www-commits
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

www philosophy/gpl-american-way.pt-br.html phil...


From: GNUN
Subject: www philosophy/gpl-american-way.pt-br.html phil...
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2021 10:30:26 -0500 (EST)

CVSROOT:        /web/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     GNUN <gnun>     21/11/11 10:30:26

Modified files:
        philosophy     : gpl-american-way.pt-br.html 
                         imperfection-isnt-oppression.pt-br.html 
                         open-source-misses-the-point.ml.html 
                         open-source-misses-the-point.pt-br.html 
                         shouldbefree.pt-br.html 
                         words-to-avoid.pt-br.html 
        philosophy/po  : open-source-misses-the-point.ml-diff.html 
                         open-source-misses-the-point.pt-br-diff.html 
                         words-to-avoid.pt-br-diff.html 
        thankgnus/po   : 2021supporters.pot 2021supporters.pt-br.po 
Added files:
        philosophy/po  : gpl-american-way.pt-br-diff.html 
                         imperfection-isnt-oppression.pt-br-diff.html 
                         shouldbefree.pt-br-diff.html 

Log message:
        Automatic update by GNUnited Nations.

CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/gpl-american-way.pt-br.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.12&r2=1.13
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/imperfection-isnt-oppression.pt-br.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.6&r2=1.7
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.ml.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.43&r2=1.44
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.pt-br.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.27&r2=1.28
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/shouldbefree.pt-br.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.20&r2=1.21
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/words-to-avoid.pt-br.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.36&r2=1.37
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.ml-diff.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.3&r2=1.4
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.pt-br-diff.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.29&r2=1.30
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/words-to-avoid.pt-br-diff.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.4&r2=1.5
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/gpl-american-way.pt-br-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/imperfection-isnt-oppression.pt-br-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/shouldbefree.pt-br-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/thankgnus/po/2021supporters.pot?cvsroot=www&r1=1.99&r2=1.100
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/thankgnus/po/2021supporters.pt-br.po?cvsroot=www&r1=1.151&r2=1.152

Patches:
Index: philosophy/gpl-american-way.pt-br.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/gpl-american-way.pt-br.html,v
retrieving revision 1.12
retrieving revision 1.13
diff -u -b -r1.12 -r1.13
--- philosophy/gpl-american-way.pt-br.html      19 Aug 2021 08:13:19 -0000      
1.12
+++ philosophy/gpl-american-way.pt-br.html      11 Nov 2021 15:30:25 -0000      
1.13
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/gpl-american-way.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/gpl-american-way.pt-br.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/gpl-american-way.pt-br.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/gpl-american-way.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" 
value="/philosophy/po/gpl-american-way.pt-br-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2021-09-12" --><!--#set 
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/gpl-american-way.en.html" -->
 
 <!--#include virtual="/server/header.pt-br.html" -->
 <!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 -->
@@ -14,6 +19,7 @@
 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.pt-br.html" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.pt-br.html" -->
 <!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.pt-br.html" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.pt-br.html" -->
 <div class="reduced-width">
 <h2>A GNU GPL e o Modo Americano de Viver</h2>
@@ -202,7 +208,7 @@
 <p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
 Última atualização:
 
-$Date: 2021/08/19 08:13:19 $
+$Date: 2021/11/11 15:30:25 $
 
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>

Index: philosophy/imperfection-isnt-oppression.pt-br.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/imperfection-isnt-oppression.pt-br.html,v
retrieving revision 1.6
retrieving revision 1.7
diff -u -b -r1.6 -r1.7
--- philosophy/imperfection-isnt-oppression.pt-br.html  5 Sep 2021 10:06:05 
-0000       1.6
+++ philosophy/imperfection-isnt-oppression.pt-br.html  11 Nov 2021 15:30:25 
-0000      1.7
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" 
value="/philosophy/imperfection-isnt-oppression.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/imperfection-isnt-oppression.pt-br.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/imperfection-isnt-oppression.pt-br.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" 
value="/philosophy/imperfection-isnt-oppression.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" 
value="/philosophy/po/imperfection-isnt-oppression.pt-br-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2021-09-12" --><!--#set 
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/imperfection-isnt-oppression.en.html" -->
 
 <!--#include virtual="/server/header.pt-br.html" -->
 <!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 -->
@@ -14,6 +19,7 @@
 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.pt-br.html" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.pt-br.html" -->
 <!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.pt-br.html" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.pt-br.html" -->
 <div class="article reduced-width">
 <h2>Imperfeição não é o mesmo que opressão</h2>
@@ -137,7 +143,7 @@
 <p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
 Última atualização:
 
-$Date: 2021/09/05 10:06:05 $
+$Date: 2021/11/11 15:30:25 $
 
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>

Index: philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.ml.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.ml.html,v
retrieving revision 1.43
retrieving revision 1.44
diff -u -b -r1.43 -r1.44
--- philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.ml.html     19 Aug 2021 08:13:20 
-0000      1.43
+++ philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.ml.html     11 Nov 2021 15:30:25 
-0000      1.44
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" 
value="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.ml.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.ml.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" 
value="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" 
value="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.ml-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2021-09-12" --><!--#set 
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html" -->
 
 <!--#include virtual="/server/header.ml.html" -->
 <!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 -->
@@ -14,6 +19,7 @@
 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.ml.html" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.ml.html" -->
 <!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.ml.html" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.ml.html" -->
 <div class="reduced-width">
 <h2>സ്വതന്ത്ര 
സോഫ്റ്റ്‌വെയറിന്റെ ആശയം 
ഓപ്പണ്‍ സോഴ്സ് 
വിട്ടുപോകുന്നതു്
@@ -606,7 +612,7 @@
 <p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
 പുതുക്കിയതു്:
 
-$Date: 2021/08/19 08:13:20 $
+$Date: 2021/11/11 15:30:25 $
 
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>

Index: philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.pt-br.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.pt-br.html,v
retrieving revision 1.27
retrieving revision 1.28
diff -u -b -r1.27 -r1.28
--- philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.pt-br.html  19 Aug 2021 08:13:20 
-0000      1.27
+++ philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.pt-br.html  11 Nov 2021 15:30:25 
-0000      1.28
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" 
value="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.pt-br.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.pt-br.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" 
value="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" 
value="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.pt-br-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2021-09-12" --><!--#set 
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html" -->
 
 <!--#include virtual="/server/header.pt-br.html" -->
 <!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 -->
@@ -14,6 +19,7 @@
 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.pt-br.html" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.pt-br.html" -->
 <!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.pt-br.html" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.pt-br.html" -->
 <div class="reduced-width">
 <h2>Por que o Código Aberto não compartilha dos objetivos do Software 
Livre</h2>
@@ -513,7 +519,7 @@
 <p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
 Última atualização:
 
-$Date: 2021/08/19 08:13:20 $
+$Date: 2021/11/11 15:30:25 $
 
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>

Index: philosophy/shouldbefree.pt-br.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/shouldbefree.pt-br.html,v
retrieving revision 1.20
retrieving revision 1.21
diff -u -b -r1.20 -r1.21
--- philosophy/shouldbefree.pt-br.html  5 Sep 2021 23:02:17 -0000       1.20
+++ philosophy/shouldbefree.pt-br.html  11 Nov 2021 15:30:25 -0000      1.21
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/shouldbefree.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/shouldbefree.pt-br.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/shouldbefree.pt-br.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/shouldbefree.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" 
value="/philosophy/po/shouldbefree.pt-br-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2021-09-12" --><!--#set 
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/shouldbefree.en.html" -->
 
 <!--#include virtual="/server/header.pt-br.html" -->
 <!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 -->
@@ -19,6 +24,7 @@
 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.pt-br.html" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.pt-br.html" -->
 <!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.pt-br.html" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.pt-br.html" -->
 <div class="article reduced-width">
 <h2>Por que o Software Deveria Ser Livre</h2>
@@ -909,7 +915,7 @@
 <p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
 Última atualização:
 
-$Date: 2021/09/05 23:02:17 $
+$Date: 2021/11/11 15:30:25 $
 
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>

Index: philosophy/words-to-avoid.pt-br.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/words-to-avoid.pt-br.html,v
retrieving revision 1.36
retrieving revision 1.37
diff -u -b -r1.36 -r1.37
--- philosophy/words-to-avoid.pt-br.html        6 Sep 2021 01:03:47 -0000       
1.36
+++ philosophy/words-to-avoid.pt-br.html        11 Nov 2021 15:30:25 -0000      
1.37
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/words-to-avoid.pt-br.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/words-to-avoid.pt-br.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" 
value="/philosophy/po/words-to-avoid.pt-br-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2021-09-12" --><!--#set 
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html" -->
 
 <!--#include virtual="/server/header.pt-br.html" -->
 <!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 -->
@@ -19,6 +24,7 @@
 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.pt-br.html" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.pt-br.html" -->
 <!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.pt-br.html" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.pt-br.html" -->
 <div class="article reduced-width">
 <h2>Palavras para Evitar (ou Usar com Cuidado) Porque São Carregadas de 
Sentido
@@ -1476,7 +1482,7 @@
 <p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
 Última atualização:
 
-$Date: 2021/09/06 01:03:47 $
+$Date: 2021/11/11 15:30:25 $
 
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>

Index: philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.ml-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.ml-diff.html,v
retrieving revision 1.3
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -u -b -r1.3 -r1.4
--- philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.ml-diff.html     6 Oct 2020 
08:42:15 -0000       1.3
+++ philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.ml-diff.html     11 Nov 2021 
15:30:25 -0000      1.4
@@ -11,20 +11,24 @@
 </style></head>
 <body><pre>
 &lt;!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --&gt;
-&lt;!-- Parent-Version: 1.90 --&gt;
+&lt;!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 --&gt;
+&lt;!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html --&gt;
+&lt;!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays aboutfs free-open" --&gt;
+&lt;!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" --&gt;
 &lt;title&gt;Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software - GNU Project - 
 Free Software Foundation&lt;/title&gt;
 &lt;!--#include 
virtual="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.translist" --&gt;
 &lt;!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --&gt;
-&lt;h2&gt;Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software&lt;/h2&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" --&gt;
+&lt;!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE--&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" --&gt;
+&lt;div <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>class="reduced-width"&gt;</strong></del></span> 
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>class="article 
reduced-width"&gt;</em></ins></span>
+&lt;h2&gt;Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software&lt;/h2&gt;
 
-<span class="removed"><del><strong>&lt;p</strong></del></span>
+&lt;address class="byline"&gt;by Richard Stallman&lt;/address&gt;
 
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;address</em></ins></span> 
class="byline"&gt;by Richard <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>Stallman&lt;/p&gt;</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>Stallman&lt;/address&gt;</em></ins></span>
-
-&lt;div class="article"&gt;
-
-&lt;blockquote class="comment"&gt;&lt;p&gt;
+&lt;div <span class="removed"><del><strong>class="article"&gt;
+&lt;div</strong></del></span> class="important"&gt;&lt;p&gt;
 The terms &ldquo;free software&rdquo; and &ldquo;open
 source&rdquo; stand for almost the same range of programs.  However,
 they say deeply different things about those programs, based on
@@ -33,7 +37,7 @@
 By contrast, the open source idea values mainly practical advantage
 and does not campaign for principles.  This is why we do not agree
 with open source, and do not use that term.
-&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
+&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
 
 &lt;p&gt;When we call software &ldquo;free,&rdquo; we mean that it respects
 the &lt;a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html"&gt;users' essential 
freedoms&lt;/a&gt;:
@@ -55,7 +59,7 @@
 operating system&lt;/a&gt;.  Most of these users, however, have never heard of 
 the ethical reasons for which we developed this system and built the free 
 software community, because nowadays this system and community are more 
-often spoken of as &ldquo;open source&rdquo;, attributing them to a 
+often spoken of as &ldquo;open <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>source&rdquo;,</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>source,&rdquo;</em></ins></span> attributing them to 
a 
 different philosophy in which these freedoms are hardly mentioned.&lt;/p&gt;
 
 &lt;p&gt;The free software movement has campaigned for computer users'
@@ -88,7 +92,7 @@
 of open source have come to it since then, and they make the same
 association.  Most discussion of &ldquo;open source&rdquo; pays no
 attention to right and wrong, only to popularity and success; here's
-a &lt;a 
href="http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/Open-Source-Is-Woven-Into-the-Latest-Hottest-Trends-78937.html"&gt;
+a &lt;a 
href="https://linuxinsider.com/story/Open-Source-Is-Woven-Into-the-Latest-Hottest-Trends-78937.html"&gt;
 typical example&lt;/a&gt;.  A minority of supporters of open source do
 nowadays say freedom is part of the issue, but they are not very visible
 among the many that don't.&lt;/p&gt;
@@ -118,10 +122,11 @@
 &lt;p&gt;We in the free software movement don't think of the open source
 camp as an enemy; the enemy is proprietary (nonfree) software.  But we
 want people to know we stand for freedom, so we do not accept being
-mislabeled as open source <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>supporters.&lt;/p&gt;</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>supporters.  What we advocate is not
+mislabeled as open source supporters.  What we advocate is not
 &ldquo;open source,&rdquo; and what we oppose is not &ldquo;closed
-source&rdquo;.  To make this clear, we avoid using those terms.
-&lt;/p&gt;</em></ins></span>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>source&rdquo;.</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>source.&rdquo;</em></ins></span>  To make this 
clear, we avoid using those terms.
+&lt;/p&gt;
 
 &lt;h3&gt;Practical Differences between Free Software and Open 
Source&lt;/h3&gt;
 
@@ -137,7 +142,7 @@
 &lt;p&gt;Second, when a program's source code carries a weak license, one
 without copyleft, its executables can carry additional nonfree
 conditions.  &lt;a href="https://code.visualstudio.com/License/"&gt;Microsoft
-does this with Visual Studio,&lt;/a&gt; for example.&lt;/p&gt;
+does this with Visual Studio <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>Code,&lt;/a&gt;</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>Code&lt;/a&gt;,</em></ins></span> for 
example.&lt;/p&gt;
 
 &lt;p&gt;If these executables fully correspond to the released sources, they
 qualify as open source but not as free software.  However, in that
@@ -148,7 +153,7 @@
 computers check signatures on their executable programs to block users
 from installing different executables; only one privileged company can
 make executables that can run in the device or can access its full
-capabilities.  We call these devices &ldquo;tyrants&rdquo;, and the
+capabilities.  We call these devices <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>&ldquo;tyrants&rdquo;,</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>&ldquo;tyrants,&rdquo;</em></ins></span> and the
 practice is called &ldquo;tivoization&rdquo; after the product (Tivo)
 where we first saw it.  Even if the executable is made from free
 source code, and nominally carries a free license, the users cannot
@@ -214,8 +219,8 @@
 agreements vary as to what one is allowed to do with that
 code.&rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;
 
-&lt;p&gt;The &lt;i&gt;New York
-Times&lt;/i&gt; &lt;a 
href="http://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-design-37415.html"&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;The &lt;cite&gt;New York Times&lt;/cite&gt; &lt;a
+href="https://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-design-37415.html"&gt;
 ran an article that stretched the meaning of the term&lt;/a&gt; to refer to
 user beta testing&mdash;letting a few users try an early version and
 give confidential feedback&mdash;which proprietary software developers
@@ -223,7 +228,7 @@
 
 &lt;p&gt;The term has even been stretched to include designs for equipment
 that
-are &lt;a 
href="http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/aug/27/texas-teenager-water-purifier-toxic-e-waste-pollution"&gt;published
+are &lt;a 
href="https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/aug/27/texas-teenager-water-purifier-toxic-e-waste-pollution"&gt;published
 without a patent&lt;/a&gt;.  Patent-free equipment designs can be laudable
 contributions to society, but the term &ldquo;source code&rdquo; does
 not pertain to them.&lt;/p&gt;
@@ -254,9 +259,9 @@
 criteria for software licensing are simply not pertinent.  The only
 thing these activities have in common is that they somehow invite
 people to participate.  They stretch the term so far that it only
-means &ldquo;participatory&rdquo; or &ldquo;transparent&rdquo;, or
+means &ldquo;participatory&rdquo; or <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>&ldquo;transparent&rdquo;,</strong></del></span> 
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&ldquo;transparent,&rdquo;</em></ins></span> or
 less than that.  At worst, it
-has &lt;a 
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/opinion/sunday/morozov-open-and-closed.html"&gt;
+has &lt;a 
href="https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/opinion/sunday/morozov-open-and-closed.html"&gt;
 become a vacuous buzzword&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
 
 &lt;h3&gt;Different Values Can Lead to Similar Conclusions&mdash;but Not 
Always&lt;/h3&gt;
@@ -319,7 +324,7 @@
 individuals to use is increasingly designed specifically to restrict
 them.  This malicious feature is known as Digital Restrictions
 Management (DRM) (see &lt;a
-href="http://defectivebydesign.org/"&gt;DefectiveByDesign.org&lt;/a&gt;) and is
+href="https://defectivebydesign.org"&gt;DefectiveByDesign.org&lt;/a&gt;) and is
 the antithesis in spirit of the freedom that free software aims
 to provide.  And not just in spirit: since the goal of DRM is to
 trample your freedom, DRM developers try to make it hard, impossible,
@@ -442,10 +447,10 @@
 free software and it gives you freedom!&rdquo;&mdash;more and louder
 than ever.  Every time you say &ldquo;free software&rdquo; rather than
 &ldquo;open source,&rdquo; you help our cause.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;div class="column-limit"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>&lt;/div&gt;</strong></del></span>
 
