[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/philosophy free-doc.it.html free-doc.ja.htm...
|
From: |
GNUN |
|
Subject: |
www/philosophy free-doc.it.html free-doc.ja.htm... |
|
Date: |
Thu, 9 Sep 2021 06:04:54 -0400 (EDT) |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: GNUN <gnun> 21/09/09 06:04:54
Modified files:
philosophy : free-doc.it.html free-doc.ja.html
free-doc.pl.html free-doc.zh-tw.html
when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.de.html
when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.it.html
when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.ja.html
when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.nl.html
why-free.ar.html why-free.ca.html
why-free.cs.html why-free.de.html
why-free.el.html why-free.hr.html
why-free.it.html why-free.ko.html
why-free.lt.html why-free.nl.html
why-free.pl.html why-free.ro.html
why-free.uk.html why-free.zh-tw.html
philosophy/po : free-doc.it-diff.html free-doc.pl-diff.html
why-free.ar-diff.html why-free.hr-diff.html
why-free.ko-diff.html why-free.nl-diff.html
why-free.zh-tw-diff.html
Added files:
philosophy/po : free-doc.ja-diff.html free-doc.zh-tw-diff.html
when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.de-diff.html
when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.it-diff.html
when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.ja-diff.html
when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.nl-diff.html
why-free.ca-diff.html why-free.cs-diff.html
why-free.de-diff.html why-free.el-diff.html
why-free.it-diff.html why-free.lt-diff.html
why-free.pl-diff.html why-free.ro-diff.html
why-free.uk-diff.html
Log message:
Automatic update by GNUnited Nations.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/free-doc.it.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.35&r2=1.36
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/free-doc.ja.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.34&r2=1.35
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/free-doc.pl.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.56&r2=1.57
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/free-doc.zh-tw.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.3&r2=1.4
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.de.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.2&r2=1.3
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.it.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.8&r2=1.9
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.ja.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.3&r2=1.4
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.nl.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.1&r2=1.2
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/why-free.ar.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.32&r2=1.33
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/why-free.ca.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.41&r2=1.42
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/why-free.cs.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.10&r2=1.11
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/why-free.de.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.44&r2=1.45
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/why-free.el.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.13&r2=1.14
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/why-free.hr.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.16&r2=1.17
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/why-free.it.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.41&r2=1.42
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/why-free.ko.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.35&r2=1.36
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/why-free.lt.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.6&r2=1.7
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/why-free.nl.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.22&r2=1.23
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/why-free.pl.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.54&r2=1.55
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/why-free.ro.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.16&r2=1.17
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/why-free.uk.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.12&r2=1.13
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/why-free.zh-tw.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.23&r2=1.24
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/free-doc.it-diff.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.1&r2=1.2
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/free-doc.pl-diff.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.1&r2=1.2
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/why-free.ar-diff.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.5&r2=1.6
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/why-free.hr-diff.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.5&r2=1.6
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/why-free.ko-diff.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.5&r2=1.6
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/why-free.nl-diff.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.5&r2=1.6
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/why-free.zh-tw-diff.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.5&r2=1.6
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/free-doc.ja-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/free-doc.zh-tw-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.de-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.it-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.ja-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.nl-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/why-free.ca-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/why-free.cs-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/why-free.de-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/why-free.el-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/why-free.it-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/why-free.lt-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/why-free.pl-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/why-free.ro-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/why-free.uk-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
Patches:
Index: free-doc.it.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/free-doc.it.html,v
retrieving revision 1.35
retrieving revision 1.36
diff -u -b -r1.35 -r1.36
--- free-doc.it.html 30 Apr 2021 06:36:16 -0000 1.35
+++ free-doc.it.html 9 Sep 2021 10:04:47 -0000 1.36
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/free-doc.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/free-doc.it.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/free-doc.it.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/free-doc.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/free-doc.it-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2021-07-11" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/free-doc.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.it.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 -->
@@ -9,6 +14,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/free-doc.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.it.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.it.html" -->
<h2>Perché il software libero ha bisogno di documentazione libera</h2>
<blockquote class="announcement"><p>
@@ -232,7 +238,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Ultimo aggiornamento:
-$Date: 2021/04/30 06:36:16 $
+$Date: 2021/09/09 10:04:47 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: free-doc.ja.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/free-doc.ja.html,v
retrieving revision 1.34
retrieving revision 1.35
diff -u -b -r1.34 -r1.35
--- free-doc.ja.html 1 Jul 2021 02:03:51 -0000 1.34
+++ free-doc.ja.html 9 Sep 2021 10:04:47 -0000 1.35
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/free-doc.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/free-doc.ja.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/free-doc.ja.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/free-doc.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/free-doc.ja-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2021-07-11" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/free-doc.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.ja.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 -->
@@ -8,6 +13,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/free-doc.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.ja.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.ja.html" -->
<h2>èªç±ã½ããã¦ã§ã¢ãèªç±ãªææ¸ãå¿
è¦ã¨ããçç±</h2>
<blockquote class="announcement"><p>
@@ -144,7 +150,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
æçµæ´æ°:
-$Date: 2021/07/01 02:03:51 $
+$Date: 2021/09/09 10:04:47 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: free-doc.pl.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/free-doc.pl.html,v
retrieving revision 1.56
retrieving revision 1.57
diff -u -b -r1.56 -r1.57
--- free-doc.pl.html 19 Mar 2021 22:59:33 -0000 1.56
+++ free-doc.pl.html 9 Sep 2021 10:04:49 -0000 1.57
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/free-doc.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/free-doc.pl.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/free-doc.pl.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/free-doc.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/free-doc.pl-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2021-07-11" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/free-doc.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.pl.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 -->
@@ -9,6 +14,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/free-doc.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.pl.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.pl.html" -->
<h2>Dlaczego wolne oprogramowanie potrzebuje wolnej dokumentacji</h2>
<blockquote class="announcement"><p>
@@ -240,7 +246,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Aktualizowane:
-$Date: 2021/03/19 22:59:33 $
+$Date: 2021/09/09 10:04:49 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: free-doc.zh-tw.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/free-doc.zh-tw.html,v
retrieving revision 1.3
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -u -b -r1.3 -r1.4
--- free-doc.zh-tw.html 8 Feb 2020 09:59:58 -0000 1.3
+++ free-doc.zh-tw.html 9 Sep 2021 10:04:49 -0000 1.4
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/free-doc.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/free-doc.zh-tw.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/free-doc.zh-tw.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/free-doc.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/free-doc.zh-tw-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2021-07-11" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/free-doc.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.zh-tw.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 -->
@@ -8,6 +13,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/free-doc.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.zh-tw.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.zh-tw.html" -->
<h2>çºä»éº¼èªç±è»é«éè¦èªç±æ件</h2>
<blockquote class="announcement"><p>
@@ -151,7 +157,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
æ´æ°æé︰
-$Date: 2020/02/08 09:59:58 $
+$Date: 2021/09/09 10:04:49 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.de.html
===================================================================
RCS file:
/web/www/www/philosophy/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.de.html,v
retrieving revision 1.2
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -b -r1.2 -r1.3
--- when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.de.html 26 Oct 2017
12:58:38 -0000 1.2
+++ when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.de.html 9 Sep 2021
10:04:49 -0000 1.3
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE"
value="/philosophy/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a
href="/philosophy/po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.de.po">
+
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.de.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE"
value="/philosophy/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE"
value="/philosophy/po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.de-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2021-07-11" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE"
value="/philosophy/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.de.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 -->
@@ -9,6 +14,7 @@
<!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.translist"
-->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.de.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.de.html" -->
<h2> Wann Freie Software (aus praktischer Sicht) nicht besser ist</h2>
<p>
@@ -218,7 +224,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Letzte Ãnderung:
-$Date: 2017/10/26 12:58:38 $
+$Date: 2021/09/09 10:04:49 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.it.html
===================================================================
RCS file:
/web/www/www/philosophy/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.it.html,v
retrieving revision 1.8
retrieving revision 1.9
diff -u -b -r1.8 -r1.9
--- when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.it.html 30 Apr 2021
06:36:16 -0000 1.8
+++ when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.it.html 9 Sep 2021
10:04:49 -0000 1.9
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE"
value="/philosophy/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a
href="/philosophy/po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.it.po">
+
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.it.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE"
value="/philosophy/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE"
value="/philosophy/po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.it-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2021-07-11" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE"
value="/philosophy/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.it.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 -->
@@ -9,6 +14,7 @@
<!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.translist"
-->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.it.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.it.html" -->
<h2> A volte il software libero non è (nei fatti) superiore</h2>
<p>
@@ -215,7 +221,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Ultimo aggiornamento:
-$Date: 2021/04/30 06:36:16 $
+$Date: 2021/09/09 10:04:49 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.ja.html
===================================================================
RCS file:
/web/www/www/philosophy/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.ja.html,v
retrieving revision 1.3
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -u -b -r1.3 -r1.4
--- when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.ja.html 18 Nov 2016
07:32:51 -0000 1.3
+++ when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.ja.html 9 Sep 2021
10:04:49 -0000 1.4
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE"
value="/philosophy/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a
href="/philosophy/po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.ja.po">
+
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.ja.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE"
value="/philosophy/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE"
value="/philosophy/po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.ja-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2021-07-11" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE"
value="/philosophy/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.ja.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 -->
@@ -8,6 +13,7 @@
<!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.translist"
-->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.ja.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.ja.html" -->
<h2>
èªç±ã½ããã¦ã§ã¢ã(å®éåé¡ã¨ãã¦)åªãã¦ããªãã¨ã</h2>
<p>
@@ -107,7 +113,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
æçµæ´æ°:
-$Date: 2016/11/18 07:32:51 $
+$Date: 2021/09/09 10:04:49 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.nl.html
===================================================================
RCS file:
/web/www/www/philosophy/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.nl.html,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -b -r1.1 -r1.2
--- when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.nl.html 14 Jan 2017
14:58:43 -0000 1.1
+++ when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.nl.html 9 Sep 2021
10:04:49 -0000 1.2
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE"
value="/philosophy/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a
href="/philosophy/po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.nl.po">
+
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.nl.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE"
value="/philosophy/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE"
value="/philosophy/po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.nl-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2021-07-11" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE"
value="/philosophy/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.nl.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 -->
@@ -9,6 +14,7 @@
<!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.translist"
-->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.nl.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.nl.html" -->
<h2> Vrije software is (praktisch gezien) niet altijd beter</h2>
<p>
@@ -202,7 +208,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Bijgewerkt:
-$Date: 2017/01/14 14:58:43 $
+$Date: 2021/09/09 10:04:49 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: why-free.ar.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/why-free.ar.html,v
retrieving revision 1.32
retrieving revision 1.33
diff -u -b -r1.32 -r1.33
--- why-free.ar.html 30 May 2021 17:01:47 -0000 1.32
+++ why-free.ar.html 9 Sep 2021 10:04:49 -0000 1.33
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/why-free.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/why-free.ar.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/why-free.ar.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/why-free.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/why-free.ar-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2021-07-11" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/why-free.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.ar.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
@@ -11,6 +16,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/why-free.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.ar.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.ar.html" -->
<h2>ÙÙ
اذا ÙÙس عÙ٠اÙبراÙ
ج Ø£Ù ÙÙÙÙ ÙدÙÙا Ù
اÙÙ</h2>
<p>Ù
Ù Ùب٠<a href="http://www.stallman.org/";><strong> رÙشارد
ستاÙÙ
اÙ
@@ -355,7 +361,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
ØÙدÙثت:
-$Date: 2021/05/30 17:01:47 $
+$Date: 2021/09/09 10:04:49 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: why-free.ca.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/why-free.ca.html,v
retrieving revision 1.41
retrieving revision 1.42
diff -u -b -r1.41 -r1.42
--- why-free.ca.html 30 May 2021 19:03:20 -0000 1.41
+++ why-free.ca.html 9 Sep 2021 10:04:49 -0000 1.42
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/why-free.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/why-free.ca.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/why-free.ca.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/why-free.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/why-free.ca-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2021-07-11" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/why-free.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.ca.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
@@ -12,6 +17,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/why-free.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.ca.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.ca.html" -->
<h2>Per què el programari no hauria de tenir propietaris</h2>
<p>per <a href="http://www.stallman.org/";><strong>Richard
Stallman</strong></a></p>
@@ -389,7 +395,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Updated:
-$Date: 2021/05/30 19:03:20 $
+$Date: 2021/09/09 10:04:49 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: why-free.cs.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/why-free.cs.html,v
retrieving revision 1.10
retrieving revision 1.11
diff -u -b -r1.10 -r1.11
--- why-free.cs.html 30 May 2021 19:03:20 -0000 1.10
+++ why-free.cs.html 9 Sep 2021 10:04:49 -0000 1.11
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/why-free.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/why-free.cs.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/why-free.cs.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/why-free.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/why-free.cs-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2021-07-11" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/why-free.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.cs.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
@@ -12,6 +17,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/why-free.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.cs.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.cs.html" -->
<h2>ProÄ by software nemÄl mÃt vlastnÃky</h2>
<p>napsal <a href="http://www.stallman.org/";><strong>Richard
@@ -368,7 +374,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Aktualizováno:
-$Date: 2021/05/30 19:03:20 $
+$Date: 2021/09/09 10:04:49 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: why-free.de.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/why-free.de.html,v
retrieving revision 1.44
retrieving revision 1.45
diff -u -b -r1.44 -r1.45
--- why-free.de.html 31 May 2021 13:39:52 -0000 1.44
+++ why-free.de.html 9 Sep 2021 10:04:49 -0000 1.45
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/why-free.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/why-free.de.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/why-free.de.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/why-free.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/why-free.de-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2021-07-11" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/why-free.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.de.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
@@ -11,6 +16,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/why-free.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.de.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.de.html" -->
<h2>Warum Software keine Eigentümer haben sollte</h2>
<p>von <a href="http://www.stallman.org/";><strong>Richard
Stallman</strong></a></p>
@@ -406,7 +412,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Letzte Ãnderung:
-$Date: 2021/05/31 13:39:52 $
+$Date: 2021/09/09 10:04:49 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: why-free.el.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/why-free.el.html,v
retrieving revision 1.13
retrieving revision 1.14
diff -u -b -r1.13 -r1.14
--- why-free.el.html 31 May 2021 16:00:29 -0000 1.13
+++ why-free.el.html 9 Sep 2021 10:04:49 -0000 1.14
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/why-free.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/why-free.el.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/why-free.el.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/why-free.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/why-free.el-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2021-07-11" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/why-free.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.el.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
@@ -12,6 +17,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/why-free.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.el.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.el.html" -->
<h2>ÎιαÏί Ïο λογιÏÎ¼Î¹ÎºÏ Î´ÎµÎ½ ÏÏÎÏει να ÎÏει
ιδιοκÏήÏεÏ</h2>
<p>αÏÏ Ïον <a href="http://www.stallman.org/";><strong>Richard
@@ -411,7 +417,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
ÎνημεÏÏθηκε:
-$Date: 2021/05/31 16:00:29 $
+$Date: 2021/09/09 10:04:49 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: why-free.hr.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/why-free.hr.html,v
retrieving revision 1.16
retrieving revision 1.17
diff -u -b -r1.16 -r1.17
--- why-free.hr.html 30 May 2021 19:32:28 -0000 1.16
+++ why-free.hr.html 9 Sep 2021 10:04:49 -0000 1.17
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/why-free.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/why-free.hr.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/why-free.hr.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/why-free.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/why-free.hr-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2021-07-11" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/why-free.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.hr.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
@@ -12,6 +17,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/why-free.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.hr.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.hr.html" -->
<h2>Zašto softver ne bi trebao imati vlasnike</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.stallman.org/";><strong>Richard Stallman</strong></a></p>
@@ -379,7 +385,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Zadnji put promijenjeno:
-$Date: 2021/05/30 19:32:28 $
+$Date: 2021/09/09 10:04:49 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: why-free.it.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/why-free.it.html,v
retrieving revision 1.41
retrieving revision 1.42
diff -u -b -r1.41 -r1.42
--- why-free.it.html 30 Apr 2021 06:36:16 -0000 1.41
+++ why-free.it.html 9 Sep 2021 10:04:49 -0000 1.42
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/why-free.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/why-free.it.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/why-free.it.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/why-free.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/why-free.it-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2021-07-11" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/why-free.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.it.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
@@ -12,6 +17,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/why-free.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.it.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.it.html" -->
<h2>Perché il software non deve avere padroni</h2>
<p>di <a href="http://www.stallman.org/";><strong>Richard
Stallman</strong></a></p>
@@ -398,7 +404,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Ultimo aggiornamento:
-$Date: 2021/04/30 06:36:16 $
+$Date: 2021/09/09 10:04:49 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: why-free.ko.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/why-free.ko.html,v
retrieving revision 1.35
retrieving revision 1.36
diff -u -b -r1.35 -r1.36
--- why-free.ko.html 26 Oct 2020 13:34:16 -0000 1.35
+++ why-free.ko.html 9 Sep 2021 10:04:49 -0000 1.36
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/why-free.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/why-free.ko.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/why-free.ko.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/why-free.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/why-free.ko-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2021-07-11" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/why-free.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.ko.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
@@ -10,6 +15,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/why-free.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.ko.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.ko.html" -->
<h2>ì ìíí¸ì¨ì´ë ìì ìê° ìì¼ë©´ ì ëëê°</h2>
<p>ê¸: <a href="http://www.stallman.org/";><strong>리ì²ë
ì¤í¨ë¨¼</strong></a></p>
@@ -307,7 +313,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
ìµì¢
ìì ì¼:
-$Date: 2020/10/26 13:34:16 $
+$Date: 2021/09/09 10:04:49 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: why-free.lt.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/why-free.lt.html,v
retrieving revision 1.6
retrieving revision 1.7
diff -u -b -r1.6 -r1.7
--- why-free.lt.html 30 May 2021 19:32:28 -0000 1.6
+++ why-free.lt.html 9 Sep 2021 10:04:49 -0000 1.7
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/why-free.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/why-free.lt.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/why-free.lt.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/why-free.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/why-free.lt-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2021-07-11" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/why-free.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.lt.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
@@ -12,6 +17,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/why-free.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.lt.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.lt.html" -->
<h2>KodÄl programinÄ Ä¯ranga turÄtų niekam nepriklausyti</h2>
<p>pagal <a href="http://www.stallman.org/";><strong>Richard
@@ -388,7 +394,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Atnaujinta:
-$Date: 2021/05/30 19:32:28 $
+$Date: 2021/09/09 10:04:49 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: why-free.nl.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/why-free.nl.html,v
retrieving revision 1.22
retrieving revision 1.23
diff -u -b -r1.22 -r1.23
--- why-free.nl.html 31 May 2021 09:06:20 -0000 1.22
+++ why-free.nl.html 9 Sep 2021 10:04:49 -0000 1.23
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/why-free.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/why-free.nl.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/why-free.nl.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/why-free.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/why-free.nl-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2021-07-11" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/why-free.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.nl.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
@@ -11,6 +16,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/why-free.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.nl.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.nl.html" -->
<h2>Waarom Software Geen Bezit Mag Zijn</h2>
<p>door <a href="http://www.stallman.org/";><strong>Richard
@@ -384,7 +390,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Bijgewerkt:
-$Date: 2021/05/31 09:06:20 $
+$Date: 2021/09/09 10:04:49 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: why-free.pl.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/why-free.pl.html,v
retrieving revision 1.54
retrieving revision 1.55
diff -u -b -r1.54 -r1.55
--- why-free.pl.html 26 Oct 2020 13:34:16 -0000 1.54
+++ why-free.pl.html 9 Sep 2021 10:04:49 -0000 1.55
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/why-free.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/why-free.pl.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/why-free.pl.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/why-free.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/why-free.pl-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2021-07-11" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/why-free.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.pl.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
@@ -12,6 +17,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/why-free.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.pl.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.pl.html" -->
<h2>Dlaczego oprogramowanie nie powinno mieÄ wÅaÅcicieli</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.stallman.org/";><strong>Richard Stallman</strong></a></p>
@@ -415,7 +421,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Aktualizowane:
-$Date: 2020/10/26 13:34:16 $
+$Date: 2021/09/09 10:04:49 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: why-free.ro.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/why-free.ro.html,v
retrieving revision 1.16
retrieving revision 1.17
diff -u -b -r1.16 -r1.17
--- why-free.ro.html 31 May 2021 09:06:20 -0000 1.16
+++ why-free.ro.html 9 Sep 2021 10:04:49 -0000 1.17
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/why-free.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/why-free.ro.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/why-free.ro.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/why-free.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/why-free.ro-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2021-07-11" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/why-free.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.ro.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
@@ -12,6 +17,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/why-free.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.ro.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.ro.html" -->
<h2>De ce software-ul nu trebuie sÄ aibÄ proprietari</h2>
<p>de <a href="http://www.stallman.org/";><strong>Richard
Stallman</strong></a></p>
@@ -383,7 +389,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
ActualizatÄ:
-$Date: 2021/05/31 09:06:20 $
+$Date: 2021/09/09 10:04:49 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: why-free.uk.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/why-free.uk.html,v
retrieving revision 1.12
retrieving revision 1.13
diff -u -b -r1.12 -r1.13
--- why-free.uk.html 31 May 2021 20:31:36 -0000 1.12
+++ why-free.uk.html 9 Sep 2021 10:04:49 -0000 1.13
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/why-free.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/why-free.uk.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/why-free.uk.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/why-free.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/why-free.uk-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2021-07-11" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/why-free.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.uk.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
@@ -12,6 +17,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/why-free.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.uk.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.uk.html" -->
<h2>Ð§Ð¾Ð¼Ñ Ñ Ð¿ÑогÑам не повинно бÑÑи
влаÑникÑв</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.stallman.org/";><strong>Ð ÑÑаÑд
СÑолмен</strong></a></p>
@@ -386,7 +392,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Ðновлено:
-$Date: 2021/05/31 20:31:36 $
+$Date: 2021/09/09 10:04:49 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: why-free.zh-tw.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/why-free.zh-tw.html,v
retrieving revision 1.23
retrieving revision 1.24
diff -u -b -r1.23 -r1.24
--- why-free.zh-tw.html 26 Oct 2020 13:34:16 -0000 1.23
+++ why-free.zh-tw.html 9 Sep 2021 10:04:49 -0000 1.24
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/why-free.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/why-free.zh-tw.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/why-free.zh-tw.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/why-free.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/why-free.zh-tw-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2021-07-11" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/why-free.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.zh-tw.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
@@ -11,6 +16,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/why-free.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.zh-tw.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.zh-tw.html" -->
<h2>çºä½è»é«ä¸ææå
¶ææè
</h2>
<p>ä½è
çº <a href="http://www.stallman.org/";><strong>Richard
Stallman</strong></a></p>
@@ -250,7 +256,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
æ´æ°æé︰
-$Date: 2020/10/26 13:34:16 $
+$Date: 2021/09/09 10:04:49 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: po/free-doc.it-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/free-doc.it-diff.html,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -b -r1.1 -r1.2
--- po/free-doc.it-diff.html 25 Feb 2020 23:00:04 -0000 1.1
+++ po/free-doc.it-diff.html 9 Sep 2021 10:04:50 -0000 1.2
@@ -11,23 +11,29 @@
</style></head>
<body><pre>
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
-<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 -->
-<title>Why Free Software needs Free Documentation
+<!-- Parent-Version: <span
class="removed"><del><strong>1.79</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>1.96 -->
+<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
+<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays aboutfs extension" -->
+<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes"</em></ins></span> -->
+<title>Why Free Software <span
class="removed"><del><strong>needs</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Needs</em></ins></span> Free Documentation
- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
-
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/free-doc.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
+<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
+<div class="article reduced-width"></em></ins></span>
+<h2>Why Free Software <span
class="removed"><del><strong>needs</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Needs</em></ins></span> Free Documentation</h2>
-<h2>Why Free Software needs Free Documentation</h2>
-
-<blockquote class="announcement"><p>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><blockquote
class="announcement"><p>
<a href="http://defectivebydesign.org/ebooks.html">Join our mailing list
about the dangers of eBooks</a>.
</p></blockquote>
<ul>
<li><a href="/copyleft/fdl.html">The GNU Free Documentation
License</a></li>
-</ul>
+</ul></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div
class="thin"></div></em></ins></span>
<p>
The biggest deficiency in free operating systems is not in the
@@ -41,16 +47,15 @@
Once upon a time, many years ago, I thought I would learn Perl. I got
a copy of a free manual, but I found it hard to read. When I asked
Perl users about alternatives, they told me that there were better
-introductory manuals—but those were not <span
class="removed"><del><strong>free.</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>free (not
-freedom-respecting).</p></em></ins></span>
+introductory manuals—but those were not free (not
+freedom-respecting).</p>
<p>
Why was this? The authors of the good manuals had written them for
O'Reilly Associates, which published them with restrictive
terms—no copying, no modification, source files not
-available—which <span
class="removed"><del><strong>exclude</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>made them nonfree, thus excluded</em></ins></span>
them from the <span class="removed"><del><strong>free software
-community.</p></strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em>Free World.</p></em></ins></span>
+available—which made them nonfree, thus excluded them from the
+Free World.</p>
<p>
That wasn't the first time this sort of thing has happened, and (to
@@ -66,12 +71,19 @@
Given that writing good English is a rare skill among programmers, we
can ill afford to lose manuals this way.</p>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><hr class="no-display" />
+<div class="announcement" role="complementary"><p>
+<a href="https://defectivebydesign.org/ebooks.html">Join our mailing list
+about the dangers of eBooks</a>.
