[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/philosophy basic-freedoms.uk.html can-you-t...
|
From: |
GNUN |
|
Subject: |
www/philosophy basic-freedoms.uk.html can-you-t... |
|
Date: |
Tue, 19 Oct 2021 16:33:12 -0400 (EDT) |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: GNUN <gnun> 21/10/19 16:33:11
Modified files:
philosophy : basic-freedoms.uk.html can-you-trust.ml.html
copyright-and-globalization.cs.html
danger-of-software-patents.zh-tw.html
lessig-fsfs-intro.pl.html
misinterpreting-copyright.fr.html
netscape.el.html
philosophy/po : basic-freedoms.uk-diff.html
copyright-and-globalization.cs-diff.html
lessig-fsfs-intro.pl-diff.html
Added files:
philosophy/po : can-you-trust.ml-diff.html
danger-of-software-patents.zh-tw-diff.html
netscape.el-diff.html
Log message:
Automatic update by GNUnited Nations.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/basic-freedoms.uk.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.9&r2=1.10
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/can-you-trust.ml.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.5&r2=1.6
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.cs.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.9&r2=1.10
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/danger-of-software-patents.zh-tw.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.1&r2=1.2
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/lessig-fsfs-intro.pl.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.8&r2=1.9
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.fr.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.95&r2=1.96
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/netscape.el.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.9&r2=1.10
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.uk-diff.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.4&r2=1.5
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/copyright-and-globalization.cs-diff.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.3&r2=1.4
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/lessig-fsfs-intro.pl-diff.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.4&r2=1.5
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/can-you-trust.ml-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/danger-of-software-patents.zh-tw-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/netscape.el-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
Patches:
Index: basic-freedoms.uk.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/basic-freedoms.uk.html,v
retrieving revision 1.9
retrieving revision 1.10
diff -u -b -r1.9 -r1.10
--- basic-freedoms.uk.html 31 May 2021 20:31:35 -0000 1.9
+++ basic-freedoms.uk.html 19 Oct 2021 20:33:10 -0000 1.10
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/basic-freedoms.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.uk.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.uk.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/basic-freedoms.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.uk-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2021-08-20" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/basic-freedoms.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.uk.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.86 -->
@@ -9,6 +14,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.uk.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.uk.html" -->
<h2>Свобода Ñлова, дÑÑÐºÑ Ñ Ð°ÑоÑÑаÑÑй в
ÐнÑеÑнеÑÑ</h2>
<p>
@@ -130,7 +136,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Ðновлено:
-$Date: 2021/05/31 20:31:35 $
+$Date: 2021/10/19 20:33:10 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: can-you-trust.ml.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/can-you-trust.ml.html,v
retrieving revision 1.5
retrieving revision 1.6
diff -u -b -r1.5 -r1.6
--- can-you-trust.ml.html 1 Jun 2021 17:00:02 -0000 1.5
+++ can-you-trust.ml.html 19 Oct 2021 20:33:11 -0000 1.6
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/can-you-trust.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/can-you-trust.ml.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/can-you-trust.ml.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/can-you-trust.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/can-you-trust.ml-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2021-08-20" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/can-you-trust.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.ml.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 -->
@@ -9,6 +14,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/can-you-trust.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.ml.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.ml.html" -->
<h2>നിà´àµà´à´³àµâà´àµà´àµ à´¸àµà´µà´¨àµà´¤à´
à´à´®àµà´ªàµà´¯àµà´àµà´à´±à´¿à´¨àµ വിശàµà´µà´¸à´¿à´àµà´à´¾àµ»
à´à´´à´¿à´¯àµà´®àµ?</h2>
<p>à´à´´àµà´¤à´¿à´¯à´¤àµ <a
href="http://www.stallman.org/";>റിà´àµà´à´¾à´°àµâà´¡àµ
à´¸àµà´±àµà´±à´¾à´³àµâമാനàµâ</a></p>
@@ -380,7 +386,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