-&lt;/div&gt;
-
-&lt;h4&gt;Note&lt;/h4&gt;
+&lt;h3 class="footnote"&gt;Note&lt;/h3&gt;
 
 &lt;!-- The article is incomplete (#793776) as of 21st January 2013.
 &lt;p&gt;
@@ -455,18 +460,17 @@
 --&gt; 
 &lt;p&gt;
 Lakhani and Wolf's &lt;a 
-href="http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/lakhaniwolf.pdf"&gt;
+href="https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/lakhaniwolf.pdf"&gt;
 paper on the motivation of free software developers&lt;/a&gt; says that a 
 considerable fraction are motivated by the view that software should be 
 free. This is despite the fact that they surveyed the developers on 
 SourceForge, a site that does not support the view that this is an ethical 
 issue.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;
 
 &lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --&gt;
-
 &lt;!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --&gt;
-
-&lt;div id="footer"&gt;
+&lt;div id="footer" role="contentinfo"&gt;
 &lt;div class="unprintable"&gt;
 
 &lt;p&gt;Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to &lt;a
@@ -484,18 +488,35 @@
         to &lt;a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"&gt;
         &lt;web-translators@gnu.org&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
 
-        &lt;p&gt;For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+        &lt;p&gt;For information on coordinating and contributing translations 
of
         our web pages, see &lt;a
         href="/server/standards/README.translations.html"&gt;Translations
         README&lt;/a&gt;. --&gt;
 
 Please see the &lt;a
 href="/server/standards/README.translations.html"&gt;Translations
-README&lt;/a&gt; for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+README&lt;/a&gt; for information on coordinating and contributing translations
 of this article.&lt;/p&gt;
 &lt;/div&gt;
 
-&lt;p&gt;Copyright &copy; 2007, 2010, 2012, 2015, 2016, <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>2019</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>2019, 2020</em></ins></span> Richard 
Stallman&lt;/p&gt;
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;!-- Regarding copyright, in general, 
standalone pages (as opposed to
+     files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+     be under CC BY-ND 4.0.  Please do NOT change or remove this
+     without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+     Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+     document.  For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+     document was modified, or published.
+     
+     If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+     Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+     years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+     year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+     being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+     
+     There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+     Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --&gt;</em></ins></span>
+
+&lt;p&gt;Copyright &copy; 2007, 2010, 2012-2016, 2019-2021 Richard 
Stallman&lt;/p&gt;
 
 &lt;p&gt;This page is licensed under a &lt;a rel="license"
 href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/"&gt;Creative
@@ -505,11 +526,11 @@
 
 &lt;p class="unprintable"&gt;Updated:
 &lt;!-- timestamp start --&gt;
-$Date: 2020/10/06 08:42:15 $
+$Date: 2021/11/11 15:30:25 $
 &lt;!-- timestamp end --&gt;
 &lt;/p&gt;
 &lt;/div&gt;
-&lt;/div&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include --&gt;
 &lt;/body&gt;
 &lt;/html&gt;
 </pre></body></html>

Index: philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.pt-br-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: 
/web/www/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.pt-br-diff.html,v
retrieving revision 1.29
retrieving revision 1.30
diff -u -b -r1.29 -r1.30
--- philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.pt-br-diff.html  27 Jul 2016 
04:59:14 -0000      1.29
+++ philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.pt-br-diff.html  11 Nov 2021 
15:30:25 -0000      1.30
@@ -11,14 +11,33 @@
 </style></head>
 <body><pre>
 &lt;!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --&gt;
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 
--&gt;</em></ins></span>
+&lt;!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 --&gt;
+&lt;!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html --&gt;
+&lt;!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays aboutfs free-open" --&gt;
+&lt;!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" --&gt;
 &lt;title&gt;Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software - GNU Project - 
-Free Software <span class="removed"><del><strong>Foundation 
(FSF)&lt;/title&gt;</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>Foundation&lt;/title&gt;</em></ins></span>
-&lt;!--#include <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>virtual="/server/banner.html"</strong></del></span>
 <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>virtual="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.translist"</em></ins></span>
 --&gt;
-&lt;!--#include <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>virtual="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.translist"</strong></del></span>
 <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>virtual="/server/banner.html"</em></ins></span> --&gt;
-&lt;h2&gt;Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software&lt;/h2&gt;
-
-&lt;p&gt;by &lt;strong&gt;Richard Stallman&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+Free Software Foundation&lt;/title&gt;
+&lt;!--#include 
virtual="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.translist" --&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" --&gt;
+&lt;!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE--&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" --&gt;
+&lt;div <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>class="reduced-width"&gt;</strong></del></span> 
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>class="article 
reduced-width"&gt;</em></ins></span>
+&lt;h2&gt;Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software&lt;/h2&gt;
+
+&lt;address class="byline"&gt;by Richard Stallman&lt;/address&gt;
+
+&lt;div <span class="removed"><del><strong>class="article"&gt;
+&lt;div</strong></del></span> class="important"&gt;&lt;p&gt;
+The terms &ldquo;free software&rdquo; and &ldquo;open
+source&rdquo; stand for almost the same range of programs.  However,
+they say deeply different things about those programs, based on
+different values.  The free software movement campaigns for freedom
+for the users of computing; it is a movement for freedom and justice.
+By contrast, the open source idea values mainly practical advantage
+and does not campaign for principles.  This is why we do not agree
+with open source, and do not use that term.
+&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
 
 &lt;p&gt;When we call software &ldquo;free,&rdquo; we mean that it respects
 the &lt;a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html"&gt;users' essential 
freedoms&lt;/a&gt;:
@@ -40,7 +59,7 @@
 operating system&lt;/a&gt;.  Most of these users, however, have never heard of 
 the ethical reasons for which we developed this system and built the free 
 software community, because nowadays this system and community are more 
-often spoken of as &ldquo;open source&rdquo;, attributing them to a 
+often spoken of as &ldquo;open <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>source&rdquo;,</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>source,&rdquo;</em></ins></span> attributing them to 
a 
 different philosophy in which these freedoms are hardly mentioned.&lt;/p&gt;
 
 &lt;p&gt;The free software movement has campaigned for computer users'
@@ -71,31 +90,29 @@
 with ideas and arguments based only on practical values, such as
 making or having powerful, reliable software.  Most of the supporters
 of open source have come to it since then, and they make the same
-association.&lt;/p&gt;
-
-<span class="removed"><del><strong>&lt;p&gt;Nearly all open source software is 
free software.  The</strong></del></span>
+association.  Most discussion of &ldquo;open source&rdquo; pays no
+attention to right and wrong, only to popularity and success; here's
+a &lt;a 
href="https://linuxinsider.com/story/Open-Source-Is-Woven-Into-the-Latest-Hottest-Trends-78937.html"&gt;
+typical example&lt;/a&gt;.  A minority of supporters of open source do
+nowadays say freedom is part of the issue, but they are not very visible
+among the many that don't.&lt;/p&gt;
 
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;p&gt;The</em></ins></span> two terms
+&lt;p&gt;The two now
 describe almost the same category of software, but they stand for
-views based on fundamentally different values.  Open source is a
-development methodology; free software is a social movement.  For the
+views based on fundamentally different values.  For the
 free software movement, free software is an ethical imperative,
-<span class="removed"><del><strong>because only free software 
respects</strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em>essential respect for</em></ins></span> the 
users' freedom.  By contrast,
+essential respect for the users' freedom.  By contrast,
 the philosophy of open source considers issues in terms of how to make
 software &ldquo;better&rdquo;&mdash;in a practical sense only.  It
 says that nonfree software is an inferior solution to the practical
-problem at hand.  <span class="removed"><del><strong>For</strong></del></span> 
 <span class="inserted"><ins><em>Most discussion of &ldquo;open source&rdquo; 
pays no
-attention to right and wrong, only to popularity and success; here's
-a &lt;a 
href="http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/Open-Source-Is-Woven-Into-the-Latest-Hottest-Trends-78937.html"&gt;
-typical example&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+problem at hand.&lt;/p&gt;
 
-&lt;p&gt;For</em></ins></span> the free software movement, however, nonfree 
software is a
+&lt;p&gt;For the free software movement, however, nonfree software is a
 social problem, and the solution is to stop using it and move to free
 software.&lt;/p&gt;
 
-&lt;p&gt;&ldquo;Free software.&rdquo; &ldquo;Open source.&rdquo; If it's the 
same <span class="removed"><del><strong>software,</strong></del></span> 
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em>software (&lt;a 
href="/philosophy/free-open-overlap.html"&gt;or nearly 
so&lt;/a&gt;),</em></ins></span> 
+&lt;p&gt;&ldquo;Free software.&rdquo; &ldquo;Open source.&rdquo; If it's the 
same 
+software (&lt;a href="/philosophy/free-open-overlap.html"&gt;or nearly 
so&lt;/a&gt;), 
 does it matter which name you use?  Yes, because different words convey 
 different ideas.  While a free program by any other name would give you the 
 same freedom today, establishing freedom in a lasting way depends above all 
@@ -103,11 +120,15 @@
 essential to speak of &ldquo;free software.&rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;
 
 &lt;p&gt;We in the free software movement don't think of the open source
-camp as an enemy; the enemy is proprietary (nonfree) software.  But
-we want people to know we stand for freedom, so we do not accept being
-mislabeled as open source supporters.&lt;/p&gt;
+camp as an enemy; the enemy is proprietary (nonfree) software.  But we
+want people to know we stand for freedom, so we do not accept being
+mislabeled as open source supporters.  What we advocate is not
+&ldquo;open source,&rdquo; and what we oppose is not &ldquo;closed
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>source&rdquo;.</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>source.&rdquo;</em></ins></span>  To make this 
clear, we avoid using those terms.
+&lt;/p&gt;
 
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;h3&gt;Practical Differences between Free 
Software and Open Source&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;h3&gt;Practical Differences between Free Software and Open 
Source&lt;/h3&gt;
 
 &lt;p&gt;In practice, open source stands for criteria a little looser than
 those of free software.  As far as we know, all existing released free
@@ -118,21 +139,34 @@
 because its license does not allow making a modified version and using
 it privately.  Fortunately, few programs use such licenses.&lt;/p&gt;
 
-&lt;p&gt;Second, and more important in practice, many products containing
+&lt;p&gt;Second, when a program's source code carries a weak license, one
+without copyleft, its executables can carry additional nonfree
+conditions.  &lt;a href="https://code.visualstudio.com/License/"&gt;Microsoft
+does this with Visual Studio <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>Code,&lt;/a&gt;</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>Code&lt;/a&gt;,</em></ins></span> for 
example.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;If these executables fully correspond to the released sources, they
+qualify as open source but not as free software.  However, in that
+case users can compile the source code to make and distribute free
+executables.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Finally, and most important in practice, many products containing
 computers check signatures on their executable programs to block users
 from installing different executables; only one privileged company can
 make executables that can run in the device or can access its full
-capabilities.  We call these devices &ldquo;tyrants&rdquo;, and the
+capabilities.  We call these devices <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>&ldquo;tyrants&rdquo;,</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>&ldquo;tyrants,&rdquo;</em></ins></span> and the
 practice is called &ldquo;tivoization&rdquo; after the product (Tivo)
 where we first saw it.  Even if the executable is made from free
-source code, the users cannot run modified versions of it, so the
-executable is nonfree.&lt;/p&gt;
+source code, and nominally carries a free license, the users cannot
+run modified versions of it, so the executable is de-facto nonfree.&lt;/p&gt;
 
-&lt;p&gt;The criteria for open source do not recognize this issue; they are
-concerned solely with the licensing of the source code.  Thus, these
-unmodifiable executables, when made from source code such as Linux
-that is open source and free, are open source but not free.  Many
-Android products contain nonfree tivoized executables of 
Linux.&lt;/p&gt;</em></ins></span>
+&lt;p&gt;Many Android products contain nonfree tivoized executables of
+Linux, even though its source code is under GNU GPL version 2.  We
+designed GNU GPL version 3 to prohibit this practice.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;The criteria for open source are concerned solely with the
+licensing of the source code.  Thus, these nonfree executables, when
+made from source code such as Linux that is open source and free, are
+open source but not free.&lt;/p&gt;
 
 &lt;h3&gt;Common Misunderstandings of &ldquo;Free Software&rdquo; and
 &ldquo;Open Source&rdquo;&lt;/h3&gt;
@@ -156,15 +190,11 @@
 &ldquo;free software&rdquo; has some kind of semantic problem&mdash;and 
 this includes &ldquo;open source software.&rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;
 
-&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://opensource.org/docs/osd"&gt;official</strong></del></span>
 <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://opensource.org/osd"&gt;official</em></ins></span>
 definition of
+&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href="https://opensource.org/osd"&gt;official definition of
 &ldquo;open source software&rdquo;&lt;/a&gt; (which is published by the Open
 Source Initiative and is too long to include here) was derived
 indirectly from our criteria for free software.  It is not the same;
-it is a little looser in some <span class="removed"><del><strong>respects, so 
the open source people have
-accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive.
-Also, they judge solely by the license of the source code, whereas our
-criterion also considers whether a device will let you &lt;em&gt;run&lt;/em&gt;
-your modified version of the program.</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>respects.</em></ins></span>  Nonetheless, their 
definition
+it is a little looser in some respects.  Nonetheless, their definition
 agrees with our definition in most cases.&lt;/p&gt;
 
 &lt;p&gt;However, the obvious meaning for the expression &ldquo;open source
@@ -174,39 +204,34 @@
 weaker also than the official definition of open source.  It includes
 many programs that are neither free nor open source.&lt;/p&gt;
 
-&lt;p&gt;Since <span class="removed"><del><strong>that</strong></del></span> 
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>the</em></ins></span> obvious meaning for 
&ldquo;open source&rdquo; is not the
+&lt;p&gt;Since the obvious meaning for &ldquo;open source&rdquo; is not the
 meaning that its advocates intend, the result is that most people
 misunderstand the term.  According to writer Neal Stephenson,
 &ldquo;Linux is &lsquo;open source&rsquo; software meaning, simply,
 that anyone can get copies of its source code files.&rdquo; I don't
-think he deliberately sought to reject or dispute the
-<span 
class="removed"><del><strong>&ldquo;official&rdquo;</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>official</em></ins></span>
+think he deliberately sought to reject or dispute the official
 definition.  I think he simply applied the conventions of the English
-language to come up with a meaning for the term.  The <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>state</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;a 
-href="https://web.archive.org/web/20001011193422/http://da.state.ks.us/ITEC/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf"&gt;state</em></ins></span>
-of <span class="removed"><del><strong>Kansas</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>Kansas&lt;/a&gt;</em></ins></span> published a 
similar definition:
-<span class="removed"><del><strong>&lt;!-- It was from 
http://da.state.ks.us/itec/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf, but
-that page is no longer available. --&gt;</strong></del></span> &ldquo;Make use 
of
+language to come up with a meaning for the term.  The &lt;a 
+href="https://web.archive.org/web/20001011193422/http://da.state.ks.us/ITEC/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf"&gt;state
+of Kansas&lt;/a&gt; published a similar definition: &ldquo;Make use of
 open-source software (OSS).  OSS is software for which the source code
 is freely and publicly available, though the specific licensing
 agreements vary as to what one is allowed to do with that
 code.&rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;
 
-&lt;p&gt;The &lt;i&gt;New York
-Times&lt;/i&gt;
-<span class="removed"><del><strong>has</strong></del></span> &lt;a 
href="http://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-design-37415.html"&gt;
-<span class="removed"><del><strong>run</strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em>ran</em></ins></span> an article that <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>stretches</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>stretched</em></ins></span> the meaning of the 
term&lt;/a&gt; to refer to
+&lt;p&gt;The &lt;cite&gt;New York Times&lt;/cite&gt; &lt;a
+href="https://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-design-37415.html"&gt;
+ran an article that stretched the meaning of the term&lt;/a&gt; to refer to
 user beta testing&mdash;letting a few users try an early version and
 give confidential feedback&mdash;which proprietary software developers
 have practiced for decades.&lt;/p&gt;
 
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;p&gt;The term has even been stretched to 
include designs for equipment
+&lt;p&gt;The term has even been stretched to include designs for equipment
 that
-are &lt;a 
href="http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/aug/27/texas-teenager-water-purifier-toxic-e-waste-pollution"&gt;published
+are &lt;a 
href="https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/aug/27/texas-teenager-water-purifier-toxic-e-waste-pollution"&gt;published
 without a patent&lt;/a&gt;.  Patent-free equipment designs can be laudable
 contributions to society, but the term &ldquo;source code&rdquo; does
-not pertain to them.&lt;/p&gt;</em></ins></span>
+not pertain to them.&lt;/p&gt;
 
 &lt;p&gt;Open source supporters try to deal with this by pointing to their
 official definition, but that corrective approach is less effective
@@ -224,9 +249,9 @@
 accompany another misunderstanding that &ldquo;free software&rdquo;
 means &ldquo;GPL-covered software.&rdquo; These are both mistaken,
 since the GNU GPL qualifies as an open source license and most of the
-open source licenses qualify as free software <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>licenses.&lt;/p&gt;</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>licenses.  There
+open source licenses qualify as free software licenses.  There
 are &lt;a href="/licenses/license-list.html"&gt; many free software
-licenses&lt;/a&gt; aside from the GNU GPL.&lt;/p&gt;</em></ins></span>
+licenses&lt;/a&gt; aside from the GNU GPL.&lt;/p&gt;
 
