[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>Ð ÑÑаÑд СÑолмен. ЧÐРпÑо GNU/Linux</h2>
<div class="announcement">
@@ -1594,7 +1600,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Ðновлено:
-$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 å°æ¡</h2>
<p>
@@ -592,7 +598,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
æ´æ°æé︰
-$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>
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
-<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.84 -->
<title>GNU/Linux FAQ
- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
<!--#include virtual="/gnu/po/gnu-linux-faq.translist" -->
@@ -33,208 +33,211 @@
<ul>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#why"
id="TOCwhy">Why</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#why">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?</a></li>
+<li><a href="#why">Why do you call the system we use GNU/Linux and
not Linux?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#whycare"
id="TOCwhycare">Why</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#whycare">Why</em></ins></span> is the name
important?</a></li>
+<li><a href="#whycare">Why is the name
important?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#howerror"
id="TOChowerror">How</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#what">What is the real relationship between
GNU and Linux</a></li>
+<li><a href="#what">What is the real relationship between GNU and
Linux?</a></li>
-<li><a href="#howerror">How</em></ins></span> did it come about
that most
+<li><a href="#howerror">How did it come about that most
people call the system “Linux”?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#always"
id="TOCalways">Should</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#always">Should</em></ins></span> we always
say
+<li><a href="#always">Should we always say
“GNU/Linux” instead of “Linux”?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#linuxalone"
id="TOClinuxalone">Would</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#linuxalone">Would</em></ins></span> Linux
have achieved
+<li><a href="#linuxalone">Would Linux have achieved
the same success if there had been no GNU?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#divide"
id="TOCdivide">Wouldn't</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#divide">Wouldn't</em></ins></span> it be
better for the
+<li><a href="#divide">Wouldn't it be better for the
community if you did not divide people with this
request?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#freespeech"
id="TOCfreespeech">Doesn't</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#freespeech">Doesn't</em></ins></span> the
GNU project
+<li><a href="#freespeech">Doesn't the GNU project
support an individual's free speech rights to call the system by
any name that individual chooses?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#everyoneknows"
id="TOCeveryoneknows">Since</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#everyoneknows">Since</em></ins></span>
everyone
+<li><a href="#everyoneknows">Since everyone
knows the role of GNU in developing the system, doesn't the
“GNU/” in the name go without saying?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#everyoneknows2"
id="TOCeveryoneknows2">Since</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#everyoneknows2">Since</em></ins></span> I
know the role of
+<li><a href="#everyoneknows2">Since I know the role of
GNU in this system, why does it matter what name I
use?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#windows"
id="TOCwindows">Isn't</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#windows">Isn't</em></ins></span> shortening
+<li><a href="#windows">Isn't shortening
“GNU/Linux” to “Linux” just like
shortening “Microsoft Windows” to
“Windows”?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#tools"
id="TOCtools">Isn't</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#tools">Isn't</em></ins></span> GNU a
collection of programming
+<li><a href="#tools">Isn't GNU a collection of programming
tools that were included in Linux?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#osvskernel"
id="TOCosvskernel">What</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#osvskernel">What</em></ins></span> is the
difference between an operating
+<li><a href="#osvskernel">What is the difference between an
operating
system and a kernel?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#house"
id="TOChouse">The</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#house">The</em></ins></span> kernel of a
system is like the foundation
+<li><a href="#house">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?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#brain"
id="TOCbrain">Isn't</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#brain">Isn't</em></ins></span> the kernel
the brain of the
+<li><a href="#brain">Isn't the kernel the brain of the
system?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#kernelmost"
id="TOCkernelmost">Isn't</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#kernelmost">Isn't</em></ins></span> writing
the kernel
+<li><a href="#kernelmost">Isn't writing the kernel
most of the work in an operating system?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#notinstallable"
id="TOCnotinstallable">How</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#notinstallable">How</em></ins></span> can
GNU be an
+<li><a href="#notinstallable">How can GNU be an
operating system, if I can't get something called “GNU”
and install it?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#afterkernel"
id="TOCafterkernel">We're</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#afterkernel">We're</em></ins></span>
calling the whole
+<li><a href="#afterkernel">We're calling the whole
system after the kernel, Linux. Isn't it normal to name an
operating system after a kernel?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#feel"
id="TOCfeel">Can</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#feel">Can</em></ins></span> another system
have “the
+<li><a href="#feel">Can another system have “the
feel of Linux”?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#long"
id="TOClong">The</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#long">The</em></ins></span> problem with
+<li><a href="#long">The problem with
“GNU/Linux” is that it is too long. How about
recommending a shorter name?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#long1"
id="TOClong1">How</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#long1">How</em></ins></span> about calling
the system
+<li><a href="#long1">How about calling the system
“GliNUx” (instead of
“GNU/Linux”)?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#long2"
id="TOClong2">The</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#long2">The</em></ins></span> problem with
+<li><a href="#long2">The problem with
“GNU/Linux” is that it is too long. Why should
I go to the trouble of saying “GNU/”?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#long3"
id="TOClong3">Unfortunately,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#long3">Unfortunately,</em></ins></span>
+<li><a href="#long3">Unfortunately,
“GNU/Linux” is five syllables. People won't use such a
long term. Shouldn't you find a shorter one?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#justgnu"
id="TOCjustgnu">Since</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#justgnu">Since</em></ins></span> Linux is a
secondary
+<li><a href="#justgnu">Since Linux is a secondary
contribution, would it be false to the facts to call the system
simply “GNU”?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#trademarkfee"
id="TOCtrademarkfee">I</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#trademarkfee">I</em></ins></span> would
have to pay a
+<li><a href="#trademarkfee">I would have to pay a
fee if I use “Linux” in the name of a product, and
that would also apply if I say “GNU/Linux”. Is it
wrong if I use “GNU” without “Linux”, to
save the fee?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#many"
id="TOCmany">Many</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#many">Many</em></ins></span> other projects
contributed to the
+<li><a href="#many">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.)</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#others"
id="TOCothers">Many</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#others">Many</em></ins></span> other
projects contributed to
+<li><a href="#others">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?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#allsmall"
id="TOCallsmall">GNU</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#allsmall">GNU</em></ins></span> is a small
fraction of the system
+<li><a href="#allsmall">GNU is a small fraction of the system
nowadays, so why should we mention it?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#manycompanies"
id="TOCmanycompanies">Many</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#manycompanies">Many</em></ins></span>
companies
+<li><a href="#manycompanies">Many companies
contributed to the system as it is today; doesn't that mean
we ought to call it GNU/Red Hat/Novell/Linux?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#whyslash"
id="TOCwhyslash">Why</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#whyslash">Why</em></ins></span> do you write
+<li><a href="#whyslash">Why do you write
“GNU/Linux” instead of “GNU
Linux”?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#whyorder"
id="TOCwhyorder">Why</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#whyorder">Why</em></ins></span>
“GNU/Linux”
+<li><a href="#whyorder">Why “GNU/Linux”
rather than “Linux/GNU”?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#distronames0"
id="TOCdistronames0">My</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#distronames0">My</em></ins></span> distro's
developers call it
+<li><a href="#distronames0">My distro's developers call it
“Foobar Linux”, but that doesn't say anything about
what the system consists of. Why shouldn't they call it whatever
they like?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#distronames"
id="TOCdistronames">My</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#distronames">My</em></ins></span> distro is
called
+<li><a href="#distronames">My distro is called
“Foobar Linux”; doesn't that show it's really
Linux?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#distronames1"
id="TOCdistronames1">My</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#distronames1">My</em></ins></span> distro's
official
+<li><a href="#distronames1">My distro's official
name is “Foobar Linux”; isn't it wrong to call the
distro anything but “Foobar Linux”?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#companies"
id="TOCcompanies">Wouldn't</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#companies">Wouldn't</em></ins></span> it be
more
+<li><a href="#companies">Wouldn't it be more
effective to ask companies such as Mandrake, Red Hat and IBM to
call their distributions “GNU/Linux” rather than
asking individuals?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#reserve"
id="TOCreserve">Wouldn't</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#reserve">Wouldn't</em></ins></span> it be
better to
+<li><a href="#reserve">Wouldn't it be better to
reserve the name “GNU/Linux” for distributions that
are purely free software? After all, that is the ideal of
GNU.</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#gnudist"
id="TOCgnudist">Why</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#gnudist">Why</em></ins></span> not make a
GNU distribution of
+<li><a href="#gnudist">Why not make a GNU distribution of
Linux (sic) and call that GNU/Linux?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#linuxgnu"
id="TOClinuxgnu">Why</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#linuxgnu">Why</em></ins></span> not just
say “Linux
+<li><a href="#linuxgnu">Why not just say “Linux
is the GNU kernel” and release some existing version of
GNU/Linux under the name “GNU”?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#condemn"
id="TOCcondemn">Did</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#condemn">Did</em></ins></span> the GNU
Project condemn and
+<li><a href="#condemn">Did the GNU Project condemn and
oppose use of Linux in the early days?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#wait"
id="TOCwait">Why</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#wait">Why</em></ins></span> did you wait so
long before
+<li><a href="#wait">Why did you wait so long before
asking people to use the name GNU/Linux?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#allgpled"
id="TOCallgpled">Should</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#allgpled">Should</em></ins></span> the
GNU/[name] convention
+<li><a href="#allgpled">Should the GNU/<i>name</i>
convention
be applied to all programs that are GPL'ed?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#unix"
id="TOCunix">Since</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#unix">Since</em></ins></span> much of GNU
comes from Unix,
+<li><a href="#unix">Since much of GNU comes from Unix,
shouldn't GNU give credit to Unix by using “Unix” in
its name?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#bsd"
id="TOCbsd">Should</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#bsd">Should</em></ins></span> we say
“GNU/BSD”
+<li><a href="#bsd">Should we say “GNU/BSD”
too?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#othersys"
id="TOCothersys">If</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#othersys">If</em></ins></span> I install
the GNU tools on
+<li><a href="#othersys">If I install the GNU tools on
Windows, does that mean I am running a GNU/Windows
system?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#justlinux"
id="TOCjustlinux">Can't</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#justlinux">Can't</em></ins></span> Linux be
used without
+<li><a href="#justlinux">Can't Linux be used without
GNU?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#howmuch"
id="TOChowmuch">How</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#howmuch">How</em></ins></span> much of the
GNU system
+<li><a href="#howmuch">How much of the GNU system
is needed for the system to be GNU/Linux?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#linuxsyswithoutgnu"
id="TOClinuxsyswithoutgnu">Are</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#linuxsyswithoutgnu">Are</em></ins></span>
there complete Linux systems [sic] without GNU?</a></li>
+<li><a href="#linuxsyswithoutgnu">Are there complete Linux systems
[sic] without GNU?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#helplinus"
id="TOChelplinus">Why</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#helplinus">Why</em></ins></span> not call
the system
+<li><a <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#usegnulinuxandandroid">Is it correct to say
“using
+ Linux” if it refers to using GNU/Linux and using
Android?</a></li>
+
+<li><a</em></ins></span> href="#helplinus">Why not call the system
“Linux” anyway, and strengthen Linus Torvalds' role as
posterboy for our community?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#claimlinux"
id="TOCclaimlinux">Isn't</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#claimlinux">Isn't</em></ins></span> it
wrong for us to label Linus
+<li><a href="#claimlinux">Isn't it wrong for us to label Linus