+</p></div>
+<hr class="no-display" /></em></ins></span>
+
<p>
Free documentation, like free software, is a matter of freedom, not
price. The problem with these manuals was not that O'Reilly
Associates charged a price for printed copies—that in itself is
fine. (The Free Software Foundation
-<a href="http://shop.fsf.org/category/books/">sells printed
+<a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://shop.fsf.org/category/books/">sells</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://shop.fsf.org/category/books/">sells</em></ins></span>
printed
copies</a> of free <a href="/doc/doc.html">GNU manuals</a>,
too.) But
GNU manuals are available in source code form, while these manuals are
available only on paper. GNU manuals come with permission to copy and
@@ -84,6 +96,10 @@
permitted, so that the manual can accompany every copy of the program,
on line or on paper. Permission for modification is crucial too.</p>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><ul>
+<li><a href="/licenses/fdl.html">The GNU Free Documentation
License</a></li>
+</ul></em></ins></span>
+
<p>
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. The issues
@@ -160,10 +176,11 @@
<p>
[Note: We maintain a <a href="/doc/other-free-books.html">page
that lists free books available from other publishers</a>].</p>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div></em></ins></span>
</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
-<div id="footer">
+<div <span
class="removed"><del><strong>id="footer"></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>id="footer" role="contentinfo"></em></ins></span>
<div class="unprintable">
<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
@@ -181,13 +198,13 @@
to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">
<web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p>
- <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ <p>For information on coordinating and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> 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
+README</a> for information on coordinating and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> translations
of this article.</p>
</div>
@@ -208,8 +225,9 @@
There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
-<p>Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004,
-2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2015, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2016</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2016, 2019</em></ins></span> Free Software
Foundation, Inc.</p>
+<p>Copyright © 1996, <span class="removed"><del><strong>1997, 1998,
1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004,
+2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2015, 2016, 2019</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2019, 2021</em></ins></span> Free Software
+Foundation, Inc.</p>
<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
@@ -219,11 +237,12 @@
<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2020/02/25 23:00:04 $
+$Date: 2021/09/09 10:04:50 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
-</div>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong></div></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div><!-- for class="inner", starts
in the banner include --></em></ins></span>
</body>
</html>
</pre></body></html>
Index: po/free-doc.pl-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/free-doc.pl-diff.html,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -b -r1.1 -r1.2
--- po/free-doc.pl-diff.html 25 Feb 2020 23:00:04 -0000 1.1
+++ po/free-doc.pl-diff.html 9 Sep 2021 10:04:53 -0000 1.2
@@ -11,23 +11,29 @@
</style></head>
<body><pre>
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
-<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 -->
-<title>Why Free Software needs Free Documentation
+<!-- Parent-Version: <span
class="removed"><del><strong>1.79</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>1.96 -->
+<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
+<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays aboutfs extension" -->
+<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes"</em></ins></span> -->
+<title>Why Free Software <span
class="removed"><del><strong>needs</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Needs</em></ins></span> Free Documentation
- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
-
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/free-doc.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
+<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
+<div class="article reduced-width"></em></ins></span>
+<h2>Why Free Software <span
class="removed"><del><strong>needs</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Needs</em></ins></span> Free Documentation</h2>
-<h2>Why Free Software needs Free Documentation</h2>
-
-<blockquote class="announcement"><p>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><blockquote
class="announcement"><p>
<a href="http://defectivebydesign.org/ebooks.html">Join our mailing list
about the dangers of eBooks</a>.
</p></blockquote>
<ul>
<li><a href="/copyleft/fdl.html">The GNU Free Documentation
License</a></li>
-</ul>
+</ul></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div
class="thin"></div></em></ins></span>
<p>
The biggest deficiency in free operating systems is not in the
@@ -41,16 +47,15 @@
Once upon a time, many years ago, I thought I would learn Perl. I got
a copy of a free manual, but I found it hard to read. When I asked
Perl users about alternatives, they told me that there were better
-introductory manuals—but those were not <span
class="removed"><del><strong>free.</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>free (not
-freedom-respecting).</p></em></ins></span>
+introductory manuals—but those were not free (not
+freedom-respecting).</p>
<p>
Why was this? The authors of the good manuals had written them for
O'Reilly Associates, which published them with restrictive
terms—no copying, no modification, source files not
-available—which <span
class="removed"><del><strong>exclude</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>made them nonfree, thus excluded</em></ins></span>
them from the <span class="removed"><del><strong>free software
-community.</p></strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em>Free World.</p></em></ins></span>
+available—which made them nonfree, thus excluded them from the
+Free World.</p>
<p>
That wasn't the first time this sort of thing has happened, and (to
@@ -66,12 +71,19 @@
Given that writing good English is a rare skill among programmers, we
can ill afford to lose manuals this way.</p>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><hr class="no-display" />
+<div class="announcement" role="complementary"><p>
+<a href="https://defectivebydesign.org/ebooks.html">Join our mailing list
+about the dangers of eBooks</a>.
+</p></div>
+<hr class="no-display" /></em></ins></span>
+
<p>
Free documentation, like free software, is a matter of freedom, not
price. The problem with these manuals was not that O'Reilly
Associates charged a price for printed copies—that in itself is
fine. (The Free Software Foundation
-<a href="http://shop.fsf.org/category/books/">sells printed
+<a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://shop.fsf.org/category/books/">sells</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://shop.fsf.org/category/books/">sells</em></ins></span>
printed
copies</a> of free <a href="/doc/doc.html">GNU manuals</a>,
too.) But
GNU manuals are available in source code form, while these manuals are
available only on paper. GNU manuals come with permission to copy and
@@ -84,6 +96,10 @@
permitted, so that the manual can accompany every copy of the program,
on line or on paper. Permission for modification is crucial too.</p>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><ul>
+<li><a href="/licenses/fdl.html">The GNU Free Documentation
License</a></li>
+</ul></em></ins></span>
+
<p>
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. The issues
@@ -160,10 +176,11 @@
<p>
[Note: We maintain a <a href="/doc/other-free-books.html">page
that lists free books available from other publishers</a>].</p>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div></em></ins></span>
</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
-<div id="footer">
+<div <span
class="removed"><del><strong>id="footer"></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>id="footer" role="contentinfo"></em></ins></span>
<div class="unprintable">
<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
@@ -181,13 +198,13 @@
to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">
<web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p>
- <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ <p>For information on coordinating and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> 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
+README</a> for information on coordinating and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> translations
of this article.</p>
</div>
@@ -208,8 +225,9 @@
There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
-<p>Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004,
-2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2015, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2016</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2016, 2019</em></ins></span> Free Software
Foundation, Inc.</p>
+<p>Copyright © 1996, <span class="removed"><del><strong>1997, 1998,
1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004,
+2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2015, 2016, 2019</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2019, 2021</em></ins></span> Free Software
+Foundation, Inc.</p>
<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
@@ -219,11 +237,12 @@
<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2020/02/25 23:00:04 $
+$Date: 2021/09/09 10:04:53 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
-</div>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong></div></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div><!-- for class="inner", starts
in the banner include --></em></ins></span>
</body>
</html>
</pre></body></html>
Index: po/why-free.ar-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/why-free.ar-diff.html,v
retrieving revision 1.5
retrieving revision 1.6
diff -u -b -r1.5 -r1.6
--- po/why-free.ar-diff.html 12 Apr 2014 14:00:04 -0000 1.5
+++ po/why-free.ar-diff.html 9 Sep 2021 10:04:53 -0000 1.6
@@ -11,19 +11,28 @@
</style></head>
<body><pre>
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!-- Parent-Version: 1.77
--></em></ins></span>
+<!-- Parent-Version: <span
class="removed"><del><strong>1.77</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>1.96 -->
+<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
+<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays aboutfs principles" -->
+<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes"</em></ins></span> -->
<title>Why Software Should Not Have Owners
-- GNU Project - Free Software <span class="removed"><del><strong>Foundation
(FSF)</title></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Foundation</title></em></ins></span>
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
<meta name="Keywords" content="GNU, GNU Project, FSF, Free Software, Free
Software Foundation, Why Software Should Not Have Owners" />
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/why-free.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
-
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
+<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
+<div class="article reduced-width"></em></ins></span>
<h2>Why Software Should Not Have Owners</h2>
-<p>by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/"><strong>Richard
-Stallman</strong></a></p>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>by</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><address
class="byline">by</em></ins></span> <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.stallman.org/"><strong>Richard
+Stallman</strong></a></p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://www.stallman.org/">Richard
+Stallman</a></address></em></ins></span>
<p>
Digital information technology contributes to the world by making it
@@ -32,7 +41,7 @@
<p>
Not everyone wants it to be easier. The system of copyright gives
-software programs “owners”, most of whom aim to withhold
+software programs <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“owners”,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“owners,”</em></ins></span> most of whom
aim to withhold
software's potential benefit from the rest of the public. They would
like to be the only ones who can copy and modify the software that we
use.</p>
@@ -65,7 +74,7 @@
<li>Prosecution (by the US government, at the SPA's request) of people
such as
-<acronym title="Massachusetts Institute of
Technology">MIT</acronym>'s
+<abbr title="Massachusetts Institute of Technology">MIT</abbr>'s
David LaMacchia, not for copying software (he is not accused of
copying any), but merely for leaving copying facilities unguarded and
failing to censor their use.<a href="#footnote1">[1]</a></li>
@@ -91,8 +100,9 @@
<p>
Owners use smear words such as “piracy” and
-“theft”, as well as expert terminology such as
-“intellectual property” and “damage”, to
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>“theft”,</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“theft,”</em></ins></span> as well
as expert terminology such as
+“intellectual property” and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“damage”,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“damage,”</em></ins></span> to
suggest a certain line of thinking to the public—a simplistic
analogy between programs and physical objects.</p>
@@ -245,7 +255,7 @@
<p>
And, above all, society needs to encourage the spirit of voluntary
cooperation in its citizens. When software owners tell us that
-helping our neighbors in a natural way is “piracy”, they
+helping our neighbors in a natural way is <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“piracy”,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“piracy,”</em></ins></span> they
pollute our society's civic spirit.</p>
<p>
@@ -310,46 +320,32 @@
<p>
You deserve free software.</p>
-<span
class="removed"><del><strong><h4>Footnotes</h4></strong></del></span>
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong><h3>Footnotes</h3></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="column-limit"></div>
-<span
class="inserted"><ins><em><h3>Footnotes</h3></em></ins></span>
+<h3 class="footnote">Footnote</h3></em></ins></span>
<ol>
<li id="footnote1">The charges were subsequently dismissed.</li>
</ol>
-<hr />
-<span class="removed"><del><strong><h4>This</strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><blockquote id="fsfs"><p
class="big">This</em></ins></span> essay is published
-in <a
href="http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free
+<hr <span class="inserted"><ins><em>class="no-display"</em></ins></span>
/>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><blockquote
id="fsfs"><p>This</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="edu-note c"><p
id="fsfs">This</em></ins></span> essay is published in
+<a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free</em></ins></span>
Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard
-M. <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Stallman</cite></a>.</h4>
-
-</div>
+M. <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Stallman</cite></a>.</p></blockquote></strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Stallman</cite></a>.</p></div>
+</div></em></ins></span>
-<!-- All pages on the GNU web server should have the section about -->
-<!-- verbatim copying. Please do NOT remove this without talking -->
-<!-- with the webmasters first. -->
-<!-- Please make sure the copyright date is consistent
with</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Stallman</cite></a>.</p></blockquote>
-
-</div><!-- for id="content", starts in</em></ins></span> the <span
class="removed"><del><strong>document -->
-<!-- and that it is like this "2001, 2002" not this
"2001-2002."</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>include
above</em></ins></span> -->
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
-<div id="footer">
-
-<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>
-Please</strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="unprintable">
+<div <span
class="removed"><del><strong>id="footer"></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>id="footer" role="contentinfo"></em></ins></span>
+<div class="unprintable">
-<p>Please</em></ins></span> send <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>general</em></ins></span> FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>.
There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
-the FSF.
-<span class="removed"><del><strong><br />
-Please send broken</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Broken</em></ins></span> links and other corrections
or suggestions <span class="inserted"><ins><em>can be sent</em></ins></span>
-to <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.
-</p>
-
-<p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p>
+the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to <a
href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p>
<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
replace it with the translation of these two:
@@ -360,23 +356,19 @@
to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">
<web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p>
- <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ <p>For information on coordinating and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> translations of
our web pages, see <a
href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
- README</a>. --></em></ins></span>
+ README</a>. -->
Please see the <a
href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
-README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
-of this <span class="removed"><del><strong>article.
-</p>
-
-<p>
-Copyright</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>article.</p>
+README</a> for information on coordinating and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> 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 3.0 US. Please do NOT change or remove this
+ be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this
without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
@@ -391,26 +383,22 @@
There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
-<p>Copyright</em></ins></span> © 1994, 2009 Richard <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Stallman
-<br />
-This</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>Stallman</p>
-
-<p>This</em></ins></span> page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
-href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative
-Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States <span
class="removed"><del><strong>License</a>.
-</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>License</a>.</p></em></ins></span>
+<p>Copyright © 1994, 2009, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2020</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2021</em></ins></span> Richard Stallman</p>
-<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+<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>
-<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>Updated:</strong></del></span>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p
class="unprintable">Updated:</em></ins></span>
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2014/04/12 14:00:04 $
+$Date: 2021/09/09 10:04:53 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
-</div>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong></div></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div><!-- for class="inner", starts
in the banner include --></em></ins></span>
</body>
</html>
</pre></body></html>
Index: po/why-free.hr-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/why-free.hr-diff.html,v
retrieving revision 1.5
retrieving revision 1.6
diff -u -b -r1.5 -r1.6
--- po/why-free.hr-diff.html 12 Apr 2014 14:00:08 -0000 1.5
+++ po/why-free.hr-diff.html 9 Sep 2021 10:04:53 -0000 1.6
@@ -11,19 +11,28 @@
</style></head>
<body><pre>
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!-- Parent-Version: 1.77
--></em></ins></span>
+<!-- Parent-Version: <span
class="removed"><del><strong>1.77</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>1.96 -->
+<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
+<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays aboutfs principles" -->
+<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes"</em></ins></span> -->
<title>Why Software Should Not Have Owners
-- GNU Project - Free Software <span class="removed"><del><strong>Foundation
(FSF)</title></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Foundation</title></em></ins></span>
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
<meta name="Keywords" content="GNU, GNU Project, FSF, Free Software, Free
Software Foundation, Why Software Should Not Have Owners" />
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/why-free.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
-
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
+<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
+<div class="article reduced-width"></em></ins></span>
<h2>Why Software Should Not Have Owners</h2>
-<p>by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/"><strong>Richard
-Stallman</strong></a></p>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>by</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><address
class="byline">by</em></ins></span> <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.stallman.org/"><strong>Richard
+Stallman</strong></a></p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://www.stallman.org/">Richard
+Stallman</a></address></em></ins></span>
<p>
Digital information technology contributes to the world by making it
@@ -32,7 +41,7 @@
<p>
Not everyone wants it to be easier. The system of copyright gives
-software programs “owners”, most of whom aim to withhold
+software programs <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“owners”,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“owners,”</em></ins></span> most of whom
aim to withhold
software's potential benefit from the rest of the public. They would
like to be the only ones who can copy and modify the software that we
use.</p>
@@ -65,7 +74,7 @@
<li>Prosecution (by the US government, at the SPA's request) of people
such as
-<acronym title="Massachusetts Institute of
Technology">MIT</acronym>'s
+<abbr title="Massachusetts Institute of Technology">MIT</abbr>'s
David LaMacchia, not for copying software (he is not accused of
copying any), but merely for leaving copying facilities unguarded and
failing to censor their use.<a href="#footnote1">[1]</a></li>
@@ -91,8 +100,9 @@
<p>
Owners use smear words such as “piracy” and
-“theft”, as well as expert terminology such as
-“intellectual property” and “damage”, to
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>“theft”,</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“theft,”</em></ins></span> as well
as expert terminology such as
+“intellectual property” and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“damage”,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“damage,”</em></ins></span> to
suggest a certain line of thinking to the public—a simplistic
analogy between programs and physical objects.</p>
@@ -245,7 +255,7 @@
<p>
And, above all, society needs to encourage the spirit of voluntary
cooperation in its citizens. When software owners tell us that
-helping our neighbors in a natural way is “piracy”, they
+helping our neighbors in a natural way is <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“piracy”,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“piracy,”</em></ins></span> they
pollute our society's civic spirit.</p>
<p>
@@ -310,46 +320,32 @@
<p>
You deserve free software.</p>
-<span
class="removed"><del><strong><h4>Footnotes</h4></strong></del></span>
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong><h3>Footnotes</h3></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="column-limit"></div>
-<span
class="inserted"><ins><em><h3>Footnotes</h3></em></ins></span>
+<h3 class="footnote">Footnote</h3></em></ins></span>
<ol>
<li id="footnote1">The charges were subsequently dismissed.</li>
</ol>
-<hr />
-<span class="removed"><del><strong><h4>This</strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><blockquote id="fsfs"><p
class="big">This</em></ins></span> essay is published
-in <a
href="http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free
+<hr <span class="inserted"><ins><em>class="no-display"</em></ins></span>
/>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><blockquote
id="fsfs"><p>This</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="edu-note c"><p
id="fsfs">This</em></ins></span> essay is published in
+<a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free</em></ins></span>
Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard
-M. <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Stallman</cite></a>.</h4>
-
-</div>
+M. <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Stallman</cite></a>.</p></blockquote></strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Stallman</cite></a>.</p></div>
+</div></em></ins></span>
-<!-- All pages on the GNU web server should have the section about -->
-<!-- verbatim copying. Please do NOT remove this without talking -->
-<!-- with the webmasters first. -->
-<!-- Please make sure the copyright date is consistent
with</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Stallman</cite></a>.</p></blockquote>
-
-</div><!-- for id="content", starts in</em></ins></span> the <span
class="removed"><del><strong>document -->
-<!-- and that it is like this "2001, 2002" not this
"2001-2002."</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>include
above</em></ins></span> -->
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
-<div id="footer">
-
-<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>
-Please</strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="unprintable">
+<div <span
class="removed"><del><strong>id="footer"></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>id="footer" role="contentinfo"></em></ins></span>
+<div class="unprintable">
-<p>Please</em></ins></span> send <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>general</em></ins></span> FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>.
There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
-the FSF.
-<span class="removed"><del><strong><br />
-Please send broken</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Broken</em></ins></span> links and other corrections
or suggestions <span class="inserted"><ins><em>can be sent</em></ins></span>
-to <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.
-</p>
-
-<p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p>
+the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to <a
href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p>
<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
replace it with the translation of these two:
@@ -360,23 +356,19 @@
to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">
<web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p>
- <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ <p>For information on coordinating and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> translations of
our web pages, see <a
href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
- README</a>. --></em></ins></span>
+ README</a>. -->
Please see the <a
href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
-README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
-of this <span class="removed"><del><strong>article.
-</p>
-
-<p>
-Copyright</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>article.</p>
+README</a> for information on coordinating and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> 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 3.0 US. Please do NOT change or remove this
+ be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this
without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
@@ -391,26 +383,22 @@
There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
-<p>Copyright</em></ins></span> © 1994, 2009 Richard <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Stallman
-<br />
-This</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>Stallman</p>
-
-<p>This</em></ins></span> page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
-href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative
-Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States <span
class="removed"><del><strong>License</a>.
-</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>License</a>.</p></em></ins></span>
+<p>Copyright © 1994, 2009, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2020</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2021</em></ins></span> Richard Stallman</p>
-<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+<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>
-<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>Updated:</strong></del></span>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p
class="unprintable">Updated:</em></ins></span>
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2014/04/12 14:00:08 $
+$Date: 2021/09/09 10:04:53 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
-</div>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong></div></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div><!-- for class="inner", starts
in the banner include --></em></ins></span>
</body>
</html>
</pre></body></html>
Index: po/why-free.ko-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/why-free.ko-diff.html,v
retrieving revision 1.5
retrieving revision 1.6
diff -u -b -r1.5 -r1.6
--- po/why-free.ko-diff.html 12 Apr 2014 14:00:09 -0000 1.5
+++ po/why-free.ko-diff.html 9 Sep 2021 10:04:53 -0000 1.6
@@ -11,19 +11,28 @@
</style></head>
<body><pre>
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!-- Parent-Version: 1.77
--></em></ins></span>
+<!-- Parent-Version: <span
class="removed"><del><strong>1.77</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>1.96 -->
+<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
+<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays aboutfs principles" -->
+<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes"</em></ins></span> -->
<title>Why Software Should Not Have Owners
-- GNU Project - Free Software <span class="removed"><del><strong>Foundation
(FSF)</title></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Foundation</title></em></ins></span>
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
<meta name="Keywords" content="GNU, GNU Project, FSF, Free Software, Free
Software Foundation, Why Software Should Not Have Owners" />
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/why-free.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
-
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
+<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
+<div class="article reduced-width"></em></ins></span>
<h2>Why Software Should Not Have Owners</h2>
-<p>by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/"><strong>Richard
-Stallman</strong></a></p>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>by</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><address
class="byline">by</em></ins></span> <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.stallman.org/"><strong>Richard
+Stallman</strong></a></p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://www.stallman.org/">Richard
+Stallman</a></address></em></ins></span>
<p>
Digital information technology contributes to the world by making it
@@ -32,7 +41,7 @@
<p>
Not everyone wants it to be easier. The system of copyright gives
-software programs “owners”, most of whom aim to withhold
+software programs <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“owners”,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“owners,”</em></ins></span> most of whom
aim to withhold
software's potential benefit from the rest of the public. They would
like to be the only ones who can copy and modify the software that we
use.</p>
@@ -65,7 +74,7 @@
<li>Prosecution (by the US government, at the SPA's request) of people
such as
-<acronym title="Massachusetts Institute of
Technology">MIT</acronym>'s
+<abbr title="Massachusetts Institute of Technology">MIT</abbr>'s
David LaMacchia, not for copying software (he is not accused of
copying any), but merely for leaving copying facilities unguarded and
failing to censor their use.<a href="#footnote1">[1]</a></li>
@@ -91,8 +100,9 @@
<p>
Owners use smear words such as “piracy” and
-“theft”, as well as expert terminology such as
-“intellectual property” and “damage”, to
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>“theft”,</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“theft,”</em></ins></span> as well
as expert terminology such as
+“intellectual property” and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“damage”,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“damage,”</em></ins></span> to
suggest a certain line of thinking to the public—a simplistic
analogy between programs and physical objects.</p>
@@ -245,7 +255,7 @@
<p>
And, above all, society needs to encourage the spirit of voluntary
cooperation in its citizens. When software owners tell us that
-helping our neighbors in a natural way is “piracy”, they
+helping our neighbors in a natural way is <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“piracy”,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“piracy,”</em></ins></span> they
pollute our society's civic spirit.</p>
<p>
@@ -310,46 +320,32 @@
<p>
You deserve free software.</p>
-<span
class="removed"><del><strong><h4>Footnotes</h4></strong></del></span>
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong><h3>Footnotes</h3></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="column-limit"></div>
-<span
class="inserted"><ins><em><h3>Footnotes</h3></em></ins></span>
+<h3 class="footnote">Footnote</h3></em></ins></span>
<ol>
<li id="footnote1">The charges were subsequently dismissed.</li>
</ol>
-<hr />
-<span class="removed"><del><strong><h4>This</strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><blockquote id="fsfs"><p
class="big">This</em></ins></span> essay is published
-in <a
href="http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free
+<hr <span class="inserted"><ins><em>class="no-display"</em></ins></span>
/>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><blockquote
id="fsfs"><p>This</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="edu-note c"><p
id="fsfs">This</em></ins></span> essay is published in
+<a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free</em></ins></span>
Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard
-M. <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Stallman</cite></a>.</h4>
-
-</div>
+M. <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Stallman</cite></a>.</p></blockquote></strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Stallman</cite></a>.</p></div>
+</div></em></ins></span>
-<!-- All pages on the GNU web server should have the section about -->
-<!-- verbatim copying. Please do NOT remove this without talking -->
-<!-- with the webmasters first. -->
-<!-- Please make sure the copyright date is consistent
with</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Stallman</cite></a>.</p></blockquote>
-
-</div><!-- for id="content", starts in</em></ins></span> the <span
class="removed"><del><strong>document -->
-<!-- and that it is like this "2001, 2002" not this
"2001-2002."</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>include
above</em></ins></span> -->
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
-<div id="footer">
-
-<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>
-Please</strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="unprintable">
+<div <span
class="removed"><del><strong>id="footer"></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>id="footer" role="contentinfo"></em></ins></span>
+<div class="unprintable">
-<p>Please</em></ins></span> send <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>general</em></ins></span> FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>.
There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
-the FSF.
-<span class="removed"><del><strong><br />
-Please send broken</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Broken</em></ins></span> links and other corrections
or suggestions <span class="inserted"><ins><em>can be sent</em></ins></span>
-to <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.
-</p>
-
-<p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p>
+the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to <a
href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p>
<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
replace it with the translation of these two:
@@ -360,23 +356,19 @@
to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">
<web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p>
- <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ <p>For information on coordinating and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> translations of
our web pages, see <a
href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
- README</a>. --></em></ins></span>
+ README</a>. -->
Please see the <a
href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
-README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
-of this <span class="removed"><del><strong>article.
-</p>
-
-<p>
-Copyright</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>article.</p>
+README</a> for information on coordinating and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> 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 3.0 US. Please do NOT change or remove this
+ be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this
without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
@@ -391,26 +383,22 @@
There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
-<p>Copyright</em></ins></span> © 1994, 2009 Richard <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Stallman
-<br />
-This</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>Stallman</p>
-
-<p>This</em></ins></span> page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
-href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative
-Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States <span
class="removed"><del><strong>License</a>.
