, and produce a major
+problem?  Our future depends on our philosophy.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;Software patents&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+The worst threat we face comes from software patents, which can put
+algorithms and features off limits to free software for up to twenty
+years.  The LZW compression algorithm patents were applied for in
+1983, and we still cannot release free software to produce proper
+compressed &lt;acronym title="Graphics Interchange 
Format"&gt;GIF&lt;/acronym&gt;s.
+[As of 2009 they have expired.]  In 1998, a free program to produce
+&lt;acronym title="MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3"&gt;MP3&lt;/acronym&gt; compressed 
audio
+was removed from distribution under threat of a patent <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>suit.&lt;/p&gt;</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>suit.  [As of
+2017, these patents have expired.  Look how long we had to wait.]
+&lt;/p&gt;</em></ins></span>
+&lt;p&gt;
+There are ways to cope with patents: we can search for evidence that a
+patent is invalid, and we can look for alternative ways to do a job.
+But each of these methods works only sometimes; when both fail, a
+patent may force all free software to lack some feature that users
+want.  After a long wait, the patents expire (the MP3 patents are
+expected to have expired by 2018), but what will we do until then?&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Those of us who value free software for freedom's sake will stay with
+free software anyway.  We will manage to get work done without the
+patented features.  But those who value free software because they
+expect it to be technically superior are likely to call it a failure
+when a patent holds it back.  Thus, while it is useful to talk about
+the practical effectiveness of the &ldquo;bazaar&rdquo; model of
+development, and the reliability and power of some free software,
+we must not stop there.  We must talk about freedom and principle.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;Free documentation&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+The biggest deficiency in our free operating systems is not in the
+software&mdash;it is the lack of good free manuals that we can include in
+our systems.  Documentation is an essential part of any software
+package; when an important free software package does not come with a
+good free manual, that is a major gap.  We have many such gaps today.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Free documentation, like free software, is a matter of freedom, not
+price.  The criterion for a free manual is pretty much the same as for
+free software: it is a matter of giving all users certain freedoms.
+Redistribution (including commercial sale) must be permitted, online
+and on paper, so that the manual can accompany every copy of the
+program.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Permission for modification is crucial too.  As a general rule, I
+don't believe that it is essential for people to have permission to
+modify all sorts of articles and books.  For example, I don't think
+you or I are obliged to give permission to modify articles like this
+one, which describe our actions and our views.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+But there is a particular reason why the freedom to modify is crucial
+for documentation for free software.  When people exercise their right
+to modify the software, and add or change its features, if they are
+conscientious they will change the manual, too&mdash;so they can
+provide accurate and usable documentation with the modified program.
+A nonfree manual, which does not allow programmers to be conscientious
+and finish the job, does not fill our community's needs.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Some kinds of limits on how modifications are done pose no problem.
+For example, requirements to preserve the original author's copyright
+notice, the distribution terms, or the list of authors, are OK.  It is
+also no problem to require modified versions to include notice that
+they were modified, even to have entire sections that may not be
+deleted or changed, as long as these sections deal with nontechnical
+topics.  These kinds of restrictions are not a problem because they
+don't stop the conscientious programmer from adapting the manual to
+fit the modified program.  In other words, they don't block the free
+software community from making full use of the manual.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+However, it must be possible to modify all the &lt;em&gt;technical&lt;/em&gt; 
content of
+the manual, and then distribute the result in all the usual media,
+through all the usual channels; otherwise, the restrictions do
+obstruct the community, the manual is not free, and we need another
+manual.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Will free software developers have the awareness and determination to
+produce a full spectrum of free manuals?  Once again, our future
+depends on philosophy.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;We must talk about freedom&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Estimates today are that there are ten million users of GNU/Linux
+systems such as Debian GNU/Linux and Red Hat &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;.
+Free software has developed such practical advantages that users are
+flocking to it for purely practical reasons.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+The good consequences of this are evident: more interest in developing
+free software, more customers for free software businesses, and more
+ability to encourage companies to develop commercial free software
+instead of proprietary software products.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+But interest in the software is growing faster than awareness of the
+philosophy it is based on, and this leads to trouble.  Our ability to
+meet the challenges and threats described above depends on the will to
+stand firm for freedom.  To make sure our community has this will, we
+need to spread the idea to the new users as they come into the
+community.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+But we are failing to do so: the efforts to attract new users into our
+community are far outstripping the efforts to teach them the civics of
+our community.  We need to do both, and we need to keep the two
+efforts in balance.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;&ldquo;Open Source&rdquo;&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Teaching new users about freedom became more difficult in 1998, when a
+part of the community decided to stop using the term &ldquo;free
+software&rdquo; and say &ldquo;open source software&rdquo;
+instead.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Some who favored this term aimed to avoid the confusion of
+&ldquo;free&rdquo; with &ldquo;gratis&rdquo;&mdash;a valid goal.  Others,
+however, aimed to set aside the spirit of principle that had motivated
+the free software movement and the GNU Project, and to appeal instead
+to executives and business users, many of whom hold an ideology that
+places profit above freedom, above community, above principle.  Thus,
+the rhetoric of &ldquo;open source&rdquo; focuses on the potential to
+make high-quality, powerful software, but shuns the ideas of freedom,
+community, and principle.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+The &ldquo;Linux&rdquo; magazines are a clear example of this&mdash;they
+are filled with advertisements for proprietary software that works
+with GNU/Linux.  When the next Motif or Qt appears, will these
+magazines warn programmers to stay away from it, or will they run ads
+for it?&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+The support of business can contribute to the community in many ways;
+all else being equal, it is useful.  But winning their support by
+speaking even less about freedom and principle can be disastrous; it
+makes the previous imbalance between outreach and civics education
+even worse.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+&ldquo;Free software&rdquo; and &ldquo;open source&rdquo; describe the
+same category of software, more or less, but say different things
+about the software, and about values.  The GNU Project continues to
+use the term &ldquo;free software&rdquo;, to express the idea that
+freedom, not just technology, is important.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;Try!&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Yoda's aphorism (&ldquo;There is no &lsquo;try&rsquo;&rdquo;) sounds
+neat, but it doesn't work for me.  I have done most of my work while
+anxious about whether I could do the job, and unsure that it would be
+enough to achieve the goal if I did.  But I tried anyway, because
+there was no one but me between the enemy and my city.  Surprising
+myself, I have sometimes succeeded.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Sometimes I failed; some of my cities have fallen.  Then I found
+another threatened city, and got ready for another battle.  Over time,
+I've learned to look for threats and put myself between them and my
+city, calling on other hackers to come and join me.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Nowadays, often I'm not the only one.  It is a relief and a joy when I
+see a regiment of hackers digging in to hold the line, and I realize,
+this city may survive&mdash;for now.  But the dangers are greater each
+year, and now Microsoft has explicitly targeted our community.  We
+can't take the future of freedom for granted.  Don't take it for
+granted!  If you want to keep your freedom, you must be prepared to
+defend it.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --&gt;
+&lt;div id="footer"&gt;
+&lt;div class="unprintable"&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to
+&lt;a href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;&lt;address@hidden&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.