Torvalds' work as GNU?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#linusagreed"
id="TOClinusagreed">Does</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#linusagreed">Does</em></ins></span> Linus
Torvalds
+<li><a href="#linusagreed">Does Linus Torvalds
agree that Linux is just the kernel?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#finishhurd"
id="TOCfinishhurd">Why</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#finishhurd">Why</em></ins></span> not finish
+<li><a href="#finishhurd">Why not finish
the GNU Hurd kernel, release the GNU system as a whole,
and forget the question of what to call GNU/Linux?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#lost"
id="TOClost">The</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#lost">The</em></ins></span> battle is
already
+<li><a href="#lost">The battle is already
lost—society has made its decision and we can't change it,
so why even think about it?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#whatgood"
id="TOCwhatgood">Society</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#whatgood">Society</em></ins></span> has
made its decision
+<li><a href="#whatgood">Society has made its decision
and we can't change it, so what good does it do if I say
“GNU/Linux”?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#explain"
id="TOCexplain">Wouldn't</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#explain">Wouldn't</em></ins></span> it be
better to call
+<li><a href="#explain">Wouldn't it be better to call
the system “Linux” and teach people its real origin
with a ten-minute explanation?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#treatment"
id="TOCtreatment">Some</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#treatment">Some</em></ins></span> people
laugh at you when
+<li><a href="#treatment">Some people laugh at you when
you ask them to call the system GNU/Linux. Why do you subject yourself
to this treatment?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#alienate"
id="TOCalienate">Some</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#alienate">Some</em></ins></span> people
condemn you when you
+<li><a href="#alienate">Some people condemn you when you
ask them to call the system GNU/Linux. Don't you lose by
alienating them?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#rename"
id="TOCrename">Whatever</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#rename">Whatever</em></ins></span> you
contributed,
+<li><a href="#rename">Whatever you contributed,
is it legitimate to rename the operating system?</a></li>
<li><a href="#force">Isn't it wrong to force people to call
@@ -243,29 +246,29 @@
<li><a href="#whynotsue">Why not sue people who call
the whole system “Linux”?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#BSDlicense"
id="TOCBSDlicense">Since</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#BSDlicense">Since</em></ins></span> you
objected to the original
+<li><a href="#BSDlicense">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?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#require"
id="TOCrequire">Shouldn't</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#require">Shouldn't</em></ins></span> you
put something in
+<li><a href="#require">Shouldn't you put something in
the GNU GPL to require people to call the system
“GNU”?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#deserve"
id="TOCdeserve">Since</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#deserve">Since</em></ins></span> you failed
to put
+<li><a href="#deserve">Since you failed to put
something in the GNU GPL to require people to call the system
“GNU”, you deserve what happened; why are you
complaining now?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#contradict"
id="TOCcontradict">Wouldn't</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#contradict">Wouldn't</em></ins></span> you
be better off
+<li><a href="#contradict">Wouldn't you be better off
not contradicting what so many people believe?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#somanyright"
id="TOCsomanyright">Since</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#somanyright">Since</em></ins></span> many
people call it
+<li><a href="#somanyright">Since many people call it
“Linux”, doesn't that make it right?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#knownname"
id="TOCknownname">Isn't</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#knownname">Isn't</em></ins></span> it
better to call the
+<li><a href="#knownname">Isn't it better to call the
system by the name most users already know?</a></li>
-<li><a <span class="removed"><del><strong>href="#winning"
id="TOCwinning">Many</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#winning">Many</em></ins></span> people care
about what's convenient or
+<li><a href="#winning">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?</a></li>
@@ -273,7 +276,7 @@
<dl>
-<dt id="why">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
+<dt id="why">Why do you call the system we use GNU/Linux and not
Linux? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#why">#why</a>)</span></dt>
<dd>Most operating system distributions based on Linux as kernel are
@@ -308,14 +311,14 @@
practical importance of these ideals</a>.</p>
</dd>
-<dt <span class="inserted"><ins><em>id="what">What is the real
relationship between GNU and Linux? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#what">#what</a>)</span></dt>
+<dt id="what">What is the real relationship between GNU and Linux?
<span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#what">#what</a>)</span></dt>
<dd>The GNU operating system and the Linux kernel are separate
software projects that do complementary jobs. Typically they are
packaged in a <a href="/distros/distros.html">GNU/Linux
distribution</a>, and used
together.</dd>
-<dt</em></ins></span> id="howerror">How did it come about that most
+<dt id="howerror">How did it come about that most
people call the system “Linux”? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#howerror">#howerror</a>)</span></dt>
<dd>Calling the system “Linux” is a confusion that has
spread faster
@@ -433,8 +436,8 @@
those values of freedom brought the system into existence.
</dd>
-<dt id="everyoneknows">Since everyone knows
- GNU's role in developing the system, doesn't the “GNU/” in the
+<dt id="everyoneknows">Since everyone knows the role
+ of GNU in developing the system, doesn't the “GNU/” in the
name go without saying? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#everyoneknows">#everyoneknows</a>)</span></dt>
<dd>Experience shows that the system's users, and the computer-using
@@ -864,13 +867,13 @@
than “Linux/GNU”? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#whyorder">#whyorder</a>)</span></dt>
<dd>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p></em></ins></span>
+<p>
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.</p>
+prior to Linux, we actually started the whole activity.</p>
<p>
In addition, “GNU/Linux” fits the fact that Linux is the
-lowest level of the system and GNU fills technically higher
levels.</p></em></ins></span>
+lowest level of the system and GNU fills technically higher levels.</p>
<p>
However, if you prefer to call the system “Linux/GNU”, 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.
</dd>
-<dt id="linuxsyswithoutgnu">Are there complete Linux systems [sic]
without GNU? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#linuxsyswithoutgnu">#linuxsyswithoutgnu</a>)</span></dt>
+<dt <span class="inserted"><ins><em>id="howmuch">How much of the GNU
system is needed for the system
+to be
+GNU/Linux? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#howmuch">#howmuch</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+“How much” is not a meaningful question because the GNU
+system does not have precise boundaries.
+<p>
+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 “how much” you used.</p>
+<p>
+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.
+</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt</em></ins></span> id="linuxsyswithoutgnu">Are there complete Linux
systems [sic] without GNU? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#linuxsyswithoutgnu">#linuxsyswithoutgnu</a>)</span></dt>
<dd>
There are complete systems that contain Linux and not GNU; Android is
@@ -1212,25 +1236,47 @@
from GNU/Linux is the absence of GNU.</p>
</dd>
-<dt id="howmuch">How much of the GNU system is needed for the system
-to be
-GNU/Linux? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#howmuch">#howmuch</a>)</span></dt>
-
-<dd>
-“How much” is not a meaningful question because the GNU
-system does not have precise boundaries.
-<p>
-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 “how much” you used.</p>
+<dt <span class="removed"><del><strong>id="howmuch">How much of the GNU
system is needed for the system</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>id="usegnulinuxandandroid">Is it
correct</em></ins></span> to <span class="removed"><del><strong>be
+GNU/Linux?</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>say
“using Linux” if it refers to using GNU/Linux and
+using Android?</em></ins></span> <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="#howmuch">#howmuch</a>)</span></dt></strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#usegnulinuxandandroidlinuxsyswithoutgnu">#usegnulinuxandandroidlinuxsyswithoutgnu</a>)</span></dt></em></ins></span>
+
+<dd>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>“How much”</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.
+<p>
+The public will find it very strange to speak of using Android as
+“using Linux”. 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.</p></em></ins></span>
+<p>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>GNU is an operating system
maintained</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>The public <em>will</em>
understand the idea of “using
+Linux” 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
+“Linux”.</p>
+<p>
+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>“riding metal objects”
+— 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, “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.” Likewise, the clear</em></ins></span>
way to <span class="removed"><del><strong>say “how much” you
used.</p>
<p>
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.
-</p>
+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.
+</p></strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>say
“using
+GNU/Linux and Android.”</p></em></ins></span>
</dd>
<dt id="helplinus">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. -->
-<p>Copyright © 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>
+<p>Copyright © 2001, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014,
2015, 2016, 2017, 2018
Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p>
<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
@@ -1570,7 +1616,7 @@
<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2017/09/15 12:00:05 $
+$Date: 2018/05/30 00:59:17 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
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 <acronym title="Graphics Interchange
Format">GIF</acronym>s.
[As of 2009 they have expired.] In 1998, a free program to produce
<acronym title="MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3">MP3</acronym> compressed
audio
-was removed from distribution under threat of a patent suit.</p>
+was removed from distribution under threat of a patent <span
class="removed"><del><strong>suit.</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>suit. [As of
+2017, these patents have expired. Look how long we had to wait.]
+</p></em></ins></span>
<p>
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. -->
-<p>Copyright © 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>
+<p>Copyright © 1998, 2001, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010,
2014, 2015, 2017, 2018
Richard Stallman</p>
<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
@@ -1070,7 +1072,7 @@
<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2018/03/02 06:35:49 $
+$Date: 2018/05/30 00:59:17 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
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>èªç±è»é«æ¯ä»éº¼ï¼</h2>
<blockquote class="note" id="fsf-licensing"><p style="font-size: 80%">
@@ -443,7 +449,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
æ´æ°æé︰
-$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>
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
-<!-- Parent-Version: 1.84 -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: <span
class="removed"><del><strong>1.84</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>1.85</em></ins></span> -->
<title>What is free software?
- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
@@ -41,6 +41,15 @@
below for a list of changes that affect the definition of free
software.
</p>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p>
+“Open source” 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 <a href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">
+Why “Open Source” misses the point of Free Software</a>.
+</p></em></ins></span>
</blockquote>
<p>
@@ -71,7 +80,7 @@
<p>
A program is free software if the program's users have the
-four essential freedoms:
+four essential freedoms: <span class="inserted"><ins><em><a
href="#f1">[1]</a></em></ins></span>
</p>
<ul>
@@ -81,7 +90,7 @@
does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source
code is a precondition for this.
</li>
- <li>The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
+ <li>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).
</li>
<li>The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions
@@ -557,6 +566,14 @@
the <a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&view=log">cvsweb
interface</a>.</p>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><h3
style="font-size:1em">Footnote</h3>
+<ol>
+<li id="f1">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 0.</li>
+</ol></em></ins></span>
</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
@@ -605,7 +622,7 @@
There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
-<p>Copyright © 1996, 2002, 2004-2007, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2009-2017</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2009-2018</em></ins></span>
+<p>Copyright © 1996, 2002, 2004-2007, 2009-2018
Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p>
<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
@@ -616,7 +633,7 @@
<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2018/03/02 06:35:53 $
+$Date: 2018/05/30 00:59:20 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
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>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.84 -->
+<title>GNU/Linux FAQ
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/gnu/po/gnu-linux-faq.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>GNU/Linux FAQ by Richard Stallman</h2>
+
+<div class="announcement">
+ <blockquote><p>To learn more about this issue, you can also read
+our page on <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">Linux and the GNU
Project</a>, our
+ page on <a href="/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html">Why GNU/Linux?</a>
+and our page on <a href="/gnu/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.html">GNU
+Users Who Have Never Heard of GNU</a>.</p></blockquote>
+</div>
+
+<p>
+When people see that we use and recommend the name GNU/Linux for a
+system that many others call just “Linux”, they ask many questions.