 &lt;p&gt;The term &ldquo;open source&rdquo; has been further stretched by
 its application to other activities, such as government, education,
@@ -234,13 +259,12 @@
 criteria for software licensing are simply not pertinent.  The only
 thing these activities have in common is that they somehow invite
 people to participate.  They stretch the term so far that it only
-means
-<span 
class="removed"><del><strong>&ldquo;participatory&rdquo;.&lt;/p&gt;</strong></del></span>
 <span class="inserted"><ins><em>&ldquo;participatory&rdquo; or 
&ldquo;transparent&rdquo;, or
+means &ldquo;participatory&rdquo; or <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>&ldquo;transparent&rdquo;,</strong></del></span> 
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&ldquo;transparent,&rdquo;</em></ins></span> or
 less than that.  At worst, it
-has &lt;a 
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/opinion/sunday/morozov-open-and-closed.html"&gt;
-become a vacuous buzzword&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;</em></ins></span>
+has &lt;a 
href="https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/opinion/sunday/morozov-open-and-closed.html"&gt;
+become a vacuous buzzword&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
 
-&lt;h3&gt;Different Values Can Lead to Similar Conclusions&hellip;but Not 
Always&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;h3&gt;Different Values Can Lead to Similar Conclusions&mdash;but Not 
Always&lt;/h3&gt;
 
 &lt;p&gt;Radical groups in the 1960s had a reputation for factionalism: some
 organizations split because of disagreements on details of strategy,
@@ -277,9 +301,8 @@
 schemes that take away our freedom, leading to its loss.&lt;/p&gt;
 
 &lt;p&gt;The free software activist will say, &ldquo;Your program is very
-attractive, but I value my freedom more.  So I reject your program.
-<span class="removed"><del><strong>Instead</strong></del></span>  I
-will <span class="inserted"><ins><em>get my work done some other way, 
and</em></ins></span> support a project to develop
+attractive, but I value my freedom more.  So I reject your program.  I
+will get my work done some other way, and support a project to develop
 a free replacement.&rdquo; If we value our freedom, we can act to
 maintain and defend it.&lt;/p&gt;
 
@@ -301,7 +324,7 @@
 individuals to use is increasingly designed specifically to restrict
 them.  This malicious feature is known as Digital Restrictions
 Management (DRM) (see &lt;a
-href="http://defectivebydesign.org/"&gt;DefectiveByDesign.org&lt;/a&gt;) and is
+href="https://defectivebydesign.org"&gt;DefectiveByDesign.org&lt;/a&gt;) and is
 the antithesis in spirit of the freedom that free software aims
 to provide.  And not just in spirit: since the goal of DRM is to
 trample your freedom, DRM developers try to make it hard, impossible,
@@ -338,11 +361,11 @@
 certain free software, they might be able to &ldquo;sell&rdquo; the
 software more effectively to certain users, especially business.&lt;/p&gt;
 
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;p&gt;When open source proponents talk 
about anything deeper than that,
+&lt;p&gt;When open source proponents talk about anything deeper than that,
 it is usually the idea of making a &ldquo;gift&rdquo; of source code
 to humanity.  Presenting this as a special good deed, beyond what is
 morally required, presumes that distributing proprietary software
-without source code is morally legitimate.&lt;/p&gt;</em></ins></span>
+without source code is morally legitimate.&lt;/p&gt;
 
 &lt;p&gt;This approach has proved effective, in its own terms.  The rhetoric
 of open source has convinced many businesses and individuals to use,
@@ -382,7 +405,7 @@
 about freedom go hand in hand, each promoting the other.  To overcome
 this tendency, we need more, not less, talk about freedom.&lt;/p&gt;
 
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;h3&gt;&ldquo;FLOSS&rdquo; and 
&ldquo;FOSS&rdquo;&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;h3&gt;&ldquo;FLOSS&rdquo; and &ldquo;FOSS&rdquo;&lt;/h3&gt;
 
 &lt;p&gt; The terms &ldquo;FLOSS&rdquo; and &ldquo;FOSS&rdquo; are used to
 be &lt;a href="/philosophy/floss-and-foss.html"&gt; neutral between free
@@ -414,7 +437,7 @@
 plenty of other good activities which call themselves
 &ldquo;free&rdquo; or &ldquo;libre.&rdquo; Each contribution to those
 projects does a little extra good on the side.  With so many useful
-projects to choose from, why not choose one which does extra 
good?&lt;/p&gt;</em></ins></span>
+projects to choose from, why not choose one which does extra good?&lt;/p&gt;
 
 &lt;h3&gt;Conclusion&lt;/h3&gt;
 
@@ -423,44 +446,38 @@
 of freedom to their attention.  We have to say, &ldquo;It's
 free software and it gives you freedom!&rdquo;&mdash;more and louder
 than ever.  Every time you say &ldquo;free software&rdquo; rather than
-&ldquo;open source,&rdquo; you help our <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>campaign.&lt;/p&gt;</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>cause.&lt;/p&gt;</em></ins></span>
+&ldquo;open source,&rdquo; you help our cause.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;div class="column-limit"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>&lt;/div&gt;</strong></del></span>
 
-&lt;h4&gt;Notes&lt;/h4&gt;
+&lt;h3 class="footnote"&gt;Note&lt;/h3&gt;
 
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;!-- The article is incomplete (#793776) as 
of 21st January 2013.</em></ins></span>
+&lt;!-- The article is incomplete (#793776) as of 21st January 2013.
 &lt;p&gt;
 Joe Barr's article, 
 &lt;a href="http://www.itworld.com/LWD010523vcontrol4"&gt;&ldquo;Live and
 let license,&rdquo;&lt;/a&gt; gives his perspective on this issue.&lt;/p&gt;
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em>--&gt;</em></ins></span> 
+--&gt; 
 &lt;p&gt;
-Lakhani and Wolf's &lt;a <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/lakhaniwolf.pdf"&gt;paper</strong></del></span>
 
-<span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/lakhaniwolf.pdf"&gt;
-paper</em></ins></span> on the motivation of free software 
developers&lt;/a&gt; says that a 
+Lakhani and Wolf's &lt;a 
+href="https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/lakhaniwolf.pdf"&gt;
+paper on the motivation of free software developers&lt;/a&gt; says that a 
 considerable fraction are motivated by the view that software should be 
 free. This is despite the fact that they surveyed the developers on 
 SourceForge, a site that does not support the view that this is an ethical 
 issue.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;
 
-<span class="removed"><del><strong>&lt;/div&gt;</strong></del></span>
-
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- for id="content", starts 
in the include above --&gt;</em></ins></span>
-
+&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --&gt;
 &lt;!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --&gt;
+&lt;div id="footer" role="contentinfo"&gt;
+&lt;div class="unprintable"&gt;
 
-&lt;div id="footer"&gt;
-<span class="removed"><del><strong>&lt;p&gt;
-Please</strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;div class="unprintable"&gt;
-
-&lt;p&gt;Please</em></ins></span> send <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>general</em></ins></span> FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to 
&lt;a
+&lt;p&gt;Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to &lt;a
 href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"&gt;&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.  There are also 
&lt;a
-href="/contact/"&gt;other ways to contact&lt;/a&gt; the FSF.
-<span class="removed"><del><strong>&lt;br /&gt;
-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 &lt;a <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"&gt;&lt;webmasters@gnu.org&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.
-&lt;/p&gt;</strong></del></span>
-<span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"&gt;&lt;webmasters@gnu.org&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+href="/contact/"&gt;other ways to contact&lt;/a&gt; the FSF.  Broken links and 
other
+corrections or suggestions can be sent to &lt;a
+href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"&gt;&lt;webmasters@gnu.org&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
 
 &lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
         replace it with the translation of these two:
@@ -471,44 +488,49 @@
         to &lt;a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"&gt;
         &lt;web-translators@gnu.org&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
 
-        &lt;p&gt;For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+        &lt;p&gt;For information on coordinating and contributing translations 
of
         our web pages, see &lt;a
         href="/server/standards/README.translations.html"&gt;Translations
         README&lt;/a&gt;. --&gt;
 
 Please see the &lt;a
 href="/server/standards/README.translations.html"&gt;Translations
-README&lt;/a&gt; for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+README&lt;/a&gt; for information on coordinating and contributing translations
 of this article.&lt;/p&gt;
-&lt;/div&gt;</em></ins></span>
-
-&lt;p&gt;Copyright &copy; 2007, <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>2010</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>2010, 2012, 2015, 2016</em></ins></span> Richard 
<span class="removed"><del><strong>Stallman
-&lt;br /&gt;
-This</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>Stallman&lt;/p&gt;
-
-&lt;p&gt;This</em></ins></span> page is licensed under a &lt;a rel="license"
-<span 
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/"&gt;Creative</strong></del></span>
-<span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/"&gt;Creative</em></ins></span>
-Commons <span class="removed"><del><strong>Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United 
States License&lt;/a&gt;.
-&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;
 
-&lt;p&gt;
-Updated:</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International 
License&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;!-- Regarding copyright, in general, 
standalone pages (as opposed to
+     files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+     be under CC BY-ND 4.0.  Please do NOT change or remove this
+     without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+     Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+     document.  For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+     document was modified, or published.
+     
+     If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+     Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+     years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+     year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+     being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+     
+     There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+     Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --&gt;</em></ins></span>
+
+&lt;p&gt;Copyright &copy; 2007, 2010, 2012-2016, 2019-2021 Richard 
Stallman&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;This page is licensed under a &lt;a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/"&gt;Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International 
License&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
 
 &lt;!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --&gt;
 
-&lt;p class="unprintable"&gt;Updated:</em></ins></span>
+&lt;p class="unprintable"&gt;Updated:
 &lt;!-- timestamp start --&gt;
-$Date: 2016/07/27 04:59:14 $
+$Date: 2021/11/11 15:30:25 $
 &lt;!-- timestamp end --&gt;
 &lt;/p&gt;
 &lt;/div&gt;
-<span class="removed"><del><strong>&lt;!-- All pages on the GNU web server 
should have the section about    --&gt;
-&lt;!-- verbatim copying.  Please do NOT remove this without talking     --&gt;
-&lt;!-- with the webmasters first. --&gt; 
-&lt;!-- Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the document 
--&gt;
-&lt;!-- and that it is like this "2001, 2002" not this "2001-2002." 
--&gt;</strong></del></span>
-&lt;/div&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include --&gt;
 &lt;/body&gt;
 &lt;/html&gt;
 </pre></body></html>

Index: philosophy/po/words-to-avoid.pt-br-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/words-to-avoid.pt-br-diff.html,v
retrieving revision 1.4
retrieving revision 1.5
diff -u -b -r1.4 -r1.5
--- philosophy/po/words-to-avoid.pt-br-diff.html        2 Oct 2017 14:59:43 
-0000       1.4
+++ philosophy/po/words-to-avoid.pt-br-diff.html        11 Nov 2021 15:30:26 
-0000      1.5
@@ -11,12 +11,24 @@
 </style></head>
 <body><pre>
 &lt;!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --&gt;
-&lt;!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 --&gt;
+&lt;!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 --&gt;
+&lt;!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html --&gt;
+&lt;!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays term" --&gt;
+&lt;!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" --&gt;
 &lt;title&gt;Words to Avoid (or Use with Care) Because They Are Loaded or 
Confusing
 - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation&lt;/title&gt;
+&lt;style type="text/css" media="print,screen"&gt;&lt;!--
+#word-list a { line-height: 1.8em; text-decoration: none; }
+--&gt;
+&lt;/style&gt;
 &lt;!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/words-to-avoid.translist" --&gt;
 &lt;!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" --&gt;
+&lt;!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE--&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" --&gt;
+&lt;div class="article reduced-width"&gt;
 &lt;h2&gt;Words to Avoid (or Use with Care) Because They Are Loaded or 
Confusing&lt;/h2&gt;
+&lt;div class="thin"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
 
 &lt;p&gt;
 There are a number of words and phrases that we recommend avoiding, or
@@ -24,13 +36,7 @@
 misleading; others presuppose a viewpoint that we disagree with, and
 we hope you disagree with it too.&lt;/p&gt;
 
-&lt;div class="announcement"&gt;
-&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;Also note &lt;a 
href="/philosophy/categories.html"&gt;Categories of Free
-Software&lt;/a&gt;,
-&lt;a href="/philosophy/why-call-it-the-swindle.html"&gt;Why Call It The
-Swindle?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
-&lt;/div&gt;
-
+&lt;div id="word-list" class="emph-box"&gt;
 &lt;p&gt;&lt;span class="gnun-split"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-START 
--&gt; &ldquo;&lt;a
        href="#Ad-blocker"&gt;Ad-blocker&lt;/a&gt;&rdquo;
 |&lt;span class="gnun-split"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM 
--&gt; &ldquo;&lt;a
@@ -56,6 +62,8 @@
 |&lt;span class="gnun-split"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM 
--&gt; &ldquo;&lt;a
        href="#Content"&gt;Content&lt;/a&gt;&rdquo;
 |&lt;span class="gnun-split"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM 
--&gt; &ldquo;&lt;a
+       href="#CopyrightOwner"&gt;Copyright Owner&lt;/a&gt;&rdquo;
+|&lt;span class="gnun-split"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM 
--&gt; &ldquo;&lt;a
        href="#CreativeCommonsLicensed"&gt;Creative Commons 
licensed&lt;/a&gt;&rdquo;
 |&lt;span class="gnun-split"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM 
--&gt; &ldquo;&lt;a
        href="#Creator"&gt;Creator&lt;/a&gt;&rdquo;
@@ -86,18 +94,24 @@
 |&lt;span class="gnun-split"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM 
--&gt; &ldquo;&lt;a
        href="#IntellectualProperty"&gt;Intellectual property&lt;/a&gt;&rdquo;
 |&lt;span class="gnun-split"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM 
--&gt; &ldquo;&lt;a
+       href="#InternetofThings"&gt;Internet of Things&lt;/a&gt;&rdquo;
+|&lt;span class="gnun-split"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM 
--&gt; &ldquo;&lt;a
        href="#LAMP"&gt;LAMP system&lt;/a&gt;&rdquo;
 |&lt;span class="gnun-split"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM 
--&gt; &ldquo;&lt;a
        href="#Linux"&gt;Linux system&lt;/a&gt;&rdquo;
 |&lt;span class="gnun-split"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM 
--&gt; &ldquo;&lt;a
        href="#Market"&gt;Market&lt;/a&gt;&rdquo;
 |&lt;span class="gnun-split"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM 
--&gt; &ldquo;&lt;a
+       href="#Modern"&gt;Modern&lt;/a&gt;&rdquo;
+|&lt;span class="gnun-split"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM 
--&gt; &ldquo;&lt;a
        href="#Monetize"&gt;Monetize&lt;/a&gt;&rdquo;
 |&lt;span class="gnun-split"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM 
--&gt; &ldquo;&lt;a
        href="#MP3Player"&gt;MP3 player&lt;/a&gt;&rdquo;
 |&lt;span class="gnun-split"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM 
--&gt; &ldquo;&lt;a
        href="#Open"&gt;Open&lt;/a&gt;&rdquo;
 |&lt;span class="gnun-split"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM 
--&gt; &ldquo;&lt;a
+       href="#OptOut"&gt;Opt out&lt;/a&gt;&rdquo;
+|&lt;span class="gnun-split"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM 
--&gt; &ldquo;&lt;a
        href="#PC"&gt;PC&lt;/a&gt;&rdquo;
 |&lt;span class="gnun-split"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM 
--&gt; &ldquo;&lt;a
        href="#Photoshop"&gt;Photoshop&lt;/a&gt;&rdquo;
@@ -106,8 +120,8 @@
 |&lt;span class="gnun-split"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM 
--&gt; &ldquo;&lt;a
        href="#PowerPoint"&gt;PowerPoint&lt;/a&gt;&rdquo;
 |&lt;span class="gnun-split"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM 
--&gt; &ldquo;&lt;a
-       <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#Product"&gt;Product&lt;/a&gt;&rdquo;
-|&lt;span class="gnun-split"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM 
--&gt; &ldquo;&lt;a</em></ins></span>
+       href="#Product"&gt;Product&lt;/a&gt;&rdquo;
+|&lt;span class="gnun-split"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM 
--&gt; &ldquo;&lt;a
        href="#Protection"&gt;Protection&lt;/a&gt;&rdquo;
 |&lt;span class="gnun-split"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM 
--&gt; &ldquo;&lt;a
        href="#RAND"&gt;RAND&lt;/a&gt;&rdquo;
@@ -116,6 +130,8 @@
 |&lt;span class="gnun-split"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM 
--&gt; &ldquo;&lt;a
        href="#SellSoftware"&gt;Sell software&lt;/a&gt;&rdquo;
 |&lt;span class="gnun-split"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM 
--&gt; &ldquo;&lt;a
+       href="#SharingPersonalData"&gt;Sharing (personal data)&lt;/a&gt;&rdquo;
+|&lt;span class="gnun-split"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM 
--&gt; &ldquo;&lt;a
        href="#SharingEconomy"&gt;Sharing economy&lt;/a&gt;&rdquo;
 |&lt;span class="gnun-split"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM 
--&gt; &ldquo;&lt;a
        href="#Skype"&gt;Skype&lt;/a&gt;&rdquo;
@@ -138,6 +154,16 @@
 |&lt;span class="gnun-split"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM 
--&gt; &ldquo;&lt;a
        href="#Vendor"&gt;Vendor&lt;/a&gt;&rdquo;
 &lt;span class="gnun-split"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-STOP 
--&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;
+
+&lt;hr class="no-display" /&gt;
+&lt;div class="announcement"&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;Also note &lt;a href="/philosophy/categories.html"&gt;Categories of 
Free
+Software&lt;/a&gt;,
+&lt;a href="/philosophy/why-call-it-the-swindle.html"&gt;Why Call It The
+Swindle?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;
+&lt;hr class="no-display" /&gt;
 