à´ªàµà´¤àµà´àµà´à´¿à´¯à´¤àµàµ:
-$Date: 2021/06/01 17:00:02 $
+$Date: 2021/10/19 20:33:11 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: copyright-and-globalization.cs.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.cs.html,v
retrieving revision 1.9
retrieving revision 1.10
diff -u -b -r1.9 -r1.10
--- copyright-and-globalization.cs.html 30 May 2021 19:03:19 -0000 1.9
+++ copyright-and-globalization.cs.html 19 Oct 2021 20:33:11 -0000 1.10
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE"
value="/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/copyright-and-globalization.cs.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/copyright-and-globalization.cs.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE"
value="/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE"
value="/philosophy/po/copyright-and-globalization.cs-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2021-08-20" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.cs.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.86 -->
@@ -9,6 +14,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/copyright-and-globalization.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.cs.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.cs.html" -->
<h2>Autorská práva a globalizace ve vÄku poÄÃtaÄových sÃtÃ</h2>
<p>
@@ -1162,7 +1168,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Aktualizováno:
-$Date: 2021/05/30 19:03:19 $
+$Date: 2021/10/19 20:33:11 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: danger-of-software-patents.zh-tw.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/danger-of-software-patents.zh-tw.html,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -b -r1.1 -r1.2
--- danger-of-software-patents.zh-tw.html 26 Jun 2021 06:00:30 -0000
1.1
+++ danger-of-software-patents.zh-tw.html 19 Oct 2021 20:33:11 -0000
1.2
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE"
value="/philosophy/danger-of-software-patents.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/danger-of-software-patents.zh-tw.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/danger-of-software-patents.zh-tw.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE"
value="/philosophy/danger-of-software-patents.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE"
value="/philosophy/po/danger-of-software-patents.zh-tw-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2021-08-20" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/danger-of-software-patents.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.zh-tw.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
@@ -8,6 +13,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/danger-of-software-patents.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.zh-tw.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.zh-tw.html" -->
<h2>è»é«å°å©ç風éª</h2>
<p>ä½è
çº <a href="http://www.stallman.org/";>Richard Stallman</a></p>
@@ -650,7 +656,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
æ´æ°æé︰
-$Date: 2021/06/26 06:00:30 $
+$Date: 2021/10/19 20:33:11 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: lessig-fsfs-intro.pl.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/lessig-fsfs-intro.pl.html,v
retrieving revision 1.8
retrieving revision 1.9
diff -u -b -r1.8 -r1.9
--- lessig-fsfs-intro.pl.html 20 Apr 2021 12:03:22 -0000 1.8
+++ lessig-fsfs-intro.pl.html 19 Oct 2021 20:33:11 -0000 1.9
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/lessig-fsfs-intro.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/lessig-fsfs-intro.pl.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/lessig-fsfs-intro.pl.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/lessig-fsfs-intro.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE"
value="/philosophy/po/lessig-fsfs-intro.pl-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2021-08-20" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/lessig-fsfs-intro.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.pl.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.86 -->
@@ -9,6 +14,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/lessig-fsfs-intro.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.pl.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.pl.html" -->
<h2>Wprowadzenie do <a
href="http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/";><i>Wolne
Oprogramowanie, Wolne SpoÅeczeÅstwo: Wybrane Eseje Richarda
@@ -317,7 +323,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Aktualizowane:
-$Date: 2021/04/20 12:03:22 $
+$Date: 2021/10/19 20:33:11 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: misinterpreting-copyright.fr.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.fr.html,v
retrieving revision 1.95
retrieving revision 1.96
diff -u -b -r1.95 -r1.96
--- misinterpreting-copyright.fr.html 19 Oct 2021 18:02:09 -0000 1.95
+++ misinterpreting-copyright.fr.html 19 Oct 2021 20:33:11 -0000 1.96
@@ -83,7 +83,7 @@
contribuable, à cette différence près que le gouvernement le fait avec notre
liberté au lieu de notre argent.</p>
<p>
-Mais ce marchandage, tel qu'il existe, est-il effectivement une bonne