+Here are common questions, and our answers.</p>
+
+<ul>
+
+<li><a href="#why">Why do you call the system we use GNU/Linux and
not Linux?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#whycare">Why is the name
important?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#what">What is the real relationship between GNU and
Linux?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#howerror">How did it come about that most
+ people call the system “Linux”?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#always">Should we always say
+“GNU/Linux” instead of “Linux”?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#linuxalone">Would Linux have achieved
+ the same success if there had been no GNU?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#divide">Wouldn't it be better for the
+ community if you did not divide people with this
request?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#freespeech">Doesn't the GNU project
+ support an individual's free speech rights to call the system by
+ any name that individual chooses?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#everyoneknows">Since everyone
+ knows the role of GNU in developing the system, doesn't the
+ “GNU/” in the name go without saying?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#everyoneknows2">Since I know the role of
+ GNU in this system, why does it matter what name I
use?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#windows">Isn't shortening
+ “GNU/Linux” to “Linux” just like
+ shortening “Microsoft Windows” to
+ “Windows”?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#tools">Isn't GNU a collection of programming
+ tools that were included in Linux?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#osvskernel">What is the difference between an
operating
+ system and a kernel?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#house">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?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#brain">Isn't the kernel the brain of the
+ system?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#kernelmost">Isn't writing the kernel
+ most of the work in an operating system?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#notinstallable">How can GNU be an
+ operating system, if I can't get something called “GNU”
+ and install it?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#afterkernel">We're calling the whole
+ system after the kernel, Linux. Isn't it normal to name an
+ operating system after a kernel?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#feel">Can another system have “the
+ feel of Linux”?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#long">The problem with
+ “GNU/Linux” is that it is too long. How about
+ recommending a shorter name?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#long1">How about calling the system
+ “GliNUx” (instead of
“GNU/Linux”)?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#long2">The problem with
+ “GNU/Linux” is that it is too long. Why should
+ I go to the trouble of saying “GNU/”?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#long3">Unfortunately,
+ “GNU/Linux” is five syllables. People won't use such a
+ long term. Shouldn't you find a shorter one?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#justgnu">Since Linux is a secondary
+ contribution, would it be false to the facts to call the system
+ simply “GNU”?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#trademarkfee">I would have to pay a
+ fee if I use “Linux” in the name of a product, and
+ that would also apply if I say “GNU/Linux”. Is it
+ wrong if I use “GNU” without “Linux”, to
+ save the fee?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#many">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.)</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#others">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?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#allsmall">GNU is a small fraction of the system
+ nowadays, so why should we mention it?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#manycompanies">Many companies
+ contributed to the system as it is today; doesn't that mean
+ we ought to call it GNU/Red Hat/Novell/Linux?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#whyslash">Why do you write
+ “GNU/Linux” instead of “GNU
+ Linux”?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#whyorder">Why “GNU/Linux”
+rather than “Linux/GNU”?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#distronames0">My distro's developers call it
+ “Foobar Linux”, but that doesn't say anything about
+ what the system consists of. Why shouldn't they call it whatever
+ they like?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#distronames">My distro is called
+ “Foobar Linux”; doesn't that show it's really
+ Linux?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#distronames1">My distro's official
+ name is “Foobar Linux”; isn't it wrong to call the
+ distro anything but “Foobar Linux”?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#companies">Wouldn't it be more
+ effective to ask companies such as Mandrake, Red Hat and IBM to
+ call their distributions “GNU/Linux” rather than
+ asking individuals?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#reserve">Wouldn't it be better to
+ reserve the name “GNU/Linux” for distributions that
+ are purely free software? After all, that is the ideal of
+ GNU.</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#gnudist">Why not make a GNU distribution of
+ Linux (sic) and call that GNU/Linux?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#linuxgnu">Why not just say “Linux
+ is the GNU kernel” and release some existing version of
+ GNU/Linux under the name “GNU”?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#condemn">Did the GNU Project condemn and
+ oppose use of Linux in the early days?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#wait">Why did you wait so long before
+ asking people to use the name GNU/Linux?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#allgpled">Should the GNU/<i>name</i>
convention
+ be applied to all programs that are GPL'ed?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#unix">Since much of GNU comes from Unix,
+ shouldn't GNU give credit to Unix by using “Unix” in
+ its name?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#bsd">Should we say “GNU/BSD”
+too?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#othersys">If I install the GNU tools on
+ Windows, does that mean I am running a GNU/Windows
system?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#justlinux">Can't Linux be used without
+GNU?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#howmuch">How much of the GNU system
+is needed for the system to be GNU/Linux?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#linuxsyswithoutgnu">Are there complete Linux systems
[sic] without GNU?</a></li>
+
+<li><a <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#usegnulinuxandandroid">Is it correct to say
“using
+ Linux” if it refers to using GNU/Linux and using
Android?</a></li>
+
+<li><a</em></ins></span> href="#helplinus">Why not call the system
+ “Linux” anyway, and strengthen Linus Torvalds' role as
+ posterboy for our community?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#claimlinux">Isn't it wrong for us to label Linus
+ Torvalds' work as GNU?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#linusagreed">Does Linus Torvalds
+ agree that Linux is just the kernel?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#finishhurd">Why not finish
+ the GNU Hurd kernel, release the GNU system as a whole,
+ and forget the question of what to call GNU/Linux?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#lost">The battle is already
+ lost—society has made its decision and we can't change it,
+ so why even think about it?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#whatgood">Society has made its decision
+ and we can't change it, so what good does it do if I say
+ “GNU/Linux”?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#explain">Wouldn't it be better to call
+ the system “Linux” and teach people its real origin
+ with a ten-minute explanation?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#treatment">Some people laugh at you when
+ you ask them to call the system GNU/Linux. Why do you subject yourself
+ to this treatment?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#alienate">Some people condemn you when you
+ ask them to call the system GNU/Linux. Don't you lose by
+ alienating them?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#rename">Whatever you contributed,
+ is it legitimate to rename the operating system?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#force">Isn't it wrong to force people to call
+ the system “GNU/Linux”?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#whynotsue">Why not sue people who call
+ the whole system “Linux”?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#BSDlicense">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?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#require">Shouldn't you put something in
+ the GNU GPL to require people to call the system
+ “GNU”?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#deserve">Since you failed to put
+ something in the GNU GPL to require people to call the system
+ “GNU”, you deserve what happened; why are you
+ complaining now?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#contradict">Wouldn't you be better off
+ not contradicting what so many people believe?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#somanyright">Since many people call it
+ “Linux”, doesn't that make it right?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#knownname">Isn't it better to call the
+ system by the name most users already know?</a></li>
+
+<li><a href="#winning">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?</a></li>
+
+</ul>
+
+<dl>
+
+<dt id="why">Why do you call the system we use GNU/Linux and not
+ Linux? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#why">#why</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>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—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.
+<p>
+In fairness, we ought to get at least equal mention.</p>
+
+<p>See <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">Linux and the GNU
System</a>
+and <a href="/gnu/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.html">GNU Users Who Have
+Never Heard of GNU</a> for more explanation, and <a
+href="/gnu/the-gnu-project.html">The GNU Project</a> for the
+history.</p> </dd>
+
+<dt id="whycare">Why is the name
+ important? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#whycare">#whycare</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>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.
+<p>
+Calling the system GNU/Linux recognizes the role that our idealism
+played in building our community, and
+<a href="/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html">helps the public recognize the
+practical importance of these ideals</a>.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="what">What is the real relationship between GNU and Linux?
<span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#what">#what</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>The GNU operating system and the Linux kernel are separate
+software projects that do complementary jobs. Typically they are
+packaged in a <a href="/distros/distros.html">GNU/Linux
distribution</a>, and used
+together.</dd>
+
+<dt id="howerror">How did it come about that most
+ people call the system “Linux”? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#howerror">#howerror</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>Calling the system “Linux” is a confusion that has
spread faster
+than the corrective information.
+<p>
+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 “Linux” 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.</p>
+<p>
+Most of the people who call the system “Linux” have never heard why
+that's not the right thing. They saw others using that name and
+assume it must be right. The name “Linux” 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 “Linux”.</p>
+<p>
+Many of the questions in this file represent people's attempts to
+justify the name they are accustomed to using.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="always">Should we always say
+ “GNU/Linux” instead of “Linux”? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#always">#always</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd>
+Not always—only when you're talking about the whole system. When
+you're referring specifically to the kernel, you should call it
+“Linux”, the name its developer chose.
+<p>
+When people call the whole system “Linux”, 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 “GNU/Linux”, and calling the kernel
+“Linux”, you avoid the ambiguity.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="linuxalone">Would Linux have
+ achieved the same success if there had been no
+ GNU? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#linuxalone">#linuxalone</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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.
+<p>
+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.)</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="divide">Wouldn't it be better for the
+ community if you did not divide people with this request? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#divide">#divide</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+When we ask people to say “GNU/Linux”, 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.
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+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).</p>
+<p>
+This disagreement is not just a matter of names—it is a matter
+of differing basic values. It is essential for the community to see
+and think about this disagreement. The names “free
+software” and “open source” are the banners of the
+two positions.
+See <a href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">Why Open
+Source misses the point of Free Software</a>.</p>
+<p>
+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
+“GNU/Linux”, and people who learn that the system is
“GNU/Linux” 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).</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="freespeech">Doesn't the GNU project
+ support an individual's free speech rights to call the system by
+ any name that individual chooses? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#freespeech">#freespeech</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd>
+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.
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="everyoneknows">Since everyone knows the role
+ of GNU in developing the system, doesn't the “GNU/” in the
+ name go without saying? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#everyoneknows">#everyoneknows</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>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 “GNU”, or the
ideals
+that GNU stands for. <a
+href="/gnu/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.html">GNU Users Who Have Never
+Heard of GNU</a> explains further.
+<p>
+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 <a href="#tools">“tools”</a>, or a project to
develop tools.</p>
+<p>
+The wording of this question, which is typical, illustrates another
+common misconception. To speak of “GNU's role” 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.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="everyoneknows2">Since I know the role of GNU in this system,
+ why does it matter what name I use? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#everyoneknows2">#everyoneknows2</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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
+“Linux”, that it was started by Linus Torvalds, and that
+it was intended to be “open source”. If you don't tell
+them, who will?
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="windows">Isn't shortening “GNU/Linux”
+ to “Linux” just like shortening “Microsoft
Windows” to “Windows”? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#windows">#windows</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+It's useful to shorten a frequently-used name, but not if the
+abbreviation is misleading.
+<p>
+Almost everyone in developed countries really does know that the
+“Windows” system is made by Microsoft, so shortening
“Microsoft
+Windows” to “Windows” does not mislead anyone as to that
system's
+nature and origin. Shortening “GNU/Linux” to “Linux”
does give the
+wrong idea of where the system comes from.</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="tools">Isn't GNU a collection of
+ programming tools that were included in Linux? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#tools">#tools</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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—often they
+say “programming tools”, since some of our programming tools became
+popular on their own. The idea that “GNU” is the name of an
operating
+system is hard to fit into a conceptual framework in which that
+operating system is labeled “Linux”.