 &lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-START --&gt;
 &lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --&gt;
@@ -185,23 +211,24 @@
 applies to the special case in which the user already has a copy of
 the program in non-source form.&lt;/p&gt;
 
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;Instead of 
&lt;b&gt;with free software,
+&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;Instead of &lt;b&gt;with free software,
 the public has access to the program&lt;/b&gt;,
 we say, &lt;b&gt;with free software, the users have the essential
 freedoms&lt;/b&gt; and &lt;b&gt;with free software, the users have control
 of what the program does for them&lt;/b&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
-&lt;/blockquote&gt;</em></ins></span>
+&lt;/blockquote&gt;
 
 &lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --&gt;
 &lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --&gt;
 &lt;h3 id="Alternative"&gt;&ldquo;Alternative&rdquo;&lt;/h3&gt;
 &lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --&gt;
 &lt;p&gt;
-We don't describe free software as an &ldquo;alternative&rdquo; to
-proprietary, because that word presumes all the &ldquo;alternatives&rdquo; are
-legitimate and each additional one makes users better off.  In effect,
-it assumes that free software ought to coexist with software that does
-not respect users' freedom.&lt;/p&gt;
+We don't describe free software in general as an
+&ldquo;alternative&rdquo; to proprietary, because that word presumes
+all the &ldquo;alternatives&rdquo; are legitimate and each additional
+one makes users better off.  In effect, it assumes that free software
+ought to coexist with software that does not respect users'
+freedom.&lt;/p&gt;
 &lt;p&gt;
 We believe that distribution as free software is the only ethical way
 to make software available for others to use.  The other methods,
@@ -210,7 +237,14 @@
 and &lt;a href="/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html"&gt;Service
 as a Software Substitute&lt;/a&gt; subjugate their users.  We do not think
 it is good to offer users those &ldquo;alternatives&rdquo; to free
-software.
+software.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Special circumstances can drive users toward running one particular
+program for a certain job.  For instance, when a web page sends
+JavaScript client code to the user's browser, that drives users toward
+running that specific client program rather than any possible other.
+In such a case, there is a reason to describe any other code for that
+job as an alternative.
 &lt;/p&gt;
 
 &lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --&gt;
@@ -218,9 +252,9 @@
 &lt;h3 id="Assets"&gt;&ldquo;Assets&rdquo;&lt;/h3&gt;
 &lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --&gt;
 &lt;p&gt;
-To refer to published works as &ldquo;assets&rdquo;, or &ldquo;digital
-assets&rdquo;, is even worse than calling
-them &lt;a href="#Content"&gt;&ldquo;content&rdquo;&lt;/a&gt; &mdash; it 
presumes
+To refer to published works as &ldquo;assets,&rdquo; or &ldquo;digital
+assets,&rdquo; is even worse than calling
+them &lt;a <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>href="#Content"&gt;&ldquo;content&rdquo;&lt;/a&gt; 
&mdash; it</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#Content"&gt;&ldquo;content&rdquo;&lt;/a&gt;&mdash;it</em></ins></span>
 presumes
 they have no value to society except commercial value.&lt;/p&gt;
 
 &lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --&gt;
@@ -258,10 +292,9 @@
 &lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --&gt;
 &lt;h3 id="CloudComputing"&gt;&ldquo;Cloud Computing&rdquo;&lt;/h3&gt;
 &lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --&gt;
-<span class="removed"><del><strong>&lt;p&gt;</strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;p id="Cloud"&gt;</em></ins></span>
+&lt;p id="Cloud"&gt;
 The term &ldquo;cloud computing&rdquo; (or
-just <span class="removed"><del><strong>&lt;a 
name="Cloud"&gt;&ldquo;cloud&rdquo;&lt;/a&gt;,</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>&ldquo;cloud&rdquo;,</em></ins></span> in the context 
of
+just &ldquo;cloud,&rdquo; in the context of
 computing) is a marketing buzzword with no coherent meaning.  It is
 used for a range of different activities whose only common
 characteristic is that they use the Internet for something beyond
@@ -282,7 +315,7 @@
 One of the many meanings of &ldquo;cloud computing&rdquo; is storing
 your data in online services.  In most scenarios, that is foolish
 because it exposes you to
-&lt;a 
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/25/hackers-spooks-cloud-antiauthoritarian-dream"&gt;surveillance&lt;/a&gt;.
+&lt;a 
href="https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/25/hackers-spooks-cloud-antiauthoritarian-dream"&gt;surveillance&lt;/a&gt;.
 &lt;/p&gt;
 
 &lt;p&gt;
@@ -303,11 +336,11 @@
 &lt;/p&gt;
 
 &lt;p&gt;
-The &lt;a 
href="http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-145/SP800-145.pdf"&gt;
-NIST definition of "cloud computing"&lt;/a&gt; mentions three scenarios that
+The &lt;a href="https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/detail/sp/800-145/final"&gt;
+NIST definition of <span class="removed"><del><strong>"cloud 
computing"&lt;/a&gt;</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>&ldquo;cloud 
computing&rdquo;&lt;/a&gt;</em></ins></span> mentions three scenarios that
 raise different ethical issues: Software as a Service, Platform as a
 Service, and Infrastructure as a Service.  However, that definition
-does not match the common use of &ldquo;cloud computing&rdquo;, since
+does not match the common use of &ldquo;cloud computing,&rdquo; since
 it does not include storing data in online services.  Software as a
 Service as defined by NIST overlaps considerably with Service as a
 Software Substitute, which mistreats the user, but the two concepts
@@ -324,7 +357,7 @@
 
 &lt;p&gt;
 Curiously, Larry Ellison, a proprietary software developer,
-also &lt;a 
href="http://www.cnet.com/news/oracles-ellison-nails-cloud-computing/"&gt;
+also &lt;a 
href="https://www.cnet.com/news/oracles-ellison-nails-cloud-computing/"&gt;
 noted the vacuity of the term &ldquo;cloud computing.&rdquo;&lt;/a&gt;  He
 decided to use the term anyway because, as a proprietary software
 developer, he isn't motivated by the same ideals as we are.
@@ -406,53 +439,58 @@
 gasoline that your car burns today versus another drop that it burned
 last week.&lt;/p&gt;
 
-&lt;p&gt;Do we want people to think of writings (software, news, any other
-kind) as a commodity, with the assumption that there is nothing
-special about any one story, article, program, or song?  Should we
-treat them as fungible?  That is the twisted viewpoint of an
-economist, or the accountant of a publishing company.  It is no
-surprise that proprietary software would like you to think of the use
-of software as a commodity.  Their twisted viewpoint comes through
-clearly
-in &lt;a 
href="http://www.businessinsider.com/former-google-exec-launches-sourcepoint-with-10-million-series-a-funding-2015-6"&gt;this
+&lt;p&gt;What does it mean to think of works of authorship as a commodity,
+with the assumption that there is nothing special about any one story,
+article, program, or song?  That is the twisted viewpoint of the owner
+or the accountant of a publishing company.  It is no surprise that
+proprietary software would like you to think of the use of software as
+a commodity.  Their twisted viewpoint comes through clearly
+in &lt;a 
href="https://www.businessinsider.com/former-google-exec-launches-sourcepoint-with-10-million-series-a-funding-2015-6"&gt;this
 article&lt;/a&gt;, which also refers to publications as
 &ldquo;&lt;a href="#Content"&gt;content&lt;/a&gt;.&rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;
 
 &lt;p&gt;
 The narrow thinking associated with the idea that we &ldquo;consume
 content&rdquo; paves the way for laws such as the DMCA that forbid
-users to break the &lt;a href="http://DefectiveByDesign.org/"&gt;Digital
+users to break the &lt;a href="https://DefectiveByDesign.org/"&gt;Digital
 Restrictions Management&lt;/a&gt; (DRM) facilities in digital devices.  If
 users think what they do with these devices is &ldquo;consume,&rdquo;
 they may see such restrictions as natural.&lt;/p&gt;
 
 &lt;p&gt;
-It also encourages the acceptation of &ldquo;streaming&rdquo;
-services, which use DRM to perversely limit listening to music so that
-it fits the assumptions of the word &ldquo;consume.&rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;
+It also encourages the acceptance of &ldquo;streaming&rdquo; services,
+which use DRM to perversely limit listening to music, or watching
+video, to squeeze those activities into the assumptions of the word
+&ldquo;consume.&rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;
 
 &lt;p&gt;
 Why is this perverse usage spreading?  Some may feel that the term
 sounds sophisticated, but rejecting it with cogent reasons can appear
-even more sophisticated.  Others may be acting from business interests
-(their own, or their employers').  Their use of the term in
-prestigious forums gives the impression that it's the
+even more sophisticated.  Some want to generalize about all kinds of
+media, but the usual English verbs (&ldquo;read,&rdquo; &ldquo;listen
+to,&rdquo; &ldquo;watch&rdquo;) don't do this.  Others may be acting
+from business interests (their own, or their employers').  Their use
+of the term in prestigious forums gives the impression that it's the
 &ldquo;correct&rdquo; term.&lt;/p&gt;
 
 &lt;p&gt;
 To speak of &ldquo;consuming&rdquo; music, fiction, or any other
-artistic works is to treat them as products rather than as art.  If
-you don't want to spread that attitude, you would do well to avoid
-using the term &ldquo;consume&rdquo; for them.  What to use instead?
-We prefer specific verbs such as &ldquo;listen to&rdquo;,
-&ldquo;watch&rdquo;, &ldquo;read&rdquo; or &ldquo;look at&rdquo;,
-since they help to restrain the tendency to overgeneralize.&lt;/p&gt;
-
-&lt;p&gt;When it is absolutely necessary to generalize about all kinds of
-works and all media, we recommend &ldquo;experience&rdquo; or
-&ldquo;give attention to&rdquo; for an artistic work or a work to
-present a point of view, and &ldquo;use&rdquo; for a practically
-useful work.&lt;/p&gt;
+artistic works is to treat them as commodities rather than as art.  Do
+we want to think of published works that way?  Do we want to encourage
+the public to do so?&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Those who answer no, please join me in shunning the term
+&ldquo;consume&rdquo; for this.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;What to use instead?  You can use specific verbs such as
+&ldquo;read,&rdquo; &ldquo;listen to,&rdquo; &ldquo;watch&rdquo; or
+&ldquo;look at,&rdquo; since they help to restrain the tendency to
+overgeneralize.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;If you insist on generalizing, you can use the expression
+&ldquo;attend to,&rdquo; which requires less of a stretch than
+&ldquo;consume.&rdquo;  For a work meant for practical use,
+&ldquo;use&rdquo; is best.&lt;/p&gt;
 
 &lt;p&gt;See also the following entry.&lt;/p&gt;
 
@@ -481,7 +519,7 @@
 &ldquo;citizens,&rdquo; rather than &ldquo;consumers.&rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;
 &lt;p&gt;
 This problem with the word &ldquo;consumer&rdquo; has
-been &lt;a 
href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/11/capitalism-language-raymond-williams"&gt;noted
 before&lt;/a&gt;.
+been &lt;a 
href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/11/capitalism-language-raymond-williams"&gt;noted
 before&lt;/a&gt;.
 &lt;/p&gt;
 
 &lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --&gt;
@@ -513,13 +551,13 @@
 mill.
 &lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
 
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
 In other words, &ldquo;content&rdquo; reduces publications and
 writings to a sort of pap fit to be piped through the
 &ldquo;tubes&rdquo; of the internet.
-&lt;/p&gt;</em></ins></span>
+&lt;/p&gt;
 
-&lt;p&gt;See also &lt;a 
href="http://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/"&gt;Courtney
+&lt;p&gt;See also &lt;a 
href="https://www.salon.com/2000/06/14/love_7/"&gt;Courtney
 Love's open letter to Steve Case&lt;/a&gt; and search for &ldquo;content
 provider&rdquo; in that page.  Alas, Ms. Love is unaware that the term
 &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; is
@@ -543,6 +581,24 @@
 
 &lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --&gt;
 &lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --&gt;
+&lt;h3 id="CopyrightOwner"&gt;&ldquo;Copyright Owner&rdquo;&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Copyright is an artificial privilege, handed out by the state to
+achieve a public interest and lasting a period of <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>time &mdash; not</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>time&mdash;not</em></ins></span> a
+natural right like owning a house or a shirt.  Lawyers used to
+recognize this by referring to the recipient of that privilege as a
+&ldquo;copyright holder.&rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;A few decades ago, copyright holders began trying to reduce
+awareness of this point.  In addition to citing frequently the bogus
+concept of &lt;a href="#IntellectualProperty"&gt;&ldquo;intellectual
+property,&rdquo;&lt;/a&gt; they also started calling themselves
+&ldquo;copyright owners.&rdquo;  Please join us in resisting by using
+the traditional term &ldquo;copyright holders&rdquo; instead.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --&gt;
+&lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --&gt;
 &lt;h3 id="CreativeCommonsLicensed"&gt;&ldquo;Creative Commons 
licensed&rdquo;&lt;/h3&gt;
 &lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --&gt;
 &lt;p&gt;
@@ -605,7 +661,7 @@
 locks, and their keys or codes as well; you may find them useful or
 troublesome, but they don't oppress you, because you can open and
 close them.  Likewise, we
-find &lt;a 
href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/may/01/encryption-wont-work-if-it-has-a-back-door-only-the-good-guys-have-keys-to-"&gt;encryption&lt;/a&gt;
+find &lt;a 
href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/may/01/encryption-wont-work-if-it-has-a-back-door-only-the-good-guys-have-keys-to-"&gt;encryption&lt;/a&gt;
 invaluable for protecting our digital files.  That too is a kind
 of digital lock that you have control over.&lt;/p&gt;
 &lt;p&gt;
@@ -637,7 +693,7 @@
 Good alternatives include &ldquo;Digital Restrictions
 Management,&rdquo; and &ldquo;digital handcuffs.&rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;
 &lt;p&gt;
-Please sign up to support our &lt;a href="http://DefectiveByDesign.org/"&gt;
+Please sign up to support our &lt;a href="https://DefectiveByDesign.org/"&gt;
 campaign to abolish DRM&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
 
 &lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --&gt;
@@ -712,9 +768,9 @@
 neutrality is your goal, &ldquo;FLOSS&rdquo; is better.  But if you
 want to show you stand for freedom, don't use a neutral term.&lt;/p&gt;
 
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;Instead of 
&lt;b&gt;FOSS&lt;/b&gt;,
+&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;Instead of &lt;b&gt;FOSS&lt;/b&gt;,
 we say, &lt;b&gt;free software&lt;/b&gt; or &lt;b&gt;free (libre) 
software&lt;/b&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
-&lt;/blockquote&gt;</em></ins></span>
+&lt;/blockquote&gt;
 
 &lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --&gt;
 &lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --&gt;
@@ -775,7 +831,7 @@
 search for something on the internet. &ldquo;Google&rdquo; is just the
 name of one particular search engine among others. We suggest to use
 the term &ldquo;search the web&rdquo; or (in some contexts) just
-&ldquo;search&rdquo;. Try to use a search engine that respects your
+&ldquo;search.&rdquo; Try to use a search engine that respects your
 privacy; for instance, &lt;a 
href="https://duckduckgo.com/"&gt;DuckDuckGo&lt;/a&gt;
 claims not to track its users.  (There is no way for outsiders to
 verify claims of that kind.)&lt;/p&gt;
@@ -786,7 +842,7 @@
 &lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --&gt;
 &lt;p&gt;
 A hacker is someone
-who &lt;a href="http://stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html"&gt; enjoys
+who &lt;a href="https://stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html"&gt; enjoys
 playful cleverness&lt;/a&gt;&mdash;not necessarily with computers.  The
 programmers in the old
 &lt;abbr title="Massachusetts Institute of Technology"&gt;MIT&lt;/abbr&gt; free
@@ -832,6 +888,29 @@
 