-</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>License</a>.</p></em></ins></span>
+<p>Copyright © 1994, 2009, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2020</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2021</em></ins></span> Richard Stallman</p>
-<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+<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>
-<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>Updated:</strong></del></span>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p
class="unprintable">Updated:</em></ins></span>
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2014/04/12 14:00:09 $
+$Date: 2021/09/09 10:04:53 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
-</div>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong></div></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div><!-- for class="inner", starts
in the banner include --></em></ins></span>
</body>
</html>
</pre></body></html>
Index: po/why-free.nl-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/why-free.nl-diff.html,v
retrieving revision 1.5
retrieving revision 1.6
diff -u -b -r1.5 -r1.6
--- po/why-free.nl-diff.html 12 Apr 2014 14:00:09 -0000 1.5
+++ po/why-free.nl-diff.html 9 Sep 2021 10:04:53 -0000 1.6
@@ -11,19 +11,28 @@
</style></head>
<body><pre>
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!-- Parent-Version: 1.77
--></em></ins></span>
+<!-- Parent-Version: <span
class="removed"><del><strong>1.77</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>1.96 -->
+<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
+<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays aboutfs principles" -->
+<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes"</em></ins></span> -->
<title>Why Software Should Not Have Owners
-- GNU Project - Free Software <span class="removed"><del><strong>Foundation
(FSF)</title></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Foundation</title></em></ins></span>
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
<meta name="Keywords" content="GNU, GNU Project, FSF, Free Software, Free
Software Foundation, Why Software Should Not Have Owners" />
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/why-free.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
-
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
+<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
+<div class="article reduced-width"></em></ins></span>
<h2>Why Software Should Not Have Owners</h2>
-<p>by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/"><strong>Richard
-Stallman</strong></a></p>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>by</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><address
class="byline">by</em></ins></span> <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.stallman.org/"><strong>Richard
+Stallman</strong></a></p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://www.stallman.org/">Richard
+Stallman</a></address></em></ins></span>
<p>
Digital information technology contributes to the world by making it
@@ -32,7 +41,7 @@
<p>
Not everyone wants it to be easier. The system of copyright gives
-software programs “owners”, most of whom aim to withhold
+software programs <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“owners”,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“owners,”</em></ins></span> most of whom
aim to withhold
software's potential benefit from the rest of the public. They would
like to be the only ones who can copy and modify the software that we
use.</p>
@@ -65,7 +74,7 @@
<li>Prosecution (by the US government, at the SPA's request) of people
such as
-<acronym title="Massachusetts Institute of
Technology">MIT</acronym>'s
+<abbr title="Massachusetts Institute of Technology">MIT</abbr>'s
David LaMacchia, not for copying software (he is not accused of
copying any), but merely for leaving copying facilities unguarded and
failing to censor their use.<a href="#footnote1">[1]</a></li>
@@ -91,8 +100,9 @@
<p>
Owners use smear words such as “piracy” and
-“theft”, as well as expert terminology such as
-“intellectual property” and “damage”, to
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>“theft”,</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“theft,”</em></ins></span> as well
as expert terminology such as
+“intellectual property” and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“damage”,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“damage,”</em></ins></span> to
suggest a certain line of thinking to the public—a simplistic
analogy between programs and physical objects.</p>
@@ -245,7 +255,7 @@
<p>
And, above all, society needs to encourage the spirit of voluntary
cooperation in its citizens. When software owners tell us that
-helping our neighbors in a natural way is “piracy”, they
+helping our neighbors in a natural way is <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“piracy”,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“piracy,”</em></ins></span> they
pollute our society's civic spirit.</p>
<p>
@@ -310,46 +320,32 @@
<p>
You deserve free software.</p>
-<span
class="removed"><del><strong><h4>Footnotes</h4></strong></del></span>
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong><h3>Footnotes</h3></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="column-limit"></div>
-<span
class="inserted"><ins><em><h3>Footnotes</h3></em></ins></span>
+<h3 class="footnote">Footnote</h3></em></ins></span>
<ol>
<li id="footnote1">The charges were subsequently dismissed.</li>
</ol>
-<hr />
-<span class="removed"><del><strong><h4>This</strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><blockquote id="fsfs"><p
class="big">This</em></ins></span> essay is published
-in <a
href="http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free
+<hr <span class="inserted"><ins><em>class="no-display"</em></ins></span>
/>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><blockquote
id="fsfs"><p>This</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="edu-note c"><p
id="fsfs">This</em></ins></span> essay is published in
+<a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free</em></ins></span>
Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard
-M. <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Stallman</cite></a>.</h4>
-
-</div>
+M. <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Stallman</cite></a>.</p></blockquote></strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Stallman</cite></a>.</p></div>
+</div></em></ins></span>
-<!-- All pages on the GNU web server should have the section about -->
-<!-- verbatim copying. Please do NOT remove this without talking -->
-<!-- with the webmasters first. -->
-<!-- Please make sure the copyright date is consistent
with</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Stallman</cite></a>.</p></blockquote>
-
-</div><!-- for id="content", starts in</em></ins></span> the <span
class="removed"><del><strong>document -->
-<!-- and that it is like this "2001, 2002" not this
"2001-2002."</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>include
above</em></ins></span> -->
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
-<div id="footer">
-
-<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>
-Please</strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="unprintable">
+<div <span
class="removed"><del><strong>id="footer"></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>id="footer" role="contentinfo"></em></ins></span>
+<div class="unprintable">
-<p>Please</em></ins></span> send <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>general</em></ins></span> FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>.
There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
-the FSF.
-<span class="removed"><del><strong><br />
-Please send broken</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Broken</em></ins></span> links and other corrections
or suggestions <span class="inserted"><ins><em>can be sent</em></ins></span>
-to <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.
-</p>
-
-<p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p>
+the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to <a
href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p>
<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
replace it with the translation of these two:
@@ -360,23 +356,19 @@
to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">
<web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p>
- <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ <p>For information on coordinating and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> translations of
our web pages, see <a
href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
- README</a>. --></em></ins></span>
+ README</a>. -->
Please see the <a
href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
-README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
-of this <span class="removed"><del><strong>article.
-</p>
-
-<p>
-Copyright</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>article.</p>
+README</a> for information on coordinating and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> 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 3.0 US. Please do NOT change or remove this
+ be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this
without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
@@ -391,26 +383,22 @@
There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
-<p>Copyright</em></ins></span> © 1994, 2009 Richard <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Stallman
-<br />
-This</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>Stallman</p>
-
-<p>This</em></ins></span> page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
-href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative
-Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States <span
class="removed"><del><strong>License</a>.
-</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>License</a>.</p></em></ins></span>
+<p>Copyright © 1994, 2009, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2020</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2021</em></ins></span> Richard Stallman</p>
-<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+<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>
-<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>Updated:</strong></del></span>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p
class="unprintable">Updated:</em></ins></span>
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2014/04/12 14:00:09 $
+$Date: 2021/09/09 10:04:53 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
-</div>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong></div></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div><!-- for class="inner", starts
in the banner include --></em></ins></span>
</body>
</html>
</pre></body></html>
Index: po/why-free.zh-tw-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/why-free.zh-tw-diff.html,v
retrieving revision 1.5
retrieving revision 1.6
diff -u -b -r1.5 -r1.6
--- po/why-free.zh-tw-diff.html 12 Apr 2014 14:00:10 -0000 1.5
+++ po/why-free.zh-tw-diff.html 9 Sep 2021 10:04:53 -0000 1.6
@@ -11,19 +11,28 @@
</style></head>
<body><pre>
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!-- Parent-Version: 1.77
--></em></ins></span>
+<!-- Parent-Version: <span
class="removed"><del><strong>1.77</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>1.96 -->
+<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
+<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays aboutfs principles" -->
+<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes"</em></ins></span> -->
<title>Why Software Should Not Have Owners
-- GNU Project - Free Software <span class="removed"><del><strong>Foundation
(FSF)</title></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Foundation</title></em></ins></span>
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
<meta name="Keywords" content="GNU, GNU Project, FSF, Free Software, Free
Software Foundation, Why Software Should Not Have Owners" />
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/why-free.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
-
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
+<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
+<div class="article reduced-width"></em></ins></span>
<h2>Why Software Should Not Have Owners</h2>
-<p>by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/"><strong>Richard
-Stallman</strong></a></p>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>by</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><address
class="byline">by</em></ins></span> <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.stallman.org/"><strong>Richard
+Stallman</strong></a></p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://www.stallman.org/">Richard
+Stallman</a></address></em></ins></span>
<p>
Digital information technology contributes to the world by making it
@@ -32,7 +41,7 @@
<p>
Not everyone wants it to be easier. The system of copyright gives
-software programs “owners”, most of whom aim to withhold
+software programs <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“owners”,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“owners,”</em></ins></span> most of whom
aim to withhold
software's potential benefit from the rest of the public. They would
like to be the only ones who can copy and modify the software that we
use.</p>
@@ -65,7 +74,7 @@
<li>Prosecution (by the US government, at the SPA's request) of people
such as
-<acronym title="Massachusetts Institute of
Technology">MIT</acronym>'s
+<abbr title="Massachusetts Institute of Technology">MIT</abbr>'s
David LaMacchia, not for copying software (he is not accused of
copying any), but merely for leaving copying facilities unguarded and
failing to censor their use.<a href="#footnote1">[1]</a></li>
@@ -91,8 +100,9 @@
<p>
Owners use smear words such as “piracy” and
-“theft”, as well as expert terminology such as
-“intellectual property” and “damage”, to
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>“theft”,</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“theft,”</em></ins></span> as well
as expert terminology such as
+“intellectual property” and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“damage”,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“damage,”</em></ins></span> to
suggest a certain line of thinking to the public—a simplistic
analogy between programs and physical objects.</p>
@@ -245,7 +255,7 @@
<p>
And, above all, society needs to encourage the spirit of voluntary
cooperation in its citizens. When software owners tell us that
-helping our neighbors in a natural way is “piracy”, they
+helping our neighbors in a natural way is <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“piracy”,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“piracy,”</em></ins></span> they
pollute our society's civic spirit.</p>
<p>
@@ -310,46 +320,32 @@
<p>
You deserve free software.</p>
-<span
class="removed"><del><strong><h4>Footnotes</h4></strong></del></span>
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong><h3>Footnotes</h3></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="column-limit"></div>
-<span
class="inserted"><ins><em><h3>Footnotes</h3></em></ins></span>
+<h3 class="footnote">Footnote</h3></em></ins></span>
<ol>
<li id="footnote1">The charges were subsequently dismissed.</li>
</ol>
-<hr />
-<span class="removed"><del><strong><h4>This</strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><blockquote id="fsfs"><p
class="big">This</em></ins></span> essay is published
-in <a
href="http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free
+<hr <span class="inserted"><ins><em>class="no-display"</em></ins></span>
/>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><blockquote
id="fsfs"><p>This</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="edu-note c"><p
id="fsfs">This</em></ins></span> essay is published in
+<a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free</em></ins></span>
Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard
-M. <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Stallman</cite></a>.</h4>
-
-</div>
+M. <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Stallman</cite></a>.</p></blockquote></strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Stallman</cite></a>.</p></div>
+</div></em></ins></span>
-<!-- All pages on the GNU web server should have the section about -->
-<!-- verbatim copying. Please do NOT remove this without talking -->
-<!-- with the webmasters first. -->
-<!-- Please make sure the copyright date is consistent
with</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Stallman</cite></a>.</p></blockquote>
-
-</div><!-- for id="content", starts in</em></ins></span> the <span
class="removed"><del><strong>document -->
-<!-- and that it is like this "2001, 2002" not this
"2001-2002."</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>include
above</em></ins></span> -->
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
-<div id="footer">
-
-<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>
-Please</strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="unprintable">
+<div <span
class="removed"><del><strong>id="footer"></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>id="footer" role="contentinfo"></em></ins></span>
+<div class="unprintable">
-<p>Please</em></ins></span> send <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>general</em></ins></span> FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>.
There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
-the FSF.
-<span class="removed"><del><strong><br />
-Please send broken</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Broken</em></ins></span> links and other corrections
or suggestions <span class="inserted"><ins><em>can be sent</em></ins></span>
-to <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.
-</p>
-
-<p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p>
+the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to <a
href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p>
<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
replace it with the translation of these two:
@@ -360,23 +356,19 @@
to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">
<web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p>
- <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ <p>For information on coordinating and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> translations of
our web pages, see <a
href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
- README</a>. --></em></ins></span>
+ README</a>. -->
Please see the <a
href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
-README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
-of this <span class="removed"><del><strong>article.
-</p>
-
-<p>
-Copyright</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>article.</p>
+README</a> for information on coordinating and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> 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 3.0 US. Please do NOT change or remove this
+ be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this
without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
@@ -391,26 +383,22 @@
There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
-<p>Copyright</em></ins></span> © 1994, 2009 Richard <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Stallman
-<br />
-This</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>Stallman</p>
-
-<p>This</em></ins></span> page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
-href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative
-Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States <span
class="removed"><del><strong>License</a>.
-</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>License</a>.</p></em></ins></span>
+<p>Copyright © 1994, 2009, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2020</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2021</em></ins></span> Richard Stallman</p>
-<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+<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>
-<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>Updated:</strong></del></span>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p
class="unprintable">Updated:</em></ins></span>
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2014/04/12 14:00:10 $
+$Date: 2021/09/09 10:04:53 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
-</div>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong></div></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div><!-- for class="inner", starts
in the banner include --></em></ins></span>
</body>
</html>
</pre></body></html>
Index: po/free-doc.ja-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/free-doc.ja-diff.html
diff -N po/free-doc.ja-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/free-doc.ja-diff.html 9 Sep 2021 10:04:51 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,248 @@
+<!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-doc.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>1.79</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>1.96 -->
+<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
+<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays aboutfs extension" -->
+<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes"</em></ins></span> -->
+<title>Why Free Software <span
class="removed"><del><strong>needs</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Needs</em></ins></span> Free Documentation
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/free-doc.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
+<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
+<div class="article reduced-width"></em></ins></span>
+<h2>Why Free Software <span
class="removed"><del><strong>needs</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Needs</em></ins></span> Free Documentation</h2>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><blockquote
class="announcement"><p>
+<a href="http://defectivebydesign.org/ebooks.html">Join our mailing list
+about the dangers of eBooks</a>.
+</p></blockquote>
+
+<ul>
+<li><a href="/copyleft/fdl.html">The GNU Free Documentation
License</a></li>
+</ul></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div
class="thin"></div></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>
+The biggest deficiency in free operating systems is not in the
+software—it is the lack of good free manuals that we can include
+in these systems. Many of our most important programs do not come
+with full manuals. Documentation is an essential part of any software
+package; when an important free software package does not come with a
+free manual, that is a major gap. We have many such gaps today.</p>
+
+<p>
+Once upon a time, many years ago, I thought I would learn Perl. I got
+a copy of a free manual, but I found it hard to read. When I asked
+Perl users about alternatives, they told me that there were better
+introductory manuals—but those were not free (not
+freedom-respecting).</p>
+
+<p>
+Why was this? The authors of the good manuals had written them for
+O'Reilly Associates, which published them with restrictive
+terms—no copying, no modification, source files not
+available—which made them nonfree, thus excluded them from the
+Free World.</p>
+
+<p>
+That wasn't the first time this sort of thing has happened, and (to
+our community's great loss) it was far from the last. Proprietary
+manual publishers have enticed a great many authors to restrict their
+manuals since then. Many times I have heard a GNU user eagerly tell
+me about a manual that he is writing, with which he expects to help
+the GNU Project—and then had my hopes dashed, as he proceeded to
+explain that he had signed a contract with a publisher that would
+restrict it so that we cannot use it.</p>
+
+<p>
+Given that writing good English is a rare skill among programmers, we
+can ill afford to lose manuals this way.</p>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><hr class="no-display" />
+<div class="announcement" role="complementary"><p>
+<a href="https://defectivebydesign.org/ebooks.html">Join our mailing list
+about the dangers of eBooks</a>.
+</p></div>
+<hr class="no-display" /></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>
+Free documentation, like free software, is a matter of freedom, not
+price. The problem with these manuals was not that O'Reilly
+Associates charged a price for printed copies—that in itself is
+fine. (The Free Software Foundation
+<a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://shop.fsf.org/category/books/">sells</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://shop.fsf.org/category/books/">sells</em></ins></span>
printed
+copies</a> of free <a href="/doc/doc.html">GNU manuals</a>,
too.) But
+GNU manuals are available in source code form, while these manuals are
+available only on paper. GNU manuals come with permission to copy and
+modify; the Perl manuals do not. These restrictions are the
problems.</p>
+
+<p>
+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 redistribution) must be
+permitted, so that the manual can accompany every copy of the program,
+on line or on paper. Permission for modification is crucial too.</p>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><ul>
+<li><a href="/licenses/fdl.html">The GNU Free Documentation
License</a></li>
+</ul></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>
+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. The issues
+for writings are not necessarily the same as those for software. 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 manual
+which forbids programmers from being conscientious and finishing the job, or
+more precisely requires them to write a new manual from scratch if
+they change the program, does not fill our community's needs.</p>
+
+<p>
+While a blanket prohibition on modification is unacceptable, some
+kinds of limits on the method of modification 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. (Some GNU manuals have them.)</p>
+
+<p>
+These kinds of restrictions are not a problem because, as a practical
+matter, 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 through all the usual
+media, through all the usual channels; otherwise, the restrictions do
+block the community, the manual is not free, and so we need another
+manual.</p>
+
+<p>
+Unfortunately, it is often hard to find someone to write another
+manual when a proprietary manual exists. The obstacle is that many
+users think that a proprietary manual is good enough—so they
+don't see the need to write a free manual. They do not see that the
+free operating system has a gap that needs filling.</p>
+
+<p>
+Why do users think that proprietary manuals are good enough? Some
+have not considered the issue. I hope this article will do something
+to change that.</p>
+
+<p>
+Other users consider proprietary manuals acceptable for the same
+reason so many people consider proprietary software acceptable: they
+judge in purely practical terms, not using freedom as a criterion.
+These people are entitled to their opinions, but since those opinions
+spring from values which do not include freedom, they are no guide for
+those of us who do value freedom.</p>
+
+<p>
+Please spread the word about this issue. We continue to lose manuals
+to proprietary publishing. If we spread the word that proprietary
+manuals are not sufficient, perhaps the next person who wants to help
+GNU by writing documentation will realize, before it is too late, that
+he must above all make it free.</p>
+
+<p>
+We can also encourage commercial publishers to sell free, copylefted
+manuals instead of proprietary ones. One way you can help this is to
+check the distribution terms of a manual before you buy it, and
+prefer copylefted manuals to noncopylefted ones.</p>
+<p>
+[Note: We maintain a <a href="/doc/other-free-books.html">page
+that lists free books available from other publishers</a>].</p>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div></em></ins></span>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div <span
class="removed"><del><strong>id="footer"></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>id="footer" role="contentinfo"></em></ins></span>
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></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:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></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:web-translators@gnu.org">
+ <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> 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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> 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, <span class="removed"><del><strong>1997, 1998,
1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004,
+2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2015, 2016, 2019</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2019, 2021</em></ins></span> Free Software
+Foundation, Inc.</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/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: 2021/09/09 10:04:51 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong></div></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div><!-- for class="inner", starts
in the banner include --></em></ins></span>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: po/free-doc.zh-tw-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/free-doc.zh-tw-diff.html
diff -N po/free-doc.zh-tw-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/free-doc.zh-tw-diff.html 9 Sep 2021 10:04:53 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,248 @@
+<!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-doc.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>1.79</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>1.96 -->
+<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
+<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays aboutfs extension" -->
+<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes"</em></ins></span> -->
+<title>Why Free Software <span
class="removed"><del><strong>needs</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Needs</em></ins></span> Free Documentation
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/free-doc.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
+<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
+<div class="article reduced-width"></em></ins></span>
+<h2>Why Free Software <span
class="removed"><del><strong>needs</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Needs</em></ins></span> Free Documentation</h2>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><blockquote
class="announcement"><p>
+<a href="http://defectivebydesign.org/ebooks.html">Join our mailing list
+about the dangers of eBooks</a>.
+</p></blockquote>
+
+<ul>
+<li><a href="/copyleft/fdl.html">The GNU Free Documentation
License</a></li>
+</ul></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div
class="thin"></div></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>
+The biggest deficiency in free operating systems is not in the
+software—it is the lack of good free manuals that we can include
+in these systems. Many of our most important programs do not come
+with full manuals. Documentation is an essential part of any software
+package; when an important free software package does not come with a
+free manual, that is a major gap. We have many such gaps today.</p>
+
+<p>
+Once upon a time, many years ago, I thought I would learn Perl. I got
+a copy of a free manual, but I found it hard to read. When I asked
+Perl users about alternatives, they told me that there were better
+introductory manuals—but those were not free (not
+freedom-respecting).</p>
+
+<p>
+Why was this? The authors of the good manuals had written them for
+O'Reilly Associates, which published them with restrictive
+terms—no copying, no modification, source files not
+available—which made them nonfree, thus excluded them from the
+Free World.</p>
+
+<p>
+That wasn't the first time this sort of thing has happened, and (to
+our community's great loss) it was far from the last. Proprietary
+manual publishers have enticed a great many authors to restrict their
+manuals since then. Many times I have heard a GNU user eagerly tell
+me about a manual that he is writing, with which he expects to help
+the GNU Project—and then had my hopes dashed, as he proceeded to
+explain that he had signed a contract with a publisher that would
+restrict it so that we cannot use it.</p>
+
+<p>
+Given that writing good English is a rare skill among programmers, we
+can ill afford to lose manuals this way.</p>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><hr class="no-display" />
+<div class="announcement" role="complementary"><p>
+<a href="https://defectivebydesign.org/ebooks.html">Join our mailing list
+about the dangers of eBooks</a>.
+</p></div>
+<hr class="no-display" /></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>
+Free documentation, like free software, is a matter of freedom, not
+price. The problem with these manuals was not that O'Reilly
+Associates charged a price for printed copies—that in itself is
+fine. (The Free Software Foundation
+<a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://shop.fsf.org/category/books/">sells</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://shop.fsf.org/category/books/">sells</em></ins></span>
printed
+copies</a> of free <a href="/doc/doc.html">GNU manuals</a>,
too.) But
+GNU manuals are available in source code form, while these manuals are
+available only on paper. GNU manuals come with permission to copy and
+modify; the Perl manuals do not. These restrictions are the
problems.</p>
+
+<p>
+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 redistribution) must be
+permitted, so that the manual can accompany every copy of the program,
+on line or on paper. Permission for modification is crucial too.</p>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><ul>
+<li><a href="/licenses/fdl.html">The GNU Free Documentation
License</a></li>
+</ul></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>
+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. The issues
+for writings are not necessarily the same as those for software. 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 manual
+which forbids programmers from being conscientious and finishing the job, or
+more precisely requires them to write a new manual from scratch if
+they change the program, does not fill our community's needs.</p>
+
+<p>
+While a blanket prohibition on modification is unacceptable, some
+kinds of limits on the method of modification 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. (Some GNU manuals have them.)</p>
+
+<p>
+These kinds of restrictions are not a problem because, as a practical
+matter, 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 through all the usual
+media, through all the usual channels; otherwise, the restrictions do
+block the community, the manual is not free, and so we need another
+manual.</p>
+
+<p>
+Unfortunately, it is often hard to find someone to write another
+manual when a proprietary manual exists. The obstacle is that many
+users think that a proprietary manual is good enough—so they
+don't see the need to write a free manual. They do not see that the
+free operating system has a gap that needs filling.</p>
+
+<p>
+Why do users think that proprietary manuals are good enough? Some
+have not considered the issue. I hope this article will do something
+to change that.</p>
+
+<p>
+Other users consider proprietary manuals acceptable for the same
+reason so many people consider proprietary software acceptable: they
+judge in purely practical terms, not using freedom as a criterion.
+These people are entitled to their opinions, but since those opinions
+spring from values which do not include freedom, they are no guide for
+those of us who do value freedom.</p>
+
+<p>
+Please spread the word about this issue. We continue to lose manuals
+to proprietary publishing. If we spread the word that proprietary
+manuals are not sufficient, perhaps the next person who wants to help
+GNU by writing documentation will realize, before it is too late, that
+he must above all make it free.</p>
+
+<p>
+We can also encourage commercial publishers to sell free, copylefted
+manuals instead of proprietary ones. One way you can help this is to
+check the distribution terms of a manual before you buy it, and
+prefer copylefted manuals to noncopylefted ones.</p>
+<p>
+[Note: We maintain a <a href="/doc/other-free-books.html">page
+that lists free books available from other publishers</a>].</p>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div></em></ins></span>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div <span
class="removed"><del><strong>id="footer"></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>id="footer" role="contentinfo"></em></ins></span>
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></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:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></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:web-translators@gnu.org">
+ <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> 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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> 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, <span class="removed"><del><strong>1997, 1998,
1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004,
+2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2015, 2016, 2019</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2019, 2021</em></ins></span> Free Software
+Foundation, Inc.</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/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: 2021/09/09 10:04:53 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong></div></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div><!-- for class="inner", starts
in the banner include --></em></ins></span>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.de-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.de-diff.html
diff -N po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.de-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.de-diff.html 9 Sep
2021 10:04:53 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,214 @@
+<!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/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.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>1.79</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>1.96 -->
+<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
+<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays aboutfs practice" -->
+<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes"</em></ins></span> -->
+<title> When Free Software Isn't (Practically) Superior - GNU Project -
Free Software Foundation</title>
+ <!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.translist"
-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
+<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
+<div class="article reduced-width"></em></ins></span>
+<h2> When Free Software Isn't (Practically) Superior</h2>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><p></strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><address
class="byline"></em></ins></span>
+by <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="https://mako.cc/writing/"><strong>Benjamin</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://mako.cc/writing/">Benjamin</em></ins></span>
Mako <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Hill</strong></a></p></strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Hill</a></address></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>The Open Source Initiative's mission statement reads, “Open
source
+is a development method for software that harnesses the power of
+distributed peer review and transparency of process. The promise of
+open source is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility,
+lower cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in.”</p>
+
+<p>For more than a decade now, the Free Software Foundation has argued
+against this “open source” characterization of the free software
+movement. Free software advocates have primarily argued against this
+framing because “open source” is an explicit effort to deemphasize
+our core message of freedom and obscure our movement's role in the
+success of the software we have built. We have argued that “open
+source” is bad, fundamentally, because it attempts to keep people from
+talking about software freedom. But there is another reason we should
+be wary of the open source framing. The fundamental open source
+argument, as quoted in the mission statement above, is often
+incorrect.</p>
+
+<p>Although the Open Source Initiative suggests “the promise of
open
+source is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility,” this
+promise is not always realized. Although we do not often advertise the
+fact, any user of an early-stage free software project can explain
+that free software is not always as convenient, in purely practical
+terms, as its proprietary competitors. Free software is sometimes low
+quality. It is sometimes unreliable. It is sometimes inflexible. If
+people take the arguments in favor of open source seriously, they must
+explain why open source has not lived up to its “promise” and
conclude
+that proprietary tools would be a better choice. There is no reason we
+should have to do either.</p>
+
+<p>Richard Stallman speaks to this in his article on <a
+href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">Why
+Open Source Misses the Point</a> when he explains, “The idea of
open
+source is that allowing users to change and redistribute the software
+will make it more powerful and reliable. But this is not
+guaranteed. Developers of proprietary software are not necessarily
+incompetent. Sometimes they produce a program that is powerful and
+reliable, even though it does not respect the users' freedom.”</p>
+
+<p>For open source, poor-quality software is a problem to be explained
+away or a reason to eschew the software altogether. For free software,
+it is a problem to be worked through. For free software advocates,
+glitches and missing features are never a source of shame.