+<p>
+The GNU Project was named after the GNU operating system—it's the project
+to develop the GNU system. (See <a
+href="/gnu/initial-announcement.html">the 1983 initial
announcement</a>.)</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="osvskernel">What is the difference
+between an operating system and a kernel? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#osvskernel">#osvskernel</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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.
+<p>
+The kernel is one of the programs in an operating system—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.</p>
+<p>
+To confuse matters, some people use the term “operating system” to
+mean “kernel”. Both uses of the term go back many years. The
+use of “operating system” to mean “kernel” is found in
a number of
+textbooks on system design, going back to the 80s. At the same time,
+in the 80s, the “Unix operating system” 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 “operating system” in the same way.</p>
+<p>
+Most of the time when people speak of the “Linux operating system”
+they are using “operating system” in the same sense we use: they
mean
+the whole collection of programs. If that's what you are referring
+to, please call it “GNU/Linux”. If you mean just the kernel, then
+“Linux” is the right name for it, but please say
“kernel” also to
+avoid ambiguity about which body of software you mean.</p>
+<p>
+If you prefer to use some other term such as “system distribution”
for
+the entire collection of programs, instead of “operating system”,
+that's fine. Then you would talk about GNU/Linux system
+distributions.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="house">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? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#house">#house</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+A kernel is not much like the foundation of a house because building
+an operating system is not much like building a house.
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>
+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.
+</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="brain">Isn't the kernel the brain of the system? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#brain">#brain</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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.
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="kernelmost">Isn't writing the kernel most of the work in an
+operating system? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#kernelmost">#kernelmost</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+No, many components take a lot of work.
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="notinstallable">How can GNU be an
+ operating system, if I can't get something called “GNU”
+ and install it? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#notinstallable">#notinstallable</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+Many <a href="/distros/distros.html"> packaged and installable
+versions of GNU</a> are available. None of them is called simply
+“GNU”, but GNU is what they basically are.
+
+<p>
+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 <a href="/distros/common-distros.html#Debian">Debian
+GNU/Linux</a>. The founder of Debian had already chosen that name.
+We did not ask him to call it just “GNU” because that was
+to be the name of a system version with the GNU Hurd kernel—which
+wasn't ready yet.</p>
+
+<p>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>
+We are now developing an advanced Scheme-based package manager called
+Guix and a complete system distribution based on it called the
+<a href="/software/guix">Guix System Distribution</a> or GuixSD.
+This includes repackaging a substantial part of the GNU system.</p>
+
+<p>
+We never took the last step of packaging GNU under the name
+“GNU”, but that doesn't alter what kind of thing GNU is.
+GNU is an operating system.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="afterkernel">We're calling the
+ whole system after the kernel, Linux. Isn't it normal to name an
+ operating system after a kernel? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#afterkernel">#afterkernel</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+That practice seems to be very rare—we can't find any examples other
+than the misuse of the name “Linux”. 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—instead, people say “the kernel of
such-and-such” or
+“the such-and-such kernel”.
+<p>
+Because those two constructions are used synonymously, the expression
+“the Linux kernel” can easily be misunderstood as meaning
“the kernel
+of Linux” and implying that Linux must be more than a kernel. You can
+avoid the possibility of this misunderstanding by saying or writing
+“the kernel, Linux” or “Linux, the kernel.”</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="feel">Can another system have “the
+ feel of Linux”? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#feel">#feel</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+There is no such thing as the “feel of Linux” 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 “feel” comes from them.
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="long">The problem with “GNU/Linux” is that it is too
long.
+ How about recommending a shorter name? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#long">#long</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+For a while we tried the name “LiGNUx”, which combines the words
“GNU”
+and “Linux”. The reaction was very bad. People accept
“GNU/Linux”
+much better.
+<p>
+The shortest legitimate name for this system is “GNU”, but
+we call it “GNU/Linux” <a href="#justgnu"> for the reasons
+given below</a>.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="long1">How about calling the system
+ “GliNUx” (instead of “GNU/Linux”)?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#long1">#long1</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>The name “GNU” does not visibly appear in
+“Glinux,” so most people would not notice it is there.
+Even if it is capitalized as “GliNUx,” most people would
+not realize that it contains a reference to GNU.</p>
+
+<p>It would be comparable to writing “GNU/Linux,” but
+putting “GNU/” in print so small that most people could
+not read it.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="long2">The problem with “GNU/Linux” is that it is
too long.
+ Why should I go to the trouble of saying “GNU/”?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#long2">#long2</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>It only takes a second to say or type “GNU/”. If you
+appreciate the system that we developed, can't you take one second
+to recognize our work?</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="long3">Unfortunately, “GNU/Linux” is five
+ syllables. People won't use such a long term. Shouldn't you find a
+ shorter one?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#long3">#long3</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd><p>Actually, “GNU/Linux” is only four syllables.
+ “Unfortunately” is five syllables, yet people show no
+ sign of reluctance to use that word.</p></dd>
+
+<dt id="justgnu">Since Linux is a secondary
+ contribution, would it be false to the facts to call the system simply
+ “GNU”? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#justgnu">#justgnu</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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 “GNU/Linux”
+rather than just “GNU”:
+
+<ul>
+<li>
+It's not exactly GNU—it has a different kernel (that is, Linux).
+Distinguishing GNU/Linux from GNU is useful.</li>
+<li>
+It would be ungentlemanly to ask people to <em>stop</em> 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 “Linux” 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.</li>
+<li>
+Since many people know of the system as “Linux”, if we say
“GNU” they
+may simply not recognize we're talking about the same system. If we
+say “GNU/Linux”, they can make a connection to what they have heard
+about.</li>
+</ul><p></p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="trademarkfee">I would have
+ to pay a fee if I use “Linux” in the name of a product, and
that
+ would also apply if I say “GNU/Linux”. Is it wrong if I use
“GNU”
+ without “Linux”, to save the fee? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#trademarkfee">#trademarkfee</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd>
+There's nothing wrong in calling the system “GNU”; 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.
+<p>
+So if you want to refer to the system simply as “GNU”, to avoid
paying
+the fee for calling it “Linux”, we won't criticize you.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="many">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.) <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#many">#many</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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.
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+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
“Linux”.
+It can't be fair to give all the credit to one secondary contribution
+(Linux) while omitting the principal contribution (GNU).</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="others">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? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#others">#others</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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.
+<p>
+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.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="allsmall">GNU is a small fraction of the system nowadays,
+ so why should we mention it? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#allsmall">#allsmall</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd>
+In 2008, we found that GNU packages made up 15% of the
+“main” repository of the gNewSense GNU/Linux distribution.
+Linux made up 1.5%. So the same argument would apply even more
+strongly to calling it “Linux”.
+
+<p>
+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 “GNU/Linux”
+remains appropriate.
+</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="manycompanies">Many companies
+ contributed to the system as it is today; doesn't that mean
+ we ought to call it GNU/Red Hat/Novell/Linux? <span
+ class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
+ href="#manycompanies">#manycompanies</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>
+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.
+</p>
+<p>
+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.
+</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="whyslash">Why do you write “GNU/Linux”
+instead of “GNU Linux”? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#whyslash">#whyslash</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+Following the rules of English, in the construction “GNU Linux” the
+word “GNU” modifies “Linux”. This can mean either
“GNU's version of
+Linux” or “Linux, which is a GNU package.” Neither of those
meanings
+fits the situation at hand.
+<p>
+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
+“Linux, which is a GNU package” meaning is not right.</p>
+<p>
+We're not talking about a distinct GNU version of Linux, the kernel.
+The free GNU/Linux distros do have
+a <a href="http://directory.fsf.org/project/linux">separate version of
+Linux</a>, since the “standard” version contains non-free
+firmware “blobs”. If this were part of the GNU Project,
+it could be considered “GNU Linux”; but we would not want
+to call it that, because it would be too confusing.</p>
+<p>
+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 “combination.” (Think of
+“Input/Output”.) This system is the combination of GNU
+and Linux; hence, “GNU/Linux”.</p>
+<p>
+There are other ways to express “combination”. If you
+think that a plus-sign is clearer, please use that. In French, a
+hyphen is clear: “GNU-Linux”. In Spanish, we sometimes
+say “GNU con Linux”.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="whyorder">Why “GNU/Linux” rather
+than “Linux/GNU”? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#whyorder">#whyorder</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+In addition, “GNU/Linux” fits the fact that Linux is the
+lowest level of the system and GNU fills technically higher levels.</p>
+<p>
+However, if you prefer to call the system “Linux/GNU”, 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.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="distronames0">My distro's developers call it
+ “Foobar Linux”, but that doesn't say anything about
+ what the system consists of. Why shouldn't they call it whatever
+ they like? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#distronames0">#distronames0</a>)</span></dt>
+<dd>
+Calling a system “Foobar Linux” implies that it's a flavor
+of “Linux,” and people <a href="#distronames">understand
+it that way</a>.
+
+<p>
+If they called a GNU/Linux distro “Foobar BSD,” you would
+call that a mistake. “This system is not BSD,” you
+would tell them. Well, it's not Linux either.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="distronames">My distro is called
+ “Foobar Linux”; doesn't that show it's really Linux? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#distronames">#distronames</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>It means that the people who make the “Foobar Linux”
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.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="distronames1">My distro's official name is “Foobar
+ Linux”; isn't it wrong to call the distro
+ anything but “Foobar Linux”? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#distronames1">#distronames1</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd><p>When they spread misinformation by changing
“GNU”
+to “Linux”, and call their version of it “Foobar
+Linux”, it's proper for you to correct the misinformation by
+calling it “Foobar GNU/Linux”.</p></dd>
+
+<dt id="companies">Wouldn't it be more
+ effective to ask companies such as Mandrake, Red Hat and IBM to
+ call their distributions “GNU/Linux” rather than asking
+ individuals? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#companies">#companies</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+It isn't a choice of one or the other—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 “GNU/Linux” some of the time, but IBM
+and Red Hat were unwilling to help. One executive said, “This
+is a pure commercial decision; we expect to make more money calling it
+‘Linux’.” In other words, that company did not care
+what was right.
+<p>
+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 “GNU/Linux”.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="reserve">Wouldn't it be better to
+ reserve the name “GNU/Linux” for distributions that are purely
+ free software? After all, that is the ideal of GNU. <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#reserve">#reserve</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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 “Linux”. Many “Linux” 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 “helping
+the users” of GNU/Linux (including helping them use non-free
+applications and drivers), or making the system more popular even at
+the cost of freedom.
+<p>
+The question is how to try to change this.</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+The way to lead these users to see a connection with freedom is
+exactly the opposite: to inform them that all these system
+versions <em>are</em> 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 “versions of
+Linux”.</p>
+<p>
+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!</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="gnudist">Why not make a GNU
+ distribution of Linux (sic) and call that GNU/Linux? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#gnudist">#gnudist</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+All the “Linux” distributions are actually versions of the GNU
system
+with Linux as the kernel. The purpose of the term “GNU/Linux” is
to
+communicate this point. To develop one new distribution and call that
+alone “GNU/Linux” would obscure the point we want to make.