+There are also &lt;a href="/contact/"&gt;other ways to contact&lt;/a&gt;
+the FSF.  Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to &lt;a 
href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;&lt;address@hidden&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- 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 &lt;a href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;
+        &lt;address@hidden&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+        &lt;p&gt;For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+        our web pages, see &lt;a
+        href="/server/standards/README.translations.html"&gt;Translations
+        README&lt;/a&gt;. --&gt;
+Please see the &lt;a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html"&gt;Translations
+README&lt;/a&gt; for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;
+
+&lt;!-- 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. --&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Copyright &copy; 1998, 2001, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 
2014, 2015, 2017, 2018
+Richard Stallman&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;This page is licensed under a &lt;a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/"&gt;Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International 
License&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --&gt;
+
+&lt;p class="unprintable"&gt;Updated:
+&lt;!-- timestamp start --&gt;
+$Date: 2018/05/30 00:59:17 $
+&lt;!-- timestamp end --&gt;
+&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;
+&lt;/body&gt;
+&lt;/html&gt;
+</pre></body></html>

Index: philosophy/po/compromise.it-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: philosophy/po/compromise.it-diff.html
diff -N philosophy/po/compromise.it-diff.html
--- /dev/null   1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ philosophy/po/compromise.it-diff.html       30 May 2018 00:59:20 -0000      
1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,267 @@
+<!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/compromise.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>
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --&gt;
+&lt;!-- Parent-Version: 1.84 --&gt;
+&lt;title&gt;Avoiding Ruinous Compromises
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation&lt;/title&gt;
+&lt;style type="text/css" media="print,screen"&gt;
+&lt;!--
+ .quote {
+    font-size: 90%;
+    max-width: 30em;
+    padding: .5em 1.5em;
+    background-color: #ececec;
+    border-radius: 1em;
+    -moz-border-radius: 1em;
+    -khtml-border-radius: 1em;
+    -webkit-border-radius: 1em;
+    -opera-border-radius: 1em;
+  }
+ .quote.imgright { margin: .3em 1em 1em 1em; }
+ .quote b { font-style: normal; }
+--&gt;
+&lt;/style&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/compromise.translist" --&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --&gt;
+&lt;h2&gt;Avoiding Ruinous Compromises&lt;/h2&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;by &lt;strong&gt;Richard Stallman&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;blockquote class="quote imgright"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&ldquo;Twenty-five years
+ago &lt;a href="/gnu/initial-announcement.html"&gt;on September 27, 1983, I
+announced a plan&lt;/a&gt; to create a completely free operating system
+called GNU&mdash;for &lsquo;GNU's Not Unix&rsquo;.  As part of the
+25th anniversary of the GNU system, I have written this article on how
+our community can avoid ruinous compromises.  In addition to avoiding
+such compromises, there are many ways you can &lt;a 
href="/help/help.html"&gt;help
+GNU&lt;/a&gt; and free software.  One basic way is
+to &lt;a 
href="https://www.fsf.org/associate/support_freedom/join_fsf?referrer=4052"&gt;
+join the Free Software Foundation&lt;/a&gt; as an Associate
+Member.&rdquo;&mdash;&lt;b&gt;Richard 
Stallman&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;The free software movement aims for a social
+change: &lt;a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html"&gt;to make all software
+free&lt;/a&gt; so that all software users are free and can be part of a
+community of cooperation.  Every nonfree program gives its developer
+unjust power over the users.  Our goal is to put an end to that
+injustice.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;The road to freedom
+is &lt;a 
href="http://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2008/spring/the-last-mile-is-always-the-hardest/"&gt;
+a long road&lt;/a&gt;.  It will take many steps and many years to reach a
+world in which it is normal for software users to have freedom.  Some
+of these steps are hard, and require sacrifice.  Some of them become easier
+if we make compromises with people that have different goals.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Thus, the &lt;a href="http://www.fsf.org/"&gt;Free Software
+Foundation&lt;/a&gt; makes compromises&mdash;even major ones.  For
+instance, we made compromises in the patent provisions of version 3 of
+the &lt;a href="/licenses/gpl.html"&gt;GNU General Public License&lt;/a&gt; 
(GNU GPL) so
+that major companies would contribute to and distribute GPLv3-covered
+software and thus bring some patents under the effect of these
+provisions.  &lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;img src="/graphics/gplv3-large.png" alt=" [GPLv3 Logo] " class="imgleft" 
/&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="/licenses/lgpl.html"&gt;The Lesser GPL&lt;/a&gt;'s 
purpose is a
+compromise: we use it on certain chosen free libraries to permit their
+use in nonfree programs because we think that legally prohibiting
+this would only drive developers to proprietary libraries instead.  We
+accept and install code in GNU programs to make them work together
+with common nonfree programs, and we document and publicize this in
+ways that encourage users of the latter to install the former, but not
+vice versa.  We support specific campaigns we agree with, even when we
+don't fully agree with the groups behind them.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But we reject certain compromises even though many others in our
+community are willing to make them.  For instance,
+we &lt;a href="/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html"&gt;
+endorse only the GNU/Linux distributions&lt;/a&gt; that have policies not to
+include nonfree software or lead users to install it.  To endorse
+nonfree distributions would be a &lt;acronym title="ruinous
+(r&#363;'&#601;-n&#601;s) adj. 1. Causing or apt to cause ruin;
+destructive.  2. Falling to ruin; dilapidated or
+decayed."&gt;ruinous&lt;/acronym&gt; compromise.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Compromises are ruinous if they would work against our aims in the
+long term.  That can occur either at the level of ideas or at the level of
+actions.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;At the level of ideas, ruinous compromises are those that reinforce
+the premises we seek to change.  Our goal is a world in which software
+users are free, but as yet most computer users do not even recognize
+freedom as an issue.  They have taken up &ldquo;consumer&rdquo;
+values, which means they judge any program only on practical characteristics
+such as price and convenience.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Dale Carnegie's classic self-help book, &lt;cite&gt;How to Win 
Friends and
+Influence People&lt;/cite&gt;, advises that the most effective way to
+persuade someone to do something is to present arguments that appeal
+to <span class="removed"><del><strong>his</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>per</em></ins></span> values.  There are ways we can 
appeal to the consumer values
+typical in our society.  For instance, free software obtained gratis
+can save the user money.  Many free programs are convenient and
+reliable, too.  Citing those practical benefits has succeeded in
+persuading many users to adopt various free programs, some of which
+are now quite successful.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;If getting more people to use some free programs is as far as you
+aim to go, you might decide to keep quiet about the concept of
+freedom, and focus only on the practical advantages that make sense
+in terms of consumer values.  That's what the term &ldquo;open
+source&rdquo; and its associated rhetoric do.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;That approach can get us only part way to the goal of freedom.  People
+who use free software only because it is convenient will stick with it
+only as long as it is <span class="inserted"><ins><em>more</em></ins></span> 
convenient.  And they will see no reason not
+to use convenient proprietary programs along with it.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;The philosophy of open source presupposes and appeals to consumer
+values, and this affirms and reinforces them.  That's why we