 &lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --&gt;
 &lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --&gt;
+&lt;h3 id="InternetofThings"&gt;&ldquo;Internet of Things&rdquo;&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+When companies decided to make computerized appliances that would
+connect over the internet to the manufacturer's server, and therefore
+could easily snoop on their users, they realized that this would not
+sound very nice.  So they came up with a cute, appealing name: the
+&ldquo;Internet of Things.&rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Experience shows that these products often do 
+&lt;a
+href="https://www.locusmag.com/Perspectives/2015/09/cory-doctorow-what-if-people-were-sensors-not-things-to-be-sensed/"&gt;
+spy on their users&lt;/a&gt;.  They are also tailor-made for 
+&lt;a href="https://archive.ieet.org/articles/rinesi20150806.html"&gt;giving
+people biased advice&lt;/a&gt;.  In addition, the manufacturer can &lt;a
+href="/proprietary/proprietary-sabotage.html"&gt; sabotage the
+product&lt;/a&gt; by turning off the server it depends on.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+We call them the &ldquo;Internet of Stings.&rdquo;
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --&gt;
+&lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --&gt;
 &lt;h3 id="LAMP"&gt;&ldquo;LAMP system&rdquo;&lt;/h3&gt;
 &lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --&gt;
 &lt;p&gt;
@@ -880,6 +959,21 @@
 
 &lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --&gt;
 &lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --&gt;
+&lt;h3 id="Modern"&gt;&ldquo;Modern&rdquo;&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+The term &ldquo;modern&rdquo; makes sense from a descriptive
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>perspective &mdash; 
for</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>perspective&mdash;for</em></ins></span> 
instance, solely to distinguish newer periods
+and ways from older ones.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;It becomes a problem when it carries the presumption that older
+ways are &ldquo;old-fashioned&rdquo;; that is, presumed to be worse.  In
+technological fields where businesses make the choices and impose
+them on users, the reverse is often true.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --&gt;
+&lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --&gt;
 &lt;h3 id="Monetize"&gt;&ldquo;Monetize&rdquo;&lt;/h3&gt;
 &lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --&gt;
 &lt;p&gt;
@@ -888,7 +982,7 @@
 monetized gold, silver, copper, printed paper, special kinds of
 seashells, and large rocks.  However, we now see a tendency to use the
 word in another way, meaning &ldquo;to use something as a basis for
-profit&rdquo;.&lt;/p&gt;
+profit.&rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;
 &lt;p&gt;
 That usage casts the profit as primary, and the thing used to get the
 profit as secondary.  That attitude applied to a software project is
@@ -905,28 +999,24 @@
 &lt;h3 id="MP3Player"&gt;&ldquo;MP3 Player&rdquo;&lt;/h3&gt;
 &lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --&gt;
 &lt;p&gt;
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;!-- The MP3 patents will reportedly expire 
by 2018.  --&gt;</em></ins></span>
+&lt;!-- The MP3 patents will reportedly expire by 2018.  --&gt;
 
 In the late 1990s it became feasible to make portable, solid-state
-digital audio players.  Most <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>support</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>players supported</em></ins></span> the patented MP3 
codec, <span class="removed"><del><strong>but not
-all.</strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em>and that is still the case.</em></ins></span>  
Some <span class="removed"><del><strong>support</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>players also supported</em></ins></span> the
-patent-free audio codecs Ogg Vorbis and FLAC, and <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>may not even support</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>a few couldn't play</em></ins></span>
-MP3-encoded files at <span class="removed"><del><strong>all, 
precisely</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>all because 
their developers needed</em></ins></span> to <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>avoid
-these patents.  To call such players</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>protect
+digital audio players.  Most players supported the patented MP3 codec,
+and that is still the case.  Some players also supported the
+patent-free audio codecs Ogg Vorbis and FLAC, and a few couldn't play
+MP3-encoded files at all because their developers needed to protect
 themselves from the patents on MP3 format.&lt;/p&gt;
 
-&lt;p&gt;Using the term</em></ins></span> &ldquo;MP3 players&rdquo; <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>is not
-only confusing, it also privileges</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>for audio players in
-general has the effect of promoting</em></ins></span> the MP3 <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>that we ought</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>format and discouraging
+&lt;p&gt;Using the term &ldquo;MP3 players&rdquo; for audio players in
+general has the effect of promoting the MP3 format and discouraging
 the other formats (some of which are technically superior as well).
-Even though the MP3 patents have expired, it is still 
undesirable</em></ins></span> to <span class="removed"><del><strong>reject.
-We</strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em>do that.&lt;/p&gt;
-
-&lt;p&gt;We</em></ins></span> suggest the <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>terms</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>term</em></ins></span> &ldquo;digital audio 
player,&rdquo; or simply
-&ldquo;audio player&rdquo; <span class="removed"><del><strong>if context 
permits.&lt;/p&gt;</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>when 
that's clear enough, instead of
-&ldquo;MP3 player.&rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;</em></ins></span>
+Even though the MP3 patents have expired, it is still undesirable to
+do that.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;We suggest the term &ldquo;digital audio player,&rdquo; or simply
+&ldquo;audio player&rdquo; when that's clear enough, instead of
+&ldquo;MP3 player.&rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;
 
 &lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --&gt;
 &lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --&gt;
@@ -946,10 +1036,20 @@
 software, or our views&mdash;that leads people to suppose our views
 are similar to theirs.&lt;/p&gt;
 
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;blockquote&gt;
+&lt;blockquote&gt;
 &lt;p&gt;Instead of &lt;b&gt;open source&lt;/b&gt;,
 we say, &lt;b&gt;free software&lt;/b&gt; or &lt;b&gt;free (libre) 
software&lt;/b&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
-&lt;/blockquote&gt;</em></ins></span>
+&lt;/blockquote&gt;
+
+&lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --&gt;
+&lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --&gt;
+&lt;h3 id="OptOut"&gt;&ldquo;Opt out&rdquo;&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+When applied to any form of computational mistreatment, &ldquo;opt
+out&rdquo; implies the choice is a minor matter of convenience. We
+recommend &ldquo;reject,&rdquo; &ldquo;shun&rdquo; or &ldquo;escape
+from.&rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;
 
 &lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --&gt;
 &lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --&gt;
@@ -974,7 +1074,7 @@
 any kind of photo manipulation or image editing in general.  Photoshop
 is just the name of one particular image editing program, which should
 be avoided since it is proprietary.  There are plenty of free programs
-for editing images, such as the &lt;a 
href="/software/gimp"&gt;GIMP&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+for editing images, such as the &lt;a 
href="https://www.gimp.org/"&gt;GIMP&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
 
 &lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --&gt;
 &lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --&gt;
@@ -1001,7 +1101,7 @@
 &lt;p&gt;
 A US judge, presiding over a trial for copyright infringement,
 recognized that
-&lt;a 
href="http://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-banned-from-using-piracy-and-theft-terms-in-hotfile-trial-131129/"&gt;&ldquo;piracy&rdquo;
+&lt;a 
href="https://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-banned-from-using-piracy-and-theft-terms-in-hotfile-trial-131129/"&gt;&ldquo;piracy&rdquo;
 and &ldquo;theft&rdquo; are smear words.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 
 &lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --&gt;
@@ -1013,14 +1113,13 @@
 of slide presentation.  &ldquo;PowerPoint&rdquo; is just the name of
 one particular proprietary program to make presentations.  For your
 freedom's sake, you should use only free software to make your
-<span class="removed"><del><strong>presentations.</strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em>presentations&mdash;which means, &lt;em&gt;not 
PowerPoint&lt;/em&gt;.</em></ins></span>  Recommended
-options include TeX's &lt;tt&gt;beamer&lt;/tt&gt; class and LibreOffice.org's
+presentations&mdash;which means, &lt;em&gt;not PowerPoint&lt;/em&gt;.  
Recommended
+options include LaTeX's &lt;code&gt;beamer&lt;/code&gt; class and LibreOffice
 Impress.&lt;/p&gt;
 
 &lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --&gt;
 &lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --&gt;
-&lt;h3 <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>id="Product"&gt;&ldquo;Product&rdquo;&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;h3 id="Product"&gt;&ldquo;Product&rdquo;&lt;/h3&gt;
 &lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --&gt;
 &lt;p&gt;
 If you're talking about a product, by all means call it that.
@@ -1034,7 +1133,7 @@
 
 &lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --&gt;
 &lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --&gt;
-&lt;h3</em></ins></span> id="Protection"&gt;&ldquo;Protection&rdquo;&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;h3 id="Protection"&gt;&ldquo;Protection&rdquo;&lt;/h3&gt;
 &lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --&gt;
 &lt;p&gt;
 Publishers' lawyers love to use the term &ldquo;protection&rdquo; to
@@ -1063,7 +1162,7 @@
 obstruction.  So we could call that malicious feature &ldquo;copy
 obstruction.&rdquo;  More often it is called Digital Restrictions
 Management (DRM)&mdash;see the
-&lt;a href="http://DefectiveByDesign.org"&gt; Defective by Design&lt;/a&gt;
+&lt;a href="https://DefectiveByDesign.org"&gt; Defective by Design&lt;/a&gt;
 campaign.&lt;/p&gt;
 
 &lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --&gt;
@@ -1138,6 +1237,20 @@
 
 &lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --&gt;
 &lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --&gt;
+&lt;h3 id="SharingPersonalData"&gt;&ldquo;Sharing (personal 
data)&rdquo;&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+When companies manipulate or lure people into revealing personal data
+and thus ceding their privacy, please don't refer to this as
+&ldquo;sharing.&rdquo;  We use the term &ldquo;sharing&rdquo; to refer
+to noncommercial cooperation, including noncommercial redistribution
+of exact copies of published works, and we say this is 
&lt;em&gt;good&lt;/em&gt;.
+Please don't apply that word to a practice which is harmful and 
dangerous.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;When one company redistributes collected personal data to another 
company,
+that is even less deserving of the term &ldquo;sharing.&rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --&gt;
+&lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --&gt;
 &lt;h3 id="SharingEconomy"&gt;&ldquo;Sharing economy&rdquo;&lt;/h3&gt;
 &lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-END-KEY --&gt;
 &lt;p&gt;
@@ -1150,7 +1263,7 @@
 meaning, so we don't use it in this context.&lt;/p&gt;
 &lt;p&gt;
 A more suitable term for businesses like Uber is the
-&ldquo;piecework service economy.&rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;
+&ldquo;piecework service economy&rdquo; or &ldquo;gig economy.&rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;
 
 &lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --&gt;
 &lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-BEGIN-KEY --&gt;
@@ -1198,9 +1311,10 @@
 ambiguous way.  Ostensibly it refers to how a program's source is
 distributed, but the text confuses this with the development
 methodology.  It distinguishes &ldquo;open source&rdquo; and
-&rdquo;shared source&rdquo; as answers, but they overlap &mdash;
-Microsoft uses the latter as a marketing term to cover a range of
-practices, some of which are &ldquo;open source&rdquo;.  Thus, this
+&rdquo;shared source&rdquo; as answers, but they <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>overlap &mdash;
+Microsoft</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>overlap&mdash;Microsoft</em></ins></span>
+uses the latter as a marketing term to cover a range of
+practices, some of which are &ldquo;open source.&rdquo;  Thus, this
 term really conveys no coherent information, but it provides an
 opportunity to say &ldquo;open source&rdquo; in pages describing free
 software programs.&lt;/p&gt;
@@ -1233,13 +1347,13 @@
 &lt;p&gt;
 Under the US legal system, copyright infringement is not theft.  
 &lt;a
-href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&amp;vol=473&amp;invol=207"&gt;
+href="https://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&amp;vol=473&amp;invol=207"&gt;
 Laws about theft are not applicable to copyright infringement.&lt;/a&gt;
 The supporters of repressive copyright are making an appeal to
 authority&mdash;and misrepresenting what authority says.&lt;/p&gt;
 &lt;p&gt;
 To refute them, you can point to this
-&lt;a 
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/may/04/harper-lee-kill-mockingbird-copyright"&gt;
+&lt;a 
href="https://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/may/04/harper-lee-kill-mockingbird-copyright"&gt;
 real case&lt;/a&gt; which shows what can properly be described as
 &ldquo;copyright theft.&rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;
 &lt;p&gt;
@@ -1253,7 +1367,7 @@
 &lt;p&gt;
 A US judge, presiding over a trial for copyright infringement,
 recognized that
-&lt;a 
href="http://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-banned-from-using-piracy-and-theft-terms-in-hotfile-trial-131129/"&gt;&ldquo;piracy&rdquo;
+&lt;a 
href="https://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-banned-from-using-piracy-and-theft-terms-in-hotfile-trial-131129/"&gt;&ldquo;piracy&rdquo;
 and &ldquo;theft&rdquo; are smear-words.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 
 &lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-NEXT-ITEM --&gt;
@@ -1284,15 +1398,16 @@
 &lt;/p&gt;
 &lt;!-- GNUN-SORT-STOP --&gt;
 
-&lt;hr /&gt;
-&lt;blockquote id="fsfs"&gt;&lt;p class="big"&gt;This essay is published
-in &lt;a 
href="http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"&gt;&lt;cite&gt;Free
+&lt;hr class="no-display" /&gt;
+&lt;div class="edu-note c"&gt;&lt;p id="fsfs"&gt;This essay is published in
+&lt;a 
href="https://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"&gt;&lt;cite&gt;Free
 Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard
-M. Stallman&lt;/cite&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
+M. Stallman&lt;/cite&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;
 
 &lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --&gt;
 &lt;!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --&gt;
-&lt;div id="footer"&gt;
+&lt;div id="footer" role="contentinfo"&gt;
 &lt;div class="unprintable"&gt;
 
 &lt;p&gt;Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to
@@ -1310,13 +1425,13 @@
         to &lt;a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"&gt;
         &lt;web-translators@gnu.org&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
 
-        &lt;p&gt;For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+        &lt;p&gt;For information on coordinating and contributing translations 
of
         our web pages, see &lt;a
         href="/server/standards/README.translations.html"&gt;Translations
         README&lt;/a&gt;. --&gt;
 Please see the &lt;a
 href="/server/standards/README.translations.html"&gt;Translations
-README&lt;/a&gt; for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+README&lt;/a&gt; for information on coordinating and contributing translations
 of this article.&lt;/p&gt;
 &lt;/div&gt;
 
@@ -1337,8 +1452,7 @@
      There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
      Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --&gt;
 
-&lt;p&gt;Copyright &copy; 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2007,
-2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2015, 2016, 2017 Free Software Foundation, 
Inc.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;Copyright &copy; 1996-2018, 2020, 2021 Free Software Foundation, 
Inc.&lt;/p&gt;
 
 &lt;p&gt;This page is licensed under a &lt;a rel="license"
 href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/"&gt;Creative
@@ -1348,11 +1462,11 @@
 
 &lt;p class="unprintable"&gt;Updated:
 &lt;!-- timestamp start --&gt;
-$Date: 2017/10/02 14:59:43 $
+$Date: 2021/11/11 15:30:26 $
 &lt;!-- timestamp end --&gt;
 &lt;/p&gt;
 &lt;/div&gt;
-&lt;/div&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include --&gt;
 &lt;/body&gt;
 &lt;/html&gt;
 </pre></body></html>

Index: thankgnus/po/2021supporters.pot
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/thankgnus/po/2021supporters.pot,v
retrieving revision 1.99
retrieving revision 1.100
diff -u -b -r1.99 -r1.100
--- thankgnus/po/2021supporters.pot     9 Nov 2021 18:30:37 -0000       1.99
+++ thankgnus/po/2021supporters.pot     11 Nov 2021 15:30:26 -0000      1.100
@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
 msgid ""
 msgstr ""
 "Project-Id-Version: 2021supporters.html\n"
-"POT-Creation-Date: 2021-11-09 18:25+0000\n"
+"POT-Creation-Date: 2021-11-11 15:25+0000\n"
 "PO-Revision-Date: YEAR-MO-DA HO:MI+ZONE\n"
 "Last-Translator: FULL NAME <EMAIL@ADDRESS>\n"
 "Language-Team: LANGUAGE <LL@li.org>\n"
@@ -319,6 +319,10 @@
 msgstr ""
 
 #. type: Content of: <ul><li>
+msgid "Bret Fisher"
+msgstr ""
+
+#. type: Content of: <ul><li>
 msgid "Camille Akmut"
 msgstr ""
 

Index: thankgnus/po/2021supporters.pt-br.po
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/thankgnus/po/2021supporters.pt-br.po,v
retrieving revision 1.151
retrieving revision 1.152
diff -u -b -r1.151 -r1.152
--- thankgnus/po/2021supporters.pt-br.po        9 Nov 2021 18:30:37 -0000       
1.151
+++ thankgnus/po/2021supporters.pt-br.po        11 Nov 2021 15:30:26 -0000      
1.152
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
 msgid ""
 msgstr ""
 "Project-Id-Version: 2021supporters.html\n"
-"POT-Creation-Date: 2021-11-09 18:25+0000\n"
+"POT-Creation-Date: 2021-11-11 15:25+0000\n"
 "PO-Revision-Date: 2021-09-05 12:46-0300\n"
 "Last-Translator: Rafael Fontenelle <rafaelff@gnome.org>\n"
 "Language-Team: Brazilian Portuguese <www-pt-br-general@gnu.org>\n"
@@ -338,6 +338,12 @@
 msgstr "Blue Systems"
 
 #. type: Content of: <ul><li>
+#, fuzzy
+#| msgid "Brett Sears"
+msgid "Bret Fisher"
+msgstr "Brett Sears"
+
+#. type: Content of: <ul><li>
 msgid "Camille Akmut"
 msgstr ""
 