+Any piece of free software that respects users' freedom has a strong
+inherent advantage over a proprietary competitor that does not. Even
+if it has other issues, free software always has freedom.</p>
+
+<p>Of course, every piece of free software must start somewhere. A
brand-new
+piece of software, for example, is unlikely to be more featureful
+than an established proprietary tool. Projects
+begin with many bugs and improve over time. While open
+source advocates might argue that a project will grow into usefulness
+over time and with luck, free software projects represent important
+contributions on day one to a free software advocate. Every piece of
+software that gives users control over their technology is a step
+forward. Improved quality as a project matures is the icing on the
+cake.</p>
+
+<p>A second, perhaps even more damning, fact is that the collaborative,
+distributed, peer-review development process at the heart of the
+definition of open source bears little resemblance to the practice of
+software development in the vast majority of projects under free (or
+“open source”) licenses.</p>
+
+<p>Several academic studies of <a
href="/software/repo-criteria.html">
+free software hosting sites</a> SourceForge and <a
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://sv.gnu.org">Savannah</a></strong></del></span>
+<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://sv.gnu.org">Savannah</a></em></ins></span>
have shown what many free
+software developers who have put a codebase online already know
+first-hand. The vast majority of free software projects are not
+particularly collaborative. The median number of contributors to a
+free software project on SourceForge? One. A lone
+developer. SourceForge projects at the ninety-fifth percentile by
+participant size have only five contributors. More than half of these
+free software projects—and even most projects that have made several
+successful releases and been downloaded frequently, are the work of a
+single developer with little outside help.</p>
+
+<p>By emphasizing the power of collaborative development and
“distributed
+peer review,” open source approaches seem to have very little to say
+about why one should use, or contribute to, the vast majority of free
+software projects. Because the purported benefits of collaboration
+cannot be realized when there is no collaboration, the vast majority
+of free development projects are at no technical advantage with respect to a
+proprietary competitor.</p>
+
+<p>For free software advocates, these same projects are each seen as
+important successes. Because every piece of free software respects its
+users' freedom, advocates of software freedom argue that each piece of
+free software begins with an inherent ethical advantage over
+proprietary competitors—even a more featureful one. By emphasizing
+freedom over practical advantages, free software's advocacy is rooted
+in a technical reality in a way that open source is often not. When
+free software is better, we can celebrate this fact. When it is not,
+we need not treat it as a damning critique of free software advocacy
+or even as a compelling argument against the use of the software in
+question.</p>
+
+<p>Open source advocates must defend their thesis that freely developed
+software should, or will with time, be better than proprietary
+software. Free software supporters can instead ask, “How can we make
+free software better?” In a free software framing, high quality software
+exists as a means to an end rather than an end itself. Free software
+developers should strive to create functional, flexible software that
+serves its users well. But doing so is not the only way to make steps
+toward solving what is both an easier and a much more profoundly
+important goal: respecting and protecting their freedom.</p>
+
+<p>Of course, we do not need to reject arguments that collaboration can
+play an important role in creating high-quality software. In many of
+the most successful free software projects, it clearly has done
+exactly that. The benefits of collaboration become something to
+understand, support, and work towards, rather than something to take
+for granted in the face of evidence that refuses to conform to
+ideology.</p>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div></em></ins></span>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div <span
class="removed"><del><strong>id="footer"></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>id="footer" role="contentinfo"></em></ins></span>
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></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:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></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:web-translators@gnu.org">
+ <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> 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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> 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 © 1999-2011 Benjamin Mako Hill</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2021/09/09 10:04:53 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong></div></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div><!-- for class="inner", starts
in the banner include --></em></ins></span>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.it-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.it-diff.html
diff -N po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.it-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.it-diff.html 9 Sep
2021 10:04:53 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,214 @@
+<!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/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.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>1.79</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>1.96 -->
+<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
+<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays aboutfs practice" -->
+<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes"</em></ins></span> -->
+<title> When Free Software Isn't (Practically) Superior - GNU Project -
Free Software Foundation</title>
+ <!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.translist"
-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
+<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
+<div class="article reduced-width"></em></ins></span>
+<h2> When Free Software Isn't (Practically) Superior</h2>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><p></strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><address
class="byline"></em></ins></span>
+by <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="https://mako.cc/writing/"><strong>Benjamin</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://mako.cc/writing/">Benjamin</em></ins></span>
Mako <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Hill</strong></a></p></strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Hill</a></address></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>The Open Source Initiative's mission statement reads, “Open
source
+is a development method for software that harnesses the power of
+distributed peer review and transparency of process. The promise of
+open source is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility,
+lower cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in.”</p>
+
+<p>For more than a decade now, the Free Software Foundation has argued
+against this “open source” characterization of the free software
+movement. Free software advocates have primarily argued against this
+framing because “open source” is an explicit effort to deemphasize
+our core message of freedom and obscure our movement's role in the
+success of the software we have built. We have argued that “open
+source” is bad, fundamentally, because it attempts to keep people from
+talking about software freedom. But there is another reason we should
+be wary of the open source framing. The fundamental open source
+argument, as quoted in the mission statement above, is often
+incorrect.</p>
+
+<p>Although the Open Source Initiative suggests “the promise of
open
+source is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility,” this
+promise is not always realized. Although we do not often advertise the
+fact, any user of an early-stage free software project can explain
+that free software is not always as convenient, in purely practical
+terms, as its proprietary competitors. Free software is sometimes low
+quality. It is sometimes unreliable. It is sometimes inflexible. If
+people take the arguments in favor of open source seriously, they must
+explain why open source has not lived up to its “promise” and
conclude
+that proprietary tools would be a better choice. There is no reason we
+should have to do either.</p>
+
+<p>Richard Stallman speaks to this in his article on <a
+href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">Why
+Open Source Misses the Point</a> when he explains, “The idea of
open
+source is that allowing users to change and redistribute the software
+will make it more powerful and reliable. But this is not
+guaranteed. Developers of proprietary software are not necessarily
+incompetent. Sometimes they produce a program that is powerful and
+reliable, even though it does not respect the users' freedom.”</p>
+
+<p>For open source, poor-quality software is a problem to be explained
+away or a reason to eschew the software altogether. For free software,
+it is a problem to be worked through. For free software advocates,
+glitches and missing features are never a source of shame.
+Any piece of free software that respects users' freedom has a strong
+inherent advantage over a proprietary competitor that does not. Even
+if it has other issues, free software always has freedom.</p>
+
+<p>Of course, every piece of free software must start somewhere. A
brand-new
+piece of software, for example, is unlikely to be more featureful
+than an established proprietary tool. Projects
+begin with many bugs and improve over time. While open
+source advocates might argue that a project will grow into usefulness
+over time and with luck, free software projects represent important
+contributions on day one to a free software advocate. Every piece of
+software that gives users control over their technology is a step
+forward. Improved quality as a project matures is the icing on the
+cake.</p>
+
+<p>A second, perhaps even more damning, fact is that the collaborative,
+distributed, peer-review development process at the heart of the
+definition of open source bears little resemblance to the practice of
+software development in the vast majority of projects under free (or
+“open source”) licenses.</p>
+
+<p>Several academic studies of <a
href="/software/repo-criteria.html">
+free software hosting sites</a> SourceForge and <a
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://sv.gnu.org">Savannah</a></strong></del></span>
+<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://sv.gnu.org">Savannah</a></em></ins></span>
have shown what many free
+software developers who have put a codebase online already know
+first-hand. The vast majority of free software projects are not
+particularly collaborative. The median number of contributors to a
+free software project on SourceForge? One. A lone
+developer. SourceForge projects at the ninety-fifth percentile by
+participant size have only five contributors. More than half of these
+free software projects—and even most projects that have made several
+successful releases and been downloaded frequently, are the work of a
+single developer with little outside help.</p>
+
+<p>By emphasizing the power of collaborative development and
“distributed
+peer review,” open source approaches seem to have very little to say
+about why one should use, or contribute to, the vast majority of free
+software projects. Because the purported benefits of collaboration
+cannot be realized when there is no collaboration, the vast majority
+of free development projects are at no technical advantage with respect to a
+proprietary competitor.</p>
+
+<p>For free software advocates, these same projects are each seen as
+important successes. Because every piece of free software respects its
+users' freedom, advocates of software freedom argue that each piece of
+free software begins with an inherent ethical advantage over
+proprietary competitors—even a more featureful one. By emphasizing
+freedom over practical advantages, free software's advocacy is rooted
+in a technical reality in a way that open source is often not. When
+free software is better, we can celebrate this fact. When it is not,
+we need not treat it as a damning critique of free software advocacy
+or even as a compelling argument against the use of the software in
+question.</p>
+
+<p>Open source advocates must defend their thesis that freely developed
+software should, or will with time, be better than proprietary
+software. Free software supporters can instead ask, “How can we make
+free software better?” In a free software framing, high quality software
+exists as a means to an end rather than an end itself. Free software
+developers should strive to create functional, flexible software that
+serves its users well. But doing so is not the only way to make steps
+toward solving what is both an easier and a much more profoundly
+important goal: respecting and protecting their freedom.</p>
+
+<p>Of course, we do not need to reject arguments that collaboration can
+play an important role in creating high-quality software. In many of
+the most successful free software projects, it clearly has done
+exactly that. The benefits of collaboration become something to
+understand, support, and work towards, rather than something to take
+for granted in the face of evidence that refuses to conform to
+ideology.</p>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div></em></ins></span>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div <span
class="removed"><del><strong>id="footer"></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>id="footer" role="contentinfo"></em></ins></span>
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></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:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></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:web-translators@gnu.org">
+ <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> 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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> 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 © 1999-2011 Benjamin Mako Hill</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2021/09/09 10:04:53 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong></div></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div><!-- for class="inner", starts
in the banner include --></em></ins></span>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.ja-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.ja-diff.html
diff -N po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.ja-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.ja-diff.html 9 Sep
2021 10:04:53 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,214 @@
+<!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/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.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>1.79</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>1.96 -->
+<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
+<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays aboutfs practice" -->
+<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes"</em></ins></span> -->
+<title> When Free Software Isn't (Practically) Superior - GNU Project -
Free Software Foundation</title>
+ <!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.translist"
-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
+<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
+<div class="article reduced-width"></em></ins></span>
+<h2> When Free Software Isn't (Practically) Superior</h2>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><p></strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><address
class="byline"></em></ins></span>
+by <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="https://mako.cc/writing/"><strong>Benjamin</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://mako.cc/writing/">Benjamin</em></ins></span>
Mako <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Hill</strong></a></p></strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Hill</a></address></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>The Open Source Initiative's mission statement reads, “Open
source
+is a development method for software that harnesses the power of
+distributed peer review and transparency of process. The promise of
+open source is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility,
+lower cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in.”</p>
+
+<p>For more than a decade now, the Free Software Foundation has argued
+against this “open source” characterization of the free software
+movement. Free software advocates have primarily argued against this
+framing because “open source” is an explicit effort to deemphasize
+our core message of freedom and obscure our movement's role in the
+success of the software we have built. We have argued that “open
+source” is bad, fundamentally, because it attempts to keep people from
+talking about software freedom. But there is another reason we should
+be wary of the open source framing. The fundamental open source
+argument, as quoted in the mission statement above, is often
+incorrect.</p>
+
+<p>Although the Open Source Initiative suggests “the promise of
open
+source is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility,” this
+promise is not always realized. Although we do not often advertise the
+fact, any user of an early-stage free software project can explain
+that free software is not always as convenient, in purely practical
+terms, as its proprietary competitors. Free software is sometimes low
+quality. It is sometimes unreliable. It is sometimes inflexible. If
+people take the arguments in favor of open source seriously, they must
+explain why open source has not lived up to its “promise” and
conclude
+that proprietary tools would be a better choice. There is no reason we
+should have to do either.</p>
+
+<p>Richard Stallman speaks to this in his article on <a
+href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">Why
+Open Source Misses the Point</a> when he explains, “The idea of
open
+source is that allowing users to change and redistribute the software
+will make it more powerful and reliable. But this is not
+guaranteed. Developers of proprietary software are not necessarily
+incompetent. Sometimes they produce a program that is powerful and
+reliable, even though it does not respect the users' freedom.”</p>
+
+<p>For open source, poor-quality software is a problem to be explained
+away or a reason to eschew the software altogether. For free software,
+it is a problem to be worked through. For free software advocates,
+glitches and missing features are never a source of shame.
+Any piece of free software that respects users' freedom has a strong
+inherent advantage over a proprietary competitor that does not. Even
+if it has other issues, free software always has freedom.</p>
+
+<p>Of course, every piece of free software must start somewhere. A
brand-new
+piece of software, for example, is unlikely to be more featureful
+than an established proprietary tool. Projects
+begin with many bugs and improve over time. While open
+source advocates might argue that a project will grow into usefulness
+over time and with luck, free software projects represent important
+contributions on day one to a free software advocate. Every piece of
+software that gives users control over their technology is a step
+forward. Improved quality as a project matures is the icing on the
+cake.</p>
+
+<p>A second, perhaps even more damning, fact is that the collaborative,
+distributed, peer-review development process at the heart of the
+definition of open source bears little resemblance to the practice of
+software development in the vast majority of projects under free (or
+“open source”) licenses.</p>
+
+<p>Several academic studies of <a
href="/software/repo-criteria.html">
+free software hosting sites</a> SourceForge and <a
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://sv.gnu.org">Savannah</a></strong></del></span>
+<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://sv.gnu.org">Savannah</a></em></ins></span>
have shown what many free
+software developers who have put a codebase online already know
+first-hand. The vast majority of free software projects are not
+particularly collaborative. The median number of contributors to a
+free software project on SourceForge? One. A lone
+developer. SourceForge projects at the ninety-fifth percentile by
+participant size have only five contributors. More than half of these
+free software projects—and even most projects that have made several
+successful releases and been downloaded frequently, are the work of a
+single developer with little outside help.</p>
+
+<p>By emphasizing the power of collaborative development and
“distributed
+peer review,” open source approaches seem to have very little to say
+about why one should use, or contribute to, the vast majority of free
+software projects. Because the purported benefits of collaboration
+cannot be realized when there is no collaboration, the vast majority
+of free development projects are at no technical advantage with respect to a
+proprietary competitor.</p>
+
+<p>For free software advocates, these same projects are each seen as
+important successes. Because every piece of free software respects its
+users' freedom, advocates of software freedom argue that each piece of
+free software begins with an inherent ethical advantage over
+proprietary competitors—even a more featureful one. By emphasizing
+freedom over practical advantages, free software's advocacy is rooted
+in a technical reality in a way that open source is often not. When
+free software is better, we can celebrate this fact. When it is not,
+we need not treat it as a damning critique of free software advocacy
+or even as a compelling argument against the use of the software in
+question.</p>
+
+<p>Open source advocates must defend their thesis that freely developed
+software should, or will with time, be better than proprietary
+software. Free software supporters can instead ask, “How can we make
+free software better?” In a free software framing, high quality software
+exists as a means to an end rather than an end itself. Free software
+developers should strive to create functional, flexible software that
+serves its users well. But doing so is not the only way to make steps
+toward solving what is both an easier and a much more profoundly
+important goal: respecting and protecting their freedom.</p>
+
+<p>Of course, we do not need to reject arguments that collaboration can
+play an important role in creating high-quality software. In many of
+the most successful free software projects, it clearly has done
+exactly that. The benefits of collaboration become something to
+understand, support, and work towards, rather than something to take
+for granted in the face of evidence that refuses to conform to
+ideology.</p>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div></em></ins></span>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div <span
class="removed"><del><strong>id="footer"></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>id="footer" role="contentinfo"></em></ins></span>
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></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:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></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:web-translators@gnu.org">
+ <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> 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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> 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 © 1999-2011 Benjamin Mako Hill</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2021/09/09 10:04:53 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong></div></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div><!-- for class="inner", starts
in the banner include --></em></ins></span>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.nl-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.nl-diff.html
diff -N po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.nl-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.nl-diff.html 9 Sep
2021 10:04:53 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,214 @@
+<!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/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.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>1.79</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>1.96 -->
+<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
+<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays aboutfs practice" -->
+<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes"</em></ins></span> -->
+<title> When Free Software Isn't (Practically) Superior - GNU Project -
Free Software Foundation</title>
+ <!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.translist"
-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
+<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
+<div class="article reduced-width"></em></ins></span>
+<h2> When Free Software Isn't (Practically) Superior</h2>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><p></strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><address
class="byline"></em></ins></span>
+by <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="https://mako.cc/writing/"><strong>Benjamin</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://mako.cc/writing/">Benjamin</em></ins></span>
Mako <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Hill</strong></a></p></strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Hill</a></address></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>The Open Source Initiative's mission statement reads, “Open
source
+is a development method for software that harnesses the power of
+distributed peer review and transparency of process. The promise of
+open source is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility,
+lower cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in.”</p>
+
+<p>For more than a decade now, the Free Software Foundation has argued
+against this “open source” characterization of the free software
+movement. Free software advocates have primarily argued against this
+framing because “open source” is an explicit effort to deemphasize
+our core message of freedom and obscure our movement's role in the
+success of the software we have built. We have argued that “open
+source” is bad, fundamentally, because it attempts to keep people from
+talking about software freedom. But there is another reason we should
+be wary of the open source framing. The fundamental open source
+argument, as quoted in the mission statement above, is often
+incorrect.</p>
+
+<p>Although the Open Source Initiative suggests “the promise of
open
+source is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility,” this
+promise is not always realized. Although we do not often advertise the
+fact, any user of an early-stage free software project can explain
+that free software is not always as convenient, in purely practical
+terms, as its proprietary competitors. Free software is sometimes low
+quality. It is sometimes unreliable. It is sometimes inflexible. If
+people take the arguments in favor of open source seriously, they must
+explain why open source has not lived up to its “promise” and
conclude
+that proprietary tools would be a better choice. There is no reason we
+should have to do either.</p>
+
+<p>Richard Stallman speaks to this in his article on <a
+href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">Why
+Open Source Misses the Point</a> when he explains, “The idea of
open
+source is that allowing users to change and redistribute the software
+will make it more powerful and reliable. But this is not
+guaranteed. Developers of proprietary software are not necessarily
+incompetent. Sometimes they produce a program that is powerful and
+reliable, even though it does not respect the users' freedom.”</p>
+
+<p>For open source, poor-quality software is a problem to be explained
+away or a reason to eschew the software altogether. For free software,
+it is a problem to be worked through. For free software advocates,
+glitches and missing features are never a source of shame.
+Any piece of free software that respects users' freedom has a strong
+inherent advantage over a proprietary competitor that does not. Even
+if it has other issues, free software always has freedom.</p>
+
+<p>Of course, every piece of free software must start somewhere. A
brand-new
+piece of software, for example, is unlikely to be more featureful
+than an established proprietary tool. Projects
+begin with many bugs and improve over time. While open
+source advocates might argue that a project will grow into usefulness
+over time and with luck, free software projects represent important
+contributions on day one to a free software advocate. Every piece of
+software that gives users control over their technology is a step
+forward. Improved quality as a project matures is the icing on the
+cake.</p>
+
+<p>A second, perhaps even more damning, fact is that the collaborative,
+distributed, peer-review development process at the heart of the
+definition of open source bears little resemblance to the practice of
+software development in the vast majority of projects under free (or
+“open source”) licenses.</p>
+
+<p>Several academic studies of <a
href="/software/repo-criteria.html">
+free software hosting sites</a> SourceForge and <a
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://sv.gnu.org">Savannah</a></strong></del></span>
+<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://sv.gnu.org">Savannah</a></em></ins></span>
have shown what many free
+software developers who have put a codebase online already know
+first-hand. The vast majority of free software projects are not
+particularly collaborative. The median number of contributors to a
+free software project on SourceForge? One. A lone
+developer. SourceForge projects at the ninety-fifth percentile by
+participant size have only five contributors. More than half of these
+free software projects—and even most projects that have made several
+successful releases and been downloaded frequently, are the work of a
+single developer with little outside help.</p>
+
+<p>By emphasizing the power of collaborative development and
“distributed
+peer review,” open source approaches seem to have very little to say
+about why one should use, or contribute to, the vast majority of free
+software projects. Because the purported benefits of collaboration
+cannot be realized when there is no collaboration, the vast majority
+of free development projects are at no technical advantage with respect to a
+proprietary competitor.</p>
+
+<p>For free software advocates, these same projects are each seen as
+important successes. Because every piece of free software respects its
+users' freedom, advocates of software freedom argue that each piece of
+free software begins with an inherent ethical advantage over
+proprietary competitors—even a more featureful one. By emphasizing
+freedom over practical advantages, free software's advocacy is rooted
+in a technical reality in a way that open source is often not. When
+free software is better, we can celebrate this fact. When it is not,
+we need not treat it as a damning critique of free software advocacy
+or even as a compelling argument against the use of the software in
+question.</p>
+
+<p>Open source advocates must defend their thesis that freely developed
+software should, or will with time, be better than proprietary
+software. Free software supporters can instead ask, “How can we make
+free software better?” In a free software framing, high quality software
+exists as a means to an end rather than an end itself. Free software
+developers should strive to create functional, flexible software that
+serves its users well. But doing so is not the only way to make steps
+toward solving what is both an easier and a much more profoundly
+important goal: respecting and protecting their freedom.</p>
+
+<p>Of course, we do not need to reject arguments that collaboration can
+play an important role in creating high-quality software. In many of
+the most successful free software projects, it clearly has done
+exactly that. The benefits of collaboration become something to
+understand, support, and work towards, rather than something to take
+for granted in the face of evidence that refuses to conform to
+ideology.</p>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div></em></ins></span>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div <span
class="removed"><del><strong>id="footer"></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>id="footer" role="contentinfo"></em></ins></span>
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></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:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></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:web-translators@gnu.org">
+ <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> 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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> 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 © 1999-2011 Benjamin Mako Hill</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2021/09/09 10:04:53 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong></div></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div><!-- for class="inner", starts
in the banner include --></em></ins></span>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: po/why-free.ca-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/why-free.ca-diff.html
diff -N po/why-free.ca-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/why-free.ca-diff.html 9 Sep 2021 10:04:53 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,404 @@
+<!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/why-free.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>1.77</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>1.96 -->
+<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
+<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays aboutfs principles" -->
+<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes"</em></ins></span> -->
+<title>Why Software Should Not Have Owners
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+
+<meta name="Keywords" content="GNU, GNU Project, FSF, Free Software, Free
Software Foundation, Why Software Should Not Have Owners" />
+
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/why-free.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
+<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
+<div class="article reduced-width"></em></ins></span>
+<h2>Why Software Should Not Have Owners</h2>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>by</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><address
class="byline">by</em></ins></span> <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.stallman.org/"><strong>Richard
+Stallman</strong></a></p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://www.stallman.org/">Richard
+Stallman</a></address></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>
+Digital information technology contributes to the world by making it
+easier to copy and modify information. Computers promise to make this
+easier for all of us.</p>
+
+<p>
+Not everyone wants it to be easier. The system of copyright gives
+software programs <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“owners”,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“owners,”</em></ins></span> most of whom
aim to withhold
+software's potential benefit from the rest of the public. They would
+like to be the only ones who can copy and modify the software that we
+use.</p>
+
+<p>
+The copyright system grew up with printing—a technology for
+mass-production copying. Copyright fit in well with this technology
+because it restricted only the mass producers of copies. It did not
+take freedom away from readers of books. An ordinary reader, who did
+not own a printing press, could copy books only with pen and ink, and
+few readers were sued for that.</p>
+
+<p>
+Digital technology is more flexible than the printing press: when
+information has digital form, you can easily copy it to share it with
+others. This very flexibility makes a bad fit with a system like
+copyright. That's the reason for the increasingly nasty and draconian
+measures now used to enforce software copyright. Consider these four
+practices of the Software Publishers Association (SPA):</p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>Massive propaganda saying it is wrong to disobey the owners to
+help your friend.</li>
+
+<li>Solicitation for stool pigeons to inform on their coworkers and
+colleagues.</li>
+
+<li>Raids (with police help) on offices and schools, in which people
+are told they must prove they are innocent of illegal copying.</li>
+
+<li>Prosecution (by the US government, at the SPA's request) of people
+such as
+<abbr title="Massachusetts Institute of Technology">MIT</abbr>'s
+David LaMacchia, not for copying software (he is not accused of
+copying any), but merely for leaving copying facilities unguarded and
+failing to censor their use.<a href="#footnote1">[1]</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>
+All four practices resemble those used in the former Soviet Union,
+where every copying machine had a guard to prevent forbidden copying,
+and where individuals had to copy information secretly and pass it
+from hand to hand as samizdat. There is of course a difference: the
+motive for information control in the Soviet Union was political; in
+the US the motive is profit. But it is the actions that affect us,
+not the motive. Any attempt to block the sharing of information, no
+matter why, leads to the same methods and the same harshness.</p>
+
+<p>
+Owners make several kinds of arguments for giving them the power
+to control how we use information:</p>
+
+
+<ul>
+<li id="name-calling">Name calling.