+&lt;a href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html"&gt;do not <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>support</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>advocate</em></ins></span> open 
source.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;img src="/graphics/gnulaptop.png"
+     alt=" [Levitating Gnu with a laptop] " class="imgright" /&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;To establish a free community fully and lastingly, we need to do
+more than get people to use some free software.  We need to spread the
+idea of judging software (and other things) on &ldquo;citizen
+values&rdquo;, based on whether it respects users' freedom and
+community, not just in terms of convenience.  Then people will not
+fall into the trap of a proprietary program baited by an attractive,
+convenient feature.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;To promote citizen values, we have to talk about them and show how
+they are the basis of our actions.  We must reject the Dale Carnegie
+compromise that would influence their actions by endorsing their
+consumer values.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;This is not to say we cannot cite practical advantage at all&mdash;we 
can
+and we do.  It becomes a problem only when the practical advantage steals
+the scene and pushes freedom into the background.  Therefore,
+when we cite the practical advantages of free software, we reiterate
+frequently that those are just &lt;em&gt;additional, secondary&lt;/em&gt; 
reasons
+to prefer it.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;It's not enough to make our words accord with our ideals; our
+actions have to accord with them too.  So we must also avoid
+compromises that involve doing or legitimizing the things we aim to
+stamp out.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;For instance, experience shows that you can attract some users to
+&lt;a href="/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html"&gt;GNU/Linux&lt;/a&gt; if you include some
+nonfree programs.  This could mean a cute nonfree application that
+will catch some user's eye, or a nonfree programming platform such
+as &lt;a href="/philosophy/java-trap.html"&gt;Java&lt;/a&gt; (formerly) or the
+Flash runtime (still), or a nonfree device driver that enables
+support for certain hardware models.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;These compromises are tempting, but they undermine the goal.  If
+you distribute nonfree software, or steer people towards it, you will
+find it hard to say, &ldquo;Nonfree software is an injustice, a
+social problem, and we must put an end to it.&rdquo; And even if you
+do continue to say those words, your actions will undermine them.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;The issue here is not whether people should be 
&lt;em&gt;able&lt;/em&gt;
+or &lt;em&gt;allowed&lt;/em&gt; to install nonfree software; a general-purpose
+system enables and allows users to do whatever they wish.  The issue
+is whether we guide users towards nonfree software.  What they do on
+their own is their responsibility; what we do for them, and what we
+direct them towards, is ours.  We must not direct the
+users towards proprietary software as if it were a solution, because
+proprietary software is the problem.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;A ruinous compromise is not just a bad influence on others.  It can
+distort your own values, too, through cognitive dissonance.  If you
+have certain values, but your actions imply other, conflicting values,
+you are likely to change your values or your actions so as to resolve the
+contradiction.  Thus, projects that argue only from practical
+advantages, or direct people toward some nonfree software, nearly
+always shy away from even &lt;em&gt;suggesting&lt;/em&gt; that nonfree software
+is unethical.  For their participants, as well as for the public, they
+reinforce consumer values.  We must reject these compromises if we wish
+to keep our values straight.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;If you want to move to free software without compromising the goal
+of freedom, look at &lt;a href="http://www.fsf.org/resources"&gt;the FSF's
+resources area&lt;/a&gt;.  It lists hardware and machine configurations that
+work with free software, &lt;a href="/distros/distros.html"&gt; totally free 
GNU/Linux
+distros&lt;/a&gt; to install, and &lt;a href="http://directory.fsf.org/"&gt;
+thousands of free software packages&lt;/a&gt; that
+work in a 100 percent free software environment.  If you want to help the
+community stay on the road to freedom, one important way is to
+publicly uphold citizen values.  When people are discussing what is
+good or bad, or what to do, cite the values of freedom and community
+and argue from them.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;A road that lets you go faster is not better if it leads to the
+wrong place.  Compromise is essential to achieve an ambitious goal,
+but beware of compromises that lead away from the goal.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;hr /&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+For a similar point in a different area of life,
+see &lt;a
+href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/19/nudge-is-not-enough-behaviour-change"&gt;
+&ldquo;Nudge&rdquo; is not enough&lt;/a&gt;.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --&gt;
+&lt;div id="footer"&gt;
+&lt;div class="unprintable"&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to &lt;a
+href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;&lt;address@hidden&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.  There are 
also &lt;a
+href="/contact/"&gt;other ways to contact&lt;/a&gt; the FSF.  Broken links and 
other
+corrections or suggestions can be sent to &lt;a
+href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;&lt;address@hidden&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- 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 &lt;a href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;
+        &lt;address@hidden&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+        &lt;p&gt;For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+        our web pages, see &lt;a
+        href="/server/standards/README.translations.html"&gt;Translations
+        README&lt;/a&gt;. --&gt;
+Please see the &lt;a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html"&gt;Translations 
README&lt;/a&gt; for
+information on coordinating and submitting translations of this 
article.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Copyright &copy; 2008, 2009, 2014, 2015, <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>2017</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>2017, 2018</em></ins></span> &lt;a 
href="http://www.stallman.org/"&gt;Richard
+Stallman&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;This page is licensed under a &lt;a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/"&gt;Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International 
License&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --&gt;
+
+&lt;p class="unprintable"&gt;Updated:
+&lt;!-- timestamp start --&gt;
+$Date: 2018/05/30 00:59:20 $
+&lt;!-- timestamp end --&gt;
+&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;
+&lt;/body&gt;
+&lt;/html&gt;
+</pre></body></html>

Index: philosophy/po/compromise.nl-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: philosophy/po/compromise.nl-diff.html
diff -N philosophy/po/compromise.nl-diff.html
--- /dev/null   1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ philosophy/po/compromise.nl-diff.html       30 May 2018 00:59:20 -0000      
1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,267 @@
+<!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/compromise.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>
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --&gt;
+&lt;!-- Parent-Version: 1.84 --&gt;
+&lt;title&gt;Avoiding Ruinous Compromises
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation&lt;/title&gt;
+&lt;style type="text/css" media="print,screen"&gt;
+&lt;!--
+ .quote {
+    font-size: 90%;
+    max-width: 30em;
+    padding: .5em 1.5em;
+    background-color: #ececec;
+    border-radius: 1em;
+    -moz-border-radius: 1em;
+    -khtml-border-radius: 1em;
+    -webkit-border-radius: 1em;
+    -opera-border-radius: 1em;
+  }
+ .quote.imgright { margin: .3em 1em 1em 1em; }
+ .quote b { font-style: normal; }
+--&gt;
+&lt;/style&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/compromise.translist" --&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --&gt;
+&lt;h2&gt;Avoiding Ruinous Compromises&lt;/h2&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;by &lt;strong&gt;Richard Stallman&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;blockquote class="quote imgright"&gt;&lt;p&gt;&ldquo;Twenty-five years