+Mais ce marchandage, dans son état actuel, est-il effectivement une bonne
affaire pour le public� Beaucoup d'autres alternatives de négociation sont
possiblesâ¯; laquelle est la meilleureâ¯? Tous les problèmes inhérents Ã
la
politique du copyright résident dans cette question. Si nous interprétons
@@ -161,9 +161,9 @@
possible â meilleure pour le public, pas pour l'autre partie prenante du
contrat.</p>
<p>
-Par exemple, lorsqu'il signe des contrats avec des entreprises de travaux
-publics pour construire une autoroute, le gouvernement essaie de dépenser le
-moins possible d'argent public. Les agences du gouvernement font des appels
+Par exemple, lorsqu'il signe des contrats avec des entreprises pour
+construire une autoroute, le gouvernement essaie de dépenser le moins
+possible d'argent public. Les agences du gouvernement font des appels
d'offres pour faire baisser les prix.</p>
<p>
En pratique, le prix ne peut être nul, car les entrepreneurs ne feront pas
@@ -216,24 +216,24 @@
<p>
Quand nous achetons quelque chose, nous n'achetons généralement pas tout le
stock, ni le modèle le plus cher; nous conservons des fonds pour d'autres
-achats, en achetant seulement la quantité de chaque bien particulier dont
-nous avons besoin et en choisissant un modèle de qualité suffisante plutôt
-que de la meilleure qualité. Le principe des rendements décroissants suggère
-que dépenser tout notre argent pour un bien particulier est
-vraisemblablement une répartition inefficace des ressourcesâ¯; nous
-choisissons généralement de garder de l'argent pour une autre
utilisation.</p>
+achats, en achetant seulement ce dont nous avons besoin et en choisissant
+pour chaque article un modèle de qualité suffisante plutôt que de la
+meilleure qualité possible. Le principe des rendements décroissants suggère
+que dépenser tout notre argent pour un seul article est probablement une
+répartition inefficace des ressourcesâ¯; nous choisissons en général de
+garder de l'argent pour une autre utilisation.</p>
<p>
Les rendements décroissants s'appliquent au copyright comme à n'importe quel
autre achat. Les premières libertés que nous devrions négocier sont celles
qui nous manqueront le moins, tout en donnant le plus grand encouragement Ã
la publication. à mesure que nous négocions des libertés additionnelles qui
touchent de plus près notre vie quotidienne, nous constatons que chaque
-négociation entraîne un plus grand sacrifice que le précédent, alors
qu'elle
-apporte un plus faible accroissement de l'activité littéraire. Bien avant
-que l'accroissement ne devienne nul, nous pourrions tout à fait dire que
-cela ne vaut pas le prix marginalâ¯; nous choisirions alors une transaction
-dont le résultat global serait d'augmenter le nombre de publications, mais
-pas en le poussant à l'extrême.</p>
+négociation entraîne un plus grand sacrifice que la précédente, alors
+qu'elle apporte un plus faible accroissement de l'activité littéraire. Bien
+avant que l'accroissement ne devienne nul, nous pourrions tout à fait dire
+que cela ne vaut pas le prix marginalâ¯; nous choisirions alors une
+transaction dont le résultat global serait d'augmenter le nombre de
+publications, mais pas en le poussant à l'extrême.</p>
<p>
Accepter l'objectif de maximiser la publication rejette par avance toutes
ces négociations plus sages et plus avantageuses. Cela exige que le public
@@ -310,7 +310,7 @@
<p>
La tendance actuelle de la législation sur le copyright est de donner aux
éditeurs des pouvoirs plus étendus sur des périodes plus longues. Le concept
-fondamental du copyright, tel qu'il ressort déformé de cette suite
+fondamental de copyright, tel qu'il ressort déformé de cette suite
d'erreurs, offre rarement une base pour dire non. Les législateurs font
semblant de s'intéresser à l'idée que le copyright doive servir le public,
alors qu'en fait ils donnent aux éditeurs tout ce qu'ils demandent.</p>
@@ -340,12 +340,12 @@
Cette proposition étendait aussi le copyright d'Åuvres à venir. Pour les
Åuvres créées sur commande, le copyright durerait quatre-vingt-quinze ans au
lieu des soixante-quinze actuels. Théoriquement, cela augmenterait
-l'incitation à écrire de nouvelles Åuvres… Il faudrait obliger tout
-éditeur qui prétend avoir besoin de cette surprime à justifier sa
-revendication avec des projections de bilan à 75 ans d'échéance.</p>
+l'incitation à écrire de nouvelles Åuvresâ¯; mais pourquoi ne pas obliger
+tout éditeur qui prétend avoir besoin de cette surprime à justifier sa
+revendication avec des projections de bilan à 75 ans d'échéance�</p>
<p>
-Cela va sans dire, le Congrès n'a pas remis en question les arguments des
-éditeursâ¯: une loi étendant le copyright fut promulguée en 1998. Elle fut
+Le Congrès n'a pas remis en question les arguments des éditeurs, cela va
+sans direâ¯: une loi étendant le copyright fut promulguée en 1998. Elle fut
appelée <i>«â¯Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Actâ¯Â»</i>,<a
href="#TransNote4" id="TransNote4-rev"><sup>d</sup></a> d'après le nom de
l'un de ses soutiens qui était décédé un peu plus tôt cette année-là .
