[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/philosophy danger-of-software-patents.html ...
|
From: |
Jeanne Rasata |
|
Subject: |
www/philosophy danger-of-software-patents.html ... |
|
Date: |
Thu, 24 Jun 2010 13:55:44 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: Jeanne Rasata <jrasata> 10/06/24 13:55:44
Modified files:
philosophy : danger-of-software-patents.html
philosophy/sco : sco-gnu-linux.html
Log message:
changed % to percent
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/danger-of-software-patents.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.11&r2=1.12
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/sco/sco-gnu-linux.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.15&r2=1.16
Patches:
Index: danger-of-software-patents.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/danger-of-software-patents.html,v
retrieving revision 1.11
retrieving revision 1.12
diff -u -b -r1.11 -r1.12
--- danger-of-software-patents.html 5 May 2010 18:54:50 -0000 1.11
+++ danger-of-software-patents.html 24 Jun 2010 13:55:30 -0000 1.12
@@ -613,7 +613,7 @@
<p>But anyway the next supposition is that he's going to start a
business and that it's going to succeed. Well, just because he's a
brilliant engineer doesn't mean that he's any good at running a
-business. Most new businesses fail; more than 95% of them, I think,
+business. Most new businesses fail; more than 95 percent of them, I think,
fail within a few years. So that's probably what's going to happen to
him, no matter what.</p>
@@ -746,10 +746,10 @@
there are going to be.</p>
<p>The patent holder of the natural order recalculation patent was
-demanding 5% of the gross sales of every spreadsheet. You could
+demanding 5 percent of the gross sales of every spreadsheet. You could
imagine paying for a few such licenses, but what happens when patent
holder number 20 comes along, and wants you to pay out the last
-remaining 5%? And then what happens when patent holder number 21
+remaining 5 percent? And then what happens when patent holder number 21
comes along?</p>
<p>People in business say that this scenario is amusing but absurd,
@@ -922,7 +922,7 @@
that I launched. This was five years ago now; he found 283 different
US patents, each of which appeared to prohibit some computation done
somewhere in the code of Linux. At the time I saw an article saying
-that Linux was 0.25% of the whole system. So by multiplying 300 by
+that Linux was 0.25 percent of the whole system. So by multiplying 300 by
400 we can estimate the number of patents that would prohibit
something in the whole system as being around 100,000. This is a very
rough estimate only, and no more accurate information is available,
@@ -1379,7 +1379,7 @@
<dt>Q.</dt>
<dd>To back that up, I was listening to an interview, one of the
founders of PayPal was interviewed, and he said that he really felt
-strongly that his success was 5% idea and 95% execution, and that
+strongly that his success was 5 percent idea and 95 percent execution, and that
supports your point really well.</dd>
<dt>A.</dt>
@@ -1431,7 +1431,7 @@
<p>Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2010/05/05 18:54:50 $
+$Date: 2010/06/24 13:55:30 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: sco/sco-gnu-linux.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/sco/sco-gnu-linux.html,v
retrieving revision 1.15
retrieving revision 1.16
diff -u -b -r1.15 -r1.16
--- sco/sco-gnu-linux.html 28 Jul 2008 14:24:54 -0000 1.15
+++ sco/sco-gnu-linux.html 24 Jun 2010 13:55:41 -0000 1.16
@@ -1,21 +1,21 @@
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
-<title>SCO, GNU and Linux - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation
(FSF)</title>
+<title>SCO, GNU, and Linux - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation
(FSF)</title>
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
-<h2>SCO, GNU and Linux</h2>
+<h2>SCO, GNU, and Linux</h2>
<p>
by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/";><strong>Richard Stallman</strong></a>
</p>
<p>
-<i>This article was first published on ZDNet.</i>
+<i>This article was first published on <cite>ZDNet.</cite></i>
</p>
<p>
-SCO's contract dispute with IBM has been accompanied by a smear
-campaign against the whole GNU/Linux system. But SCO made an obvious
-mistake when it erroneously quoted me as saying that “Linux is a
-copy of Unix.” Many readers immediately smelled a rat—not
+SCO's contract dispute with IBM was accompanied by a smear
+campaign against the whole GNU/Linux system, and SCO made an obvious
+mistake when it erroneously quoted me as saying that Linux is a
+copy of Unix. Many readers immediately smelled a rat—not
only because I did not say that, and not only because the person who
said it was talking about published ideas (which are uncopyrightable)
rather than code, but because they know I would never compare Linux
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@
</p>
<p>
-Unix is a complete operating system, but Linux is just part of one.
+Unix is a complete operating system; Linux is just part of one.
SCO is using the popular confusion between Linux and the GNU/Linux
system to magnify the fear that it can spread. GNU/Linux is the GNU
operating system running with Linux as the kernel. The kernel is the
@@ -32,34 +32,33 @@
</p>
<p>
-We developed GNU starting in 1984 as a campaign for freedom, whose aim was
-to eliminate non-free software from our lives. GNU is free software,
-meaning that users are free to run it, study it and change it (or pay
+We developed GNU starting in 1984 as a campaign for freedom whose aim was
+to eliminate nonfree software from our lives. GNU is free software,
+meaning that users are free to run it, study it, change it (or pay
programmers to do this for them), redistribute it (gratis or for a fee),
and publish modified versions. (See <a href="/gnu/thegnuproject.html">an
overview of the GNU project</a>.)