+ago &lt;a href="/gnu/initial-announcement.html"&gt;on September 27, 1983, I
+announced a plan&lt;/a&gt; to create a completely free operating system
+called GNU&mdash;for &lsquo;GNU's Not Unix&rsquo;.  As part of the
+25th anniversary of the GNU system, I have written this article on how
+our community can avoid ruinous compromises.  In addition to avoiding
+such compromises, there are many ways you can &lt;a 
href="/help/help.html"&gt;help
+GNU&lt;/a&gt; and free software.  One basic way is
+to &lt;a 
href="https://www.fsf.org/associate/support_freedom/join_fsf?referrer=4052"&gt;
+join the Free Software Foundation&lt;/a&gt; as an Associate
+Member.&rdquo;&mdash;&lt;b&gt;Richard 
Stallman&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;The free software movement aims for a social
+change: &lt;a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html"&gt;to make all software
+free&lt;/a&gt; so that all software users are free and can be part of a
+community of cooperation.  Every nonfree program gives its developer
+unjust power over the users.  Our goal is to put an end to that
+injustice.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;The road to freedom
+is &lt;a 
href="http://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2008/spring/the-last-mile-is-always-the-hardest/"&gt;
+a long road&lt;/a&gt;.  It will take many steps and many years to reach a
+world in which it is normal for software users to have freedom.  Some
+of these steps are hard, and require sacrifice.  Some of them become easier
+if we make compromises with people that have different goals.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Thus, the &lt;a href="http://www.fsf.org/"&gt;Free Software
+Foundation&lt;/a&gt; makes compromises&mdash;even major ones.  For
+instance, we made compromises in the patent provisions of version 3 of
+the &lt;a href="/licenses/gpl.html"&gt;GNU General Public License&lt;/a&gt; 
(GNU GPL) so
+that major companies would contribute to and distribute GPLv3-covered
+software and thus bring some patents under the effect of these
+provisions.  &lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;img src="/graphics/gplv3-large.png" alt=" [GPLv3 Logo] " class="imgleft" 
/&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="/licenses/lgpl.html"&gt;The Lesser GPL&lt;/a&gt;'s 
purpose is a
+compromise: we use it on certain chosen free libraries to permit their
+use in nonfree programs because we think that legally prohibiting
+this would only drive developers to proprietary libraries instead.  We
+accept and install code in GNU programs to make them work together
+with common nonfree programs, and we document and publicize this in
+ways that encourage users of the latter to install the former, but not
+vice versa.  We support specific campaigns we agree with, even when we
+don't fully agree with the groups behind them.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;But we reject certain compromises even though many others in our
+community are willing to make them.  For instance,
+we &lt;a href="/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html"&gt;
+endorse only the GNU/Linux distributions&lt;/a&gt; that have policies not to
+include nonfree software or lead users to install it.  To endorse
+nonfree distributions would be a &lt;acronym title="ruinous
+(r&#363;'&#601;-n&#601;s) adj. 1. Causing or apt to cause ruin;
+destructive.  2. Falling to ruin; dilapidated or
+decayed."&gt;ruinous&lt;/acronym&gt; compromise.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Compromises are ruinous if they would work against our aims in the
+long term.  That can occur either at the level of ideas or at the level of
+actions.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;At the level of ideas, ruinous compromises are those that reinforce
+the premises we seek to change.  Our goal is a world in which software
+users are free, but as yet most computer users do not even recognize
+freedom as an issue.  They have taken up &ldquo;consumer&rdquo;
+values, which means they judge any program only on practical characteristics
+such as price and convenience.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Dale Carnegie's classic self-help book, &lt;cite&gt;How to Win 
Friends and
+Influence People&lt;/cite&gt;, advises that the most effective way to
+persuade someone to do something is to present arguments that appeal
+to <span class="removed"><del><strong>his</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>per</em></ins></span> values.  There are ways we can 
appeal to the consumer values
+typical in our society.  For instance, free software obtained gratis
+can save the user money.  Many free programs are convenient and
+reliable, too.  Citing those practical benefits has succeeded in
+persuading many users to adopt various free programs, some of which
+are now quite successful.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;If getting more people to use some free programs is as far as you
+aim to go, you might decide to keep quiet about the concept of
+freedom, and focus only on the practical advantages that make sense
+in terms of consumer values.  That's what the term &ldquo;open
+source&rdquo; and its associated rhetoric do.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;That approach can get us only part way to the goal of freedom.  People
+who use free software only because it is convenient will stick with it
+only as long as it is <span class="inserted"><ins><em>more</em></ins></span> 
convenient.  And they will see no reason not
+to use convenient proprietary programs along with it.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;The philosophy of open source presupposes and appeals to consumer
+values, and this affirms and reinforces them.  That's why we
+&lt;a href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html"&gt;do not <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>support</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>advocate</em></ins></span> open 
source.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;img src="/graphics/gnulaptop.png"
+     alt=" [Levitating Gnu with a laptop] " class="imgright" /&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;To establish a free community fully and lastingly, we need to do
+more than get people to use some free software.  We need to spread the
+idea of judging software (and other things) on &ldquo;citizen
+values&rdquo;, based on whether it respects users' freedom and
+community, not just in terms of convenience.  Then people will not
+fall into the trap of a proprietary program baited by an attractive,
+convenient feature.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;To promote citizen values, we have to talk about them and show how
+they are the basis of our actions.  We must reject the Dale Carnegie
+compromise that would influence their actions by endorsing their
+consumer values.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;This is not to say we cannot cite practical advantage at all&mdash;we 
can
+and we do.  It becomes a problem only when the practical advantage steals
+the scene and pushes freedom into the background.  Therefore,
+when we cite the practical advantages of free software, we reiterate
+frequently that those are just &lt;em&gt;additional, secondary&lt;/em&gt; 
reasons
+to prefer it.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;It's not enough to make our words accord with our ideals; our
+actions have to accord with them too.  So we must also avoid
+compromises that involve doing or legitimizing the things we aim to
+stamp out.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;For instance, experience shows that you can attract some users to
+&lt;a href="/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html"&gt;GNU/Linux&lt;/a&gt; if you include some
+nonfree programs.  This could mean a cute nonfree application that
+will catch some user's eye, or a nonfree programming platform such
+as &lt;a href="/philosophy/java-trap.html"&gt;Java&lt;/a&gt; (formerly) or the
+Flash runtime (still), or a nonfree device driver that enables
+support for certain hardware models.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;These compromises are tempting, but they undermine the goal.  If
+you distribute nonfree software, or steer people towards it, you will
+find it hard to say, &ldquo;Nonfree software is an injustice, a
+social problem, and we must put an end to it.&rdquo; And even if you
+do continue to say those words, your actions will undermine them.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;The issue here is not whether people should be 
&lt;em&gt;able&lt;/em&gt;
+or &lt;em&gt;allowed&lt;/em&gt; to install nonfree software; a general-purpose
+system enables and allows users to do whatever they wish.  The issue
+is whether we guide users towards nonfree software.  What they do on
+their own is their responsibility; what we do for them, and what we