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+Instead we help the developers of 100% free GNU/Linux distributions,
+such as gNewSense and Ututo.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="linuxgnu">Why not just say “Linux is
+ the GNU kernel” and release some existing version of GNU/Linux under
+ the name “GNU”? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#linuxgnu">#linuxgnu</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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.)
+<p>
+If we were to take an existing version of GNU/Linux and relabel it as
+“GNU”, that would be somewhat like making a version of the GNU
system
+and labeling it “Linux”. That wasn't right, and we don't
+want to act like that.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="condemn">Did the GNU Project condemn
+ and oppose use of Linux in the early days? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#condemn">#condemn</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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.
+<p>
+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 “Linux user”.
+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.</p>
+<p>
+It was this experience that first showed us that people were calling a
+version of the GNU system “Linux”, and that this confusion was
+obstructing our work. Asking you to call the system “GNU/Linux” is
+our response to that problem, and to the other problems caused by the
+“Linux” misnomer.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="wait">Why did you wait so
+ long before asking people to use the name GNU/Linux? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#wait">#wait</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>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.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="allgpled">Should the GNU/<i>name</i>
+ convention be applied to all programs that are GPL'ed? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#allgpled">#allgpled</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+We never refer to individual programs as
“GNU/<i>name</i>”. When a program
+is a GNU package, we may call it “GNU <i>name</i>”.
+<p>
+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 “GNU” in their names.</p>
+<p>
+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
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>, so we
can evaluate it
+and decide whether we want it.</p>
+<p>
+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—he
+did the work independently. If something is not a GNU package, the
+GNU Project can't take credit for it, and putting “GNU” in its name
+would be improper.</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+Linux continues to be used primarily in derivatives of that system—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.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="unix">Since much of GNU comes
+from Unix, shouldn't GNU give credit
+to Unix by using “Unix” in its name? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#unix">#unix</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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.
+<p>
+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 “GNU”, which stands for “GNU's Not
+Unix”, is a humorous way of giving credit to Unix for this,
+following a hacker tradition of recursive acronyms that started in the
+70s.</p>
+<p>
+The first such recursive acronym was TINT, “TINT Is Not
+TECO”. 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 “<em>somethingorother</em>
TECO”, he
+thought of a clever amusing name. (That's what hacking
+means: <a href="http://stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html">playful
+cleverness</a>.)</p>
+<p>
+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 “Klever”), you could give it a recursive acronym name,
such
+as “MINK” for “MINK Is Not Klever.” In this same
spirit we called our
+replacement for Unix “GNU's Not Unix”.</p>
+<p>
+Historically, AT&T which developed Unix did not want anyone to
+give it credit by using “Unix” in the name of a similar
+system, not even in a system 99% copied from Unix. AT&T actually
+threatened to sue anyone giving AT&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
+“Unix”.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="bsd">Should we say “GNU/BSD”
+too? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#bsd">#bsd</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+We don't call the BSD systems (FreeBSD, etc.) “GNU/BSD” systems,
+because that term does not fit the history of the BSD systems.
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+The connection between GNU/Linux and GNU is much closer, and that's
+why the name “GNU/Linux” is appropriate for it.</p>
+<p>
+There is a version of GNU which uses the kernel from NetBSD. Its
+developers call it “Debian GNU/NetBSD”, but
“GNU/kernelofNetBSD”
+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.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="othersys">If I install the GNU tools
+on Windows, does that mean I am running a GNU/Windows system? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#othersys">#othersys</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+Not in the same sense that we mean by “GNU/Linux”. 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.
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="justlinux">Can't Linux be used without GNU? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#justlinux">#justlinux</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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.
+</dd>
+
+<dt <span class="inserted"><ins><em>id="howmuch">How much of the GNU
system is needed for the system
+to be
+GNU/Linux? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#howmuch">#howmuch</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+“How much” is not a meaningful question because the GNU
+system does not have precise boundaries.
+<p>
+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 “how much” you used.</p>
+<p>
+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.
+</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt</em></ins></span> id="linuxsyswithoutgnu">Are there complete Linux
systems [sic] without GNU? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#linuxsyswithoutgnu">#linuxsyswithoutgnu</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+There are complete systems that contain Linux and not GNU; Android is
+an example. But it is a mistake to call them “Linux”
+systems, just as it is a mistake to call GNU a “Linux” system.
+<p>
+Android is very different from the GNU/Linux system—because
+the two have very little code in common. In fact, the only thing they
+have in common is Linux.</p>
+<p>
+If you call the whole GNU/Linux system “Linux”,
+you will find it necessary to say things like, “Android contains
+Linux, but it isn't Linux, because it doesn't have the usual Linux
+[sic] libraries and utilities [meaning the GNU system].”</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt <span class="removed"><del><strong>id="howmuch">How much of the GNU
system is needed for the system</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>id="usegnulinuxandandroid">Is it
correct</em></ins></span> to <span class="removed"><del><strong>be
+GNU/Linux?</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>say
“using Linux” if it refers to using GNU/Linux and
+using Android?</em></ins></span> <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="#howmuch">#howmuch</a>)</span></dt></strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#usegnulinuxandandroidlinuxsyswithoutgnu">#usegnulinuxandandroidlinuxsyswithoutgnu</a>)</span></dt></em></ins></span>
+
+<dd>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>“How much”</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.
+<p>
+The public will find it very strange to speak of using Android as
+“using Linux”. 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.</p></em></ins></span>
+<p>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>GNU is an operating system
maintained</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>The public <em>will</em>
understand the idea of “using
+Linux” 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
+“Linux”.</p>
+<p>
+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>“riding metal objects”
+— 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, “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.” Likewise, the clear</em></ins></span>
way to <span class="removed"><del><strong>say “how much” you
used.</p>
+<p>
+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.
+</p></strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>say
“using
+GNU/Linux and Android.”</p></em></ins></span>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="helplinus">Why not call the system
+ “Linux” anyway, and strengthen Linus Torvalds' role as
posterboy for our
+ community? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#helplinus">#helplinus</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+Linus Torvalds is the “posterboy” (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
+<a href="/philosophy/why-free.html">freedom to cooperate</a> as an
+ethical principle, which is why the public does not connect the name
+“Linux” with that principle.
+<p>
+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 “Linux”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—rejecting the
+lessons society learned from the development of the atom bomb.</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="claimlinux">Isn't it wrong for us to label Linus Torvalds'
+ work as GNU? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#claimlinux">#claimlinux</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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 “GNU”. When we talk about the whole
+system, the name “GNU/Linux” gives him a share of the
+credit.
+</dd>
+
+
+<dt id="linusagreed">Does Linus Torvalds
+ agree that Linux is just the kernel? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#linusagreed">#linusagreed</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>He recognized this at the beginning. The earliest Linux release notes
+said, <a
+href="http://ftp.funet.fi/pub/linux/historical/kernel/old-versions/RELNOTES-0.01">
+“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”</a>.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="finishhurd">Why not finish the GNU Hurd kernel, release the GNU
system
+ as a whole, and forget the question of what to call GNU/Linux?
+ <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#finishhurd">#finishhurd</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+We would like credit for the GNU operating system no matter which
+kernel is used with it.
+
+<p>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
+“blobs”; the best fix for that problem
+is <a href="http://fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects"> developing
+free replacement for the blobs</a>.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="lost">The battle is already lost—society
+ has made its decision and we can't change it, so why even think about
+ it? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#lost">#lost</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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
+“society”: each person, each organization, can decide what
+name to use. You can't make others say “GNU/Linux”, but
+you can decide to call the system “GNU/Linux”
+yourself—and by doing so, you will help educate others.
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="whatgood">Society has made its
+ decision and we can't change it, so what good does it do if I say
+ “GNU/Linux”? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#whatgood">#whatgood</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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 “GNU/Linux”, 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 “GNU/Linux”, you
will
+have educated a substantial number of people with very little work.
+And some of them will spread the correction to others.
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="explain">Wouldn't it be better to call
+ the system “Linux” and teach people its real origin with a
ten-minute
+ explanation? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#explain">#explain</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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 “GNU/Linux”, and uses your time inefficiently.
+<p>
+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
+“Linux”. Without particularly intending to, they will help spread
the
+incorrect picture.</p>
+<p>
+It is inefficient because it takes a lot more time. Saying and
+writing “GNU/Linux” 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.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="treatment">Some people laugh at you
+ when you ask them to call the system GNU/Linux. Why do you subject
+ yourself to this treatment? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#treatment">#treatment</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+Calling the system “Linux” 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—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.
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="alienate">Some people condemn you
+ when you ask them to call the system GNU/Linux. Don't you lose by
+ alienating them? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#alienate">#alienate</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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.
+<p>
+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.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="rename">Whatever you contributed,
+ is it legitimate to rename the operating system? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#rename">#rename</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+We are not renaming anything; we have been calling this system
“GNU”
+ever since we announced it in 1983. The people who tried to rename
+it to “Linux” should not have done so.</dd>
+
+<dt id="force">Isn't it wrong to force people to call
+the system “GNU/Linux”? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#force">#force</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+It would be wrong to force them, and we don't try. We call the system
+“GNU/Linux”, and we ask you to do it too.
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="whynotsue">Why not sue people who call
+the whole system “Linux”? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#whynotsue">#whynotsue</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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 “GNU/Linux” because that is the right thing to
do.
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="require">Shouldn't you put something in
+ the GNU GPL to require people to call the system “GNU”?
<span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#require">#require</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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 “Linux” 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 “Linux” does not, in itself,
deny
+users their freedom. It seems improper to make the GPL restrict what
+name people can use for the system.
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="BSDlicense">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? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#BSDlicense">#BSDlicense</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+It would be hypocritical to make the name GNU/Linux a license
+requirement, and we don't. We only <em>ask</em> you to give us the
+credit we deserve.
+
+<p>
+Please note that there are at least <a href="/licenses/bsd.html">
+two different BSD licenses</a>. For clarity's sake, please don't use
+the term “BSD license” without specifying which one.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="deserve">Since you failed to put
+ something in the GNU GPL to require people to call the system
“GNU”,
+ you deserve what happened; why are you complaining now? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#deserve">#deserve</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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.
+<p>
+We hope you disagree with that premise just as we do.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="contradict">Wouldn't you be better
+ off not contradicting what so many people believe? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#contradict">#contradict</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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.
+<p>
+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.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="somanyright">Since many people call
+it “Linux”, doesn't that make it right? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#somanyright">#somanyright</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+We don't think that the popularity of an error makes it the truth.
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="knownname">Isn't it better to call the
+ system by the name most users already know? <span
class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#knownname">#knownname</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+Users are not incapable of learning. Since “GNU/Linux”
+includes “Linux”, they will recognize what you're talking
+about. If you add “(often erroneously referred to as
+‘Linux’)” once in a while, they will all understand.
+</dd>
+
+<dt id="winning">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? <span class="anchor-reference-id">(<a
href="#winning">#winning</a>)</span></dt>
+
+<dd>
+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.
+<p>
+We hope that you are one of those for whom right and wrong do matter.</p>
+</dd>
+
+</dl>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
+the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to <a
href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:address@hidden">
+ <address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. -->
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+ be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this
+ without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+ Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+ document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+ document was modified, or published.