+
+<p>
+Owners use smear words such as “piracy” and
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>“theft”,</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“theft,”</em></ins></span> as well
as expert terminology such as
+“intellectual property” and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“damage”,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“damage,”</em></ins></span> to
+suggest a certain line of thinking to the public—a simplistic
+analogy between programs and physical objects.</p>
+
+<p>
+Our ideas and intuitions about property for material objects are about
+whether it is right to <em>take an object away</em> from someone
else. They
+don't directly apply to <em>making a copy</em> of something. But
the owners
+ask us to apply them anyway.</p></li>
+
+<li id="exaggeration">Exaggeration.
+
+<p>
+Owners say that they suffer “harm” or “economic
+loss” when users copy programs themselves. But the copying has
+no direct effect on the owner, and it harms no one. The owner can
+lose only if the person who made the copy would otherwise have paid
+for one from the owner.</p>
+
+<p>
+A little thought shows that most such people would not have bought
+copies. Yet the owners compute their “losses” as if each
+and every one would have bought a copy. That is exaggeration—to
+put it kindly.</p></li>
+
+<li id="law">The law.
+
+<p>
+Owners often describe the current state of the law, and the harsh
+penalties they can threaten us with. Implicit in this approach is the
+suggestion that today's law reflects an unquestionable view of
+morality—yet at the same time, we are urged to regard these
+penalties as facts of nature that can't be blamed on anyone.</p>
+
+<p>
+This line of persuasion isn't designed to stand up to critical
+thinking; it's intended to reinforce a habitual mental pathway.</p>
+
+<p>
+It's elementary that laws don't decide right and wrong. Every American
+should know that, in the 1950s, it was against the law in many
+states for a black person to sit in the front of a bus; but only
+racists would say sitting there was wrong.</p></li>
+
+<li id="natural-rights">Natural rights.
+
+<p>
+Authors often claim a special connection with programs they have
+written, and go on to assert that, as a result, their desires and
+interests concerning the program simply outweigh those of anyone
+else—or even those of the whole rest of the world. (Typically
+companies, not authors, hold the copyrights on software, but we are
+expected to ignore this discrepancy.)</p>
+
+<p>
+To those who propose this as an ethical axiom—the author is more
+important than you—I can only say that I, a notable software
+author myself, call it bunk.</p>
+
+<p>
+But people in general are only likely to feel any sympathy with the
+natural rights claims for two reasons.</p>
+
+<p>
+One reason is an overstretched analogy with material objects. When I
+cook spaghetti, I do object if someone else eats it, because then I
+cannot eat it. His action hurts me exactly as much as it benefits
+him; only one of us can eat the spaghetti, so the question is, which one?
+The smallest distinction between us is enough to tip the ethical
+balance.</p>
+
+<p>
+But whether you run or change a program I wrote affects you directly
+and me only indirectly. Whether you give a copy to your friend
+affects you and your friend much more than it affects me. I shouldn't
+have the power to tell you not to do these things. No one should.</p>
+
+<p>
+The second reason is that people have been told that natural rights
+for authors is the accepted and unquestioned tradition of our
society.</p>
+
+<p>
+As a matter of history, the opposite is true. The idea of natural
+rights of authors was proposed and decisively rejected when the US
+Constitution was drawn up. That's why the Constitution only
+<em>permits</em> a system of copyright and does not
<em>require</em>
+one; that's why it says that copyright must be temporary. It also
+states that the purpose of copyright is to promote progress—not
+to reward authors. Copyright does reward authors somewhat, and
+publishers more, but that is intended as a means of modifying their
+behavior.</p>
+
+<p>
+The real established tradition of our society is that copyright cuts
+into the natural rights of the public—and that this can only be
+justified for the public's sake.</p></li>
+
+<li id="economics">Economics.
+
+<p>
+The final argument made for having owners of software is that this
+leads to production of more software.</p>
+
+<p>
+Unlike the others, this argument at least takes a legitimate approach
+to the subject. It is based on a valid goal—satisfying the
+users of software. And it is empirically clear that people will
+produce more of something if they are well paid for doing so.</p>
+
+<p>
+But the economic argument has a flaw: it is based on the assumption
+that the difference is only a matter of how much money we have to pay.
+It assumes that <em>production of software</em> is what we want,
+whether the software has owners or not.</p>
+
+<p>
+People readily accept this assumption because it accords with our
+experiences with material objects. Consider a sandwich, for instance.
+You might well be able to get an equivalent sandwich either gratis or
+for a price. If so, the amount you pay is the only difference.
+Whether or not you have to buy it, the sandwich has the same taste,
+the same nutritional value, and in either case you can only eat it
+once. Whether you get the sandwich from an owner or not cannot
+directly affect anything but the amount of money you have afterwards.</p>
+
+<p>
+This is true for any kind of material object—whether or not it
+has an owner does not directly affect what it <em>is</em>, or what
you
+can do with it if you acquire it.</p>
+
+<p>
+But if a program has an owner, this very much affects what it is, and
+what you can do with a copy if you buy one. The difference is not
+just a matter of money. The system of owners of software encourages
+software owners to produce something—but not what society really
+needs. And it causes intangible ethical pollution that affects us
+all.</p></li>
+
+</ul>
+
+<p>
+What does society need? It needs information that is truly available
+to its citizens—for example, programs that people can read, fix,
+adapt, and improve, not just operate. But what software owners
+typically deliver is a black box that we can't study or change.</p>
+
+<p>
+Society also needs freedom. When a program has an owner, the users
+lose freedom to control part of their own lives.</p>
+
+<p>
+And, above all, society needs to encourage the spirit of voluntary
+cooperation in its citizens. When software owners tell us that
+helping our neighbors in a natural way is <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“piracy”,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“piracy,”</em></ins></span> they
+pollute our society's civic spirit.</p>
+
+<p>
+This is why we say that
+<a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">free software</a>
+is a matter of freedom, not price.</p>
+
+<p>
+The economic argument for owners is erroneous, but the economic issue
+is real. Some people write useful software for the pleasure of
+writing it or for admiration and love; but if we want more software
+than those people write, we need to raise funds.</p>
+
+<p>
+Since the 1980s, free software developers have tried various methods
+of finding funds, with some success. There's no need to make anyone
+rich; a typical income is plenty of incentive to do many jobs that are
+less satisfying than programming.</p>
+
+<p>
+For years, until a fellowship made it unnecessary, I made a living
+from custom enhancements of the free software I had written. Each
+enhancement was added to the standard released version and thus
+eventually became available to the general public. Clients paid me so
+that I would work on the enhancements they wanted, rather than on the
+features I would otherwise have considered highest priority.</p>
+
+<p>
+Some free software developers make money by selling support services.
+In 1994, Cygnus Support, with around 50 employees, estimated that
+about 15 percent of its staff activity was free software
+development—a respectable percentage for a software company.</p>
+
+<p>
+In the early 1990s, companies including Intel, Motorola, Texas
+Instruments and Analog Devices combined to fund the continued
+development of the GNU C compiler. Most GCC development is still done
+by paid developers. The GNU compiler for the Ada language was funded
+in the 90s by the US Air Force, and continued since then by a company
+formed specifically for the purpose.</p>
+
+<p>
+The free software movement is still small, but the example of
+listener-supported radio in the US shows it's possible to support a
+large activity without forcing each user to pay.</p>
+
+<p>
+As a computer user today, you may find yourself using a
+<a
href="/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware">proprietary</a>
+program. If your friend asks to make a copy, it would be wrong to
+refuse. Cooperation is more important than copyright. But
+underground, closet cooperation does not make for a good society. A
+person should aspire to live an upright life openly with pride, and
+this means saying no to proprietary software.</p>
+
+<p>
+You deserve to be able to cooperate openly and freely with other
+people who use software. You deserve to be able to learn how the
+software works, and to teach your students with it. You deserve to be
+able to hire your favorite programmer to fix it when it breaks.</p>
+
+<p>
+You deserve free software.</p>
+
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong><h3>Footnotes</h3></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="column-limit"></div>
+
+<h3 class="footnote">Footnote</h3></em></ins></span>
+<ol>
+<li id="footnote1">The charges were subsequently dismissed.</li>
+</ol>
+
+<hr <span class="inserted"><ins><em>class="no-display"</em></ins></span>
/>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><blockquote
id="fsfs"><p>This</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="edu-note c"><p
id="fsfs">This</em></ins></span> essay is published in
+<a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free</em></ins></span>
+Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard
+M. <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Stallman</cite></a>.</p></blockquote></strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Stallman</cite></a>.</p></div>
+</div></em></ins></span>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div <span
class="removed"><del><strong>id="footer"></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>id="footer" role="contentinfo"></em></ins></span>
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></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:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></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:web-translators@gnu.org">
+ <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> 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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> 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 © 1994, 2009, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2020</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2021</em></ins></span> Richard Stallman</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2021/09/09 10:04:53 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong></div></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div><!-- for class="inner", starts
in the banner include --></em></ins></span>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: po/why-free.cs-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/why-free.cs-diff.html
diff -N po/why-free.cs-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/why-free.cs-diff.html 9 Sep 2021 10:04:53 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,404 @@
+<!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/why-free.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>1.77</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>1.96 -->
+<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
+<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays aboutfs principles" -->
+<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes"</em></ins></span> -->
+<title>Why Software Should Not Have Owners
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+
+<meta name="Keywords" content="GNU, GNU Project, FSF, Free Software, Free
Software Foundation, Why Software Should Not Have Owners" />
+
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/why-free.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
+<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
+<div class="article reduced-width"></em></ins></span>
+<h2>Why Software Should Not Have Owners</h2>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>by</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><address
class="byline">by</em></ins></span> <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.stallman.org/"><strong>Richard
+Stallman</strong></a></p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://www.stallman.org/">Richard
+Stallman</a></address></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>
+Digital information technology contributes to the world by making it
+easier to copy and modify information. Computers promise to make this
+easier for all of us.</p>
+
+<p>
+Not everyone wants it to be easier. The system of copyright gives
+software programs <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“owners”,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“owners,”</em></ins></span> most of whom
aim to withhold
+software's potential benefit from the rest of the public. They would
+like to be the only ones who can copy and modify the software that we
+use.</p>
+
+<p>
+The copyright system grew up with printing—a technology for
+mass-production copying. Copyright fit in well with this technology
+because it restricted only the mass producers of copies. It did not
+take freedom away from readers of books. An ordinary reader, who did
+not own a printing press, could copy books only with pen and ink, and
+few readers were sued for that.</p>
+
+<p>
+Digital technology is more flexible than the printing press: when
+information has digital form, you can easily copy it to share it with
+others. This very flexibility makes a bad fit with a system like
+copyright. That's the reason for the increasingly nasty and draconian
+measures now used to enforce software copyright. Consider these four
+practices of the Software Publishers Association (SPA):</p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>Massive propaganda saying it is wrong to disobey the owners to
+help your friend.</li>
+
+<li>Solicitation for stool pigeons to inform on their coworkers and
+colleagues.</li>
+
+<li>Raids (with police help) on offices and schools, in which people
+are told they must prove they are innocent of illegal copying.</li>
+
+<li>Prosecution (by the US government, at the SPA's request) of people
+such as
+<abbr title="Massachusetts Institute of Technology">MIT</abbr>'s
+David LaMacchia, not for copying software (he is not accused of
+copying any), but merely for leaving copying facilities unguarded and
+failing to censor their use.<a href="#footnote1">[1]</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>
+All four practices resemble those used in the former Soviet Union,
+where every copying machine had a guard to prevent forbidden copying,
+and where individuals had to copy information secretly and pass it
+from hand to hand as samizdat. There is of course a difference: the
+motive for information control in the Soviet Union was political; in
+the US the motive is profit. But it is the actions that affect us,
+not the motive. Any attempt to block the sharing of information, no
+matter why, leads to the same methods and the same harshness.</p>
+
+<p>
+Owners make several kinds of arguments for giving them the power
+to control how we use information:</p>
+
+
+<ul>
+<li id="name-calling">Name calling.
+
+<p>
+Owners use smear words such as “piracy” and
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>“theft”,</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“theft,”</em></ins></span> as well
as expert terminology such as
+“intellectual property” and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“damage”,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“damage,”</em></ins></span> to
+suggest a certain line of thinking to the public—a simplistic
+analogy between programs and physical objects.</p>
+
+<p>
+Our ideas and intuitions about property for material objects are about
+whether it is right to <em>take an object away</em> from someone
else. They
+don't directly apply to <em>making a copy</em> of something. But
the owners
+ask us to apply them anyway.</p></li>
+
+<li id="exaggeration">Exaggeration.
+
+<p>
+Owners say that they suffer “harm” or “economic
+loss” when users copy programs themselves. But the copying has
+no direct effect on the owner, and it harms no one. The owner can
+lose only if the person who made the copy would otherwise have paid
+for one from the owner.</p>
+
+<p>
+A little thought shows that most such people would not have bought
+copies. Yet the owners compute their “losses” as if each
+and every one would have bought a copy. That is exaggeration—to
+put it kindly.</p></li>
+
+<li id="law">The law.
+
+<p>
+Owners often describe the current state of the law, and the harsh
+penalties they can threaten us with. Implicit in this approach is the
+suggestion that today's law reflects an unquestionable view of
+morality—yet at the same time, we are urged to regard these
+penalties as facts of nature that can't be blamed on anyone.</p>
+
+<p>
+This line of persuasion isn't designed to stand up to critical
+thinking; it's intended to reinforce a habitual mental pathway.</p>
+
+<p>
+It's elementary that laws don't decide right and wrong. Every American
+should know that, in the 1950s, it was against the law in many
+states for a black person to sit in the front of a bus; but only
+racists would say sitting there was wrong.</p></li>
+
+<li id="natural-rights">Natural rights.
+
+<p>
+Authors often claim a special connection with programs they have
+written, and go on to assert that, as a result, their desires and
+interests concerning the program simply outweigh those of anyone
+else—or even those of the whole rest of the world. (Typically
+companies, not authors, hold the copyrights on software, but we are
+expected to ignore this discrepancy.)</p>
+
+<p>
+To those who propose this as an ethical axiom—the author is more
+important than you—I can only say that I, a notable software
+author myself, call it bunk.</p>
+
+<p>
+But people in general are only likely to feel any sympathy with the
+natural rights claims for two reasons.</p>
+
+<p>
+One reason is an overstretched analogy with material objects. When I
+cook spaghetti, I do object if someone else eats it, because then I
+cannot eat it. His action hurts me exactly as much as it benefits
+him; only one of us can eat the spaghetti, so the question is, which one?
+The smallest distinction between us is enough to tip the ethical
+balance.</p>
+
+<p>
+But whether you run or change a program I wrote affects you directly
+and me only indirectly. Whether you give a copy to your friend
+affects you and your friend much more than it affects me. I shouldn't
+have the power to tell you not to do these things. No one should.</p>
+
+<p>
+The second reason is that people have been told that natural rights
+for authors is the accepted and unquestioned tradition of our
society.</p>
+
+<p>
+As a matter of history, the opposite is true. The idea of natural
+rights of authors was proposed and decisively rejected when the US
+Constitution was drawn up. That's why the Constitution only
+<em>permits</em> a system of copyright and does not
<em>require</em>
+one; that's why it says that copyright must be temporary. It also
+states that the purpose of copyright is to promote progress—not
+to reward authors. Copyright does reward authors somewhat, and
+publishers more, but that is intended as a means of modifying their
+behavior.</p>
+
+<p>
+The real established tradition of our society is that copyright cuts
+into the natural rights of the public—and that this can only be
+justified for the public's sake.</p></li>
+
+<li id="economics">Economics.
+
+<p>
+The final argument made for having owners of software is that this
+leads to production of more software.</p>
+
+<p>
+Unlike the others, this argument at least takes a legitimate approach
+to the subject. It is based on a valid goal—satisfying the
+users of software. And it is empirically clear that people will
+produce more of something if they are well paid for doing so.</p>
+
+<p>
+But the economic argument has a flaw: it is based on the assumption
+that the difference is only a matter of how much money we have to pay.
+It assumes that <em>production of software</em> is what we want,
+whether the software has owners or not.</p>
+
+<p>
+People readily accept this assumption because it accords with our
+experiences with material objects. Consider a sandwich, for instance.
+You might well be able to get an equivalent sandwich either gratis or
+for a price. If so, the amount you pay is the only difference.
+Whether or not you have to buy it, the sandwich has the same taste,
+the same nutritional value, and in either case you can only eat it
+once. Whether you get the sandwich from an owner or not cannot
+directly affect anything but the amount of money you have afterwards.</p>
+
+<p>
+This is true for any kind of material object—whether or not it
+has an owner does not directly affect what it <em>is</em>, or what
you
+can do with it if you acquire it.</p>
+
+<p>
+But if a program has an owner, this very much affects what it is, and
+what you can do with a copy if you buy one. The difference is not
+just a matter of money. The system of owners of software encourages
+software owners to produce something—but not what society really
+needs. And it causes intangible ethical pollution that affects us
+all.</p></li>
+
+</ul>
+
+<p>
+What does society need? It needs information that is truly available
+to its citizens—for example, programs that people can read, fix,
+adapt, and improve, not just operate. But what software owners
+typically deliver is a black box that we can't study or change.</p>
+
+<p>
+Society also needs freedom. When a program has an owner, the users
+lose freedom to control part of their own lives.</p>
+
+<p>
+And, above all, society needs to encourage the spirit of voluntary
+cooperation in its citizens. When software owners tell us that
+helping our neighbors in a natural way is <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“piracy”,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“piracy,”</em></ins></span> they
+pollute our society's civic spirit.</p>
+
+<p>
+This is why we say that
+<a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">free software</a>
+is a matter of freedom, not price.</p>
+
+<p>
+The economic argument for owners is erroneous, but the economic issue
+is real. Some people write useful software for the pleasure of
+writing it or for admiration and love; but if we want more software
+than those people write, we need to raise funds.</p>
+
+<p>
+Since the 1980s, free software developers have tried various methods
+of finding funds, with some success. There's no need to make anyone
+rich; a typical income is plenty of incentive to do many jobs that are
+less satisfying than programming.</p>
+
+<p>
+For years, until a fellowship made it unnecessary, I made a living
+from custom enhancements of the free software I had written. Each
+enhancement was added to the standard released version and thus
+eventually became available to the general public. Clients paid me so
+that I would work on the enhancements they wanted, rather than on the
+features I would otherwise have considered highest priority.</p>
+
+<p>
+Some free software developers make money by selling support services.
+In 1994, Cygnus Support, with around 50 employees, estimated that
+about 15 percent of its staff activity was free software
+development—a respectable percentage for a software company.</p>
+
+<p>
+In the early 1990s, companies including Intel, Motorola, Texas
+Instruments and Analog Devices combined to fund the continued
+development of the GNU C compiler. Most GCC development is still done
+by paid developers. The GNU compiler for the Ada language was funded
+in the 90s by the US Air Force, and continued since then by a company
+formed specifically for the purpose.</p>
+
+<p>
+The free software movement is still small, but the example of
+listener-supported radio in the US shows it's possible to support a
+large activity without forcing each user to pay.</p>
+
+<p>
+As a computer user today, you may find yourself using a
+<a
href="/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware">proprietary</a>
+program. If your friend asks to make a copy, it would be wrong to
+refuse. Cooperation is more important than copyright. But
+underground, closet cooperation does not make for a good society. A
+person should aspire to live an upright life openly with pride, and
+this means saying no to proprietary software.</p>
+
+<p>
+You deserve to be able to cooperate openly and freely with other
+people who use software. You deserve to be able to learn how the
+software works, and to teach your students with it. You deserve to be
+able to hire your favorite programmer to fix it when it breaks.</p>
+
+<p>
+You deserve free software.</p>
+
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong><h3>Footnotes</h3></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="column-limit"></div>
+
+<h3 class="footnote">Footnote</h3></em></ins></span>
+<ol>
+<li id="footnote1">The charges were subsequently dismissed.</li>
+</ol>
+
+<hr <span class="inserted"><ins><em>class="no-display"</em></ins></span>
/>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><blockquote
id="fsfs"><p>This</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="edu-note c"><p
id="fsfs">This</em></ins></span> essay is published in
+<a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free</em></ins></span>
+Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard
+M. <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Stallman</cite></a>.</p></blockquote></strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Stallman</cite></a>.</p></div>
+</div></em></ins></span>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div <span
class="removed"><del><strong>id="footer"></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>id="footer" role="contentinfo"></em></ins></span>
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></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:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></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:web-translators@gnu.org">
+ <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> 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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> 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 © 1994, 2009, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2020</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2021</em></ins></span> Richard Stallman</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2021/09/09 10:04:53 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong></div></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div><!-- for class="inner", starts
in the banner include --></em></ins></span>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: po/why-free.de-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/why-free.de-diff.html
diff -N po/why-free.de-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/why-free.de-diff.html 9 Sep 2021 10:04:53 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,404 @@
+<!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/why-free.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>1.77</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>1.96 -->
+<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
+<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays aboutfs principles" -->
+<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes"</em></ins></span> -->
+<title>Why Software Should Not Have Owners
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+
+<meta name="Keywords" content="GNU, GNU Project, FSF, Free Software, Free
Software Foundation, Why Software Should Not Have Owners" />
+
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/why-free.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
+<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
+<div class="article reduced-width"></em></ins></span>
+<h2>Why Software Should Not Have Owners</h2>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>by</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><address
class="byline">by</em></ins></span> <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.stallman.org/"><strong>Richard
+Stallman</strong></a></p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://www.stallman.org/">Richard
+Stallman</a></address></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>
+Digital information technology contributes to the world by making it
+easier to copy and modify information. Computers promise to make this
+easier for all of us.</p>
+
+<p>
+Not everyone wants it to be easier. The system of copyright gives
+software programs <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“owners”,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“owners,”</em></ins></span> most of whom
aim to withhold
+software's potential benefit from the rest of the public. They would
+like to be the only ones who can copy and modify the software that we
+use.</p>
+
+<p>
+The copyright system grew up with printing—a technology for
+mass-production copying. Copyright fit in well with this technology
+because it restricted only the mass producers of copies. It did not
+take freedom away from readers of books. An ordinary reader, who did
+not own a printing press, could copy books only with pen and ink, and
+few readers were sued for that.</p>
+
+<p>
+Digital technology is more flexible than the printing press: when
+information has digital form, you can easily copy it to share it with
+others. This very flexibility makes a bad fit with a system like
+copyright. That's the reason for the increasingly nasty and draconian
+measures now used to enforce software copyright. Consider these four
+practices of the Software Publishers Association (SPA):</p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>Massive propaganda saying it is wrong to disobey the owners to
+help your friend.</li>
+
+<li>Solicitation for stool pigeons to inform on their coworkers and
+colleagues.</li>
+
+<li>Raids (with police help) on offices and schools, in which people
+are told they must prove they are innocent of illegal copying.</li>
+
+<li>Prosecution (by the US government, at the SPA's request) of people
+such as
+<abbr title="Massachusetts Institute of Technology">MIT</abbr>'s
+David LaMacchia, not for copying software (he is not accused of
+copying any), but merely for leaving copying facilities unguarded and
+failing to censor their use.<a href="#footnote1">[1]</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>
+All four practices resemble those used in the former Soviet Union,
+where every copying machine had a guard to prevent forbidden copying,
+and where individuals had to copy information secretly and pass it
+from hand to hand as samizdat. There is of course a difference: the
+motive for information control in the Soviet Union was political; in
+the US the motive is profit. But it is the actions that affect us,
+not the motive. Any attempt to block the sharing of information, no
+matter why, leads to the same methods and the same harshness.</p>
+
+<p>
+Owners make several kinds of arguments for giving them the power
+to control how we use information:</p>
+
+
+<ul>
+<li id="name-calling">Name calling.
+
+<p>
+Owners use smear words such as “piracy” and
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>“theft”,</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“theft,”</em></ins></span> as well
as expert terminology such as
+“intellectual property” and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“damage”,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“damage,”</em></ins></span> to
+suggest a certain line of thinking to the public—a simplistic
+analogy between programs and physical objects.</p>
+
+<p>
+Our ideas and intuitions about property for material objects are about
+whether it is right to <em>take an object away</em> from someone
else. They
+don't directly apply to <em>making a copy</em> of something. But
the owners
+ask us to apply them anyway.</p></li>
+
+<li id="exaggeration">Exaggeration.
+
+<p>
+Owners say that they suffer “harm” or “economic
+loss” when users copy programs themselves. But the copying has
+no direct effect on the owner, and it harms no one. The owner can
+lose only if the person who made the copy would otherwise have paid
+for one from the owner.</p>
+
+<p>
+A little thought shows that most such people would not have bought
+copies. Yet the owners compute their “losses” as if each
+and every one would have bought a copy. That is exaggeration—to
+put it kindly.</p></li>
+
+<li id="law">The law.
+
+<p>
+Owners often describe the current state of the law, and the harsh
+penalties they can threaten us with. Implicit in this approach is the
+suggestion that today's law reflects an unquestionable view of
+morality—yet at the same time, we are urged to regard these
+penalties as facts of nature that can't be blamed on anyone.</p>
+
+<p>
+This line of persuasion isn't designed to stand up to critical
+thinking; it's intended to reinforce a habitual mental pathway.</p>
+
+<p>
+It's elementary that laws don't decide right and wrong. Every American
+should know that, in the 1950s, it was against the law in many
+states for a black person to sit in the front of a bus; but only
+racists would say sitting there was wrong.</p></li>
+
+<li id="natural-rights">Natural rights.