+direct them towards, is ours.  We must not direct the
+users towards proprietary software as if it were a solution, because
+proprietary software is the problem.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;A ruinous compromise is not just a bad influence on others.  It can
+distort your own values, too, through cognitive dissonance.  If you
+have certain values, but your actions imply other, conflicting values,
+you are likely to change your values or your actions so as to resolve the
+contradiction.  Thus, projects that argue only from practical
+advantages, or direct people toward some nonfree software, nearly
+always shy away from even &lt;em&gt;suggesting&lt;/em&gt; that nonfree software
+is unethical.  For their participants, as well as for the public, they
+reinforce consumer values.  We must reject these compromises if we wish
+to keep our values straight.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;If you want to move to free software without compromising the goal
+of freedom, look at &lt;a href="http://www.fsf.org/resources"&gt;the FSF's
+resources area&lt;/a&gt;.  It lists hardware and machine configurations that
+work with free software, &lt;a href="/distros/distros.html"&gt; totally free 
GNU/Linux
+distros&lt;/a&gt; to install, and &lt;a href="http://directory.fsf.org/"&gt;
+thousands of free software packages&lt;/a&gt; that
+work in a 100 percent free software environment.  If you want to help the
+community stay on the road to freedom, one important way is to
+publicly uphold citizen values.  When people are discussing what is
+good or bad, or what to do, cite the values of freedom and community
+and argue from them.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;A road that lets you go faster is not better if it leads to the
+wrong place.  Compromise is essential to achieve an ambitious goal,
+but beware of compromises that lead away from the goal.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;hr /&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+For a similar point in a different area of life,
+see &lt;a
+href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/19/nudge-is-not-enough-behaviour-change"&gt;
+&ldquo;Nudge&rdquo; is not enough&lt;/a&gt;.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --&gt;
+&lt;div id="footer"&gt;
+&lt;div class="unprintable"&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to &lt;a
+href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;&lt;address@hidden&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.  There are 
also &lt;a
+href="/contact/"&gt;other ways to contact&lt;/a&gt; the FSF.  Broken links and 
other
+corrections or suggestions can be sent to &lt;a
+href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;&lt;address@hidden&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- 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 &lt;a href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;
+        &lt;address@hidden&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+        &lt;p&gt;For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+        our web pages, see &lt;a
+        href="/server/standards/README.translations.html"&gt;Translations
+        README&lt;/a&gt;. --&gt;
+Please see the &lt;a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html"&gt;Translations 
README&lt;/a&gt; for
+information on coordinating and submitting translations of this 
article.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Copyright &copy; 2008, 2009, 2014, 2015, <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>2017</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>2017, 2018</em></ins></span> &lt;a 
href="http://www.stallman.org/"&gt;Richard
+Stallman&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;This page is licensed under a &lt;a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/"&gt;Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International 
License&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --&gt;
+
+&lt;p class="unprintable"&gt;Updated:
+&lt;!-- timestamp start --&gt;
+$Date: 2018/05/30 00:59:20 $
+&lt;!-- timestamp end --&gt;
+&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;
+&lt;/body&gt;
+&lt;/html&gt;
+</pre></body></html>

Index: philosophy/po/free-sw.it-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: philosophy/po/free-sw.it-diff.html
diff -N philosophy/po/free-sw.it-diff.html
--- /dev/null   1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ philosophy/po/free-sw.it-diff.html  30 May 2018 00:59:20 -0000      1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,643 @@
+<!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/free-sw.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>
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --&gt;
+&lt;!-- Parent-Version: <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>1.84</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>1.85</em></ins></span> --&gt;
+&lt;title&gt;What is free software?
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation&lt;/title&gt;
+
+&lt;meta http-equiv="Keywords" content="GNU, FSF, Free Software Foundation, 
Linux, Emacs, GCC, Unix, Free Software, Operating System, GNU Kernel, HURD, GNU 
HURD, Hurd" /&gt;
+&lt;meta http-equiv="Description" content="Since 1983, developing the free 
Unix style operating system GNU, so that computer users can have the freedom to 
share and improve the software they use." /&gt;
+
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/free-sw.translist" --&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --&gt;
+
+&lt;h2&gt;What is free software?&lt;/h2&gt;
+
+&lt;blockquote class="note" id="fsf-licensing"&gt;&lt;p style="font-size: 
80%"&gt;
+Have a question about free software licensing not answered here?
+See our other &lt;a href="http://www.fsf.org/licensing"&gt;licensing 
resources&lt;/a&gt;,
+and if necessary contact the FSF Compliance Lab
+at &lt;a href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;address@hidden&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/blockquote&gt;
+
+&lt;h3&gt;The Free Software Definition&lt;/h3&gt;
+
+&lt;blockquote&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+The free software definition presents the criteria for whether a
+particular software program qualifies as free software.  From time to
+time we revise this definition, to clarify it or to resolve questions
+about subtle issues.  See the &lt;a href="#History"&gt;History 
section&lt;/a&gt;
+below for a list of changes that affect the definition of free
+software.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;p&gt;
+&ldquo;Open source&rdquo; is something different: it has a very
+different philosophy based on different values.  Its practical
+definition is different too, but nearly all open source programs are
+in fact free.  We explain the
+difference in &lt;a href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html"&gt;
+Why &ldquo;Open Source&rdquo; misses the point of Free Software&lt;/a&gt;.
+&lt;/p&gt;</em></ins></span>
+&lt;/blockquote&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+&ldquo;Free software&rdquo; means software that respects users'
+freedom and community.  Roughly, it means that &lt;b&gt;the users have the
+freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the
+software&lt;/b&gt;.  Thus, &ldquo;free software&rdquo; is a matter of
+liberty, not price.  To understand the concept, you should think of
+&ldquo;free&rdquo; as in &ldquo;free speech,&rdquo; not as in
+&ldquo;free beer&rdquo;.  We sometimes call it &ldquo;libre
+software,&rdquo; borrowing the French or Spanish word for
+&ldquo;free&rdquo; as in freedom, to show we do not mean the software
+is gratis.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+We campaign for these freedoms because everyone deserves them.  With
+these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control
+the program and what it does for them.  When users don't control the
+program, we call it a &ldquo;nonfree&rdquo; or
+&ldquo;proprietary&rdquo; program.  The nonfree program controls the
+users, and the developer controls the program; this makes the
+program &lt;a href="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html"&gt;
+an instrument of unjust power&lt;/a&gt;.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h4&gt; The four essential freedoms&lt;/h4&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+A program is free software if the program's users have the
+four essential freedoms: <span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;a 
href="#f1"&gt;[1]&lt;/a&gt;</em></ins></span>
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;ul&gt;
+  &lt;li&gt;The freedom to run the program as you wish,
+      for any purpose (freedom 0).&lt;/li&gt;
+  &lt;li&gt;The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it
+      does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source
+      code is a precondition for this.