+
+ If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+ Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+ years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+ year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+ being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+
+ There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+ Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
+
+<p>Copyright © 2001, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014,
2015, 2016, 2017, 2018
+Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2018/05/30 00:59:15 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</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>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.84 -->
+<title>About the GNU Project
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<meta http-equiv="Keywords" content="GNU, GNU Project, FSF, Free Software,
Free Software Foundation, History" />
+<!--#include virtual="/gnu/po/thegnuproject.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>The GNU Project</h2>
+
+<p>
+by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/"><strong>Richard
Stallman</strong></a></p>
+
+<blockquote>
+<p>
+Originally published in the book <em>Open Sources</em>. Richard
+Stallman was <a href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">
+never a supporter of “open source”</a>, but contributed
+this article so that the ideas of the free software movement would not
+be entirely absent from that book.
+</p>
+<p>
+Why it is even more important than ever
+<a href="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html">to insist
+that the software we use be free</a>.
+</p>
+</blockquote>
+
+<h3>The first software-sharing community</h3>
+<p>
+When I started working at the
+<acronym title="Massachusetts Institute of
Technology">MIT</acronym>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+The AI Lab used a timesharing operating system called
+<acronym title="Incompatible Timesharing System">ITS</acronym> (the
+Incompatible Timesharing System) that the lab's staff hackers (1) had
+designed and written in assembler language for the Digital
+<acronym title="Programmed Data Processor">PDP</acronym>-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.</p>
+<p>
+We did not call our software “free software”, 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.</p>
+<p>
+(1) The use of “hacker” to mean “security
+breaker” 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, <a href="http://stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html">On
+Hacking</a>.</p>
+
+<h3>The collapse of the community</h3>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+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, “If you
+share with your neighbor, you are a pirate. If you want any changes,
+beg us to make them.”</p>
+<p>
+The idea that the proprietary software social system—the system
+that says you are not allowed to share or change software—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.</p>
+<p>
+When software publishers talk about “enforcing” their
+“rights” or “stopping <a
href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Piracy">piracy</a>”, what
they
+actually <em>say</em> 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.</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+Another unstated assumption is that the only important thing about
+software is what jobs it allows you to do—that we computer users
+should not care what kind of society we are allowed to have.</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+There is no room here for an extensive statement of the reasoning
+behind this conclusion, so I refer the reader to the web pages
+<a href="/philosophy/why-free.html">
+http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html</a> and
+<a href="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html">
+http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html</a>.
+</p>
+
+<h3>A stark moral choice</h3>
+<p>
+With my community gone, to continue as before was impossible.
+Instead, I faced a stark moral choice.</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+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?</p>
+<p>
+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—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.</p>
+<p>
+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 “GNU's Not Unix.” It is pronounced
+as <a href="/gnu/pronunciation.html">one syllable with a hard
g</a>.</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+Later I heard these words, attributed to Hillel (1):</p>
+
+<blockquote><p>
+ If I am not for myself, who will be for me?<br />
+ If I am only for myself, what am I?<br />
+ If not now, when?
+</p></blockquote>
+<p>
+The decision to start the GNU Project was based on a similar spirit.</p>
+<p>
+(1) As an Atheist, I don't follow any religious leaders, but I
+sometimes find I admire something one of them has said.</p>
+
+<h3>Free as in freedom</h3>
+<p>
+The term “free software” is sometimes misunderstood—it
+has nothing to do with price. It is about freedom. Here, therefore,
+is the definition of free software.</p>
+
+<p>A program is free software, for you, a particular user, if:</p>
+
+<ul>
+ <li>You have the freedom to run the program as you wish, for any
purpose.</li>
+
+ <li>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.)</li>
+
+ <li>You have the freedom to redistribute copies, either gratis
+ or for a fee.</li>
+
+ <li>You have the freedom to distribute modified versions of the
program,
+ so that the community can benefit from your improvements.</li>
+</ul>
+<p>
+Since “free” 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.</p>
+<p>
+Because of the ambiguity of “free”, 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 “free”, as in
+freedom—“unfettered” being the word that comes closest in
+meaning. Such alternatives as “liberated”,
+“freedom”, and “open” have either the wrong
+meaning or some other disadvantage.</p>
+
+<h3>GNU software and the GNU system</h3>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+
+<h3>Commencing the project</h3>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+However, Professor Winston, then the head of the MIT AI Lab, kindly
+invited me to keep using the lab's facilities.</p>
+
+<h3>The first steps</h3>
+<p>
+Shortly before beginning the GNU Project, I heard about the Free
+University Compiler Kit, also known as VUCK. (The Dutch word for
+“free” is written with a <em>v</em>.) 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.</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+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 “instructions”, 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 <acronym title="GNU Compiler
Collection">GCC</acronym>;
+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.</p>
+
+<h3>GNU Emacs</h3>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+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?</p>
+<p>
+I could have said, “Find a friend who is on the net and who will make
+a copy for you.” Or I could have done what I did with the original
+PDP-10 Emacs: tell them, “Mail me a tape and a
+<acronym title="Self-addressed Stamped Envelope">SASE</acronym>,
and I
+will mail it back with Emacs on it.” 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.</p>
+
+<h3>Is a program free for every user?</h3>
+<p>
+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,
+<a href="/philosophy/categories.html#PublicDomainSoftware"> public domain
+software</a> (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.</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+The developers of the X Window System did not consider this a
+problem—they expected and intended this to happen. Their goal was
+not freedom, just “success”, defined as “having many
+users.” They did not care whether these users had freedom, only
+that they should be numerous.</p>
+<p>
+This led to a paradoxical situation where two different ways of
+counting the amount of freedom gave different answers to the question,
+“Is this program free?” 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.</p>
+
+<h3>Copyleft and the GNU GPL</h3>
+<p>
+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 “copyleft”.(1)</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+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—but not permission to add restrictions of their
+own. Thus, the crucial freedoms that define “free
+software” are guaranteed to everyone who has a copy; they become
+inalienable rights.</p>
+<p>
+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, “You can't share those changes, because
+we are going to use them to make our proprietary version of the
+program.”</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+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)</p>
+<p>
+(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: “Copyleft—all rights reversed.” I
+used the word “copyleft” to name the distribution concept
+I was developing at the time.</p>
+
+<p>
+(2) We now use the <a href="/licenses/fdl.html">GNU Free
+Documentation License</a> for documentation.</p>
+
+<h3>The Free Software Foundation</h3>
+
+<p>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 <a href="http://www.fsf.org/">Free Software Foundation</a>
(FSF),
+a tax-exempt charity for free software development. The
+<acronym title="Free Software Foundation">FSF</acronym> 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.</p>
+
+<p>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 <a href="http://shop.fsf.org/"> sells manuals and other
+gear</a>, but it gets the bulk of its funding from members' dues. You
+can join the FSF at <a
href="http://fsf.org/join">fsf.org</a>.</p>
+
+<p>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
+<acronym title="Bourne Again Shell">BASH</acronym>, the Bourne
Again
+Shell(1), which was developed by FSF employee Brian Fox.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>(1) “Bourne Again Shell” is a play on the name
+“Bourne Shell”, which was the usual shell on Unix.</p>
+
+<h3>Free software support</h3>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>Watch out, though—a number of companies that associate
themselves
+with the term “open source” 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
+“value-added packages”, which shows the values they
+would like us to adopt: convenience above freedom. If we value freedom
+more, we should call them “freedom-subtracted” packages.</p>
+
+<h3>Technical goals</h3>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>But it was natural to apply the known standards of good practice to
+the work—for example, dynamically allocating data structures to avoid
+arbitrary fixed size limits, and handling all the possible 8-bit codes
+wherever that made sense.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>These decisions enabled many GNU programs to surpass their Unix
+counterparts in reliability and speed.</p>
+
+<h3>Donated computers</h3>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<h3>The GNU Task List</h3>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>Today (1), hardly any Unix components are left in the GNU Task
+List—those jobs had been done, aside from a few inessential
+ones. But the list is full of projects that some might call
+“applications”. Any program that appeals to more than a
+narrow class of users would be a useful thing to add to an operating
+system.</p>
+
+<p>Even games are included in the task list—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.</p>
+
+<p>(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.</p>
+
+<h3>The GNU Library GPL</h3>
+
+<p>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?</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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—it would only have discouraged use of our library.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>(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 <a href="/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html">Why you shouldn't use the
+Lesser GPL for your next library</a> for more information.</p>
+
+<h3>Scratching an itch?</h3>
+<p>
+Eric Raymond says that “Every good work of software starts by
+scratching a developer's personal itch.” 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.</p>
+<p>
+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—the GNU C
+compiler, GNU Emacs, GDB and GNU Make.</p>
+<p>
+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 <acronym title="Lempel-Ziv-Welch">LZW</acronym> patents. We
found
+people to develop LessTif, and more recently started
+<acronym title="GNU Network Object Model
Environment">GNOME</acronym>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+
+<h3>Unexpected developments</h3>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+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—to the various
+incompatible versions of Unix, and sometimes to other systems as
well.</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+
+<h3>The GNU Hurd</h3>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+
+<h3>Alix</h3>
+<p>
+The GNU kernel was not originally supposed to be called the Hurd. Its
+original name was Alix—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, “Someone should name a kernel after
+me.” I said nothing, but decided to surprise her with a kernel
+named Alix.</p>
+<p>
+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—the part that would trap
+system calls and handle them by sending messages to Hurd servers.</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+
+<h3>Linux and GNU/Linux</h3>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+We call this system version <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">
+GNU/Linux</a>, 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 “Linux”, since that means
+attributing our work to someone else.
+Please <a href="/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html"> give us equal
+mention</a>.</p>
+
+<h3>Challenges in our future</h3>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+The following four sections discuss these challenges.</p>
+
+<h3>Secret hardware</h3>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+Reverse engineering is a big job; will we have programmers with
+sufficient determination to undertake it? Yes—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.</p>
+<p>
+(2008 note: this issue extends to the BIOS as well. There is a free
+BIOS, <a href="http://www.libreboot.org/">LibreBoot</a> (a
distribution of coreboot); the problem is getting specs for machines so that
+LibreBoot can support them without nonfree “blobs”.)</p>
+
+<h3>Nonfree libraries</h3>
+<p>
+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 <em>run</em> 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.</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+Between 1996 and 1998, another nonfree
+<acronym title="Graphical User Interface">GUI</acronym> toolkit
+library, called Qt, was used in a substantial collection of free
+software, the desktop
+<acronym title="K Desktop Environment">KDE</acronym>.</p>
+<p>
+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—producing a system with more capabilities,
+but less freedom. The KDE group was actively encouraging more
+programmers to use Qt, and millions of new “Linux users”
+had never been exposed to the idea that there was a problem in this.
+The situation appeared grim.</p>
+<p>
+The free software community responded to the problem in two ways:
+GNOME and Harmony.</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+Harmony is a compatible replacement library, designed to make it
+possible to run KDE software without using Qt.</p>
+<p>
+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.)</p>
+<p>
+[Subsequent note: in September 2000, Qt was rereleased under the GNU GPL,
+which essentially solved this problem.]</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+
+<h3>Software patents</h3>
+<p>
+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 <acronym title="Graphics Interchange
Format">GIF</acronym>s.