Index: philosophy/po/gpl-american-way.pt-br-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: philosophy/po/gpl-american-way.pt-br-diff.html
diff -N philosophy/po/gpl-american-way.pt-br-diff.html
--- /dev/null   1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ philosophy/po/gpl-american-way.pt-br-diff.html      11 Nov 2021 15:30:25 
-0000      1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,224 @@
+<!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/gpl-american-way.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --&gt;
+&lt;!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 --&gt;
+&lt;!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html --&gt;
+&lt;!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays licensing copyleft" --&gt;
+&lt;!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" --&gt;
+&lt;title&gt;The GNU GPL and the American Way
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation&lt;/title&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/gpl-american-way.translist" --&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" --&gt;
+&lt;!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE--&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" --&gt;
+&lt;div <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>class="reduced-width"&gt;</strong></del></span> 
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>class="article 
reduced-width"&gt;</em></ins></span>
+&lt;h2&gt;The GNU GPL and the American Way&lt;/h2&gt;
+
+&lt;address class="byline"&gt;by Richard M. Stallman&lt;/address&gt;
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>&lt;div 
class="article"&gt;</strong></del></span>
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+Microsoft describes the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) as an
+&ldquo;open source&rdquo; license, and says it is against the American
+Way.  To understand the GNU GPL, and recognize how it embodies the
+American Way, you must first be aware that the GPL was not designed
+for open source.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+The Open Source Movement, which was launched in 1998, aims to develop
+powerful, reliable software and improved technology, by inviting the
+public to collaborate in software development.  Many developers in
+that movement use the GNU GPL, and they are welcome to use it.  But
+the ideas and logic of the GPL cannot be found in the Open Source
+Movement.  They stem from the deeper goals and values of the Free
+Software Movement.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+The Free Software Movement was founded in 1984, but its inspiration
+comes from the ideals of 1776: freedom, community, and voluntary
+cooperation.  This is what leads to free enterprise, to free speech,
+and to free software.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+As in &ldquo;free enterprise&rdquo; and &ldquo;free <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>speech&rdquo;,</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>speech,&rdquo;</em></ins></span> the
+&ldquo;free&rdquo; in &ldquo;free software&rdquo; refers to freedom,
+not price; specifically, it means that you have the freedom to study,
+change, and redistribute the software you use.  These freedoms permit
+citizens to help themselves and help each other, and thus participate
+in a community.  This contrasts with the more common proprietary
+software, which keeps users helpless and divided: the inner workings
+are secret, and you are prohibited from sharing the program with your
+neighbor.  Powerful, reliable software and improved technology are
+useful byproducts of freedom, but the freedom to have a community is
+important in its own right.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+We could not establish a community of freedom in the land of
+proprietary software where each program had its lord.  We had to build
+a new land in cyberspace&mdash;the free software GNU operating system,
+which we started writing in 1984.  In 1991, when GNU was almost
+finished, the kernel Linux written by Linus Torvalds filled the last
+gap; soon the free GNU/Linux system was available.  Today millions of
+users use GNU/Linux and enjoy the benefits of freedom and community.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+I designed the GNU GPL to uphold and defend the freedoms that define
+free software&mdash;to use the words of 1776, it establishes them as
+inalienable rights for programs released under the GPL.  It ensures
+that you have the freedom to study, change, and redistribute the
+program, by saying that nobody is authorized to take these freedoms
+away from you by redistributing the program under a restrictive
+license.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+For the sake of cooperation, we encourage others to modify and extend
+the programs that we publish.  For the sake of freedom, we set the
+condition that these modified versions of our programs must respect
+your freedom just like the original version.  We encourage two-way
+cooperation by rejecting parasites: whoever wishes to copy parts of
+our software into his program must let us use parts of that program in
+our programs.  Nobody is forced to join our club, but those who wish
+to participate must offer us the same cooperation they receive from
+us.  That makes the system fair.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Millions of users, tens of thousands of developers, and companies as
+large as IBM, Intel, and Sun, have chosen to participate on this
+basis.  But some companies want the advantages without the
+responsibilities.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+From time to time, companies have said to us, &ldquo;We would make an
+improved version of this program if you allow us to release it without
+freedom.&rdquo; We say, &ldquo;No thanks&mdash;your improvements might
+be useful if they were free, but if we can't use them in freedom, they
+are no good at all.&rdquo; Then they appeal to our egos, saying that
+our code will have &ldquo;more users&rdquo; inside their proprietary
+programs.  We respond that we value our community's freedom more than
+an irrelevant form of popularity.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Microsoft surely would like to have the benefit of our code without
+the responsibilities.  But it has another, more specific purpose in
+attacking the GNU GPL.  Microsoft is known generally for imitation
+rather than innovation.  When Microsoft does something new, its
+purpose is strategic&mdash;not to improve computing for its users, but
+to close off alternatives for them.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+Microsoft uses an anticompetitive strategy called &ldquo;embrace and
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>extend&rdquo;.</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>extend.&rdquo;</em></ins></span>  This means 
they start with the technology others are
+using, add a minor wrinkle which is secret so that nobody else can
+imitate it, then use that secret wrinkle so that only Microsoft
+software can communicate with other Microsoft software.  In some
+cases, this makes it hard for you to use a non-Microsoft program when
+others you work with use a Microsoft program.  In other cases, this
+makes it hard for you to use a non-Microsoft program for job A if you
+use a Microsoft program for job B.  Either way, &ldquo;embrace and
+extend&rdquo; magnifies the effect of Microsoft's market power.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+No license can stop Microsoft from practicing &ldquo;embrace and
+extend&rdquo; if they are determined to do so at all costs.  If they
+write their own program from scratch, and use none of our code, the
+license on our code does not affect them.  But a total rewrite is
+costly and hard, and even Microsoft can't do it all the time.  Hence
+their campaign to persuade us to abandon the license that protects our
+community, the license that won't let them say, &ldquo;What's yours is
+mine, and what's mine is mine.&rdquo; They want us to let them take
+whatever they want, without ever giving anything back.  They want us
+to abandon our defenses.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+But defenselessness is not the American Way.  In the land of the brave
+and the free, we defend our freedom with the GNU GPL.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3 class="footnote"&gt;Addendum:&lt;/h3&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+Microsoft says that the GPL is against &ldquo;intellectual property
+rights.&rdquo; I have no opinion on &ldquo;intellectual property
+rights,&rdquo; because the term is too broad to have a sensible
+opinion about.  It is a catch-all, covering copyrights, patents,
+trademarks, and other disparate areas of law; areas so different, in
+the laws and in their effects, that any statement about all of them at
+once is surely simplistic.  To think intelligently about copyrights,
+patents or trademarks, you must think about them separately.  The
+first step is declining to lump them together as &ldquo;intellectual
+<span 
class="removed"><del><strong>property&rdquo;.&lt;/p&gt;</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>property.&rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;</em></ins></span>
+&lt;p&gt;
+My views about copyright take an hour to expound, but one general
+principle applies: it cannot justify denying the public important
+freedoms.  As Abraham Lincoln put it, &ldquo;Whenever there is a
+conflict between human rights and property rights, human rights must
+prevail.&rdquo; Property rights are meant to advance human well-being,
+not as an excuse to disregard it.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>&lt;/div&gt;</strong></del></span>
+
+&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --&gt;
+&lt;div id="footer" role="contentinfo"&gt;
+&lt;div class="unprintable"&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to &lt;a
+href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"&gt;&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.  There are also 
&lt;a
+href="/contact/"&gt;other ways to contact&lt;/a&gt; the FSF.  Broken links and 
other
+corrections or suggestions can be sent to &lt;a
+href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"&gt;&lt;webmasters@gnu.org&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+        replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+        We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+        translations.  However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+        Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+        to &lt;a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"&gt;
+        &lt;web-translators@gnu.org&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+        &lt;p&gt;For information on coordinating and contributing translations 
of
+        our web pages, see &lt;a
+        href="/server/standards/README.translations.html"&gt;Translations
+        README&lt;/a&gt;. --&gt;
+Please see the &lt;a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html"&gt;Translations 
README&lt;/a&gt; for
+information on coordinating and contributing translations of this 
article.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;!-- Regarding copyright, in general, 
standalone pages (as opposed to
+     files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+     be under CC BY-ND 4.0.  Please do NOT change or remove this
+     without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+     Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+     document.  For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+     document was modified, or published.
+     
+     If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+     Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+     years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+     year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+     being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+     
+     There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+     Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --&gt;</em></ins></span>
+
+&lt;p&gt;Copyright &copy; 2001, 2021 Richard M. Stallman&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;This page is licensed under a &lt;a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/"&gt;Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International 
License&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --&gt;
+
+&lt;p class="unprintable"&gt;Updated:
+&lt;!-- timestamp start --&gt;
+$Date: 2021/11/11 15:30:25 $
+&lt;!-- timestamp end --&gt;
+&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include --&gt;
+&lt;/body&gt;
+&lt;/html&gt;
+</pre></body></html>

Index: philosophy/po/imperfection-isnt-oppression.pt-br-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: philosophy/po/imperfection-isnt-oppression.pt-br-diff.html
diff -N philosophy/po/imperfection-isnt-oppression.pt-br-diff.html
--- /dev/null   1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ philosophy/po/imperfection-isnt-oppression.pt-br-diff.html  11 Nov 2021 
15:30:25 -0000      1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,151 @@
+<!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/imperfection-isnt-oppression.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --&gt;
+&lt;!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 --&gt;
+&lt;!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html --&gt;
+&lt;!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays aboutfs practice" --&gt;
+&lt;!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" --&gt;
+&lt;title&gt;Imperfection is not the same as oppression
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation&lt;/title&gt;
+ &lt;!--#include 
virtual="/philosophy/po/imperfection-isnt-oppression.translist" --&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" --&gt;
+&lt;!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE--&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" --&gt;
+&lt;div class="article reduced-width"&gt;
+&lt;h2&gt;Imperfection is not the same as oppression&lt;/h2&gt;
+
+&lt;address class="byline"&gt;by &lt;a 
href="http://www.stallman.org/"&gt;Richard
+Stallman&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/address&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;When a free program lacks capabilities that users want, that is
+  unfortunate; we urge people to add what is missing. Some would go
+  further and claim that a program is not even free software if it lacks
+  certain <span class="removed"><del><strong>functionality &mdash; 
that</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>functionality&mdash;that</em></ins></span> it denies 
freedom 0 (the freedom to
+  run the program as you wish) to users or uses that it does not
+  support. This argument is misguided because it is based on
+  identifying capacity with freedom, and imperfection with 
oppression.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Each program inevitably has certain functionalities and lacks others
+  that might be desirable. There are some jobs it can do, and others it
+  can't do without further work. This is the nature of software.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;The absence of key functionality can mean certain users find the
+  program totally unusable. For instance, if you only understand
+  graphical interfaces, a command line program may be impossible for you
+  to use. If you can't see the screen, a program without a screen
+  reader may be impossible for you to use. If you speak only Greek, a
+  program with menus and messages in English may be impossible for you
+  to use. If your programs are written in Ada, a C compiler is
+  impossible for you to use. To overcome these barriers yourself
+  is unreasonable to demand of you. Free software really ought to
+  provide the functionality you need.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Free software really ought to provide it, but the lack of that feature
+  does not make the program nonfree, because it is an imperfection,
+  not oppression.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Making a program nonfree is an injustice committed by the developer
+  that denies freedom to whoever uses it. The developer deserves
+  condemnation for this. It is crucial to condemn that developer,
+  because nobody else can undo the injustice as long as the developer
+  continues to do it. We can, and do, try to rescue the victims by
+  developing a free replacement, but we can't make the nonfree program
+  free.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Developing a free program without adding a certain important
+  feature is not doing wrong to anyone. Rather, it's doing some good
+  but not all the good that people need. Nobody in particular deserves
+  condemnation for not developing the missing feature, since any
+  capable person could do it. It would be ungrateful, as well as
+  self-defeating, to single out the free program's authors for blame
+  for not having done some additional work.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;What we can do is state that completing the job calls for doing
+  some additional work. That is constructive because it helps us
+  convince someone to do that work.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;If you think a certain extension in a free program is important,
+  please push for it in the way that respects our contributors. Don't
+  criticize the people who contributed the useful code we have. Rather,
+  look for a way to complete the job. You can urge the program's
+  developers to turn their attention to the missing feature when they
+  have time for more work. You can offer to help them. You can recruit
+  people or raise funds to support the work.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;
+
+&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --&gt;
+&lt;div id="footer" role="contentinfo"&gt;
+&lt;div class="unprintable"&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to
+&lt;a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"&gt;&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.
+There are also &lt;a href="/contact/"&gt;other ways to contact&lt;/a&gt;
+the FSF.  Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to &lt;a 
href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"&gt;&lt;webmasters@gnu.org&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+        replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+        We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+        translations.  However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+        Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+        to &lt;a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"&gt;
+        &lt;web-translators@gnu.org&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+        &lt;p&gt;For information on coordinating and contributing translations 
of
+        our web pages, see &lt;a
+        href="/server/standards/README.translations.html"&gt;Translations
+        README&lt;/a&gt;. --&gt;
+Please see the &lt;a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html"&gt;Translations
+README&lt;/a&gt; for information on coordinating and contributing translations
+of this article.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;!-- Regarding copyright, in general, 
standalone pages (as opposed to
+     files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+     be under CC BY-ND 4.0.  Please do NOT change or remove this
+     without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+     Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+     document.  For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+     document was modified, or published.
+     
+     If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+     Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+     years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+     year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+     being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+     
+     There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+     Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --&gt;</em></ins></span>
+
+&lt;p&gt;Copyright &copy; 2014, 2021 Free Software Foundation, Inc.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;This page is licensed under a &lt;a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/"&gt;Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International 
License&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --&gt;
+
+&lt;p class="unprintable"&gt;Updated:
+&lt;!-- timestamp start --&gt;
+$Date: 2021/11/11 15:30:25 $
+&lt;!-- timestamp end --&gt;
+&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include --&gt;
+&lt;/body&gt;
+&lt;/html&gt;
+</pre></body></html>