+  &lt;/li&gt;
+  &lt;li&gt;The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>your neighbor</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>others</em></ins></span>
+      (freedom 2).
+  &lt;/li&gt;
+  &lt;li&gt;The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions
+      to others (freedom 3).  By doing this you can give the whole
+      community a chance to benefit from your changes.
+      Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
+  &lt;/li&gt;
+&lt;/ul&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+A program is free software if it gives users adequately all of these
+freedoms.  Otherwise, it is nonfree.  While we can distinguish various
+nonfree distribution schemes in terms of how far they fall short of
+being free, we consider them all equally unethical.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;In any given scenario, these freedoms must apply to whatever code
+we plan to make use of, or lead others to make use of.  For instance,
+consider a program A which automatically launches a program B to
+handle some cases.  If we plan to distribute A as it stands, that
+implies users will need B, so we need to judge whether both A and B
+are free.  However, if we plan to modify A so that it doesn't use B,
+only A needs to be free; B is not pertinent to that plan.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+&ldquo;Free software&rdquo; does not mean &ldquo;noncommercial&rdquo;.  A free
+program must be available for commercial use, commercial development,
+and commercial distribution.  Commercial development of free software
+is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important.
+You may have paid money to get copies of free software, or you may have
+obtained copies at no charge.  But regardless of how you got your copies,
+you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to 
+&lt;a href="/philosophy/selling.html"&gt;sell copies&lt;/a&gt;.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;The rest of this page clarifies certain points about what makes
+specific freedoms adequate or not.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h4&gt;The freedom to run the program as you wish&lt;/h4&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person
+or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of
+overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about it
+with the developer or any other specific entity.  In this freedom, it is
+the &lt;em&gt;user's&lt;/em&gt; purpose that matters, not the 
&lt;em&gt;developer's&lt;/em&gt;
+purpose; you as a user are free to run the program for your purposes,
+and if you distribute it to someone else, she is then free to run it
+for her purposes, but you are not entitled to impose your purposes on her.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+The freedom to run the program as you wish means that you are not
+forbidden or stopped from making it run.  This has nothing to do with what
+functionality the program has, whether it is technically capable of
+functioning in any given environment, or whether it is useful for any
+particular computing activity.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h4&gt;The freedom to study the source code and make changes&lt;/h4&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+In order for freedoms 1 and 3 (the freedom to make changes and the
+freedom to publish the changed versions) to be meaningful, you must have
+access to the source code of the program.  Therefore, accessibility of
+source code is a necessary condition for free software.  Obfuscated
+&ldquo;source code&rdquo; is not real source code and does not count
+as source code.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+Freedom 1 includes the freedom to use your changed version in place of
+the original.  If the program is delivered in a product designed to
+run someone else's modified versions but refuse to run yours &mdash; a
+practice known as &ldquo;tivoization&rdquo; or &ldquo;lockdown&rdquo;,
+or (in its practitioners' perverse terminology) as &ldquo;secure
+boot&rdquo; &mdash; freedom 1 becomes an empty pretense rather than a
+practical reality.  These binaries are not free
+software even if the source code they are compiled from is free.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+One important way to modify a program is by merging in available free
+subroutines and modules.  If the program's license says that you
+cannot merge in a suitably licensed existing module &mdash; for instance, if it
+requires you to be the copyright holder of any code you add &mdash; then the
+license is too restrictive to qualify as free.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+Whether a change constitutes an improvement is a subjective matter.
+If your right to modify a program is limited, in substance, to changes that
+someone else considers an improvement, that program is not free.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h4&gt;The freedom to redistribute if you wish: basic 
requirements&lt;/h4&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Freedom to distribute (freedoms 2 and 3) means you are free to
+redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either
+gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to
+&lt;a href="#exportcontrol"&gt;anyone anywhere&lt;/a&gt;.  Being free to do 
these
+things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay
+for permission to do so.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them
+privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they
+exist.  If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to
+notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+Freedom 3 includes the freedom to release your modified versions
+as free software.  A free license may also permit other ways of
+releasing them; in other words, it does not have to be
+a &lt;a href="/copyleft/copyleft.html"&gt;copyleft&lt;/a&gt; license.  
However, a
+license that requires modified versions to be nonfree does not qualify
+as a free license.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+The freedom to redistribute copies must include binary or executable
+forms of the program, as well as source code, for both modified and
+unmodified versions.  (Distributing programs in runnable form is necessary
+for conveniently installable free operating systems.)  It is OK if there
+is no way to produce a binary or executable form for a certain program
+(since some languages don't support that feature), but you must have the
+freedom to redistribute such forms should you find or develop a way to
+make them.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h4&gt;Copyleft&lt;/h4&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+Certain kinds of rules about the manner of distributing free
+software are acceptable, when they don't conflict with the central
+freedoms.  For example, &lt;a 
href="/copyleft/copyleft.html"&gt;copyleft&lt;/a&gt;
+(very simply stated) is the rule that when redistributing the program,
+you cannot add restrictions to deny other people the central freedoms.
+This rule does not conflict with the central freedoms; rather it
+protects them.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+In the GNU project, we use copyleft to protect the four freedoms
+legally for everyone.  We believe there are important reasons why
+&lt;a href="/philosophy/pragmatic.html"&gt;it is better to use
+copyleft&lt;/a&gt;.  However,
+&lt;a href="/philosophy/categories.html#Non-CopyleftedFreeSoftware"&gt;
+noncopylefted free software&lt;/a&gt; is ethical
+too.  See &lt;a href="/philosophy/categories.html"&gt;Categories of Free
+Software&lt;/a&gt; for a description of how &ldquo;free software,&rdquo;
+&ldquo;copylefted software&rdquo; and other categories of software
+relate to each other.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h4&gt;Rules about packaging and distribution details&lt;/h4&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+Rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable,
+if they don't substantively limit your freedom to release modified
+versions, or your freedom to make and use modified versions privately.