</p>
<p>
-In 1991, GNU was mostly finished, lacking only a kernel. In 1992, Linus
+In 1991, GNU was mostly finished and lacked only a kernel. In 1992, Linus
Torvalds made his kernel, Linux, free software. Others combined GNU and
Linux to produce the first complete free operating system, GNU/Linux. (See
<a href="/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html">our GNU/Linux FAQ</a>.) GNU/Linux is
also free software, and SCO made use of this freedom by selling their
version of it. Today, GNU runs with various kernels including Linux, the
-GNU Hurd (our kernel), and the NetBSD kernel. It is basically the same
-system whichever kernel you use.
+GNU Hurd (our kernel), and the NetBSD kernel. Whichever kernel you use, it is
basically the same system.
</p>
<p>
-Those who combined Linux with GNU didn't recognize that's what they
-were doing, and they spoke of the combination as “Linux”.
+Those who combined Linux with GNU didn't recognize that that was what they
+were doing, and they spoke of the combination as Linux.
The confusion spread; many users and journalists call the whole system
-“Linux”. Since they also properly call the kernel
-“Linux”, the result is even more confusion: when a
-statement says “Linux”, you can only guess what software
+“Linux.” Since they also properly call the kernel
+“Linux,” the result is even more confusion: when a
+statement says “Linux,” you can only guess what software
it refers to. SCO's irresponsible statements are shot through with
-ambiguous references to “Linux”. It is impossible to
+ambiguous references to Linux. It is impossible to
attribute any coherent meaning to them overall, but they appear to
accuse the entire GNU/Linux system of being copied from Unix.
</p>
@@ -67,40 +66,40 @@
<p>
The name GNU stands for “GNU's Not Unix”. The whole point
of developing the GNU system is that it is not Unix. Unix is and
-always was non-free software, meaning that it denies its users the
+always was nonfree software, meaning that it denies its users the
freedom to cooperate and to control their computers. To use computers
in freedom as a community, we needed a free software operating system.
We did not have the money to buy and liberate an existing system, but
we did have the skill to write a new one. Writing GNU was a
-monumental job. We did it for our freedom, and your freedom.
+monumental job. We did it for our freedom, and for your freedom.
</p>
<p>
-To copy Unix source code would not be ethically wrong
-<a href="#footnote">[1]</a>, but it is illegal; our work would fail to
-give users lawful freedom to cooperate if it were not done lawfully.
+To copy Unix source code would not be ethically wrong,
+<a href="#footnote">[1]</a> but it would be illegal; our work would fail to
+give users legitimate freedom to cooperate if it were not done lawfully.
To make sure we would not copy Unix source code or write anything
similar, we told GNU contributors not even to look at Unix source code
while developing code for GNU. We also suggested design approaches
-that differ from typical Unix design approaches, to ensure our code
+that differ from typical Unix design approaches to ensure our code
would not resemble Unix code. We did our best to avoid ever copying
-Unix code, despite our basic premise that to prohibit copying of
+Unix code despite our basic premise that to prohibit copying of
software is morally wrong.
</p>
<p>
Another SCO tool of obfuscation is the term “intellectual
-property”. This fashionable but foolish term carries an evident
+property.” This fashionable but foolish term carries an evident
bias: that the right way to treat works, ideas, and names is as a kind
of property. Less evident is the harm it does by inciting simplistic
thinking: it lumps together diverse laws—copyright law, patent
-law, trademark law and others—which really have little in
+law, trademark law, and others—that really have little in
common. This leads people to suppose those laws are one single issue,
-the “intellectual property issue”, and think about
-“it”—which means, to think at such a broad abstract
+the “intellectual property issue,” and think about
+“it”—which means, to think at such a broad and abstract
level that the specific social issues raised by these various laws are
-not even visible. Any opinion “about intellectual
-property” is thus bound to be foolish.
+not even visible. Any opinion about intellectual
+property is thus bound to be foolish.
(See <a href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html">our list of words to
avoid</a> for more explanation of the confusion caused by this term.)
</p>
@@ -121,7 +120,7 @@
</p>
<p>
-I cannot prognosticate about the SCO vs IBM lawsuit itself: I don't
+I cannot prognosticate about the <cite>SCO v. IBM</cite> lawsuit itself: I
don't
know what was in their contract, I don't know what IBM did, and I am
not a lawyer. The Free Software Foundation's lawyer, Professor
Moglen, believes that SCO gave permission for the community's use of
@@ -130,7 +129,7 @@
</p>
<p>
-However, I can address the broader issue of such situations. In a
+I can, however, address the broader issue of such situations. In a
community of over half a million developers, we can hardly expect that
there will never be plagiarism. But it is no disaster; we discard
that material and move on. If there is material in Linux that was
@@ -150,7 +149,7 @@
<li id="footnote">Since this statement directly contradicts the
establishment views of the proprietary software developers, some
readers suppose that the word “not” was inserted by
-mistake. It is entirely intentional. It is not wrong to copy
+mistake. The insertion was entirely intentional. It is not wrong to copy
software. It is wrong to stop others from copying software. Thus,
software should be free.</li>
</ol>
@@ -189,7 +188,7 @@
<p>
Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2008/07/28 14:24:54 $
+$Date: 2010/06/24 13:55:41 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
- www/philosophy danger-of-software-patents.html ...,
Jeanne Rasata <=