+
+<p>
+Authors often claim a special connection with programs they have
+written, and go on to assert that, as a result, their desires and
+interests concerning the program simply outweigh those of anyone
+else—or even those of the whole rest of the world. (Typically
+companies, not authors, hold the copyrights on software, but we are
+expected to ignore this discrepancy.)</p>
+
+<p>
+To those who propose this as an ethical axiom—the author is more
+important than you—I can only say that I, a notable software
+author myself, call it bunk.</p>
+
+<p>
+But people in general are only likely to feel any sympathy with the
+natural rights claims for two reasons.</p>
+
+<p>
+One reason is an overstretched analogy with material objects. When I
+cook spaghetti, I do object if someone else eats it, because then I
+cannot eat it. His action hurts me exactly as much as it benefits
+him; only one of us can eat the spaghetti, so the question is, which one?
+The smallest distinction between us is enough to tip the ethical
+balance.</p>
+
+<p>
+But whether you run or change a program I wrote affects you directly
+and me only indirectly. Whether you give a copy to your friend
+affects you and your friend much more than it affects me. I shouldn't
+have the power to tell you not to do these things. No one should.</p>
+
+<p>
+The second reason is that people have been told that natural rights
+for authors is the accepted and unquestioned tradition of our
society.</p>
+
+<p>
+As a matter of history, the opposite is true. The idea of natural
+rights of authors was proposed and decisively rejected when the US
+Constitution was drawn up. That's why the Constitution only
+<em>permits</em> a system of copyright and does not
<em>require</em>
+one; that's why it says that copyright must be temporary. It also
+states that the purpose of copyright is to promote progress—not
+to reward authors. Copyright does reward authors somewhat, and
+publishers more, but that is intended as a means of modifying their
+behavior.</p>
+
+<p>
+The real established tradition of our society is that copyright cuts
+into the natural rights of the public—and that this can only be
+justified for the public's sake.</p></li>
+
+<li id="economics">Economics.
+
+<p>
+The final argument made for having owners of software is that this
+leads to production of more software.</p>
+
+<p>
+Unlike the others, this argument at least takes a legitimate approach
+to the subject. It is based on a valid goal—satisfying the
+users of software. And it is empirically clear that people will
+produce more of something if they are well paid for doing so.</p>
+
+<p>
+But the economic argument has a flaw: it is based on the assumption
+that the difference is only a matter of how much money we have to pay.
+It assumes that <em>production of software</em> is what we want,
+whether the software has owners or not.</p>
+
+<p>
+People readily accept this assumption because it accords with our
+experiences with material objects. Consider a sandwich, for instance.
+You might well be able to get an equivalent sandwich either gratis or
+for a price. If so, the amount you pay is the only difference.
+Whether or not you have to buy it, the sandwich has the same taste,
+the same nutritional value, and in either case you can only eat it
+once. Whether you get the sandwich from an owner or not cannot
+directly affect anything but the amount of money you have afterwards.</p>
+
+<p>
+This is true for any kind of material object—whether or not it
+has an owner does not directly affect what it <em>is</em>, or what
you
+can do with it if you acquire it.</p>
+
+<p>
+But if a program has an owner, this very much affects what it is, and
+what you can do with a copy if you buy one. The difference is not
+just a matter of money. The system of owners of software encourages
+software owners to produce something—but not what society really
+needs. And it causes intangible ethical pollution that affects us
+all.</p></li>
+
+</ul>
+
+<p>
+What does society need? It needs information that is truly available
+to its citizens—for example, programs that people can read, fix,
+adapt, and improve, not just operate. But what software owners
+typically deliver is a black box that we can't study or change.</p>
+
+<p>
+Society also needs freedom. When a program has an owner, the users
+lose freedom to control part of their own lives.</p>
+
+<p>
+And, above all, society needs to encourage the spirit of voluntary
+cooperation in its citizens. When software owners tell us that
+helping our neighbors in a natural way is <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“piracy”,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“piracy,”</em></ins></span> they
+pollute our society's civic spirit.</p>
+
+<p>
+This is why we say that
+<a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">free software</a>
+is a matter of freedom, not price.</p>
+
+<p>
+The economic argument for owners is erroneous, but the economic issue
+is real. Some people write useful software for the pleasure of
+writing it or for admiration and love; but if we want more software
+than those people write, we need to raise funds.</p>
+
+<p>
+Since the 1980s, free software developers have tried various methods
+of finding funds, with some success. There's no need to make anyone
+rich; a typical income is plenty of incentive to do many jobs that are
+less satisfying than programming.</p>
+
+<p>
+For years, until a fellowship made it unnecessary, I made a living
+from custom enhancements of the free software I had written. Each
+enhancement was added to the standard released version and thus
+eventually became available to the general public. Clients paid me so
+that I would work on the enhancements they wanted, rather than on the
+features I would otherwise have considered highest priority.</p>
+
+<p>
+Some free software developers make money by selling support services.
+In 1994, Cygnus Support, with around 50 employees, estimated that
+about 15 percent of its staff activity was free software
+development—a respectable percentage for a software company.</p>
+
+<p>
+In the early 1990s, companies including Intel, Motorola, Texas
+Instruments and Analog Devices combined to fund the continued
+development of the GNU C compiler. Most GCC development is still done
+by paid developers. The GNU compiler for the Ada language was funded
+in the 90s by the US Air Force, and continued since then by a company
+formed specifically for the purpose.</p>
+
+<p>
+The free software movement is still small, but the example of
+listener-supported radio in the US shows it's possible to support a
+large activity without forcing each user to pay.</p>
+
+<p>
+As a computer user today, you may find yourself using a
+<a
href="/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware">proprietary</a>
+program. If your friend asks to make a copy, it would be wrong to
+refuse. Cooperation is more important than copyright. But
+underground, closet cooperation does not make for a good society. A
+person should aspire to live an upright life openly with pride, and
+this means saying no to proprietary software.</p>
+
+<p>
+You deserve to be able to cooperate openly and freely with other
+people who use software. You deserve to be able to learn how the
+software works, and to teach your students with it. You deserve to be
+able to hire your favorite programmer to fix it when it breaks.</p>
+
+<p>
+You deserve free software.</p>
+
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong><h3>Footnotes</h3></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="column-limit"></div>
+
+<h3 class="footnote">Footnote</h3></em></ins></span>
+<ol>
+<li id="footnote1">The charges were subsequently dismissed.</li>
+</ol>
+
+<hr <span class="inserted"><ins><em>class="no-display"</em></ins></span>
/>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><blockquote
id="fsfs"><p>This</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="edu-note c"><p
id="fsfs">This</em></ins></span> essay is published in
+<a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free</em></ins></span>
+Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard
+M. <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Stallman</cite></a>.</p></blockquote></strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Stallman</cite></a>.</p></div>
+</div></em></ins></span>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div <span
class="removed"><del><strong>id="footer"></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>id="footer" role="contentinfo"></em></ins></span>
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></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:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></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:web-translators@gnu.org">
+ <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> 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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> 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 © 1994, 2009, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2020</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2021</em></ins></span> Richard Stallman</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2021/09/09 10:04:53 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong></div></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div><!-- for class="inner", starts
in the banner include --></em></ins></span>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: po/why-free.el-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/why-free.el-diff.html
diff -N po/why-free.el-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/why-free.el-diff.html 9 Sep 2021 10:04:53 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,404 @@
+<!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/why-free.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>1.77</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>1.96 -->
+<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
+<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays aboutfs principles" -->
+<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes"</em></ins></span> -->
+<title>Why Software Should Not Have Owners
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+
+<meta name="Keywords" content="GNU, GNU Project, FSF, Free Software, Free
Software Foundation, Why Software Should Not Have Owners" />
+
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/why-free.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
+<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
+<div class="article reduced-width"></em></ins></span>
+<h2>Why Software Should Not Have Owners</h2>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>by</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><address
class="byline">by</em></ins></span> <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.stallman.org/"><strong>Richard
+Stallman</strong></a></p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://www.stallman.org/">Richard
+Stallman</a></address></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>
+Digital information technology contributes to the world by making it
+easier to copy and modify information. Computers promise to make this
+easier for all of us.</p>
+
+<p>
+Not everyone wants it to be easier. The system of copyright gives
+software programs <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“owners”,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“owners,”</em></ins></span> most of whom
aim to withhold
+software's potential benefit from the rest of the public. They would
+like to be the only ones who can copy and modify the software that we
+use.</p>
+
+<p>
+The copyright system grew up with printing—a technology for
+mass-production copying. Copyright fit in well with this technology
+because it restricted only the mass producers of copies. It did not
+take freedom away from readers of books. An ordinary reader, who did
+not own a printing press, could copy books only with pen and ink, and
+few readers were sued for that.</p>
+
+<p>
+Digital technology is more flexible than the printing press: when
+information has digital form, you can easily copy it to share it with
+others. This very flexibility makes a bad fit with a system like
+copyright. That's the reason for the increasingly nasty and draconian
+measures now used to enforce software copyright. Consider these four
+practices of the Software Publishers Association (SPA):</p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>Massive propaganda saying it is wrong to disobey the owners to
+help your friend.</li>
+
+<li>Solicitation for stool pigeons to inform on their coworkers and
+colleagues.</li>
+
+<li>Raids (with police help) on offices and schools, in which people
+are told they must prove they are innocent of illegal copying.</li>
+
+<li>Prosecution (by the US government, at the SPA's request) of people
+such as
+<abbr title="Massachusetts Institute of Technology">MIT</abbr>'s
+David LaMacchia, not for copying software (he is not accused of
+copying any), but merely for leaving copying facilities unguarded and
+failing to censor their use.<a href="#footnote1">[1]</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>
+All four practices resemble those used in the former Soviet Union,
+where every copying machine had a guard to prevent forbidden copying,
+and where individuals had to copy information secretly and pass it
+from hand to hand as samizdat. There is of course a difference: the
+motive for information control in the Soviet Union was political; in
+the US the motive is profit. But it is the actions that affect us,
+not the motive. Any attempt to block the sharing of information, no
+matter why, leads to the same methods and the same harshness.</p>
+
+<p>
+Owners make several kinds of arguments for giving them the power
+to control how we use information:</p>
+
+
+<ul>
+<li id="name-calling">Name calling.
+
+<p>
+Owners use smear words such as “piracy” and
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>“theft”,</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“theft,”</em></ins></span> as well
as expert terminology such as
+“intellectual property” and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“damage”,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“damage,”</em></ins></span> to
+suggest a certain line of thinking to the public—a simplistic
+analogy between programs and physical objects.</p>
+
+<p>
+Our ideas and intuitions about property for material objects are about
+whether it is right to <em>take an object away</em> from someone
else. They
+don't directly apply to <em>making a copy</em> of something. But
the owners
+ask us to apply them anyway.</p></li>
+
+<li id="exaggeration">Exaggeration.
+
+<p>
+Owners say that they suffer “harm” or “economic
+loss” when users copy programs themselves. But the copying has
+no direct effect on the owner, and it harms no one. The owner can
+lose only if the person who made the copy would otherwise have paid
+for one from the owner.</p>
+
+<p>
+A little thought shows that most such people would not have bought
+copies. Yet the owners compute their “losses” as if each
+and every one would have bought a copy. That is exaggeration—to
+put it kindly.</p></li>
+
+<li id="law">The law.
+
+<p>
+Owners often describe the current state of the law, and the harsh
+penalties they can threaten us with. Implicit in this approach is the
+suggestion that today's law reflects an unquestionable view of
+morality—yet at the same time, we are urged to regard these
+penalties as facts of nature that can't be blamed on anyone.</p>
+
+<p>
+This line of persuasion isn't designed to stand up to critical
+thinking; it's intended to reinforce a habitual mental pathway.</p>
+
+<p>
+It's elementary that laws don't decide right and wrong. Every American
+should know that, in the 1950s, it was against the law in many
+states for a black person to sit in the front of a bus; but only
+racists would say sitting there was wrong.</p></li>
+
+<li id="natural-rights">Natural rights.
+
+<p>
+Authors often claim a special connection with programs they have
+written, and go on to assert that, as a result, their desires and
+interests concerning the program simply outweigh those of anyone
+else—or even those of the whole rest of the world. (Typically
+companies, not authors, hold the copyrights on software, but we are
+expected to ignore this discrepancy.)</p>
+
+<p>
+To those who propose this as an ethical axiom—the author is more
+important than you—I can only say that I, a notable software
+author myself, call it bunk.</p>
+
+<p>
+But people in general are only likely to feel any sympathy with the
+natural rights claims for two reasons.</p>
+
+<p>
+One reason is an overstretched analogy with material objects. When I
+cook spaghetti, I do object if someone else eats it, because then I
+cannot eat it. His action hurts me exactly as much as it benefits
+him; only one of us can eat the spaghetti, so the question is, which one?
+The smallest distinction between us is enough to tip the ethical
+balance.</p>
+
+<p>
+But whether you run or change a program I wrote affects you directly
+and me only indirectly. Whether you give a copy to your friend
+affects you and your friend much more than it affects me. I shouldn't
+have the power to tell you not to do these things. No one should.</p>
+
+<p>
+The second reason is that people have been told that natural rights
+for authors is the accepted and unquestioned tradition of our
society.</p>
+
+<p>
+As a matter of history, the opposite is true. The idea of natural
+rights of authors was proposed and decisively rejected when the US
+Constitution was drawn up. That's why the Constitution only
+<em>permits</em> a system of copyright and does not
<em>require</em>
+one; that's why it says that copyright must be temporary. It also
+states that the purpose of copyright is to promote progress—not
+to reward authors. Copyright does reward authors somewhat, and
+publishers more, but that is intended as a means of modifying their
+behavior.</p>
+
+<p>
+The real established tradition of our society is that copyright cuts
+into the natural rights of the public—and that this can only be
+justified for the public's sake.</p></li>
+
+<li id="economics">Economics.
+
+<p>
+The final argument made for having owners of software is that this
+leads to production of more software.</p>
+
+<p>
+Unlike the others, this argument at least takes a legitimate approach
+to the subject. It is based on a valid goal—satisfying the
+users of software. And it is empirically clear that people will
+produce more of something if they are well paid for doing so.</p>
+
+<p>
+But the economic argument has a flaw: it is based on the assumption
+that the difference is only a matter of how much money we have to pay.
+It assumes that <em>production of software</em> is what we want,
+whether the software has owners or not.</p>
+
+<p>
+People readily accept this assumption because it accords with our
+experiences with material objects. Consider a sandwich, for instance.
+You might well be able to get an equivalent sandwich either gratis or
+for a price. If so, the amount you pay is the only difference.
+Whether or not you have to buy it, the sandwich has the same taste,
+the same nutritional value, and in either case you can only eat it
+once. Whether you get the sandwich from an owner or not cannot
+directly affect anything but the amount of money you have afterwards.</p>
+
+<p>
+This is true for any kind of material object—whether or not it
+has an owner does not directly affect what it <em>is</em>, or what
you
+can do with it if you acquire it.</p>
+
+<p>
+But if a program has an owner, this very much affects what it is, and
+what you can do with a copy if you buy one. The difference is not
+just a matter of money. The system of owners of software encourages
+software owners to produce something—but not what society really
+needs. And it causes intangible ethical pollution that affects us
+all.</p></li>
+
+</ul>
+
+<p>
+What does society need? It needs information that is truly available
+to its citizens—for example, programs that people can read, fix,
+adapt, and improve, not just operate. But what software owners
+typically deliver is a black box that we can't study or change.</p>
+
+<p>
+Society also needs freedom. When a program has an owner, the users
+lose freedom to control part of their own lives.</p>
+
+<p>
+And, above all, society needs to encourage the spirit of voluntary
+cooperation in its citizens. When software owners tell us that
+helping our neighbors in a natural way is <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“piracy”,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“piracy,”</em></ins></span> they
+pollute our society's civic spirit.</p>
+
+<p>
+This is why we say that
+<a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">free software</a>
+is a matter of freedom, not price.</p>
+
+<p>
+The economic argument for owners is erroneous, but the economic issue
+is real. Some people write useful software for the pleasure of
+writing it or for admiration and love; but if we want more software
+than those people write, we need to raise funds.</p>
+
+<p>
+Since the 1980s, free software developers have tried various methods
+of finding funds, with some success. There's no need to make anyone
+rich; a typical income is plenty of incentive to do many jobs that are
+less satisfying than programming.</p>
+
+<p>
+For years, until a fellowship made it unnecessary, I made a living
+from custom enhancements of the free software I had written. Each
+enhancement was added to the standard released version and thus
+eventually became available to the general public. Clients paid me so
+that I would work on the enhancements they wanted, rather than on the
+features I would otherwise have considered highest priority.</p>
+
+<p>
+Some free software developers make money by selling support services.
+In 1994, Cygnus Support, with around 50 employees, estimated that
+about 15 percent of its staff activity was free software
+development—a respectable percentage for a software company.</p>
+
+<p>
+In the early 1990s, companies including Intel, Motorola, Texas
+Instruments and Analog Devices combined to fund the continued
+development of the GNU C compiler. Most GCC development is still done
+by paid developers. The GNU compiler for the Ada language was funded
+in the 90s by the US Air Force, and continued since then by a company
+formed specifically for the purpose.</p>
+
+<p>
+The free software movement is still small, but the example of
+listener-supported radio in the US shows it's possible to support a
+large activity without forcing each user to pay.</p>
+
+<p>
+As a computer user today, you may find yourself using a
+<a
href="/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware">proprietary</a>
+program. If your friend asks to make a copy, it would be wrong to
+refuse. Cooperation is more important than copyright. But
+underground, closet cooperation does not make for a good society. A
+person should aspire to live an upright life openly with pride, and
+this means saying no to proprietary software.</p>
+
+<p>
+You deserve to be able to cooperate openly and freely with other
+people who use software. You deserve to be able to learn how the
+software works, and to teach your students with it. You deserve to be
+able to hire your favorite programmer to fix it when it breaks.</p>
+
+<p>
+You deserve free software.</p>
+
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong><h3>Footnotes</h3></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="column-limit"></div>
+
+<h3 class="footnote">Footnote</h3></em></ins></span>
+<ol>
+<li id="footnote1">The charges were subsequently dismissed.</li>
+</ol>
+
+<hr <span class="inserted"><ins><em>class="no-display"</em></ins></span>
/>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><blockquote
id="fsfs"><p>This</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="edu-note c"><p
id="fsfs">This</em></ins></span> essay is published in
+<a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free</em></ins></span>
+Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard
+M. <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Stallman</cite></a>.</p></blockquote></strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Stallman</cite></a>.</p></div>
+</div></em></ins></span>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div <span
class="removed"><del><strong>id="footer"></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>id="footer" role="contentinfo"></em></ins></span>
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></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:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></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:web-translators@gnu.org">
+ <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> 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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> 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 © 1994, 2009, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2020</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2021</em></ins></span> Richard Stallman</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2021/09/09 10:04:53 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong></div></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div><!-- for class="inner", starts
in the banner include --></em></ins></span>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: po/why-free.it-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/why-free.it-diff.html
diff -N po/why-free.it-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/why-free.it-diff.html 9 Sep 2021 10:04:53 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,404 @@
+<!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/why-free.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>1.77</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>1.96 -->
+<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
+<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays aboutfs principles" -->
+<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes"</em></ins></span> -->
+<title>Why Software Should Not Have Owners
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+
+<meta name="Keywords" content="GNU, GNU Project, FSF, Free Software, Free
Software Foundation, Why Software Should Not Have Owners" />
+
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/why-free.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
+<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
+<div class="article reduced-width"></em></ins></span>
+<h2>Why Software Should Not Have Owners</h2>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>by</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><address
class="byline">by</em></ins></span> <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.stallman.org/"><strong>Richard
+Stallman</strong></a></p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://www.stallman.org/">Richard
+Stallman</a></address></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>
+Digital information technology contributes to the world by making it
+easier to copy and modify information. Computers promise to make this
+easier for all of us.</p>
+
+<p>
+Not everyone wants it to be easier. The system of copyright gives
+software programs <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“owners”,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“owners,”</em></ins></span> most of whom
aim to withhold
+software's potential benefit from the rest of the public. They would
+like to be the only ones who can copy and modify the software that we
+use.</p>
+
+<p>
+The copyright system grew up with printing—a technology for
+mass-production copying. Copyright fit in well with this technology
+because it restricted only the mass producers of copies. It did not
+take freedom away from readers of books. An ordinary reader, who did
+not own a printing press, could copy books only with pen and ink, and
+few readers were sued for that.</p>
+
+<p>
+Digital technology is more flexible than the printing press: when
+information has digital form, you can easily copy it to share it with
+others. This very flexibility makes a bad fit with a system like
+copyright. That's the reason for the increasingly nasty and draconian
+measures now used to enforce software copyright. Consider these four
+practices of the Software Publishers Association (SPA):</p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>Massive propaganda saying it is wrong to disobey the owners to
+help your friend.</li>
+
+<li>Solicitation for stool pigeons to inform on their coworkers and
+colleagues.</li>
+
+<li>Raids (with police help) on offices and schools, in which people
+are told they must prove they are innocent of illegal copying.</li>
+
+<li>Prosecution (by the US government, at the SPA's request) of people
+such as
+<abbr title="Massachusetts Institute of Technology">MIT</abbr>'s
+David LaMacchia, not for copying software (he is not accused of
+copying any), but merely for leaving copying facilities unguarded and
+failing to censor their use.<a href="#footnote1">[1]</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>
+All four practices resemble those used in the former Soviet Union,
+where every copying machine had a guard to prevent forbidden copying,
+and where individuals had to copy information secretly and pass it
+from hand to hand as samizdat. There is of course a difference: the
+motive for information control in the Soviet Union was political; in
+the US the motive is profit. But it is the actions that affect us,
+not the motive. Any attempt to block the sharing of information, no
+matter why, leads to the same methods and the same harshness.</p>
+
+<p>
+Owners make several kinds of arguments for giving them the power
+to control how we use information:</p>
+
+
+<ul>
+<li id="name-calling">Name calling.
+
+<p>
+Owners use smear words such as “piracy” and
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>“theft”,</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“theft,”</em></ins></span> as well
as expert terminology such as
+“intellectual property” and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“damage”,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“damage,”</em></ins></span> to
+suggest a certain line of thinking to the public—a simplistic
+analogy between programs and physical objects.</p>
+
+<p>
+Our ideas and intuitions about property for material objects are about
+whether it is right to <em>take an object away</em> from someone
else. They
+don't directly apply to <em>making a copy</em> of something. But
the owners
+ask us to apply them anyway.</p></li>
+
+<li id="exaggeration">Exaggeration.
+
+<p>
+Owners say that they suffer “harm” or “economic
+loss” when users copy programs themselves. But the copying has
+no direct effect on the owner, and it harms no one. The owner can
+lose only if the person who made the copy would otherwise have paid
+for one from the owner.</p>
+
+<p>
+A little thought shows that most such people would not have bought
+copies. Yet the owners compute their “losses” as if each
+and every one would have bought a copy. That is exaggeration—to
+put it kindly.</p></li>
+
+<li id="law">The law.
+
+<p>
+Owners often describe the current state of the law, and the harsh
+penalties they can threaten us with. Implicit in this approach is the
+suggestion that today's law reflects an unquestionable view of
+morality—yet at the same time, we are urged to regard these
+penalties as facts of nature that can't be blamed on anyone.</p>
+
+<p>
+This line of persuasion isn't designed to stand up to critical
+thinking; it's intended to reinforce a habitual mental pathway.</p>
+
+<p>
+It's elementary that laws don't decide right and wrong. Every American
+should know that, in the 1950s, it was against the law in many
+states for a black person to sit in the front of a bus; but only
+racists would say sitting there was wrong.</p></li>
+
+<li id="natural-rights">Natural rights.
+
+<p>
+Authors often claim a special connection with programs they have
+written, and go on to assert that, as a result, their desires and
+interests concerning the program simply outweigh those of anyone
+else—or even those of the whole rest of the world. (Typically
+companies, not authors, hold the copyrights on software, but we are
+expected to ignore this discrepancy.)</p>
+
+<p>
+To those who propose this as an ethical axiom—the author is more
+important than you—I can only say that I, a notable software
+author myself, call it bunk.</p>
+
+<p>
+But people in general are only likely to feel any sympathy with the
+natural rights claims for two reasons.</p>
+
+<p>
+One reason is an overstretched analogy with material objects. When I
+cook spaghetti, I do object if someone else eats it, because then I
+cannot eat it. His action hurts me exactly as much as it benefits
+him; only one of us can eat the spaghetti, so the question is, which one?
+The smallest distinction between us is enough to tip the ethical
+balance.</p>
+
+<p>
+But whether you run or change a program I wrote affects you directly
+and me only indirectly. Whether you give a copy to your friend
+affects you and your friend much more than it affects me. I shouldn't
+have the power to tell you not to do these things. No one should.</p>
+
+<p>
+The second reason is that people have been told that natural rights
+for authors is the accepted and unquestioned tradition of our
society.</p>
+
+<p>
+As a matter of history, the opposite is true. The idea of natural
+rights of authors was proposed and decisively rejected when the US
+Constitution was drawn up. That's why the Constitution only
+<em>permits</em> a system of copyright and does not
<em>require</em>
+one; that's why it says that copyright must be temporary. It also
+states that the purpose of copyright is to promote progress—not
+to reward authors. Copyright does reward authors somewhat, and
+publishers more, but that is intended as a means of modifying their
+behavior.</p>
+
+<p>
+The real established tradition of our society is that copyright cuts
+into the natural rights of the public—and that this can only be
+justified for the public's sake.</p></li>
+
+<li id="economics">Economics.
+
+<p>
+The final argument made for having owners of software is that this
+leads to production of more software.</p>
+
+<p>
+Unlike the others, this argument at least takes a legitimate approach
+to the subject. It is based on a valid goal—satisfying the
+users of software. And it is empirically clear that people will
+produce more of something if they are well paid for doing so.</p>
+
+<p>
+But the economic argument has a flaw: it is based on the assumption
+that the difference is only a matter of how much money we have to pay.
+It assumes that <em>production of software</em> is what we want,
+whether the software has owners or not.</p>
+
+<p>
+People readily accept this assumption because it accords with our
+experiences with material objects. Consider a sandwich, for instance.
+You might well be able to get an equivalent sandwich either gratis or
+for a price. If so, the amount you pay is the only difference.