+Thus, it is acceptable for the license to require that you change the
+name of the modified version, remove a logo, or identify your
+modifications as yours.  As long as these requirements are not so
+burdensome that they effectively hamper you from releasing your
+changes, they are acceptable; you're already making other changes to
+the program, so you won't have trouble making a few more.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+Rules that &ldquo;if you make your version available in this way, you
+must make it available in that way also&rdquo; can be acceptable too,
+on the same condition.  An example of such an acceptable rule is one
+saying that if you have distributed a
+modified version and a previous developer asks for a copy of it, you
+must send one.  (Note that such a rule still leaves you the choice of
+whether to distribute your version at all.)  Rules that require release
+of source code to the users for versions that you put into public use
+are also acceptable.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+A special issue arises when a license requires changing the name by
+which the program will be invoked from other programs.  That
+effectively hampers you from releasing your changed version so that it
+can replace the original when invoked by those other programs.  This
+sort of requirement is acceptable only if there's a suitable aliasing
+facility that allows you to specify the original program's name as an
+alias for the modified version.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h4&gt;Export regulations&lt;/h4&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+Sometimes government &lt;a id="exportcontrol"&gt;export control 
regulations&lt;/a&gt;
+and trade sanctions can constrain your freedom to distribute copies of
+programs internationally.  Software developers do not have the power to
+eliminate or override these restrictions, but what they can and must do
+is refuse to impose them as conditions of use of the program.  In this
+way, the restrictions will not affect activities and people outside the
+jurisdictions of these governments.  Thus, free software licenses
+must not require obedience to any nontrivial export regulations as a
+condition of exercising any of the essential freedoms.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+Merely mentioning the existence of export regulations, without making
+them a condition of the license itself, is acceptable since it does
+not restrict users.  If an export regulation is actually trivial for
+free software, then requiring it as a condition is not an actual
+problem; however, it is a potential problem, since a later change in
+export law could make the requirement nontrivial and thus render the
+software nonfree.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h4&gt;Legal considerations&lt;/h4&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be permanent and
+irrevocable as long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the
+software has the power to revoke the license, or retroactively add
+restrictions to its terms, without your doing anything wrong to give
+cause, the software is not free.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+A free license may not require compliance with the license of a
+nonfree program.  Thus, for instance, if a license requires you to
+comply with the licenses of &ldquo;all the programs you use&rdquo;, in
+the case of a user that runs nonfree programs this would require
+compliance with the licenses of those nonfree programs; that makes the
+license nonfree.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+It is acceptable for a free license to specify which jurisdiction's
+law applies, or where litigation must be done, or both.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h4&gt;Contract-based licenses&lt;/h4&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+Most free software licenses are based on copyright, and there are limits
+on what kinds of requirements can be imposed through copyright.  If a
+copyright-based license respects freedom in the ways described above, it
+is unlikely to have some other sort of problem that we never anticipated
+(though this does happen occasionally).  However, some free software
+licenses are based on contracts, and contracts can impose a much larger
+range of possible restrictions.  That means there are many possible ways
+such a license could be unacceptably restrictive and nonfree.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+We can't possibly list all the ways that might happen.  If a
+contract-based license restricts the user in an unusual way that
+copyright-based licenses cannot, and which isn't mentioned here as
+legitimate, we will have to think about it, and we will probably conclude
+it is nonfree.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h4&gt;Use the right words when talking about free software&lt;/h4&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+When talking about free software, it is best to avoid using terms
+like &ldquo;give away&rdquo; or &ldquo;for free,&rdquo; because those terms 
imply that
+the issue is about price, not freedom.  Some common terms such
+as &ldquo;piracy&rdquo; embody opinions we hope you won't endorse.  See 
+&lt;a href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html"&gt;Confusing Words and Phrases 
that
+are Worth Avoiding&lt;/a&gt; for a discussion of these terms.  We also have
+a list of proper &lt;a href="/philosophy/fs-translations.html"&gt;translations 
of
+&ldquo;free software&rdquo;&lt;/a&gt; into various languages.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h4&gt;How we interpret these criteria&lt;/h4&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+Finally, note that criteria such as those stated in this free software
+definition require careful thought for their interpretation.  To decide
+whether a specific software license qualifies as a free software license,
+we judge it based on these criteria to determine whether it fits their
+spirit as well as the precise words.  If a license includes unconscionable
+restrictions, we reject it, even if we did not anticipate the issue
+in these criteria.  Sometimes a license requirement raises an issue
+that calls for extensive thought, including discussions with a lawyer,
+before we can decide if the requirement is acceptable.  When we reach
+a conclusion about a new issue, we often update these criteria to make
+it easier to see why certain licenses do or don't qualify.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h4&gt;Get help with free licenses&lt;/h4&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+If you are interested in whether a specific license qualifies as a free
+software license, see our &lt;a href="/licenses/license-list.html"&gt;list
+of licenses&lt;/a&gt;.  If the license you are concerned with is not
+listed there, you can ask us about it by sending us email at 
+&lt;a href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;&lt;address@hidden&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.
+&lt;/p&gt; 
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+If you are contemplating writing a new license, please contact the
+Free Software Foundation first by writing to that address. The
+proliferation of different free software licenses means increased work
+for users in understanding the licenses; we may be able to help you
+find an existing free software license that meets your needs.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+If that isn't possible, if you really need a new license, with our
+help you can ensure that the license really is a free software license
+and avoid various practical problems.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3 id="beyond-software"&gt;Beyond Software&lt;/h3&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+&lt;a href="/philosophy/free-doc.html"&gt;Software manuals must be 
free&lt;/a&gt;,
+for the same reasons that software must be free, and because the
+manuals are in effect part of the software.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+The same arguments also make sense for other kinds of works of
+practical use &mdash; that is to say, works that embody useful knowledge,
+such as educational works and reference
+works.  &lt;a href="http://wikipedia.org"&gt;Wikipedia&lt;/a&gt; is the 
best-known
+example.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+Any kind of work &lt;em&gt;can&lt;/em&gt; be free, and the definition of free 
software
+has been extended to a definition of &lt;a 
href="http://freedomdefined.org/"&gt;
+free cultural works&lt;/a&gt; applicable to any kind of works.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3 id="open-source"&gt;Open Source?&lt;/h3&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+Another group uses the term &ldquo;open source&rdquo; to mean
+something close (but not identical) to &ldquo;free software&rdquo;.  We
+prefer the term &ldquo;free software&rdquo; because, once you have heard that
+it refers to freedom rather than price, it calls to mind freedom.  The
+word &ldquo;open&rdquo; &lt;a 
href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html"&gt;
+never refers to freedom&lt;/a&gt;.