+[As of 2009 they have expired.] In 1998, a free program to produce
+<acronym title="MPEG-1 Audio Layer 3">MP3</acronym> compressed
audio
+was removed from distribution under threat of a patent <span
class="removed"><del><strong>suit.</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>suit. [As of
+2017, these patents have expired. Look how long we had to wait.]
+</p></em></ins></span>
+<p>
+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?</p>
+<p>
+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 “bazaar” model of
+development, and the reliability and power of some free software,
+we must not stop there. We must talk about freedom and principle.</p>
+
+<h3>Free documentation</h3>
+<p>
+The biggest deficiency in our free operating systems is not in the
+software—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.</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+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—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.</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+However, it must be possible to modify all the <em>technical</em>
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.</p>
+<p>
+Will free software developers have the awareness and determination to
+produce a full spectrum of free manuals? Once again, our future
+depends on philosophy.</p>
+
+<h3>We must talk about freedom</h3>
+<p>
+Estimates today are that there are ten million users of GNU/Linux
+systems such as Debian GNU/Linux and Red Hat “Linux”.
+Free software has developed such practical advantages that users are
+flocking to it for purely practical reasons.</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+
+<h3>“Open Source”</h3>
+<p>
+Teaching new users about freedom became more difficult in 1998, when a
+part of the community decided to stop using the term “free
+software” and say “open source software”
+instead.</p>
+<p>
+Some who favored this term aimed to avoid the confusion of
+“free” with “gratis”—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 “open source” focuses on the potential to
+make high-quality, powerful software, but shuns the ideas of freedom,
+community, and principle.</p>
+<p>
+The “Linux” magazines are a clear example of this—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?</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+“Free software” and “open source” 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 “free software”, to express the idea that
+freedom, not just technology, is important.</p>
+
+<h3>Try!</h3>
+<p>
+Yoda's aphorism (“There is no ‘try’”) 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.</p>
+<p>
+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.</p>
+<p>
+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—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.</p>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
+the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to <a
href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:address@hidden">
+ <address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. -->
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+ be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this
+ without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+ Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+ document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+ document was modified, or published.
+
+ If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+ Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+ years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+ year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+ being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+
+ There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+ Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
+
+<p>Copyright © 1998, 2001, 2002, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010,
2014, 2015, 2017, 2018
+Richard Stallman</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2018/05/30 00:59:17 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</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>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.84 -->
+<title>Avoiding Ruinous Compromises
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<style type="text/css" media="print,screen">
+<!--
+ .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; }
+-->
+</style>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/compromise.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>Avoiding Ruinous Compromises</h2>
+
+<p>by <strong>Richard Stallman</strong></p>
+
+<blockquote class="quote imgright"><p>“Twenty-five years
+ago <a href="/gnu/initial-announcement.html">on September 27, 1983, I
+announced a plan</a> to create a completely free operating system
+called GNU—for ‘GNU's Not Unix’. 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 <a
href="/help/help.html">help
+GNU</a> and free software. One basic way is
+to <a
href="https://www.fsf.org/associate/support_freedom/join_fsf?referrer=4052">
+join the Free Software Foundation</a> as an Associate
+Member.”—<b>Richard
Stallman</b></p></blockquote>
+
+<p>The free software movement aims for a social
+change: <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">to make all software
+free</a> 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.</p>
+
+<p>The road to freedom
+is <a
href="http://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2008/spring/the-last-mile-is-always-the-hardest/">
+a long road</a>. 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.</p>
+
+<p>Thus, the <a href="http://www.fsf.org/">Free Software
+Foundation</a> makes compromises—even major ones. For
+instance, we made compromises in the patent provisions of version 3 of
+the <a href="/licenses/gpl.html">GNU General Public License</a>
(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. </p>
+
+<img src="/graphics/gplv3-large.png" alt=" [GPLv3 Logo] " class="imgleft"
/>
+
+<p><a href="/licenses/lgpl.html">The Lesser GPL</a>'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.</p>
+
+<p>But we reject certain compromises even though many others in our
+community are willing to make them. For instance,
+we <a href="/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html">
+endorse only the GNU/Linux distributions</a> that have policies not to
+include nonfree software or lead users to install it. To endorse
+nonfree distributions would be a <acronym title="ruinous
+(rū'ə-nəs) adj. 1. Causing or apt to cause ruin;
+destructive. 2. Falling to ruin; dilapidated or
+decayed.">ruinous</acronym> compromise.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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 “consumer”
+values, which means they judge any program only on practical characteristics
+such as price and convenience.</p>
+
+<p>Dale Carnegie's classic self-help book, <cite>How to Win
Friends and
+Influence People</cite>, 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.</p>
+
+<p>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 “open
+source” and its associated rhetoric do.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>The philosophy of open source presupposes and appeals to consumer
+values, and this affirms and reinforces them. That's why we
+<a href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">do not <span
class="removed"><del><strong>support</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>advocate</em></ins></span> open
source.</a></p>
+
+<img src="/graphics/gnulaptop.png"
+ alt=" [Levitating Gnu with a laptop] " class="imgright" />
+
+<p>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 “citizen
+values”, 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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>This is not to say we cannot cite practical advantage at all—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 <em>additional, secondary</em>
reasons
+to prefer it.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>For instance, experience shows that you can attract some users to
+<a href="/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html">GNU/Linux</a> 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 <a href="/philosophy/java-trap.html">Java</a> (formerly) or the
+Flash runtime (still), or a nonfree device driver that enables
+support for certain hardware models.</p>
+
+<p>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, “Nonfree software is an injustice, a
+social problem, and we must put an end to it.” And even if you
+do continue to say those words, your actions will undermine them.</p>
+
+<p>The issue here is not whether people should be
<em>able</em>
+or <em>allowed</em> 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.</p>
+
+<p>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 <em>suggesting</em> 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.</p>
+
+<p>If you want to move to free software without compromising the goal
+of freedom, look at <a href="http://www.fsf.org/resources">the FSF's
+resources area</a>. It lists hardware and machine configurations that
+work with free software, <a href="/distros/distros.html"> totally free
GNU/Linux
+distros</a> to install, and <a href="http://directory.fsf.org/">
+thousands of free software packages</a> 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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<hr />
+
+<p>
+For a similar point in a different area of life,
+see <a
+href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/19/nudge-is-not-enough-behaviour-change">
+“Nudge” is not enough</a>.
+</p>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>. There are
also <a
+href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> the FSF. Broken links and
other
+corrections or suggestions can be sent to <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:address@hidden">
+ <address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. -->
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
README</a> for
+information on coordinating and submitting translations of this
article.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>Copyright © 2008, 2009, 2014, 2015, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2017</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2017, 2018</em></ins></span> <a
href="http://www.stallman.org/">Richard
+Stallman</a>.</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2018/05/30 00:59:20 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</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>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.84 -->
+<title>Avoiding Ruinous Compromises
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<style type="text/css" media="print,screen">
+<!--
+ .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; }
+-->
+</style>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/compromise.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>Avoiding Ruinous Compromises</h2>
+
+<p>by <strong>Richard Stallman</strong></p>
+
+<blockquote class="quote imgright"><p>“Twenty-five years
+ago <a href="/gnu/initial-announcement.html">on September 27, 1983, I
+announced a plan</a> to create a completely free operating system
+called GNU—for ‘GNU's Not Unix’. 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 <a
href="/help/help.html">help
+GNU</a> and free software. One basic way is
+to <a
href="https://www.fsf.org/associate/support_freedom/join_fsf?referrer=4052">
+join the Free Software Foundation</a> as an Associate
+Member.”—<b>Richard
Stallman</b></p></blockquote>
+
+<p>The free software movement aims for a social
+change: <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">to make all software
+free</a> 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.</p>
+
+<p>The road to freedom
+is <a
href="http://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2008/spring/the-last-mile-is-always-the-hardest/">
+a long road</a>. 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.</p>
+
+<p>Thus, the <a href="http://www.fsf.org/">Free Software
+Foundation</a> makes compromises—even major ones. For
+instance, we made compromises in the patent provisions of version 3 of
+the <a href="/licenses/gpl.html">GNU General Public License</a>
(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. </p>
+
+<img src="/graphics/gplv3-large.png" alt=" [GPLv3 Logo] " class="imgleft"
/>
+
+<p><a href="/licenses/lgpl.html">The Lesser GPL</a>'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.</p>
+
+<p>But we reject certain compromises even though many others in our
+community are willing to make them. For instance,
+we <a href="/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html">
+endorse only the GNU/Linux distributions</a> that have policies not to
+include nonfree software or lead users to install it. To endorse
+nonfree distributions would be a <acronym title="ruinous
+(rū'ə-nəs) adj. 1. Causing or apt to cause ruin;
+destructive. 2. Falling to ruin; dilapidated or
+decayed.">ruinous</acronym> compromise.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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 “consumer”
+values, which means they judge any program only on practical characteristics
+such as price and convenience.</p>
+
+<p>Dale Carnegie's classic self-help book, <cite>How to Win
Friends and
+Influence People</cite>, 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.</p>
+
+<p>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 “open
+source” and its associated rhetoric do.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>The philosophy of open source presupposes and appeals to consumer
+values, and this affirms and reinforces them. That's why we
+<a href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">do not <span
class="removed"><del><strong>support</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>advocate</em></ins></span> open
source.</a></p>
+
+<img src="/graphics/gnulaptop.png"
+ alt=" [Levitating Gnu with a laptop] " class="imgright" />
+
+<p>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 “citizen
+values”, 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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>This is not to say we cannot cite practical advantage at all—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 <em>additional, secondary</em>
reasons
+to prefer it.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>For instance, experience shows that you can attract some users to
+<a href="/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html">GNU/Linux</a> 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 <a href="/philosophy/java-trap.html">Java</a> (formerly) or the
+Flash runtime (still), or a nonfree device driver that enables
+support for certain hardware models.</p>
+
+<p>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, “Nonfree software is an injustice, a
+social problem, and we must put an end to it.” And even if you
+do continue to say those words, your actions will undermine them.</p>
+
+<p>The issue here is not whether people should be
<em>able</em>
+or <em>allowed</em> 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.</p>
+
+<p>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 <em>suggesting</em> 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.</p>
+
+<p>If you want to move to free software without compromising the goal
+of freedom, look at <a href="http://www.fsf.org/resources">the FSF's
+resources area</a>. It lists hardware and machine configurations that
+work with free software, <a href="/distros/distros.html"> totally free
GNU/Linux
+distros</a> to install, and <a href="http://directory.fsf.org/">
+thousands of free software packages</a> 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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<hr />
+
+<p>
+For a similar point in a different area of life,
+see <a
+href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/19/nudge-is-not-enough-behaviour-change">
+“Nudge” is not enough</a>.
+</p>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>. There are
also <a
+href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> the FSF. Broken links and
other
+corrections or suggestions can be sent to <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:address@hidden">
+ <address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. -->
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
README</a> for
+information on coordinating and submitting translations of this
article.</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>Copyright © 2008, 2009, 2014, 2015, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2017</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2017, 2018</em></ins></span> <a
href="http://www.stallman.org/">Richard
+Stallman</a>.</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2018/05/30 00:59:20 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</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>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: <span
class="removed"><del><strong>1.84</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>1.85</em></ins></span> -->
+<title>What is free software?