+Whether or not you have to buy it, the sandwich has the same taste,
+the same nutritional value, and in either case you can only eat it
+once. Whether you get the sandwich from an owner or not cannot
+directly affect anything but the amount of money you have afterwards.</p>
+
+<p>
+This is true for any kind of material object—whether or not it
+has an owner does not directly affect what it <em>is</em>, or what
you
+can do with it if you acquire it.</p>
+
+<p>
+But if a program has an owner, this very much affects what it is, and
+what you can do with a copy if you buy one. The difference is not
+just a matter of money. The system of owners of software encourages
+software owners to produce something—but not what society really
+needs. And it causes intangible ethical pollution that affects us
+all.</p></li>
+
+</ul>
+
+<p>
+What does society need? It needs information that is truly available
+to its citizens—for example, programs that people can read, fix,
+adapt, and improve, not just operate. But what software owners
+typically deliver is a black box that we can't study or change.</p>
+
+<p>
+Society also needs freedom. When a program has an owner, the users
+lose freedom to control part of their own lives.</p>
+
+<p>
+And, above all, society needs to encourage the spirit of voluntary
+cooperation in its citizens. When software owners tell us that
+helping our neighbors in a natural way is <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“piracy”,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“piracy,”</em></ins></span> they
+pollute our society's civic spirit.</p>
+
+<p>
+This is why we say that
+<a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">free software</a>
+is a matter of freedom, not price.</p>
+
+<p>
+The economic argument for owners is erroneous, but the economic issue
+is real. Some people write useful software for the pleasure of
+writing it or for admiration and love; but if we want more software
+than those people write, we need to raise funds.</p>
+
+<p>
+Since the 1980s, free software developers have tried various methods
+of finding funds, with some success. There's no need to make anyone
+rich; a typical income is plenty of incentive to do many jobs that are
+less satisfying than programming.</p>
+
+<p>
+For years, until a fellowship made it unnecessary, I made a living
+from custom enhancements of the free software I had written. Each
+enhancement was added to the standard released version and thus
+eventually became available to the general public. Clients paid me so
+that I would work on the enhancements they wanted, rather than on the
+features I would otherwise have considered highest priority.</p>
+
+<p>
+Some free software developers make money by selling support services.
+In 1994, Cygnus Support, with around 50 employees, estimated that
+about 15 percent of its staff activity was free software
+development—a respectable percentage for a software company.</p>
+
+<p>
+In the early 1990s, companies including Intel, Motorola, Texas
+Instruments and Analog Devices combined to fund the continued
+development of the GNU C compiler. Most GCC development is still done
+by paid developers. The GNU compiler for the Ada language was funded
+in the 90s by the US Air Force, and continued since then by a company
+formed specifically for the purpose.</p>
+
+<p>
+The free software movement is still small, but the example of
+listener-supported radio in the US shows it's possible to support a
+large activity without forcing each user to pay.</p>
+
+<p>
+As a computer user today, you may find yourself using a
+<a
href="/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware">proprietary</a>
+program. If your friend asks to make a copy, it would be wrong to
+refuse. Cooperation is more important than copyright. But
+underground, closet cooperation does not make for a good society. A
+person should aspire to live an upright life openly with pride, and
+this means saying no to proprietary software.</p>
+
+<p>
+You deserve to be able to cooperate openly and freely with other
+people who use software. You deserve to be able to learn how the
+software works, and to teach your students with it. You deserve to be
+able to hire your favorite programmer to fix it when it breaks.</p>
+
+<p>
+You deserve free software.</p>
+
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong><h3>Footnotes</h3></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="column-limit"></div>
+
+<h3 class="footnote">Footnote</h3></em></ins></span>
+<ol>
+<li id="footnote1">The charges were subsequently dismissed.</li>
+</ol>
+
+<hr <span class="inserted"><ins><em>class="no-display"</em></ins></span>
/>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><blockquote
id="fsfs"><p>This</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="edu-note c"><p
id="fsfs">This</em></ins></span> essay is published in
+<a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free</em></ins></span>
+Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard
+M. <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Stallman</cite></a>.</p></blockquote></strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Stallman</cite></a>.</p></div>
+</div></em></ins></span>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div <span
class="removed"><del><strong>id="footer"></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>id="footer" role="contentinfo"></em></ins></span>
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></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:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></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:web-translators@gnu.org">
+ <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> 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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> 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 © 1994, 2009, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2020</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2021</em></ins></span> Richard Stallman</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2021/09/09 10:04:53 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong></div></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div><!-- for class="inner", starts
in the banner include --></em></ins></span>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: po/why-free.lt-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/why-free.lt-diff.html
diff -N po/why-free.lt-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/why-free.lt-diff.html 9 Sep 2021 10:04:53 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,404 @@
+<!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/why-free.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>1.77</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>1.96 -->
+<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
+<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays aboutfs principles" -->
+<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes"</em></ins></span> -->
+<title>Why Software Should Not Have Owners
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+
+<meta name="Keywords" content="GNU, GNU Project, FSF, Free Software, Free
Software Foundation, Why Software Should Not Have Owners" />
+
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/why-free.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
+<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
+<div class="article reduced-width"></em></ins></span>
+<h2>Why Software Should Not Have Owners</h2>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>by</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><address
class="byline">by</em></ins></span> <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.stallman.org/"><strong>Richard
+Stallman</strong></a></p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://www.stallman.org/">Richard
+Stallman</a></address></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>
+Digital information technology contributes to the world by making it
+easier to copy and modify information. Computers promise to make this
+easier for all of us.</p>
+
+<p>
+Not everyone wants it to be easier. The system of copyright gives
+software programs <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“owners”,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“owners,”</em></ins></span> most of whom
aim to withhold
+software's potential benefit from the rest of the public. They would
+like to be the only ones who can copy and modify the software that we
+use.</p>
+
+<p>
+The copyright system grew up with printing—a technology for
+mass-production copying. Copyright fit in well with this technology
+because it restricted only the mass producers of copies. It did not
+take freedom away from readers of books. An ordinary reader, who did
+not own a printing press, could copy books only with pen and ink, and
+few readers were sued for that.</p>
+
+<p>
+Digital technology is more flexible than the printing press: when
+information has digital form, you can easily copy it to share it with
+others. This very flexibility makes a bad fit with a system like
+copyright. That's the reason for the increasingly nasty and draconian
+measures now used to enforce software copyright. Consider these four
+practices of the Software Publishers Association (SPA):</p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>Massive propaganda saying it is wrong to disobey the owners to
+help your friend.</li>
+
+<li>Solicitation for stool pigeons to inform on their coworkers and
+colleagues.</li>
+
+<li>Raids (with police help) on offices and schools, in which people
+are told they must prove they are innocent of illegal copying.</li>
+
+<li>Prosecution (by the US government, at the SPA's request) of people
+such as
+<abbr title="Massachusetts Institute of Technology">MIT</abbr>'s
+David LaMacchia, not for copying software (he is not accused of
+copying any), but merely for leaving copying facilities unguarded and
+failing to censor their use.<a href="#footnote1">[1]</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>
+All four practices resemble those used in the former Soviet Union,
+where every copying machine had a guard to prevent forbidden copying,
+and where individuals had to copy information secretly and pass it
+from hand to hand as samizdat. There is of course a difference: the
+motive for information control in the Soviet Union was political; in
+the US the motive is profit. But it is the actions that affect us,
+not the motive. Any attempt to block the sharing of information, no
+matter why, leads to the same methods and the same harshness.</p>
+
+<p>
+Owners make several kinds of arguments for giving them the power
+to control how we use information:</p>
+
+
+<ul>
+<li id="name-calling">Name calling.
+
+<p>
+Owners use smear words such as “piracy” and
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>“theft”,</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“theft,”</em></ins></span> as well
as expert terminology such as
+“intellectual property” and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“damage”,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“damage,”</em></ins></span> to
+suggest a certain line of thinking to the public—a simplistic
+analogy between programs and physical objects.</p>
+
+<p>
+Our ideas and intuitions about property for material objects are about
+whether it is right to <em>take an object away</em> from someone
else. They
+don't directly apply to <em>making a copy</em> of something. But
the owners
+ask us to apply them anyway.</p></li>
+
+<li id="exaggeration">Exaggeration.
+
+<p>
+Owners say that they suffer “harm” or “economic
+loss” when users copy programs themselves. But the copying has
+no direct effect on the owner, and it harms no one. The owner can
+lose only if the person who made the copy would otherwise have paid
+for one from the owner.</p>
+
+<p>
+A little thought shows that most such people would not have bought
+copies. Yet the owners compute their “losses” as if each
+and every one would have bought a copy. That is exaggeration—to
+put it kindly.</p></li>
+
+<li id="law">The law.
+
+<p>
+Owners often describe the current state of the law, and the harsh
+penalties they can threaten us with. Implicit in this approach is the
+suggestion that today's law reflects an unquestionable view of
+morality—yet at the same time, we are urged to regard these
+penalties as facts of nature that can't be blamed on anyone.</p>
+
+<p>
+This line of persuasion isn't designed to stand up to critical
+thinking; it's intended to reinforce a habitual mental pathway.</p>
+
+<p>
+It's elementary that laws don't decide right and wrong. Every American
+should know that, in the 1950s, it was against the law in many
+states for a black person to sit in the front of a bus; but only
+racists would say sitting there was wrong.</p></li>
+
+<li id="natural-rights">Natural rights.
+
+<p>
+Authors often claim a special connection with programs they have
+written, and go on to assert that, as a result, their desires and
+interests concerning the program simply outweigh those of anyone
+else—or even those of the whole rest of the world. (Typically
+companies, not authors, hold the copyrights on software, but we are
+expected to ignore this discrepancy.)</p>
+
+<p>
+To those who propose this as an ethical axiom—the author is more
+important than you—I can only say that I, a notable software
+author myself, call it bunk.</p>
+
+<p>
+But people in general are only likely to feel any sympathy with the
+natural rights claims for two reasons.</p>
+
+<p>
+One reason is an overstretched analogy with material objects. When I
+cook spaghetti, I do object if someone else eats it, because then I
+cannot eat it. His action hurts me exactly as much as it benefits
+him; only one of us can eat the spaghetti, so the question is, which one?
+The smallest distinction between us is enough to tip the ethical
+balance.</p>
+
+<p>
+But whether you run or change a program I wrote affects you directly
+and me only indirectly. Whether you give a copy to your friend
+affects you and your friend much more than it affects me. I shouldn't
+have the power to tell you not to do these things. No one should.</p>
+
+<p>
+The second reason is that people have been told that natural rights
+for authors is the accepted and unquestioned tradition of our
society.</p>
+
+<p>
+As a matter of history, the opposite is true. The idea of natural
+rights of authors was proposed and decisively rejected when the US
+Constitution was drawn up. That's why the Constitution only
+<em>permits</em> a system of copyright and does not
<em>require</em>
+one; that's why it says that copyright must be temporary. It also
+states that the purpose of copyright is to promote progress—not
+to reward authors. Copyright does reward authors somewhat, and
+publishers more, but that is intended as a means of modifying their
+behavior.</p>
+
+<p>
+The real established tradition of our society is that copyright cuts
+into the natural rights of the public—and that this can only be
+justified for the public's sake.</p></li>
+
+<li id="economics">Economics.
+
+<p>
+The final argument made for having owners of software is that this
+leads to production of more software.</p>
+
+<p>
+Unlike the others, this argument at least takes a legitimate approach
+to the subject. It is based on a valid goal—satisfying the
+users of software. And it is empirically clear that people will
+produce more of something if they are well paid for doing so.</p>
+
+<p>
+But the economic argument has a flaw: it is based on the assumption
+that the difference is only a matter of how much money we have to pay.
+It assumes that <em>production of software</em> is what we want,
+whether the software has owners or not.</p>
+
+<p>
+People readily accept this assumption because it accords with our
+experiences with material objects. Consider a sandwich, for instance.
+You might well be able to get an equivalent sandwich either gratis or
+for a price. If so, the amount you pay is the only difference.
+Whether or not you have to buy it, the sandwich has the same taste,
+the same nutritional value, and in either case you can only eat it
+once. Whether you get the sandwich from an owner or not cannot
+directly affect anything but the amount of money you have afterwards.</p>
+
+<p>
+This is true for any kind of material object—whether or not it
+has an owner does not directly affect what it <em>is</em>, or what
you
+can do with it if you acquire it.</p>
+
+<p>
+But if a program has an owner, this very much affects what it is, and
+what you can do with a copy if you buy one. The difference is not
+just a matter of money. The system of owners of software encourages
+software owners to produce something—but not what society really
+needs. And it causes intangible ethical pollution that affects us
+all.</p></li>
+
+</ul>
+
+<p>
+What does society need? It needs information that is truly available
+to its citizens—for example, programs that people can read, fix,
+adapt, and improve, not just operate. But what software owners
+typically deliver is a black box that we can't study or change.</p>
+
+<p>
+Society also needs freedom. When a program has an owner, the users
+lose freedom to control part of their own lives.</p>
+
+<p>
+And, above all, society needs to encourage the spirit of voluntary
+cooperation in its citizens. When software owners tell us that
+helping our neighbors in a natural way is <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“piracy”,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“piracy,”</em></ins></span> they
+pollute our society's civic spirit.</p>
+
+<p>
+This is why we say that
+<a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">free software</a>
+is a matter of freedom, not price.</p>
+
+<p>
+The economic argument for owners is erroneous, but the economic issue
+is real. Some people write useful software for the pleasure of
+writing it or for admiration and love; but if we want more software
+than those people write, we need to raise funds.</p>
+
+<p>
+Since the 1980s, free software developers have tried various methods
+of finding funds, with some success. There's no need to make anyone
+rich; a typical income is plenty of incentive to do many jobs that are
+less satisfying than programming.</p>
+
+<p>
+For years, until a fellowship made it unnecessary, I made a living
+from custom enhancements of the free software I had written. Each
+enhancement was added to the standard released version and thus
+eventually became available to the general public. Clients paid me so
+that I would work on the enhancements they wanted, rather than on the
+features I would otherwise have considered highest priority.</p>
+
+<p>
+Some free software developers make money by selling support services.
+In 1994, Cygnus Support, with around 50 employees, estimated that
+about 15 percent of its staff activity was free software
+development—a respectable percentage for a software company.</p>
+
+<p>
+In the early 1990s, companies including Intel, Motorola, Texas
+Instruments and Analog Devices combined to fund the continued
+development of the GNU C compiler. Most GCC development is still done
+by paid developers. The GNU compiler for the Ada language was funded
+in the 90s by the US Air Force, and continued since then by a company
+formed specifically for the purpose.</p>
+
+<p>
+The free software movement is still small, but the example of
+listener-supported radio in the US shows it's possible to support a
+large activity without forcing each user to pay.</p>
+
+<p>
+As a computer user today, you may find yourself using a
+<a
href="/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware">proprietary</a>
+program. If your friend asks to make a copy, it would be wrong to
+refuse. Cooperation is more important than copyright. But
+underground, closet cooperation does not make for a good society. A
+person should aspire to live an upright life openly with pride, and
+this means saying no to proprietary software.</p>
+
+<p>
+You deserve to be able to cooperate openly and freely with other
+people who use software. You deserve to be able to learn how the
+software works, and to teach your students with it. You deserve to be
+able to hire your favorite programmer to fix it when it breaks.</p>
+
+<p>
+You deserve free software.</p>
+
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong><h3>Footnotes</h3></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="column-limit"></div>
+
+<h3 class="footnote">Footnote</h3></em></ins></span>
+<ol>
+<li id="footnote1">The charges were subsequently dismissed.</li>
+</ol>
+
+<hr <span class="inserted"><ins><em>class="no-display"</em></ins></span>
/>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><blockquote
id="fsfs"><p>This</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="edu-note c"><p
id="fsfs">This</em></ins></span> essay is published in
+<a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free</em></ins></span>
+Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard
+M. <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Stallman</cite></a>.</p></blockquote></strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Stallman</cite></a>.</p></div>
+</div></em></ins></span>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div <span
class="removed"><del><strong>id="footer"></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>id="footer" role="contentinfo"></em></ins></span>
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></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:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></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:web-translators@gnu.org">
+ <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> 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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> 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 © 1994, 2009, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2020</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2021</em></ins></span> Richard Stallman</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2021/09/09 10:04:53 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong></div></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div><!-- for class="inner", starts
in the banner include --></em></ins></span>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: po/why-free.pl-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/why-free.pl-diff.html
diff -N po/why-free.pl-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/why-free.pl-diff.html 9 Sep 2021 10:04:53 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,404 @@
+<!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/why-free.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>1.77</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>1.96 -->
+<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
+<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays aboutfs principles" -->
+<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes"</em></ins></span> -->
+<title>Why Software Should Not Have Owners
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+
+<meta name="Keywords" content="GNU, GNU Project, FSF, Free Software, Free
Software Foundation, Why Software Should Not Have Owners" />
+
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/why-free.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
+<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
+<div class="article reduced-width"></em></ins></span>
+<h2>Why Software Should Not Have Owners</h2>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>by</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><address
class="byline">by</em></ins></span> <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.stallman.org/"><strong>Richard
+Stallman</strong></a></p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://www.stallman.org/">Richard
+Stallman</a></address></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>
+Digital information technology contributes to the world by making it
+easier to copy and modify information. Computers promise to make this
+easier for all of us.</p>
+
+<p>
+Not everyone wants it to be easier. The system of copyright gives
+software programs <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“owners”,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“owners,”</em></ins></span> most of whom
aim to withhold
+software's potential benefit from the rest of the public. They would
+like to be the only ones who can copy and modify the software that we
+use.</p>
+
+<p>
+The copyright system grew up with printing—a technology for
+mass-production copying. Copyright fit in well with this technology
+because it restricted only the mass producers of copies. It did not
+take freedom away from readers of books. An ordinary reader, who did
+not own a printing press, could copy books only with pen and ink, and
+few readers were sued for that.</p>
+
+<p>
+Digital technology is more flexible than the printing press: when
+information has digital form, you can easily copy it to share it with
+others. This very flexibility makes a bad fit with a system like
+copyright. That's the reason for the increasingly nasty and draconian
+measures now used to enforce software copyright. Consider these four
+practices of the Software Publishers Association (SPA):</p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>Massive propaganda saying it is wrong to disobey the owners to
+help your friend.</li>
+
+<li>Solicitation for stool pigeons to inform on their coworkers and
+colleagues.</li>
+
+<li>Raids (with police help) on offices and schools, in which people
+are told they must prove they are innocent of illegal copying.</li>
+
+<li>Prosecution (by the US government, at the SPA's request) of people
+such as
+<abbr title="Massachusetts Institute of Technology">MIT</abbr>'s
+David LaMacchia, not for copying software (he is not accused of
+copying any), but merely for leaving copying facilities unguarded and
+failing to censor their use.<a href="#footnote1">[1]</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>
+All four practices resemble those used in the former Soviet Union,
+where every copying machine had a guard to prevent forbidden copying,
+and where individuals had to copy information secretly and pass it
+from hand to hand as samizdat. There is of course a difference: the
+motive for information control in the Soviet Union was political; in
+the US the motive is profit. But it is the actions that affect us,
+not the motive. Any attempt to block the sharing of information, no
+matter why, leads to the same methods and the same harshness.</p>
+
+<p>
+Owners make several kinds of arguments for giving them the power
+to control how we use information:</p>
+
+
+<ul>
+<li id="name-calling">Name calling.
+
+<p>
+Owners use smear words such as “piracy” and
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>“theft”,</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“theft,”</em></ins></span> as well
as expert terminology such as
+“intellectual property” and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“damage”,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“damage,”</em></ins></span> to
+suggest a certain line of thinking to the public—a simplistic
+analogy between programs and physical objects.</p>
+
+<p>
+Our ideas and intuitions about property for material objects are about
+whether it is right to <em>take an object away</em> from someone
else. They
+don't directly apply to <em>making a copy</em> of something. But
the owners
+ask us to apply them anyway.</p></li>
+
+<li id="exaggeration">Exaggeration.
+
+<p>
+Owners say that they suffer “harm” or “economic
+loss” when users copy programs themselves. But the copying has
+no direct effect on the owner, and it harms no one. The owner can
+lose only if the person who made the copy would otherwise have paid
+for one from the owner.</p>
+
+<p>
+A little thought shows that most such people would not have bought
+copies. Yet the owners compute their “losses” as if each
+and every one would have bought a copy. That is exaggeration—to
+put it kindly.</p></li>
+
+<li id="law">The law.
+
+<p>
+Owners often describe the current state of the law, and the harsh
+penalties they can threaten us with. Implicit in this approach is the
+suggestion that today's law reflects an unquestionable view of
+morality—yet at the same time, we are urged to regard these
+penalties as facts of nature that can't be blamed on anyone.</p>
+
+<p>
+This line of persuasion isn't designed to stand up to critical
+thinking; it's intended to reinforce a habitual mental pathway.</p>
+
+<p>
+It's elementary that laws don't decide right and wrong. Every American
+should know that, in the 1950s, it was against the law in many
+states for a black person to sit in the front of a bus; but only
+racists would say sitting there was wrong.</p></li>
+
+<li id="natural-rights">Natural rights.
+
+<p>
+Authors often claim a special connection with programs they have
+written, and go on to assert that, as a result, their desires and
+interests concerning the program simply outweigh those of anyone
+else—or even those of the whole rest of the world. (Typically
+companies, not authors, hold the copyrights on software, but we are
+expected to ignore this discrepancy.)</p>
+
+<p>
+To those who propose this as an ethical axiom—the author is more
+important than you—I can only say that I, a notable software
+author myself, call it bunk.</p>
+
+<p>
+But people in general are only likely to feel any sympathy with the
+natural rights claims for two reasons.</p>
+
+<p>
+One reason is an overstretched analogy with material objects. When I
+cook spaghetti, I do object if someone else eats it, because then I
+cannot eat it. His action hurts me exactly as much as it benefits
+him; only one of us can eat the spaghetti, so the question is, which one?
+The smallest distinction between us is enough to tip the ethical
+balance.</p>
+
+<p>
+But whether you run or change a program I wrote affects you directly
+and me only indirectly. Whether you give a copy to your friend
+affects you and your friend much more than it affects me. I shouldn't
+have the power to tell you not to do these things. No one should.</p>
+
+<p>
+The second reason is that people have been told that natural rights
+for authors is the accepted and unquestioned tradition of our
society.</p>
+
+<p>
+As a matter of history, the opposite is true. The idea of natural
+rights of authors was proposed and decisively rejected when the US
+Constitution was drawn up. That's why the Constitution only
+<em>permits</em> a system of copyright and does not
<em>require</em>
+one; that's why it says that copyright must be temporary. It also
+states that the purpose of copyright is to promote progress—not
+to reward authors. Copyright does reward authors somewhat, and
+publishers more, but that is intended as a means of modifying their
+behavior.</p>
+
+<p>
+The real established tradition of our society is that copyright cuts
+into the natural rights of the public—and that this can only be
+justified for the public's sake.</p></li>
+
+<li id="economics">Economics.
+
+<p>
+The final argument made for having owners of software is that this
+leads to production of more software.</p>
+
+<p>
+Unlike the others, this argument at least takes a legitimate approach
+to the subject. It is based on a valid goal—satisfying the
+users of software. And it is empirically clear that people will
+produce more of something if they are well paid for doing so.</p>
+
+<p>
+But the economic argument has a flaw: it is based on the assumption
+that the difference is only a matter of how much money we have to pay.
+It assumes that <em>production of software</em> is what we want,
+whether the software has owners or not.</p>
+
+<p>
+People readily accept this assumption because it accords with our
+experiences with material objects. Consider a sandwich, for instance.
+You might well be able to get an equivalent sandwich either gratis or
+for a price. If so, the amount you pay is the only difference.
+Whether or not you have to buy it, the sandwich has the same taste,
+the same nutritional value, and in either case you can only eat it
+once. Whether you get the sandwich from an owner or not cannot
+directly affect anything but the amount of money you have afterwards.</p>
+
+<p>
+This is true for any kind of material object—whether or not it
+has an owner does not directly affect what it <em>is</em>, or what
you
+can do with it if you acquire it.</p>
+
+<p>
+But if a program has an owner, this very much affects what it is, and
+what you can do with a copy if you buy one. The difference is not
+just a matter of money. The system of owners of software encourages
+software owners to produce something—but not what society really
+needs. And it causes intangible ethical pollution that affects us
+all.</p></li>
+
+</ul>
+
+<p>
+What does society need? It needs information that is truly available
+to its citizens—for example, programs that people can read, fix,
+adapt, and improve, not just operate. But what software owners
+typically deliver is a black box that we can't study or change.</p>
+
+<p>
+Society also needs freedom. When a program has an owner, the users
+lose freedom to control part of their own lives.</p>
+
+<p>
+And, above all, society needs to encourage the spirit of voluntary
+cooperation in its citizens. When software owners tell us that
+helping our neighbors in a natural way is <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“piracy”,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“piracy,”</em></ins></span> they
+pollute our society's civic spirit.</p>
+
+<p>
+This is why we say that
+<a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">free software</a>
+is a matter of freedom, not price.</p>
+
+<p>
+The economic argument for owners is erroneous, but the economic issue
+is real. Some people write useful software for the pleasure of
+writing it or for admiration and love; but if we want more software
+than those people write, we need to raise funds.</p>
+
+<p>
+Since the 1980s, free software developers have tried various methods
+of finding funds, with some success. There's no need to make anyone
+rich; a typical income is plenty of incentive to do many jobs that are
+less satisfying than programming.</p>
+
+<p>
+For years, until a fellowship made it unnecessary, I made a living
+from custom enhancements of the free software I had written. Each
+enhancement was added to the standard released version and thus
+eventually became available to the general public. Clients paid me so
+that I would work on the enhancements they wanted, rather than on the
+features I would otherwise have considered highest priority.</p>
+
+<p>
+Some free software developers make money by selling support services.