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3 id="History"&gt;History&lt;/h3&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;From time to time we revise this Free Software Definition.  Here is
+the list of substantive changes, along with links to show exactly what
+was changed.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;ul&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a 
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.152&amp;r2=1.153"&gt;Version
+1.153&lt;/a&gt;: Clarify that freedom to run the program means nothing stops
+you from making it run.&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a 
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.140&amp;r2=1.141"&gt;Version
+1.141&lt;/a&gt;: Clarify which code needs to be free.&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a 
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.134&amp;r2=1.135"&gt;Version
+1.135&lt;/a&gt;: Say each time that freedom 0 is the freedom to run the program
+as you wish.&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a 
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.133&amp;r2=1.134"&gt;Version
+1.134&lt;/a&gt;: Freedom 0 is not a matter of the program's 
functionality.&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a 
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.130&amp;r2=1.131"&gt;Version
+1.131&lt;/a&gt;: A free license may not require compliance with a nonfree 
license
+of another program.&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a 
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.128&amp;r2=1.129"&gt;Version
+1.129&lt;/a&gt;: State explicitly that choice of law and choice of forum
+specifications are allowed.  (This was always our policy.)&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a 
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.121&amp;r2=1.122"&gt;Version
+1.122&lt;/a&gt;: An export control requirement is a real problem if the
+requirement is nontrivial; otherwise it is only a potential problem.&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a 
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.117&amp;r2=1.118"&gt;Version
+1.118&lt;/a&gt;: Clarification: the issue is limits on your right to modify,
+not on what modifications you have made.  And modifications are not limited
+to &ldquo;improvements&rdquo;&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a 
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.110&amp;r2=1.111"&gt;Version
+1.111&lt;/a&gt;: Clarify 1.77 by saying that only
+retroactive &lt;em&gt;restrictions&lt;/em&gt; are unacceptable.  The copyright
+holders can always grant additional &lt;em&gt;permission&lt;/em&gt; for use of 
the
+work by releasing the work in another way in parallel.&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a 
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.104&amp;r2=1.105"&gt;Version
+1.105&lt;/a&gt;: Reflect, in the brief statement of freedom 1, the point
+(already stated in version 1.80) that it includes really using your modified
+version for your computing.&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a 
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.91&amp;r2=1.92"&gt;Version
+1.92&lt;/a&gt;: Clarify that obfuscated code does not qualify as source 
code.&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a 
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.89&amp;r2=1.90"&gt;Version
+1.90&lt;/a&gt;: Clarify that freedom 3 means the right to distribute copies
+of your own modified or improved version, not a right to participate
+in someone else's development project.&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a 
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.88&amp;r2=1.89"&gt;Version
+1.89&lt;/a&gt;: Freedom 3 includes the right to release modified versions as
+free software.&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a 
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.79&amp;r2=1.80"&gt;Version
+1.80&lt;/a&gt;: Freedom 1 must be practical, not just theoretical;
+i.e., no tivoization.&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a 
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.76&amp;r2=1.77"&gt;Version
+1.77&lt;/a&gt;: Clarify that all retroactive changes to the license are
+unacceptable, even if it's not described as a complete
+replacement.&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a 
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.73&amp;r2=1.74"&gt;Version
+1.74&lt;/a&gt;: Four clarifications of points not explicit enough, or stated
+in some places but not reflected everywhere:
+&lt;ul&gt;
+&lt;li&gt;"Improvements" does not mean the license can
+substantively limit what kinds of modified versions you can release.
+Freedom 3 includes distributing modified versions, not just changes.&lt;/li&gt;
+&lt;li&gt;The right to merge in existing modules
+refers to those that are suitably licensed.&lt;/li&gt;
+&lt;li&gt;Explicitly state the conclusion of the point about export 
controls.&lt;/li&gt;
+&lt;li&gt;Imposing a license change constitutes revoking the old 
license.&lt;/li&gt;
+&lt;/ul&gt;
+&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a 
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.56&amp;r2=1.57"&gt;Version
+1.57&lt;/a&gt;: Add &quot;Beyond Software&quot; section.&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a 
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.45&amp;r2=1.46"&gt;Version
+1.46&lt;/a&gt;: Clarify whose purpose is significant in the freedom to run
+the program for any purpose.&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a 
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.40&amp;r2=1.41"&gt;Version
+1.41&lt;/a&gt;: Clarify wording about contract-based licenses.&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a 
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.39&amp;r2=1.40"&gt;Version
+1.40&lt;/a&gt;: Explain that a free license must allow to you use other
+available free software to create your modifications.&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a 
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.38&amp;r2=1.39"&gt;Version
+1.39&lt;/a&gt;: Note that it is acceptable for a license to require you to
+provide source for versions of the software you put into public
+use.&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a 
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.30&amp;r2=1.31"&gt;Version
+1.31&lt;/a&gt;: Note that it is acceptable for a license to require you to
+identify yourself as the author of modifications.  Other minor
+clarifications throughout the text.&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a 
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.22&amp;r2=1.23"&gt;Version
+1.23&lt;/a&gt;: Address potential problems related to contract-based
+licenses.&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a 
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.15&amp;r2=1.16"&gt;Version
+1.16&lt;/a&gt;: Explain why distribution of binaries is important.&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;&lt;a 
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.10&amp;r2=1.11"&gt;Version
+1.11&lt;/a&gt;: Note that a free license may require you to send a copy of
+versions you distribute to previous developers on request.&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;/ul&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;There are gaps in the version numbers shown above because there are
+other changes in this page that do not affect the definition or its
+interpretations.  For instance, the list does not include changes in
+asides, formatting, spelling, punctuation, or other parts of the page.
+You can review the complete list of changes to the page through
+the &lt;a 
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;view=log"&gt;cvsweb
+interface&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;h3 
style="font-size:1em"&gt;Footnote&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;ol&gt;
+&lt;li id="f1"&gt;The reason they are numbered 0, 1, 2 and 3 is historical. 
Around
+1990 there were three freedoms, numbered 1, 2 and 3. Then we realized that
+the freedom to run the program needed to be mentioned explicitly.
+It was clearly more basic than the other three, so it properly should
+precede them. Rather than renumber the others, we made it 
freedom&nbsp;0.&lt;/li&gt;
+&lt;/ol&gt;</em></ins></span>
+
+&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --&gt;
+&lt;div id="footer"&gt;
+&lt;div class="unprintable"&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to
+&lt;a href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;&lt;address@hidden&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.
+There are also &lt;a href="/contact/"&gt;other ways to contact&lt;/a&gt;
+the FSF.  Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to &lt;a 
href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;&lt;address@hidden&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- 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 &lt;a href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;
+        &lt;address@hidden&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+        &lt;p&gt;For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+        our web pages, see &lt;a
+        href="/server/standards/README.translations.html"&gt;Translations
+        README&lt;/a&gt;. --&gt;
+Please see the &lt;a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html"&gt;Translations
+README&lt;/a&gt; for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;
+
+&lt;!-- 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. --&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Copyright &copy; 1996, 2002, 2004-2007, 2009-2018
+Free Software Foundation, Inc.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;This page is licensed under a &lt;a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/"&gt;Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International 
License&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --&gt;
+
+&lt;p class="unprintable"&gt;Updated:
+&lt;!-- timestamp start --&gt;
+$Date: 2018/05/30 00:59:20 $
+&lt;!-- timestamp end --&gt;
+&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;
+&lt;/body&gt;
+&lt;/html&gt;
+</pre></body></html>



reply via email to

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