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+
+<meta http-equiv="Keywords" content="GNU, FSF, Free Software Foundation,
Linux, Emacs, GCC, Unix, Free Software, Operating System, GNU Kernel, HURD, GNU
HURD, Hurd" />
+<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." />
+
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/free-sw.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+
+<h2>What is free software?</h2>
+
+<blockquote class="note" id="fsf-licensing"><p style="font-size:
80%">
+Have a question about free software licensing not answered here?
+See our other <a href="http://www.fsf.org/licensing">licensing
resources</a>,
+and if necessary contact the FSF Compliance Lab
+at <a href="mailto:address@hidden">address@hidden</a>.</p>
+</blockquote>
+
+<h3>The Free Software Definition</h3>
+
+<blockquote>
+<p>
+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 <a href="#History">History
section</a>
+below for a list of changes that affect the definition of free
+software.
+</p>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p>
+“Open source” 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 <a href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">
+Why “Open Source” misses the point of Free Software</a>.
+</p></em></ins></span>
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>
+“Free software” means software that respects users'
+freedom and community. Roughly, it means that <b>the users have the
+freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the
+software</b>. Thus, “free software” is a matter of
+liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of
+“free” as in “free speech,” not as in
+“free beer”. We sometimes call it “libre
+software,” borrowing the French or Spanish word for
+“free” as in freedom, to show we do not mean the software
+is gratis.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+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 “nonfree” or
+“proprietary” program. The nonfree program controls the
+users, and the developer controls the program; this makes the
+program <a href="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html">
+an instrument of unjust power</a>.
+</p>
+
+<h4> The four essential freedoms</h4>
+
+<p>
+A program is free software if the program's users have the
+four essential freedoms: <span class="inserted"><ins><em><a
href="#f1">[1]</a></em></ins></span>
+</p>
+
+<ul>
+ <li>The freedom to run the program as you wish,
+ for any purpose (freedom 0).</li>
+ <li>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.
+ </li>
+ <li>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).
+ </li>
+ <li>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.
+ </li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>
+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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>
+“Free software” does not mean “noncommercial”. 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
+<a href="/philosophy/selling.html">sell copies</a>.
+</p>
+
+<p>The rest of this page clarifies certain points about what makes
+specific freedoms adequate or not.</p>
+
+<h4>The freedom to run the program as you wish</h4>
+
+<p>
+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 <em>user's</em> purpose that matters, not the
<em>developer's</em>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+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.</p>
+
+<h4>The freedom to study the source code and make changes</h4>
+
+<p>
+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
+“source code” is not real source code and does not count
+as source code.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+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 — a
+practice known as “tivoization” or “lockdown”,
+or (in its practitioners' perverse terminology) as “secure
+boot” — 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.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+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 — for instance, if it
+requires you to be the copyright holder of any code you add — then the
+license is too restrictive to qualify as free.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<h4>The freedom to redistribute if you wish: basic
requirements</h4>
+
+<p>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
+<a href="#exportcontrol">anyone anywhere</a>. Being free to do
these
+things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay
+for permission to do so.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+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 <a href="/copyleft/copyleft.html">copyleft</a> license.
However, a
+license that requires modified versions to be nonfree does not qualify
+as a free license.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<h4>Copyleft</h4>
+
+<p>
+Certain kinds of rules about the manner of distributing free
+software are acceptable, when they don't conflict with the central
+freedoms. For example, <a
href="/copyleft/copyleft.html">copyleft</a>
+(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.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+In the GNU project, we use copyleft to protect the four freedoms
+legally for everyone. We believe there are important reasons why
+<a href="/philosophy/pragmatic.html">it is better to use
+copyleft</a>. However,
+<a href="/philosophy/categories.html#Non-CopyleftedFreeSoftware">
+noncopylefted free software</a> is ethical
+too. See <a href="/philosophy/categories.html">Categories of Free
+Software</a> for a description of how “free software,”
+“copylefted software” and other categories of software
+relate to each other.
+</p>
+
+<h4>Rules about packaging and distribution details</h4>
+
+<p>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Rules that “if you make your version available in this way, you
+must make it available in that way also” 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.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+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.</p>
+
+<h4>Export regulations</h4>
+
+<p>
+Sometimes government <a id="exportcontrol">export control
regulations</a>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<h4>Legal considerations</h4>
+
+<p>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+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 “all the programs you use”, 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.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+It is acceptable for a free license to specify which jurisdiction's
+law applies, or where litigation must be done, or both.
+</p>
+
+<h4>Contract-based licenses</h4>
+
+<p>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<h4>Use the right words when talking about free software</h4>
+
+<p>
+When talking about free software, it is best to avoid using terms
+like “give away” or “for free,” because those terms
imply that
+the issue is about price, not freedom. Some common terms such
+as “piracy” embody opinions we hope you won't endorse. See
+<a href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html">Confusing Words and Phrases
that
+are Worth Avoiding</a> for a discussion of these terms. We also have
+a list of proper <a href="/philosophy/fs-translations.html">translations
of
+“free software”</a> into various languages.
+</p>
+
+<h4>How we interpret these criteria</h4>
+
+<p>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<h4>Get help with free licenses</h4>
+
+<p>
+If you are interested in whether a specific license qualifies as a free
+software license, see our <a href="/licenses/license-list.html">list
+of licenses</a>. If the license you are concerned with is not
+listed there, you can ask us about it by sending us email at
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+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.
+</p>
+
+<h3 id="beyond-software">Beyond Software</h3>
+
+<p>
+<a href="/philosophy/free-doc.html">Software manuals must be
free</a>,
+for the same reasons that software must be free, and because the
+manuals are in effect part of the software.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+The same arguments also make sense for other kinds of works of
+practical use — that is to say, works that embody useful knowledge,
+such as educational works and reference
+works. <a href="http://wikipedia.org">Wikipedia</a> is the
best-known
+example.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Any kind of work <em>can</em> be free, and the definition of free
software
+has been extended to a definition of <a
href="http://freedomdefined.org/">
+free cultural works</a> applicable to any kind of works.
+</p>
+
+<h3 id="open-source">Open Source?</h3>
+
+<p>
+Another group uses the term “open source” to mean
+something close (but not identical) to “free software”. We
+prefer the term “free software” because, once you have heard that
+it refers to freedom rather than price, it calls to mind freedom. The
+word “open” <a
href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">
+never refers to freedom</a>.
+</p>
+
+<h3 id="History">History</h3>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<ul>
+
+<li><a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.152&r2=1.153">Version
+1.153</a>: Clarify that freedom to run the program means nothing stops
+you from making it run.</li>
+
+<li><a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.140&r2=1.141">Version
+1.141</a>: Clarify which code needs to be free.</li>
+
+<li><a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.134&r2=1.135">Version
+1.135</a>: Say each time that freedom 0 is the freedom to run the program
+as you wish.</li>
+
+<li><a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.133&r2=1.134">Version
+1.134</a>: Freedom 0 is not a matter of the program's
functionality.</li>
+
+<li><a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.130&r2=1.131">Version
+1.131</a>: A free license may not require compliance with a nonfree
license
+of another program.</li>
+
+<li><a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.128&r2=1.129">Version
+1.129</a>: State explicitly that choice of law and choice of forum
+specifications are allowed. (This was always our policy.)</li>
+
+<li><a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.121&r2=1.122">Version
+1.122</a>: An export control requirement is a real problem if the
+requirement is nontrivial; otherwise it is only a potential problem.</li>
+
+<li><a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.117&r2=1.118">Version
+1.118</a>: Clarification: the issue is limits on your right to modify,
+not on what modifications you have made. And modifications are not limited
+to “improvements”</li>
+
+<li><a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.110&r2=1.111">Version
+1.111</a>: Clarify 1.77 by saying that only
+retroactive <em>restrictions</em> are unacceptable. The copyright
+holders can always grant additional <em>permission</em> for use of
the
+work by releasing the work in another way in parallel.</li>
+
+<li><a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.104&r2=1.105">Version
+1.105</a>: 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.</li>
+
+<li><a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.91&r2=1.92">Version
+1.92</a>: Clarify that obfuscated code does not qualify as source
code.</li>
+
+<li><a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.89&r2=1.90">Version
+1.90</a>: 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.</li>
+
+<li><a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.88&r2=1.89">Version
+1.89</a>: Freedom 3 includes the right to release modified versions as
+free software.</li>
+
+<li><a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.79&r2=1.80">Version
+1.80</a>: Freedom 1 must be practical, not just theoretical;
+i.e., no tivoization.</li>
+
+<li><a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.76&r2=1.77">Version
+1.77</a>: Clarify that all retroactive changes to the license are
+unacceptable, even if it's not described as a complete
+replacement.</li>
+
+<li><a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.73&r2=1.74">Version
+1.74</a>: Four clarifications of points not explicit enough, or stated
+in some places but not reflected everywhere:
+<ul>
+<li>"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.</li>
+<li>The right to merge in existing modules
+refers to those that are suitably licensed.</li>
+<li>Explicitly state the conclusion of the point about export
controls.</li>
+<li>Imposing a license change constitutes revoking the old
license.</li>
+</ul>
+</li>
+
+<li><a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.56&r2=1.57">Version
+1.57</a>: Add "Beyond Software" section.</li>
+
+<li><a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.45&r2=1.46">Version
+1.46</a>: Clarify whose purpose is significant in the freedom to run
+the program for any purpose.</li>
+
+<li><a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.40&r2=1.41">Version
+1.41</a>: Clarify wording about contract-based licenses.</li>
+
+<li><a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.39&r2=1.40">Version
+1.40</a>: Explain that a free license must allow to you use other
+available free software to create your modifications.</li>
+
+<li><a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.38&r2=1.39">Version
+1.39</a>: Note that it is acceptable for a license to require you to
+provide source for versions of the software you put into public
+use.</li>
+
+<li><a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.30&r2=1.31">Version
+1.31</a>: 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.</li>
+
+<li><a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.22&r2=1.23">Version
+1.23</a>: Address potential problems related to contract-based
+licenses.</li>
+
+<li><a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.15&r2=1.16">Version
+1.16</a>: Explain why distribution of binaries is important.</li>
+
+<li><a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.10&r2=1.11">Version
+1.11</a>: Note that a free license may require you to send a copy of
+versions you distribute to previous developers on request.</li>
+
+</ul>
+
+<p>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 <a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&view=log">cvsweb
+interface</a>.</p>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><h3
style="font-size:1em">Footnote</h3>
+<ol>
+<li id="f1">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 0.</li>
+</ol></em></ins></span>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
+the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to <a
href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:address@hidden">
+ <address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. -->
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+ be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this
+ without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+ Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+ document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+ document was modified, or published.
+
+ If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+ Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+ years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+ year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+ being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+
+ There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+ Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
+
+<p>Copyright © 1996, 2002, 2004-2007, 2009-2018
+Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2018/05/30 00:59:20 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- www gnu/gnu-linux-faq.it.html gnu/gnu-linux-faq...,
GNUN <=