+In 1994, Cygnus Support, with around 50 employees, estimated that
+about 15 percent of its staff activity was free software
+development—a respectable percentage for a software company.</p>
+
+<p>
+In the early 1990s, companies including Intel, Motorola, Texas
+Instruments and Analog Devices combined to fund the continued
+development of the GNU C compiler. Most GCC development is still done
+by paid developers. The GNU compiler for the Ada language was funded
+in the 90s by the US Air Force, and continued since then by a company
+formed specifically for the purpose.</p>
+
+<p>
+The free software movement is still small, but the example of
+listener-supported radio in the US shows it's possible to support a
+large activity without forcing each user to pay.</p>
+
+<p>
+As a computer user today, you may find yourself using a
+<a
href="/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware">proprietary</a>
+program. If your friend asks to make a copy, it would be wrong to
+refuse. Cooperation is more important than copyright. But
+underground, closet cooperation does not make for a good society. A
+person should aspire to live an upright life openly with pride, and
+this means saying no to proprietary software.</p>
+
+<p>
+You deserve to be able to cooperate openly and freely with other
+people who use software. You deserve to be able to learn how the
+software works, and to teach your students with it. You deserve to be
+able to hire your favorite programmer to fix it when it breaks.</p>
+
+<p>
+You deserve free software.</p>
+
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong><h3>Footnotes</h3></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="column-limit"></div>
+
+<h3 class="footnote">Footnote</h3></em></ins></span>
+<ol>
+<li id="footnote1">The charges were subsequently dismissed.</li>
+</ol>
+
+<hr <span class="inserted"><ins><em>class="no-display"</em></ins></span>
/>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><blockquote
id="fsfs"><p>This</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="edu-note c"><p
id="fsfs">This</em></ins></span> essay is published in
+<a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free</em></ins></span>
+Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard
+M. <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Stallman</cite></a>.</p></blockquote></strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Stallman</cite></a>.</p></div>
+</div></em></ins></span>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div <span
class="removed"><del><strong>id="footer"></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>id="footer" role="contentinfo"></em></ins></span>
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></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:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></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:web-translators@gnu.org">
+ <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> 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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> 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 © 1994, 2009, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2020</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2021</em></ins></span> Richard Stallman</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2021/09/09 10:04:53 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong></div></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div><!-- for class="inner", starts
in the banner include --></em></ins></span>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: po/why-free.ro-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/why-free.ro-diff.html
diff -N po/why-free.ro-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/why-free.ro-diff.html 9 Sep 2021 10:04:53 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,404 @@
+<!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/why-free.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>1.77</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>1.96 -->
+<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
+<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays aboutfs principles" -->
+<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes"</em></ins></span> -->
+<title>Why Software Should Not Have Owners
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+
+<meta name="Keywords" content="GNU, GNU Project, FSF, Free Software, Free
Software Foundation, Why Software Should Not Have Owners" />
+
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/why-free.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
+<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
+<div class="article reduced-width"></em></ins></span>
+<h2>Why Software Should Not Have Owners</h2>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>by</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><address
class="byline">by</em></ins></span> <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.stallman.org/"><strong>Richard
+Stallman</strong></a></p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://www.stallman.org/">Richard
+Stallman</a></address></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>
+Digital information technology contributes to the world by making it
+easier to copy and modify information. Computers promise to make this
+easier for all of us.</p>
+
+<p>
+Not everyone wants it to be easier. The system of copyright gives
+software programs <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“owners”,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“owners,”</em></ins></span> most of whom
aim to withhold
+software's potential benefit from the rest of the public. They would
+like to be the only ones who can copy and modify the software that we
+use.</p>
+
+<p>
+The copyright system grew up with printing—a technology for
+mass-production copying. Copyright fit in well with this technology
+because it restricted only the mass producers of copies. It did not
+take freedom away from readers of books. An ordinary reader, who did
+not own a printing press, could copy books only with pen and ink, and
+few readers were sued for that.</p>
+
+<p>
+Digital technology is more flexible than the printing press: when
+information has digital form, you can easily copy it to share it with
+others. This very flexibility makes a bad fit with a system like
+copyright. That's the reason for the increasingly nasty and draconian
+measures now used to enforce software copyright. Consider these four
+practices of the Software Publishers Association (SPA):</p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>Massive propaganda saying it is wrong to disobey the owners to
+help your friend.</li>
+
+<li>Solicitation for stool pigeons to inform on their coworkers and
+colleagues.</li>
+
+<li>Raids (with police help) on offices and schools, in which people
+are told they must prove they are innocent of illegal copying.</li>
+
+<li>Prosecution (by the US government, at the SPA's request) of people
+such as
+<abbr title="Massachusetts Institute of Technology">MIT</abbr>'s
+David LaMacchia, not for copying software (he is not accused of
+copying any), but merely for leaving copying facilities unguarded and
+failing to censor their use.<a href="#footnote1">[1]</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>
+All four practices resemble those used in the former Soviet Union,
+where every copying machine had a guard to prevent forbidden copying,
+and where individuals had to copy information secretly and pass it
+from hand to hand as samizdat. There is of course a difference: the
+motive for information control in the Soviet Union was political; in
+the US the motive is profit. But it is the actions that affect us,
+not the motive. Any attempt to block the sharing of information, no
+matter why, leads to the same methods and the same harshness.</p>
+
+<p>
+Owners make several kinds of arguments for giving them the power
+to control how we use information:</p>
+
+
+<ul>
+<li id="name-calling">Name calling.
+
+<p>
+Owners use smear words such as “piracy” and
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>“theft”,</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“theft,”</em></ins></span> as well
as expert terminology such as
+“intellectual property” and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“damage”,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“damage,”</em></ins></span> to
+suggest a certain line of thinking to the public—a simplistic
+analogy between programs and physical objects.</p>
+
+<p>
+Our ideas and intuitions about property for material objects are about
+whether it is right to <em>take an object away</em> from someone
else. They
+don't directly apply to <em>making a copy</em> of something. But
the owners
+ask us to apply them anyway.</p></li>
+
+<li id="exaggeration">Exaggeration.
+
+<p>
+Owners say that they suffer “harm” or “economic
+loss” when users copy programs themselves. But the copying has
+no direct effect on the owner, and it harms no one. The owner can
+lose only if the person who made the copy would otherwise have paid
+for one from the owner.</p>
+
+<p>
+A little thought shows that most such people would not have bought
+copies. Yet the owners compute their “losses” as if each
+and every one would have bought a copy. That is exaggeration—to
+put it kindly.</p></li>
+
+<li id="law">The law.
+
+<p>
+Owners often describe the current state of the law, and the harsh
+penalties they can threaten us with. Implicit in this approach is the
+suggestion that today's law reflects an unquestionable view of
+morality—yet at the same time, we are urged to regard these
+penalties as facts of nature that can't be blamed on anyone.</p>
+
+<p>
+This line of persuasion isn't designed to stand up to critical
+thinking; it's intended to reinforce a habitual mental pathway.</p>
+
+<p>
+It's elementary that laws don't decide right and wrong. Every American
+should know that, in the 1950s, it was against the law in many
+states for a black person to sit in the front of a bus; but only
+racists would say sitting there was wrong.</p></li>
+
+<li id="natural-rights">Natural rights.
+
+<p>
+Authors often claim a special connection with programs they have
+written, and go on to assert that, as a result, their desires and
+interests concerning the program simply outweigh those of anyone
+else—or even those of the whole rest of the world. (Typically
+companies, not authors, hold the copyrights on software, but we are
+expected to ignore this discrepancy.)</p>
+
+<p>
+To those who propose this as an ethical axiom—the author is more
+important than you—I can only say that I, a notable software
+author myself, call it bunk.</p>
+
+<p>
+But people in general are only likely to feel any sympathy with the
+natural rights claims for two reasons.</p>
+
+<p>
+One reason is an overstretched analogy with material objects. When I
+cook spaghetti, I do object if someone else eats it, because then I
+cannot eat it. His action hurts me exactly as much as it benefits
+him; only one of us can eat the spaghetti, so the question is, which one?
+The smallest distinction between us is enough to tip the ethical
+balance.</p>
+
+<p>
+But whether you run or change a program I wrote affects you directly
+and me only indirectly. Whether you give a copy to your friend
+affects you and your friend much more than it affects me. I shouldn't
+have the power to tell you not to do these things. No one should.</p>
+
+<p>
+The second reason is that people have been told that natural rights
+for authors is the accepted and unquestioned tradition of our
society.</p>
+
+<p>
+As a matter of history, the opposite is true. The idea of natural
+rights of authors was proposed and decisively rejected when the US
+Constitution was drawn up. That's why the Constitution only
+<em>permits</em> a system of copyright and does not
<em>require</em>
+one; that's why it says that copyright must be temporary. It also
+states that the purpose of copyright is to promote progress—not
+to reward authors. Copyright does reward authors somewhat, and
+publishers more, but that is intended as a means of modifying their
+behavior.</p>
+
+<p>
+The real established tradition of our society is that copyright cuts
+into the natural rights of the public—and that this can only be
+justified for the public's sake.</p></li>
+
+<li id="economics">Economics.
+
+<p>
+The final argument made for having owners of software is that this
+leads to production of more software.</p>
+
+<p>
+Unlike the others, this argument at least takes a legitimate approach
+to the subject. It is based on a valid goal—satisfying the
+users of software. And it is empirically clear that people will
+produce more of something if they are well paid for doing so.</p>
+
+<p>
+But the economic argument has a flaw: it is based on the assumption
+that the difference is only a matter of how much money we have to pay.
+It assumes that <em>production of software</em> is what we want,
+whether the software has owners or not.</p>
+
+<p>
+People readily accept this assumption because it accords with our
+experiences with material objects. Consider a sandwich, for instance.
+You might well be able to get an equivalent sandwich either gratis or
+for a price. If so, the amount you pay is the only difference.
+Whether or not you have to buy it, the sandwich has the same taste,
+the same nutritional value, and in either case you can only eat it
+once. Whether you get the sandwich from an owner or not cannot
+directly affect anything but the amount of money you have afterwards.</p>
+
+<p>
+This is true for any kind of material object—whether or not it
+has an owner does not directly affect what it <em>is</em>, or what
you
+can do with it if you acquire it.</p>
+
+<p>
+But if a program has an owner, this very much affects what it is, and
+what you can do with a copy if you buy one. The difference is not
+just a matter of money. The system of owners of software encourages
+software owners to produce something—but not what society really
+needs. And it causes intangible ethical pollution that affects us
+all.</p></li>
+
+</ul>
+
+<p>
+What does society need? It needs information that is truly available
+to its citizens—for example, programs that people can read, fix,
+adapt, and improve, not just operate. But what software owners
+typically deliver is a black box that we can't study or change.</p>
+
+<p>
+Society also needs freedom. When a program has an owner, the users
+lose freedom to control part of their own lives.</p>
+
+<p>
+And, above all, society needs to encourage the spirit of voluntary
+cooperation in its citizens. When software owners tell us that
+helping our neighbors in a natural way is <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“piracy”,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“piracy,”</em></ins></span> they
+pollute our society's civic spirit.</p>
+
+<p>
+This is why we say that
+<a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">free software</a>
+is a matter of freedom, not price.</p>
+
+<p>
+The economic argument for owners is erroneous, but the economic issue
+is real. Some people write useful software for the pleasure of
+writing it or for admiration and love; but if we want more software
+than those people write, we need to raise funds.</p>
+
+<p>
+Since the 1980s, free software developers have tried various methods
+of finding funds, with some success. There's no need to make anyone
+rich; a typical income is plenty of incentive to do many jobs that are
+less satisfying than programming.</p>
+
+<p>
+For years, until a fellowship made it unnecessary, I made a living
+from custom enhancements of the free software I had written. Each
+enhancement was added to the standard released version and thus
+eventually became available to the general public. Clients paid me so
+that I would work on the enhancements they wanted, rather than on the
+features I would otherwise have considered highest priority.</p>
+
+<p>
+Some free software developers make money by selling support services.
+In 1994, Cygnus Support, with around 50 employees, estimated that
+about 15 percent of its staff activity was free software
+development—a respectable percentage for a software company.</p>
+
+<p>
+In the early 1990s, companies including Intel, Motorola, Texas
+Instruments and Analog Devices combined to fund the continued
+development of the GNU C compiler. Most GCC development is still done
+by paid developers. The GNU compiler for the Ada language was funded
+in the 90s by the US Air Force, and continued since then by a company
+formed specifically for the purpose.</p>
+
+<p>
+The free software movement is still small, but the example of
+listener-supported radio in the US shows it's possible to support a
+large activity without forcing each user to pay.</p>
+
+<p>
+As a computer user today, you may find yourself using a
+<a
href="/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware">proprietary</a>
+program. If your friend asks to make a copy, it would be wrong to
+refuse. Cooperation is more important than copyright. But
+underground, closet cooperation does not make for a good society. A
+person should aspire to live an upright life openly with pride, and
+this means saying no to proprietary software.</p>
+
+<p>
+You deserve to be able to cooperate openly and freely with other
+people who use software. You deserve to be able to learn how the
+software works, and to teach your students with it. You deserve to be
+able to hire your favorite programmer to fix it when it breaks.</p>
+
+<p>
+You deserve free software.</p>
+
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong><h3>Footnotes</h3></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="column-limit"></div>
+
+<h3 class="footnote">Footnote</h3></em></ins></span>
+<ol>
+<li id="footnote1">The charges were subsequently dismissed.</li>
+</ol>
+
+<hr <span class="inserted"><ins><em>class="no-display"</em></ins></span>
/>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><blockquote
id="fsfs"><p>This</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="edu-note c"><p
id="fsfs">This</em></ins></span> essay is published in
+<a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free</em></ins></span>
+Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard
+M. <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Stallman</cite></a>.</p></blockquote></strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Stallman</cite></a>.</p></div>
+</div></em></ins></span>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div <span
class="removed"><del><strong>id="footer"></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>id="footer" role="contentinfo"></em></ins></span>
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></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:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></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:web-translators@gnu.org">
+ <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> 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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> 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 © 1994, 2009, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2020</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2021</em></ins></span> Richard Stallman</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2021/09/09 10:04:53 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong></div></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div><!-- for class="inner", starts
in the banner include --></em></ins></span>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: po/why-free.uk-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/why-free.uk-diff.html
diff -N po/why-free.uk-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/why-free.uk-diff.html 9 Sep 2021 10:04:53 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,404 @@
+<!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/why-free.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>1.77</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>1.96 -->
+<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
+<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays aboutfs principles" -->
+<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes"</em></ins></span> -->
+<title>Why Software Should Not Have Owners
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+
+<meta name="Keywords" content="GNU, GNU Project, FSF, Free Software, Free
Software Foundation, Why Software Should Not Have Owners" />
+
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/why-free.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
+<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
+<div class="article reduced-width"></em></ins></span>
+<h2>Why Software Should Not Have Owners</h2>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>by</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><address
class="byline">by</em></ins></span> <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.stallman.org/"><strong>Richard
+Stallman</strong></a></p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://www.stallman.org/">Richard
+Stallman</a></address></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>
+Digital information technology contributes to the world by making it
+easier to copy and modify information. Computers promise to make this
+easier for all of us.</p>
+
+<p>
+Not everyone wants it to be easier. The system of copyright gives
+software programs <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“owners”,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“owners,”</em></ins></span> most of whom
aim to withhold
+software's potential benefit from the rest of the public. They would
+like to be the only ones who can copy and modify the software that we
+use.</p>
+
+<p>
+The copyright system grew up with printing—a technology for
+mass-production copying. Copyright fit in well with this technology
+because it restricted only the mass producers of copies. It did not
+take freedom away from readers of books. An ordinary reader, who did
+not own a printing press, could copy books only with pen and ink, and
+few readers were sued for that.</p>
+
+<p>
+Digital technology is more flexible than the printing press: when
+information has digital form, you can easily copy it to share it with
+others. This very flexibility makes a bad fit with a system like
+copyright. That's the reason for the increasingly nasty and draconian
+measures now used to enforce software copyright. Consider these four
+practices of the Software Publishers Association (SPA):</p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>Massive propaganda saying it is wrong to disobey the owners to
+help your friend.</li>
+
+<li>Solicitation for stool pigeons to inform on their coworkers and
+colleagues.</li>
+
+<li>Raids (with police help) on offices and schools, in which people
+are told they must prove they are innocent of illegal copying.</li>
+
+<li>Prosecution (by the US government, at the SPA's request) of people
+such as
+<abbr title="Massachusetts Institute of Technology">MIT</abbr>'s
+David LaMacchia, not for copying software (he is not accused of
+copying any), but merely for leaving copying facilities unguarded and
+failing to censor their use.<a href="#footnote1">[1]</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>
+All four practices resemble those used in the former Soviet Union,
+where every copying machine had a guard to prevent forbidden copying,
+and where individuals had to copy information secretly and pass it
+from hand to hand as samizdat. There is of course a difference: the
+motive for information control in the Soviet Union was political; in
+the US the motive is profit. But it is the actions that affect us,
+not the motive. Any attempt to block the sharing of information, no
+matter why, leads to the same methods and the same harshness.</p>
+
+<p>
+Owners make several kinds of arguments for giving them the power
+to control how we use information:</p>
+
+
+<ul>
+<li id="name-calling">Name calling.
+
+<p>
+Owners use smear words such as “piracy” and
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>“theft”,</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“theft,”</em></ins></span> as well
as expert terminology such as
+“intellectual property” and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“damage”,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“damage,”</em></ins></span> to
+suggest a certain line of thinking to the public—a simplistic
+analogy between programs and physical objects.</p>
+
+<p>
+Our ideas and intuitions about property for material objects are about
+whether it is right to <em>take an object away</em> from someone
else. They
+don't directly apply to <em>making a copy</em> of something. But
the owners
+ask us to apply them anyway.</p></li>
+
+<li id="exaggeration">Exaggeration.
+
+<p>
+Owners say that they suffer “harm” or “economic
+loss” when users copy programs themselves. But the copying has
+no direct effect on the owner, and it harms no one. The owner can
+lose only if the person who made the copy would otherwise have paid
+for one from the owner.</p>
+
+<p>
+A little thought shows that most such people would not have bought
+copies. Yet the owners compute their “losses” as if each
+and every one would have bought a copy. That is exaggeration—to
+put it kindly.</p></li>
+
+<li id="law">The law.
+
+<p>
+Owners often describe the current state of the law, and the harsh
+penalties they can threaten us with. Implicit in this approach is the
+suggestion that today's law reflects an unquestionable view of
+morality—yet at the same time, we are urged to regard these
+penalties as facts of nature that can't be blamed on anyone.</p>
+
+<p>
+This line of persuasion isn't designed to stand up to critical
+thinking; it's intended to reinforce a habitual mental pathway.</p>
+
+<p>
+It's elementary that laws don't decide right and wrong. Every American
+should know that, in the 1950s, it was against the law in many
+states for a black person to sit in the front of a bus; but only
+racists would say sitting there was wrong.</p></li>
+
+<li id="natural-rights">Natural rights.
+
+<p>
+Authors often claim a special connection with programs they have
+written, and go on to assert that, as a result, their desires and
+interests concerning the program simply outweigh those of anyone
+else—or even those of the whole rest of the world. (Typically
+companies, not authors, hold the copyrights on software, but we are
+expected to ignore this discrepancy.)</p>
+
+<p>
+To those who propose this as an ethical axiom—the author is more
+important than you—I can only say that I, a notable software
+author myself, call it bunk.</p>
+
+<p>
+But people in general are only likely to feel any sympathy with the
+natural rights claims for two reasons.</p>
+
+<p>
+One reason is an overstretched analogy with material objects. When I
+cook spaghetti, I do object if someone else eats it, because then I
+cannot eat it. His action hurts me exactly as much as it benefits
+him; only one of us can eat the spaghetti, so the question is, which one?
+The smallest distinction between us is enough to tip the ethical
+balance.</p>
+
+<p>
+But whether you run or change a program I wrote affects you directly
+and me only indirectly. Whether you give a copy to your friend
+affects you and your friend much more than it affects me. I shouldn't
+have the power to tell you not to do these things. No one should.</p>
+
+<p>
+The second reason is that people have been told that natural rights
+for authors is the accepted and unquestioned tradition of our
society.</p>
+
+<p>
+As a matter of history, the opposite is true. The idea of natural
+rights of authors was proposed and decisively rejected when the US
+Constitution was drawn up. That's why the Constitution only
+<em>permits</em> a system of copyright and does not
<em>require</em>
+one; that's why it says that copyright must be temporary. It also
+states that the purpose of copyright is to promote progress—not
+to reward authors. Copyright does reward authors somewhat, and
+publishers more, but that is intended as a means of modifying their
+behavior.</p>
+
+<p>
+The real established tradition of our society is that copyright cuts
+into the natural rights of the public—and that this can only be
+justified for the public's sake.</p></li>
+
+<li id="economics">Economics.
+
+<p>
+The final argument made for having owners of software is that this
+leads to production of more software.</p>
+
+<p>
+Unlike the others, this argument at least takes a legitimate approach
+to the subject. It is based on a valid goal—satisfying the
+users of software. And it is empirically clear that people will
+produce more of something if they are well paid for doing so.</p>
+
+<p>
+But the economic argument has a flaw: it is based on the assumption
+that the difference is only a matter of how much money we have to pay.
+It assumes that <em>production of software</em> is what we want,
+whether the software has owners or not.</p>
+
+<p>
+People readily accept this assumption because it accords with our
+experiences with material objects. Consider a sandwich, for instance.
+You might well be able to get an equivalent sandwich either gratis or
+for a price. If so, the amount you pay is the only difference.
+Whether or not you have to buy it, the sandwich has the same taste,
+the same nutritional value, and in either case you can only eat it
+once. Whether you get the sandwich from an owner or not cannot
+directly affect anything but the amount of money you have afterwards.</p>
+
+<p>
+This is true for any kind of material object—whether or not it
+has an owner does not directly affect what it <em>is</em>, or what
you
+can do with it if you acquire it.</p>
+
+<p>
+But if a program has an owner, this very much affects what it is, and
+what you can do with a copy if you buy one. The difference is not
+just a matter of money. The system of owners of software encourages
+software owners to produce something—but not what society really
+needs. And it causes intangible ethical pollution that affects us
+all.</p></li>
+
+</ul>
+
+<p>
+What does society need? It needs information that is truly available
+to its citizens—for example, programs that people can read, fix,
+adapt, and improve, not just operate. But what software owners
+typically deliver is a black box that we can't study or change.</p>
+
+<p>
+Society also needs freedom. When a program has an owner, the users
+lose freedom to control part of their own lives.</p>
+
+<p>
+And, above all, society needs to encourage the spirit of voluntary
+cooperation in its citizens. When software owners tell us that
+helping our neighbors in a natural way is <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“piracy”,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“piracy,”</em></ins></span> they
+pollute our society's civic spirit.</p>
+
+<p>
+This is why we say that
+<a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">free software</a>
+is a matter of freedom, not price.</p>
+
+<p>
+The economic argument for owners is erroneous, but the economic issue
+is real. Some people write useful software for the pleasure of
+writing it or for admiration and love; but if we want more software
+than those people write, we need to raise funds.</p>
+
+<p>
+Since the 1980s, free software developers have tried various methods
+of finding funds, with some success. There's no need to make anyone
+rich; a typical income is plenty of incentive to do many jobs that are
+less satisfying than programming.</p>
+
+<p>
+For years, until a fellowship made it unnecessary, I made a living
+from custom enhancements of the free software I had written. Each
+enhancement was added to the standard released version and thus
+eventually became available to the general public. Clients paid me so
+that I would work on the enhancements they wanted, rather than on the
+features I would otherwise have considered highest priority.</p>
+
+<p>
+Some free software developers make money by selling support services.
+In 1994, Cygnus Support, with around 50 employees, estimated that
+about 15 percent of its staff activity was free software
+development—a respectable percentage for a software company.</p>
+
+<p>
+In the early 1990s, companies including Intel, Motorola, Texas
+Instruments and Analog Devices combined to fund the continued
+development of the GNU C compiler. Most GCC development is still done
+by paid developers. The GNU compiler for the Ada language was funded
+in the 90s by the US Air Force, and continued since then by a company
+formed specifically for the purpose.</p>
+
+<p>
+The free software movement is still small, but the example of
+listener-supported radio in the US shows it's possible to support a
+large activity without forcing each user to pay.</p>
+
+<p>
+As a computer user today, you may find yourself using a
+<a
href="/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware">proprietary</a>
+program. If your friend asks to make a copy, it would be wrong to
+refuse. Cooperation is more important than copyright. But
+underground, closet cooperation does not make for a good society. A
+person should aspire to live an upright life openly with pride, and
+this means saying no to proprietary software.</p>
+
+<p>
+You deserve to be able to cooperate openly and freely with other
+people who use software. You deserve to be able to learn how the
+software works, and to teach your students with it. You deserve to be
+able to hire your favorite programmer to fix it when it breaks.</p>
+
+<p>
+You deserve free software.</p>
+
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong><h3>Footnotes</h3></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="column-limit"></div>
+
+<h3 class="footnote">Footnote</h3></em></ins></span>
+<ol>
+<li id="footnote1">The charges were subsequently dismissed.</li>
+</ol>
+
+<hr <span class="inserted"><ins><em>class="no-display"</em></ins></span>
/>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><blockquote
id="fsfs"><p>This</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="edu-note c"><p
id="fsfs">This</em></ins></span> essay is published in
+<a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free</em></ins></span>
+Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard
+M. <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Stallman</cite></a>.</p></blockquote></strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Stallman</cite></a>.</p></div>
+</div></em></ins></span>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div <span
class="removed"><del><strong>id="footer"></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>id="footer" role="contentinfo"></em></ins></span>
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></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:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></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:web-translators@gnu.org">
+ <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> 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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> 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 © 1994, 2009, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2020</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2021</em></ins></span> Richard Stallman</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2021/09/09 10:04:53 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong></div></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div><!-- for class="inner", starts
in the banner include --></em></ins></span>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- www/philosophy free-doc.it.html free-doc.ja.htm...,
GNUN <=