Index: philosophy/po/shouldbefree.pt-br-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: philosophy/po/shouldbefree.pt-br-diff.html
diff -N philosophy/po/shouldbefree.pt-br-diff.html
--- /dev/null   1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ philosophy/po/shouldbefree.pt-br-diff.html  11 Nov 2021 15:30:25 -0000      
1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,929 @@
+<!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/shouldbefree.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --&gt;
+&lt;!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 --&gt;
+&lt;!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html --&gt;
+&lt;!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays aboutfs principles" --&gt;
+&lt;!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" --&gt;
+&lt;title&gt;Why Software Should Be Free
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation&lt;/title&gt;
+&lt;style type="text/css" media="print,screen"&gt;&lt;!--
+#content h3 { margin-top: 1.6em; }
+--&gt;
+&lt;/style&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/shouldbefree.translist" --&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" --&gt;
+&lt;!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE--&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" --&gt;
+&lt;div class="article reduced-width"&gt;
+&lt;h2&gt;Why Software Should Be Free&lt;/h2&gt;
+
+&lt;address class="byline"&gt;by &lt;a 
href="https://www.stallman.org/"&gt;Richard
+Stallman&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/address&gt;
+
+&lt;p  id="introduction"&gt;
+The existence of software inevitably raises the question of how
+decisions about its use should be made.  For example, suppose one
+individual who has a copy of a program meets another who would like a
+copy.  It is possible for them to copy the program; who should decide
+whether this is done?  The individuals involved?  Or another party,
+called the &ldquo;owner&rdquo;?&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   Software developers typically consider these questions on the
+assumption that the criterion for the answer is to maximize developers'
+profits. The political power of business has led to the government
+adoption of both this criterion and the answer proposed by the
+developers: that the program has an owner, typically a corporation
+associated with its development.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   I would like to consider the same question using a different
+criterion: the prosperity and freedom of the public in general.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   This answer cannot be decided by current law&mdash;the law should
+conform to ethics, not the other way around.  Nor does current
+practice decide this question, although it may suggest possible
+answers.  The only way to judge is to see who is helped and who is
+hurt by recognizing owners of software, why, and how much.  In other
+words, we should perform a cost-benefit analysis on behalf of society
+as a whole, taking account of individual freedom as well as production
+of material goods.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   In this essay, I will describe the effects of having owners, and
+show that the results are detrimental.  My conclusion is that
+programmers have the duty to encourage others to share, redistribute,
+study, and improve the software we write: in other words, to write
+&lt;a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html"&gt;&ldquo;free&rdquo;
+software&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;a href="#f1"&gt;(1)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3 id="owner-justification"&gt;How Owners Justify Their Power&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   Those who benefit from the current system where programs are property
+offer two arguments in support of their claims to own programs: the
+emotional argument and the economic argument.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   The emotional argument goes like this: &ldquo;I put my sweat, my
+heart, my soul into this program.  It comes from &lt;em&gt;me&lt;/em&gt;,
+it's &lt;em&gt;mine&lt;/em&gt;!&rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   This argument does not require serious refutation.  The feeling of
+attachment is one that programmers can cultivate when it suits them;
+it is not inevitable.  Consider, for example, how willingly the same
+programmers usually sign over all rights to a large corporation for a
+salary; the emotional attachment mysteriously vanishes.  By contrast,
+consider the great artists and artisans of medieval times, who didn't
+even sign their names to their work.  To them, the name of the artist
+was not important.  What mattered was that the work was done&mdash;and
+the purpose it would serve.  This view prevailed for hundreds of
+years.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   The economic argument goes like this: &ldquo;I want to get rich
+(usually described inaccurately as &lsquo;making a living&rsquo;), and
+if you don't allow me to get rich by programming, then I won't
+program.  Everyone else is like me, so nobody will ever program.  And
+then you'll be stuck with no programs at all!&rdquo; This threat is
+usually veiled as friendly advice from the wise.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   I'll explain later why this threat is a bluff.  First I want to
+address an implicit assumption that is more visible in another
+formulation of the argument.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   This formulation starts by comparing the social utility of a
+proprietary program with that of no program, and then concludes that
+proprietary software development is, on the whole, beneficial, and
+should be encouraged.  The fallacy here is in comparing only two
+outcomes&mdash;proprietary software versus no software&mdash;and assuming
+there are no other possibilities.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   Given a system of software copyright, software development is
+usually linked with the existence of an owner who controls the
+software's use.  As long as this linkage exists, we are often faced with
+the choice of proprietary software or none.  However, this linkage is
+not inherent or inevitable; it is a consequence of the specific
+social/legal policy decision that we are questioning: the decision to
+have owners.  To formulate the choice as between proprietary software
+versus no software is begging the question.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3 id="against-having-owners"&gt;The Argument against Having 
Owners&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   The question at hand is, &ldquo;Should development of software be linked
+with having owners to restrict the use of it?&rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   In order to decide this, we have to judge the effect on society of
+each of those two activities &lt;em&gt;independently&lt;/em&gt;: the effect of 
developing
+the software (regardless of its terms of distribution), and the effect
+of restricting its use (assuming the software has been developed).  If
+one of these activities is helpful and the other is harmful, we would be
+better off dropping the linkage and doing only the helpful one.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   To put it another way, if restricting the distribution of a program
+already developed is harmful to society overall, then an ethical
+software developer will reject the option of doing so.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   To determine the effect of restricting sharing, we need to compare
+the value to society of a restricted (i.e., proprietary) program with
+that of the same program, available to everyone.  This means comparing
+two possible worlds.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   This analysis also addresses the simple counterargument sometimes
+made that &ldquo;the benefit to the neighbor of giving him or her a
+copy of a program is cancelled by the harm done to the owner.&rdquo;
+This counterargument assumes that the harm and the benefit are equal
+in magnitude.  The analysis involves comparing these magnitudes, and
+shows that the benefit is much greater.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   To elucidate this argument, let's apply it in another area: road
+construction.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   It would be possible to fund the construction of all roads with
+tolls. This would entail having toll booths at all street corners.
+Such a system would provide a great incentive to improve roads.  It
+would also have the virtue of causing the users of any given road to
+pay for that road.  However, a toll booth is an artificial obstruction
+to smooth driving&mdash;artificial, because it is not a consequence of
+how roads or cars work.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   Comparing free roads and toll roads by their usefulness, we find
+that (all else being equal) roads without toll booths are cheaper to
+construct, cheaper to run, safer, and more efficient to
+use.&lt;a href="#f2"&gt;(2)&lt;/a&gt; In a poor country, tolls may make the 
roads
+unavailable to many citizens.  The roads without toll booths thus
+offer more benefit to society at less cost; they are preferable for
+society.  Therefore, society should choose to fund roads in another
+way, not by means of toll booths.  Use of roads, once built, should be
+free.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   When the advocates of toll booths propose them as 
&lt;em&gt;merely&lt;/em&gt; a
+way of raising funds, they distort the choice that is available.  Toll
+booths do raise funds, but they do something else as well: in effect,
+they degrade the road.  The toll road is not as good as the free road;
+giving us more or technically superior roads may not be an improvement
+if this means substituting toll roads for free roads.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   Of course, the construction of a free road does cost money, which the
+public must somehow pay.  However, this does not imply the inevitability
+of toll booths.  We who must in either case pay will get more value for
+our money by buying a free road.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   I am not saying that a toll road is worse than no road at all.
+That would be true if the toll were so great that hardly anyone used
+the road&mdash;but this is an unlikely policy for a toll collector.
+However, as long as the toll booths cause significant waste and
+inconvenience, it is better to raise the funds in a less obstructive
+fashion.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   To apply the same argument to software development, I will now show
+that having &ldquo;toll booths&rdquo; for useful software programs
+costs society dearly: it makes the programs more expensive to
+construct, more expensive to distribute, and less satisfying and
+efficient to use.  It will follow that program construction should be
+encouraged in some other way.  Then I will go on to explain other
+methods of encouraging and (to the extent actually necessary) funding
+software development.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h4 id="harm-done"&gt;The Harm Done by Obstructing Software&lt;/h4&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   Consider for a moment that a program has been developed, and any
+necessary payments for its development have been made; now society must
+choose either to make it proprietary or allow free sharing and use.
+Assume that the existence of the program and its availability is a
+desirable thing.&lt;a href="#f3"&gt;(3)&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   Restrictions on the distribution and modification of the program
+cannot facilitate its use.  They can only interfere.  So the effect can
+only be negative.  But how much?  And what kind?&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   Three different levels of material harm come from such 
obstruction:&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;ul&gt;
+&lt;li&gt;Fewer people use the program.&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;None of the users can adapt or fix the program.&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li&gt;Other developers cannot learn from the program, or base new work on 
it.&lt;/li&gt;
+&lt;/ul&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+   Each level of material harm has a concomitant form of psychosocial
+harm. This refers to the effect that people's decisions have on their
+subsequent feelings, attitudes, and predispositions.  These changes in
+people's ways of thinking will then have a further effect on their
+relationships with their fellow citizens, and can have material
+consequences.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   The three levels of material harm waste part of the value that the
+program could contribute, but they cannot reduce it to zero.  If they
+waste nearly all the value of the program, then writing the program
+harms society by at most the effort that went into writing the program.
+Arguably a program that is profitable to sell must provide some net
+direct material benefit.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   However, taking account of the concomitant psychosocial harm, there
+is no limit to the harm that proprietary software development can do.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h4 id="obstructing-use"&gt;Obstructing Use of Programs&lt;/h4&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   The first level of harm impedes the simple use of a program.  A copy
+of a program has nearly zero marginal cost (and you can pay this cost by
+doing the work yourself), so in a free market, it would have nearly zero
+price.  A license fee is a significant disincentive to use the program.
+If a widely useful program is proprietary, far fewer people will use 
it.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   It is easy to show that the total contribution of a program to
+society is reduced by assigning an owner to it.  Each potential user of
+the program, faced with the need to pay to use it, may choose to pay,
+or may forego use of the program.  When a user chooses to pay, this is a
+zero-sum transfer of wealth between two parties.  But each time someone
+chooses to forego use of the program, this harms that person without
+benefiting anyone.  The sum of negative numbers and zeros must be
+negative.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   But this does not reduce the amount of work it takes to 
&lt;em&gt;develop&lt;/em&gt;
+the program.  As a result, the efficiency of the whole process, in
+delivered user satisfaction per hour of work, is reduced.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   This reflects a crucial difference between copies of programs and
+cars, chairs, or sandwiches.  There is no copying machine for material
+objects outside of science fiction.  But programs are easy to copy;
+anyone can produce as many copies as are wanted, with very little
+effort.  This isn't true for material objects because matter is
+conserved: each new copy has to be built from raw materials in the same
+way that the first copy was built.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   With material objects, a disincentive to use them makes sense,
+because fewer objects bought means less raw material and work needed
+to make them.  It's true that there is usually also a startup cost, a
+development cost, which is spread over the production run.  But as long
+as the marginal cost of production is significant, adding a share of the
+development cost does not make a qualitative difference.  And it does
+not require restrictions on the freedom of ordinary users.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   However, imposing a price on something that would otherwise be free
+is a qualitative change.  A centrally imposed fee for software
+distribution becomes a powerful disincentive.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   What's more, central production as now practiced is inefficient even
+as a means of delivering copies of software.  This system involves
+enclosing physical disks or tapes in superfluous packaging, shipping
+large numbers of them around the world, and storing them for sale.  This
+cost is presented as an expense of doing business; in truth, it is part
+of the waste caused by having owners.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h4 id="damaging-social-cohesion"&gt;Damaging Social Cohesion&lt;/h4&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   Suppose that both you and your neighbor would find it useful to run a
+certain program.  In ethical concern for your neighbor, you should feel
+that proper handling of the situation will enable both of you to use it.
+A proposal to permit only one of you to use the program, while
+restraining the other, is divisive; neither you nor your neighbor should
+find it acceptable.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   Signing a typical software license agreement means betraying your
+neighbor: &ldquo;I promise to deprive my neighbor of this program so
+that I can have a copy for myself.&rdquo; People who make such choices
+feel internal psychological pressure to justify them, by downgrading
+the importance of helping one's neighbors&mdash;thus public spirit
+suffers. This is psychosocial harm associated with the material harm
+of discouraging use of the program.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   Many users unconsciously recognize the wrong of refusing to share, so
+they decide to ignore the licenses and laws, and share programs anyway.
+But they often feel guilty about doing so.  They know that they must
+break the laws in order to be good neighbors, but they still consider
+the laws authoritative, and they conclude that being a good neighbor
+(which they are) is naughty or shameful.  That is also a kind of
+psychosocial harm, but one can escape it by deciding that these licenses
+and laws have no moral force.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   Programmers also suffer psychosocial harm knowing that many users
+will not be allowed to use their work.  This leads to an attitude of
+cynicism or denial.  A programmer may describe enthusiastically the
+work that he finds technically exciting; then when asked, &ldquo;Will I be
+permitted to use <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>it?&rdquo;,</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>it?&rdquo;</em></ins></span> his face falls, and he 
admits the answer is no. 
+To avoid feeling discouraged, he either ignores this fact most of the
+time or adopts a cynical stance designed to minimize the importance of
+it.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   Since the age of Reagan, the greatest scarcity in the United States
+is not technical innovation, but rather the willingness to work together
+for the public good.  It makes no sense to encourage the former at the
+expense of the latter.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h4 id="custom-adaptation"&gt;Obstructing Custom Adaptation of 
Programs&lt;/h4&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   The second level of material harm is the inability to adapt programs.
+The ease of modification of software is one of its great advantages over
+older technology.  But most commercially available software isn't
+available for modification, even after you buy it.  It's available for
+you to take it or leave it, as a black box&mdash;that is all.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   A program that you can run consists of a series of numbers whose
+meaning is obscure.  No one, not even a good programmer, can easily
+change the numbers to make the program do something different.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   Programmers normally work with the &ldquo;source code&rdquo; for a
+program, which is written in a programming language such as Fortran or
+C.  It uses names to designate the data being used and the parts of
+the program, and it represents operations with symbols such as
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>&lsquo;+&rsquo;</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;code&gt;+&lt;/code&gt;</em></ins></span> 
for addition and <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>&lsquo;-&rsquo;</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;code&gt;-&lt;/code&gt;</em></ins></span> for 
subtraction.  It
+is designed to help programmers read and change programs.  Here is an
+example; a program to calculate the distance between two points in a
+plane:&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;pre&gt;
+     float
+     distance (p0, p1)
+          struct point p0, p1;
+     {
+       float xdist = p1.x - p0.x;
+       float ydist = p1.y - p0.y;
+       return sqrt (xdist * xdist + ydist * ydist);
+     }
+&lt;/pre&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   Precisely what that source code means is not the point; the point
+   is that it looks like algebra, and a person who knows this
+   programming language will find it meaningful and clear.  By
+   contrast, here is same program in executable form, on the computer
+   I normally used when I wrote this:
+&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;pre&gt;
+     1314258944      -232267772      -231844864      1634862
+     1411907592      -231844736      2159150         1420296208
+     -234880989      -234879837      -234879966      -232295424
+     1644167167      -3214848        1090581031      1962942495
+     572518958       -803143692      1314803317
+&lt;/pre&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+   Source code is useful (at least potentially) to every user of a
+program. But most users are not allowed to have copies of the source
+code. Usually the source code for a proprietary program is kept secret
+by the owner, lest anybody else learn something from it.  Users receive
+only the files of incomprehensible numbers that the computer will
+execute. This means that only the program's owner can change the
+program.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   A friend once told me of working as a programmer in a bank for
+about six months, writing a program similar to something that was
+commercially available.  She believed that if she could have gotten
+source code for that commercially available program, it could easily
+have been adapted to their needs.  The bank was willing to pay for
+this, but was not permitted to&mdash;the source code was a secret.  So
+she had to do six months of make-work, work that counts in the GNP but
+was actually waste.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   The &lt;abbr title="Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology"&gt;MIT&lt;/abbr&gt;
+Artificial Intelligence Lab (AI Lab) received a graphics printer as a
+gift from Xerox around 1977.  It was run by free software to which we
+added many convenient features.  For example, the software would
+notify a user immediately on completion of a print job.  Whenever the
+printer had trouble, such as a paper jam or running out of paper, the
+software would immediately notify all users who had print jobs
+queued. These features facilitated smooth operation.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   Later Xerox gave the AI Lab a newer, faster printer, one of the first
+laser printers.  It was driven by proprietary software that ran in a
+separate dedicated computer, so we couldn't add any of our favorite
+features.  We could arrange to send a notification when a print job was
+sent to the dedicated computer, but not when the job was actually
+printed (and the delay was usually considerable).  There was no way to
+find out when the job was actually printed; you could only guess.  And
+no one was informed when there was a paper jam, so the printer often
+went for an hour without being fixed.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   The system programmers at the AI Lab were capable of fixing such
+problems, probably as capable as the original authors of the program.
+Xerox was uninterested in fixing them, and chose to prevent us, so we
+were forced to accept the problems.  They were never fixed.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   Most good programmers have experienced this frustration.  The bank
+could afford to solve the problem by writing a new program from
+scratch, but a typical user, no matter how skilled, can only give up.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   Giving up causes psychosocial harm&mdash;to the spirit of
+self-reliance.  It is demoralizing to live in a house that you cannot
+rearrange to suit your needs.  It leads to resignation and
+discouragement, which can spread to affect other aspects of one's
+life.  People who feel this way are unhappy and do not do good
+work.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   Imagine what it would be like if recipes were hoarded in the same
+fashion as software.  You might say, &ldquo;How do I change this
+recipe to take out the salt?&rdquo; and the great chef would respond,
+&ldquo;How dare you insult my recipe, the child of my brain and my
+palate, by trying to tamper with it?  You don't have the judgment to
+change my recipe and make it work right!&rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   &ldquo;But my doctor says I'm not supposed to eat salt!  What can I
+do?  Will you take out the salt for me?&rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   &ldquo;I would be glad to do that; my fee is only $50,000.&rdquo;
+Since the owner has a monopoly on changes, the fee tends to be large.
+&ldquo;However, right now I don't have time.  I am busy with a
+commission to design a new recipe for ship's biscuit for the Navy
+Department.  I might get around to you in about two years.&rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h4 id="software-development"&gt;Obstructing Software Development&lt;/h4&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   The third level of material harm affects software development.
+Software development used to be an evolutionary process, where a
+person would take an existing program and rewrite parts of it for one
+new feature, and then another person would rewrite parts to add
+another feature; in some cases, this continued over a period of twenty
+years.  Meanwhile, parts of the program would be
+&ldquo;cannibalized&rdquo; to form the beginnings of other
+programs.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   The existence of owners prevents this kind of evolution, making it
+necessary to start from scratch when developing a program.  It also
+prevents new practitioners from studying existing programs to learn
+useful techniques or even how large programs can be structured.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   Owners also obstruct education.  I have met bright students in
+computer science who have never seen the source code of a large
+program.  They may be good at writing small programs, but they can't
+begin to learn the different skills of writing large ones if they can't
+see how others have done it.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   In any intellectual field, one can reach greater heights by
+standing on the shoulders of others.  But that is no longer generally
+allowed in the software field&mdash;you can only stand on the