Nous
@@ -362,11 +362,12 @@
jour. Peut-être que la commission l'examinera au prochain Congrès.
</p></blockquote>
<p>
-Plus tard, la Cour suprême a auditionné une affaire qui cherchait à annuler
-cette loi en se basant sur le fait que l'extension rétroactive desservait
-l'objectif de promotion du progrès inscrit dans la Constitution. La Cour a
-répondu en abdiquant sa responsabilité de juger cette questionâ¯; en ce qui
-concerne le copyright, la Constitution se contente de belles paroles.</p>
+Plus tard, la Cour suprême a été saisie d'une affaire qui cherchait Ã
+annuler cette loi en se basant sur le fait que l'extension rétroactive
+desservait l'objectif de promotion du progrès inscrit dans la
+Constitution. La Cour a répondu en abdiquant sa responsabilité de juger
+cette questionâ¯; en ce qui concerne le copyright, la Constitution se
+contente de belles paroles.</p>
<p>
Une autre loi, votée en 1997, a transformé en délit pénal le fait de
réaliser un nombre important de copies d'une Åuvre publiée, même si c'est
@@ -396,7 +397,7 @@
un organisme dominé par les intérêts des détenteurs de copyrights et de
brevets, avec l'aide de la pression exercée par l'administration Clintonâ¯;
puisque le traité ne faisait qu'augmenter le pouvoir du copyright, qu'il
-serve l'intérêt du public dans un pays quelconque semblait douteux. En tout
+serve l'intérêt du public dans un pays quelconque semble douteux. En tout
cas, la loi allait bien au-delà de ce que requérait le traité.</p>
<p>
Les bibliothèques furent un des piliers de l'opposition à cette loi, en
@@ -416,12 +417,12 @@
musiqueâ¯Â» et d'autres «â¯industriesâ¯Â». Je lui demandaiâ¯: «â¯Mais
est-ce dans
l'intérêt du publicâ¯?â¯Â» Sa réponse futâ¯: «â¯Pourquoi parlez-vous
de l'intérêt
du public� Ces créatifs n'ont pas à abandonner leurs droits dans
l'intérêt
-du publicâ¯!â¯Â» «â¯L'industrieâ¯Â» était assimilée aux
«â¯créatifsâ¯Â» qu'elle
+du publicâ¯!â¯Â» L'industrieâ¯Â» était assimilée aux «â¯créatifsâ¯Â»
qu'elle
emploie, le copyright traité comme lui revenant de droit et la Constitution
mise sens dessus dessous.</p>
<p>
La DMCA a été promulguée en 1998. Elle dit que l'usage raisonnable demeure
-pour la forme légitime, mais autorise les éditeurs à interdire tout logiciel
+théoriquement légitime, mais autorise les éditeurs à interdire tout
logiciel
ou matériel avec lequel vous pourriez le mettre en application. En fait,
l'usage raisonnable est interdit.</p>
<p>
@@ -466,8 +467,8 @@
«â¯papier électroniqueâ¯Â», des objets ressemblant à des livres dans
lesquels
des livres électroniques chiffrés et restrictifs peuvent être
téléchargés. Si cette surface à l'apparence de papier se révèle plus
-attrayante que les écrans, nous devrons défendre notre liberté pour pouvoir
-la conserver. Entre-temps, les livres électroniques font des incursions dans
+attrayante que les écrans, nous ne pourrons conserver notre liberté qu'en la
+défendant. Entre-temps, les livres électroniques font des incursions dans
certains créneauxâ¯: les écoles dentaires de l'université de New York et
d'ailleurs exigent de leurs étudiants qu'ils achètent leurs manuels sous
forme de livres électroniques restrictifs.</p>
@@ -478,7 +479,7 @@
href="#TransNote7" id="TransNote7-rev"><sup>g</sup></a> <a
href="#footnote2">[2]</a> qui rendrait obligatoires sur tous les ordinateurs
(et autres appareils d'enregistrement et de lecture numériques) des systèmes
-de restriction de copie homologués par le gouvernement. Ceci est leur but
+de restriction de copie imposés par le gouvernement. Ceci est leur but
ultime, mais la première étape de leur plan est d'interdire tout équipement
qui puisse capter la télévision numérique haute définition (HDTV), à moins
qu'il ne soit conçu pour empêcher le public de le «â¯bricolerâ¯Â»
@@ -526,17 +527,16 @@
Un aspect important du copyright est sa durée, laquelle est maintenant
typiquement de l'ordre du siècle. Réduire le monopole de la copie à dix ans,
en partant de la date à laquelle l'Åuvre est publiée, serait une bonne