+shoulders of the other people &lt;em&gt;in your own 
company&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   The associated psychosocial harm affects the spirit of scientific
+cooperation, which used to be so strong that scientists would cooperate
+even when their countries were at war.  In this spirit, Japanese
+oceanographers abandoning their lab on an island in the Pacific
+carefully preserved their work for the invading U.S. Marines, and left a
+note asking them to take good care of it.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   Conflict for profit has destroyed what international conflict spared.
+Nowadays scientists in many fields don't publish enough in their papers
+to enable others to replicate the experiment.  They publish only enough
+to let readers marvel at how much they were able to do.  This is
+certainly true in computer science, where the source code for the
+programs reported on is usually secret.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h4 id="does-not-matter-how"&gt;It Does Not Matter How Sharing Is 
Restricted&lt;/h4&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   I have been discussing the effects of preventing people from
+copying, changing, and building on a program.  I have not specified
+how this obstruction is carried out, because that doesn't affect the
+conclusion.  Whether it is done by copy protection, or copyright, or
+licenses, or encryption, or &lt;abbr title="Read-only 
Memory"&gt;ROM&lt;/abbr&gt;
+cards, or hardware serial numbers, if it &lt;em&gt;succeeds&lt;/em&gt; in
+preventing use, it does harm.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   Users do consider some of these methods more obnoxious than others. 
+I suggest that the methods most hated are those that accomplish their
+objective.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h4 id="should-be-free"&gt;Software Should be Free&lt;/h4&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   I have shown how ownership of a program&mdash;the power to restrict
+changing or copying it&mdash;is obstructive.  Its negative effects are
+widespread and important.  It follows that society shouldn't have
+owners for programs.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   Another way to understand this is that what society needs is free
+software, and proprietary software is a poor substitute.  Encouraging
+the substitute is not a rational way to get what we need.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   Vaclav Havel has advised us to &ldquo;Work for something because it is
+good, not just because it stands a chance to succeed.&rdquo;  A business
+making proprietary software stands a chance of success in its own narrow
+terms, but it is not what is good for society.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3 id="why-develop"&gt;Why People Will Develop Software&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   If we eliminate copyright as a means of encouraging
+people to develop software, at first less software will be developed,
+but that software will be more useful.  It is not clear whether the
+overall delivered user satisfaction will be less; but if it is, or if
+we wish to increase it anyway, there are other ways to encourage
+development, just as there are ways besides toll booths to raise money
+for streets. Before I talk about how that can be done, first I want to
+question how much artificial encouragement is truly necessary.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h4 id="fun"&gt;Programming is Fun&lt;/h4&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   There are some lines of work that few will enter except for money;
+road construction, for example.  There are other fields of study and
+art in which there is little chance to become rich, which people enter
+for their fascination or their perceived value to society.  Examples
+include mathematical logic, classical music, and archaeology; and
+political organizing among working people.  People compete, more sadly
+than bitterly, for the few funded positions available, none of which is
+funded very well.  They may even pay for the chance to work in the
+field, if they can afford to.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   Such a field can transform itself overnight if it begins to offer the
+possibility of getting rich.  When one worker gets rich, others demand
+the same opportunity.  Soon all may demand large sums of money for doing
+what they used to do for pleasure.  When another couple of years go by,
+everyone connected with the field will deride the idea that work would
+be done in the field without large financial returns.  They will advise
+social planners to ensure that these returns are possible, prescribing
+special privileges, powers, and monopolies as necessary to do so.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   This change happened in the field of computer programming in the
+1980s.  In the 1970s, there were articles on
+&ldquo;computer addiction&rdquo;: users were &ldquo;onlining&rdquo;
+and had hundred-dollar-a-week habits.  It was generally understood
+that people frequently loved programming enough to break up their
+marriages.  Today, it is generally understood that no one would
+program except for a high rate of pay. People have forgotten what they
+knew back then.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   When it is true at a given time that most people will work in a
+certain field only for high pay, it need not remain true.  The dynamic
+of change can run in reverse, if society provides an impetus.  If we
+take away the possibility of great wealth, then after a while, when the
+people have readjusted their attitudes, they will once again be eager
+to work in the field for the joy of accomplishment.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   The question &ldquo;How can we pay programmers?&rdquo; becomes an
+easier question when we realize that it's not a matter of paying them
+a fortune.  A mere living is easier to raise.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h4 id="funding"&gt;Funding Free Software&lt;/h4&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   Institutions that pay programmers do not have to be software houses.
+Many other institutions already exist that can do this.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   Hardware manufacturers find it essential to support software
+development even if they cannot control the use of the software.  In
+1970, much of their software was free because they did not consider
+restricting it. Today, their increasing willingness to join consortiums
+shows their realization that owning the software is not what is really
+important for them.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   Universities conduct many programming projects.  Today they often
+sell the results, but in the 1970s they did not.  Is there any doubt
+that universities would develop free software if they were not allowed
+to sell software?  These projects could be supported by the same
+government contracts and grants that now support proprietary software
+development.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   It is common today for university researchers to get grants to
+develop a system, develop it nearly to the point of completion and
+call that <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>&ldquo;finished&rdquo;,</strong></del></span> 
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&ldquo;finished,&rdquo;</em></ins></span> and 
then start companies where they
+really finish the project and make it usable.  Sometimes they declare
+the unfinished version &ldquo;free&rdquo;; if they are thoroughly
+corrupt, they instead get an exclusive license from the university.
+This is not a secret; it is openly admitted by everyone concerned.
+Yet if the researchers were not exposed to the temptation to do these
+things, they would still do their research.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   Programmers writing free software can make their living by selling
+services related to the software.  I have been hired to port the
+&lt;a href="/software/gcc/"&gt;GNU C compiler&lt;/a&gt; to new hardware, and
+to make user-interface extensions to
+&lt;a href="/software/emacs/"&gt;GNU Emacs&lt;/a&gt;.  (I offer these 
improvements
+to the public once they are done.)  I also teach classes for which I
+am paid.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   I am not alone in working this way; there is now a successful,
+growing corporation which does no other kind of work.  Several other
+companies also provide commercial support for the free software of the
+GNU system. This is the beginning of the independent software support
+industry&mdash;an industry that could become quite large if free
+software becomes prevalent.  It provides users with an option
+generally unavailable for proprietary software, except to the very
+wealthy.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   New institutions such as the &lt;a href="/fsf/fsf.html"&gt;Free Software
+Foundation&lt;/a&gt; can also fund programmers.  Most of the Foundation's
+funds come from users buying tapes through the mail.  The software on
+the tapes is free, which means that every user has the freedom to copy
+it and change it, but many nonetheless pay to get copies.  (Recall
+that &ldquo;free software&rdquo; refers to freedom, not to price.)
+Some users who already have a copy order tapes as a way of making a
+contribution they feel we deserve.  The Foundation also receives
+sizable donations from computer manufacturers.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   The Free Software Foundation is a charity, and its income is spent on
+hiring as many programmers as possible.  If it had been set up as a
+business, distributing the same free software to the public for the same
+fee, it would now provide a very good living for its founder.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   Because the Foundation is a charity, programmers often work for the
+Foundation for half of what they could make elsewhere.  They do this
+because we are free of bureaucracy, and because they feel satisfaction
+in knowing that their work will not be obstructed from use.  Most of
+all, they do it because programming is fun.  In addition, volunteers
+have written many useful programs for us.  (Even technical writers
+have begun to volunteer.)&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   This confirms that programming is among the most fascinating of all
+fields, along with music and art.  We don't have to fear that no one
+will want to program.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h4 id="owe"&gt;What Do Users Owe to Developers?&lt;/h4&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   There is a good reason for users of software to feel a moral
+obligation to contribute to its support.  Developers of free software
+are contributing to the users' activities, and it is both fair and in
+the long-term interest of the users to give them funds to continue.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   However, this does not apply to proprietary software developers,
+since obstructionism deserves a punishment rather than a reward.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   We thus have a paradox: the developer of useful software is entitled
+to the support of the users, but any attempt to turn this moral
+obligation into a requirement destroys the basis for the obligation.  A
+developer can either deserve a reward or demand it, but not both.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   I believe that an ethical developer faced with this paradox must act
+so as to deserve the reward, but should also entreat the users for
+voluntary donations.  Eventually the users will learn to support
+developers without coercion, just as they have learned to support public
+radio and television stations.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3 id="productivity"&gt;What Is Software Productivity? &lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   If software were free, there would still be programmers, but perhaps
+fewer of them.  Would this be bad for society?&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   Not necessarily.  Today the advanced nations have fewer farmers than
+in 1900, but we do not think this is bad for society, because the few
+deliver more food to the consumers than the many used to do.  We call
+this improved productivity.  Free software would require far fewer
+programmers to satisfy the demand, because of increased software
+productivity at all levels:&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;ul&gt;
+&lt;li&gt; Wider use of each program that is developed.&lt;/li&gt;
+&lt;li&gt; The ability to adapt existing programs for customization instead
+     of starting from scratch.&lt;/li&gt;
+&lt;li&gt; Better education of programmers.&lt;/li&gt;
+&lt;li&gt; The elimination of duplicate development effort.&lt;/li&gt;
+&lt;/ul&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;
+   Those who object to cooperation claiming it would result in the
+employment of fewer programmers are actually objecting to increased
+productivity.  Yet these people usually accept the widely held belief
+that the software industry needs increased productivity.  How is 
this?&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   &ldquo;Software productivity&rdquo; can mean two different things:
+the overall productivity of all software development, or the
+productivity of individual projects.  Overall productivity is what
+society would like to improve, and the most straightforward way to do
+this is to eliminate the artificial obstacles to cooperation which
+reduce it.  But researchers who study the field of &ldquo;software
+productivity&rdquo; focus only on the second, limited, sense of the
+term, where improvement requires difficult technological advances.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3 id="competition"&gt;Is Competition Inevitable?&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   Is it inevitable that people will try to compete, to surpass their
+rivals in society?  Perhaps it is.  But competition itself is not
+harmful; the harmful thing is &lt;em&gt;combat&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   There are many ways to compete.  Competition can consist of trying
+to achieve ever more, to outdo what others have done.  For example, in
+the old days, there was competition among programming
+wizards&mdash;competition for who could make the computer do the most
+amazing thing, or for who could make the shortest or fastest program
+for a given task.  This kind of competition can benefit
+everyone, &lt;em&gt;as long as&lt;/em&gt; the spirit of good sportsmanship is
+maintained.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   Constructive competition is enough competition to motivate people to
+great efforts.  A number of people are competing to be the first to have
+visited all the countries on Earth; some even spend fortunes trying to
+do this.  But they do not bribe ship captains to strand their rivals on
+desert islands.  They are content to let the best person win.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   Competition becomes combat when the competitors begin trying to
+impede each other instead of advancing themselves&mdash;when
+&ldquo;Let the best person win&rdquo; gives way to &ldquo;Let me win,
+best or not.&rdquo; Proprietary software is harmful, not because it is
+a form of competition, but because it is a form of combat among the
+citizens of our society.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   Competition in business is not necessarily combat.  For example, when
+two grocery stores compete, their entire effort is to improve their own
+operations, not to sabotage the rival.  But this does not demonstrate a
+special commitment to business ethics; rather, there is little scope for
+combat in this line of business short of physical violence.  Not all
+areas of business share this characteristic.  Withholding information
+that could help everyone advance is a form of combat.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   Business ideology does not prepare people to resist the temptation to
+combat the competition.  Some forms of combat have been banned with
+antitrust laws, truth in advertising laws, and so on, but rather than
+generalizing this to a principled rejection of combat in general,
+executives invent other forms of combat which are not specifically
+prohibited.  Society's resources are squandered on the economic
+equivalent of factional civil war.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3 id="communism"&gt;&ldquo;Why Don't You Move to Russia?&rdquo;&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   In the United States, any advocate of other than the most extreme
+form of laissez-faire selfishness has often heard this accusation.  For
+example, it is leveled against the supporters of a national health care
+system, such as is found in all the other industrialized nations of the
+free world.  It is leveled against the advocates of public support for
+the arts, also universal in advanced nations.  The idea that citizens
+have any obligation to the public good is identified in America with
+Communism.  But how similar are these ideas?&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   Communism as was practiced in the Soviet Union was a system of
+central control where all activity was regimented, supposedly for the
+common good, but actually for the sake of the members of the Communist
+party. And where copying equipment was closely guarded to prevent
+illegal copying.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   The American system of software copyright exercises central control
+over distribution of a program, and guards copying equipment with
+automatic copying-protection schemes to prevent illegal copying.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   By contrast, I am working to build a system where people are free
+to decide their own actions; in particular, free to help their
+neighbors, and free to alter and improve the tools which they use in
+their daily lives.  A system based on voluntary cooperation and on
+decentralization.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   Thus, if we are to judge views by their resemblance to Russian
+Communism, it is the software owners who are the Communists.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3 id="premises"&gt;The Question of Premises&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   I make the assumption in this paper that a user of software is no
+less important than an author, or even an author's employer.  In other
+words, their interests and needs have equal weight, when we decide
+which course of action is best.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   This premise is not universally accepted.  Many maintain that an
+author's employer is fundamentally more important than anyone else.
+They say, for example, that the purpose of having owners of software
+is to give the author's employer the advantage he
+deserves&mdash;regardless of how this may affect the public.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   It is no use trying to prove or disprove these premises.  Proof
+requires shared premises.  So most of what I have to say is addressed
+only to those who share the premises I use, or at least are interested
+in what their consequences are.  For those who believe that the owners
+are more important than everyone else, this paper is simply 
irrelevant.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   But why would a large number of Americans accept a premise that
+elevates certain people in importance above everyone else?  Partly
+because of the belief that this premise is part of the legal traditions
+of American society.  Some people feel that doubting the premise means
+challenging the basis of society.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   It is important for these people to know that this premise is not
+part of our legal tradition.  It never has been.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   Thus, the Constitution says that the purpose of copyright is to
+&ldquo;promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts.&rdquo; The
+Supreme Court has elaborated on this, stating in &lt;em&gt;Fox Film
+v. Doyal&lt;/em&gt; that &ldquo;The sole interest of the United States
+and the primary object in conferring the [copyright] monopoly lie in
+the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of
+authors.&rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   We are not required to agree with the Constitution or the Supreme
+Court.  (At one time, they both condoned slavery.)  So their positions
+do not disprove the owner supremacy premise.  But I hope that the
+awareness that this is a radical right-wing assumption rather than a
+traditionally recognized one will weaken its appeal.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;h3 id="conclusion"&gt;Conclusion&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   We like to think that our society encourages helping your neighbor;
+but each time we reward someone for obstructionism, or admire them for
+the wealth they have gained in this way, we are sending the opposite
+message.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   Software hoarding is one form of our general willingness to disregard
+the welfare of society for personal gain.  We can trace this disregard
+from Ronald Reagan to Dick Cheney, from Exxon to Enron, from
+failing banks to failing schools.  We can measure it with the size of
+the homeless population and the prison population.  The antisocial
+spirit feeds on itself, because the more we see that other people will
+not help us, the more it seems futile to help them.  Thus society decays
+into a jungle.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;
+   If we don't want to live in a jungle, we must change our attitudes. 
+We must start sending the message that a good citizen is one who
+cooperates when appropriate, not one who is successful at taking from
+others.  I hope that the free software movement will contribute to
+this: at least in one area, we will replace the jungle with a more
+efficient system which encourages and runs on voluntary cooperation.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;div class="column-limit"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
+
+&lt;h3 id="footnotes" class="footnote"&gt;Footnotes&lt;/h3&gt;
+
+&lt;ol&gt;
+&lt;li id="f1"&gt;The word &ldquo;free&rdquo; in &ldquo;free software&rdquo;
+refers to freedom, not to price; the price paid for a copy of a free
+program may be zero, or small, or (rarely) quite large.&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li id="f2"&gt;The issues of pollution and traffic congestion do not
+alter this conclusion.  If we wish to make driving more expensive to
+discourage driving in general, it is disadvantageous to do this using
+toll booths, which contribute to both pollution and congestion.  A tax
+on gasoline is much better.  Likewise, a desire to enhance safety by
+limiting maximum speed is not relevant; a free-access road enhances
+the average speed by avoiding stops and delays, for any given speed
+limit.&lt;/li&gt;
+
+&lt;li id="f3"&gt;One might regard a particular computer program as a
+harmful thing that should not be available at all, like the Lotus
+Marketplace database of personal information, which was withdrawn from
+sale due to public disapproval.  Most of what I say does not apply to
+this case, but it makes little sense to argue for having an owner on
+the grounds that the owner will make the program less available.  The
+owner will not make it &lt;em&gt;completely&lt;/em&gt; unavailable, as one 
would
+wish in the case of a program whose use is considered
+destructive.&lt;/li&gt;
+&lt;/ol&gt;
+
+&lt;hr class="no-display" /&gt;
+&lt;div class="edu-note c"&gt;&lt;p id="fsfs"&gt;This essay is published in
+&lt;a 
href="https://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"&gt;&lt;cite&gt;Free
+Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard
+M. Stallman&lt;/cite&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;
+
+&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --&gt;
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --&gt;
+&lt;div id="footer" role="contentinfo"&gt;
+&lt;div class="unprintable"&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to &lt;a
+href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"&gt;&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.  There are also 
&lt;a
+href="/contact/"&gt;other ways to contact&lt;/a&gt; the FSF.  Broken links and 
other
+corrections or suggestions can be sent to &lt;a
+href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"&gt;&lt;webmasters@gnu.org&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+        replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+        We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+        translations.  However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+        Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+        to &lt;a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"&gt;
+        &lt;web-translators@gnu.org&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+        &lt;p&gt;For information on coordinating and contributing translations 
of
+        our web pages, see &lt;a
+        href="/server/standards/README.translations.html"&gt;Translations
+        README&lt;/a&gt;. --&gt;
+Please see the &lt;a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html"&gt;Translations 
README&lt;/a&gt; for
+information on coordinating and contributing translations of this 
article.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;!-- Regarding copyright, in general, 
standalone pages (as opposed to
+     files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+     be under CC BY-ND 4.0.  Please do NOT change or remove this
+     without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+     Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+     document.  For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+     document was modified, or published.
+     
+     If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+     Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+     years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+     year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+     being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+     
+     There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+     Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --&gt;</em></ins></span>
+
+&lt;p&gt;Copyright &copy; 1991, 1992, 1998, 2006, 2010, 2021 Free Software
+Foundation, Inc.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;p&gt;This page is licensed under a &lt;a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/"&gt;Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International 
License&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --&gt;
+
+&lt;p class="unprintable"&gt;Updated:
+&lt;!-- timestamp start --&gt;
+$Date: 2021/11/11 15:30:25 $
+&lt;!-- timestamp end --&gt;
+&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;
+&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include --&gt;
+&lt;/body&gt;
+&lt;/html&gt;
+</pre></body></html>



reply via email to

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