-première étape. Un autre aspect du copyright, qui couvre la fabrication
-d'Åuvres dérivées, pourrait continuer sur une période plus longue.</p>
+première étape. Un autre aspect, qui couvre la réalisation d'Åuvres
+dérivées, pourrait avoir une durée plus longue.</p>
<p>
Pourquoi partir de la date de publication� Parce que le copyright sur les
-Åuvres non publiées ne limite pas directement la liberté des lecteursâ¯;
que
-nous soyons libres de copier une Åuvre est sans objet quand nous n'en
-possédons aucun exemplaire. Ainsi, donner aux auteurs un temps plus long
-pour faire publier une Åuvre (dont ils possèdent généralement le copyright
-avant publication) n'est pas préjudiciable, car ils choisissent rarement
-d'en retarder la publication pour la seule raison de repousser le terme de
-leur copyright.</p>
+Åuvres non publiées ne limite pas directement la liberté des lecteursâ¯; la
+liberté de copier une Åuvre est sans objet quand nous n'en possédons aucun
+exemplaire. Ainsi, donner aux auteurs un temps plus long pour faire publier
+une Åuvre (dont ils possèdent généralement le copyright avant publication)
+n'est pas préjudiciable, car ils choisissent rarement d'en retarder la
+publication dans le seul but de repousser le terme de leur copyright.</p>
<p>
Pourquoi dix ansâ¯? Parce que c'est une proposition sûreâ¯; nous pouvons
être
assurés pour des raisons pratiques que cette réduction aurait de nos jours
@@ -549,9 +549,9 @@
achèteront l'édition sous copyright plutôt que de copier la version du
domaine public, vieille de dix ans.</p>
<p>
-Dix ans est peut-être encore plus long que nécessaireâ¯; une fois la
-situation stabilisée, nous pourrions essayer une autre réduction pour
-ajuster le système. à une table ronde sur le copyright lors d'une convention
+Dix ans est peut-être même plus long que nécessaireâ¯; une fois la
situation
+stabilisée, nous pourrions essayer une autre réduction pour ajuster le
+système. à une table ronde sur le copyright lors d'une convention
littéraire, où je proposais le bail de dix ans, un célèbre auteur de
fiction
assis à côté de moi objecta avec véhémence qu'au-delà de cinq ans,
c'était
intolérable.</p>
@@ -566,15 +566,14 @@
le prix le plus élevé que nous trouverions nécessaire pour un art
particulier.</p>
<p>
-Aussi, peut-être que les romans, les dictionnaires, les logiciels, les
+Ainsi, peut-être que les romans, les dictionnaires, les logiciels, les
chansons, les symphonies et les films devraient avoir des durées de
copyright différentes, de sorte que nous puissions réduire la durée pour
chaque type d'Åuvre à ce qui est nécessaire pour que de nombreuses Åuvres
de
ce type soient publiées. Peut-être que les films de plus d'une heure
pourraient avoir un copyright de vingt ans, à cause de leur coût de
production. Dans mon propre domaine, la programmation de logiciels, trois
-ans devraient suffire, car les cycles de production sont encore plus courts
-que cela.</p>
+ans devraient suffire, car les cycles de production sont encore plus
courts.</p>
<p>
Un autre aspect du copyright est l'extension de l'usage raisonnable (la
reproduction de tout ou partie d'une Åuvre publiée qui est légalement
@@ -588,7 +587,7 @@
sous plastique ne puissent pas être utilisées pour se substituer au
copyright en restreignant ce type de copie). L'expérience de Napster montre
que nous devrions aussi permettre la reproduction et la distribution non
-commerciale au publicâ¯: quand tant de gens veulent copier et partager et
+commerciale au publicâ¯: lorsque tant de gens veulent copier et partager et
trouvent cela utile, seules des mesures draconiennes les arrêteront, et le
public mérite d'avoir ce qu'il veut.</p>
<p>
@@ -598,12 +597,12 @@
(pour effectuer des tâches), demandent des libertés supplémentaires, y
compris celle de publier une version améliorée. Voir «â¯Définition du
logiciel libreâ¯Â», dans ce livre, pour une explication des libertés que
-devraient posséder les utilisateurs de logiciels. Mais ce pourrait être un
+doivent posséder les utilisateurs de logiciels. Mais ce pourrait être un
compromis acceptable que d'attendre deux ou trois ans à compter de la date
de publication du logiciel pour rendre ces libertés universelles.</p>
<p>
Des changements comme ceux-ci pourraient amener le copyright à être en phase
-avec les souhaits du public d'utiliser la technologie numérique pour
+avec le souhait du public d'utiliser les technologie numériques pour
copier. Les éditeurs trouveront ces propositions sans aucun doute
«â¯déséquilibréesâ¯Â»â¯; ils pourront menacer de retirer leurs billes
et de
rentrer chez eux, mais ils ne le feront sûrement pas, car le jeu restera
@@ -774,7 +773,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Dernière mise à jour :
-$Date: 2021/10/19 18:02:09 $
+$Date: 2021/10/19 20:33:11 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: netscape.el.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/netscape.el.html,v
retrieving revision 1.9
retrieving revision 1.10
diff -u -b -r1.9 -r1.10
--- netscape.el.html 27 May 2021 19:00:40 -0000 1.9
+++ netscape.el.html 19 Oct 2021 20:33:11 -0000 1.10
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/netscape.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/netscape.el.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/netscape.el.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/netscape.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/netscape.el-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2021-08-20" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/netscape.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.el.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
@@ -8,6 +13,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/netscape.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.el.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.el.html" -->
<h2>Το Netscape και Ïο ελεÏθεÏο λογιÏμικÏ</h2>
<div class="announcement">
@@ -125,7 +131,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
ÎνημεÏÏθηκε:
-$Date: 2021/05/27 19:00:40 $
+$Date: 2021/10/19 20:33:11 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: po/basic-freedoms.uk-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.uk-diff.html,v
retrieving revision 1.4
retrieving revision 1.5
diff -u -b -r1.4 -r1.5
--- po/basic-freedoms.uk-diff.html 15 Dec 2018 14:46:34 -0000 1.4
+++ po/basic-freedoms.uk-diff.html 19 Oct 2021 20:33:11 -0000 1.5
@@ -11,13 +11,20 @@
</style></head>
<body><pre>
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
-<!-- Parent-Version: <span
class="removed"><del><strong>1.79</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>1.86</em></ins></span> -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: <span
class="removed"><del><strong>1.86</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>1.96 -->
+<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
+<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays cultural evils" -->
+<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes"</em></ins></span> -->
<title>Freedom of Speech, Press and Association on the Internet
- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/basic-freedoms.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
+<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
+<div class="article reduced-width"></em></ins></span>
<h2>Freedom of Speech, Press, and Association on the Internet</h2>
-
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div
class="thin"></div></em></ins></span>
<p>
The Free Software Foundation supports the freedoms of speech, press, and
association on the Internet. Please check out:
@@ -46,14 +53,14 @@
</li>
<li>
- <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.factnet.org/">F.A.C.T.Net</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="http://www.factnetglobal.org/">F.A.C.T.Net</em></ins></span>
Inc.</a>
+ <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.factnetglobal.org/">F.A.C.T.Net</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://www.factnetglobal.org/">F.A.C.T.Net</em></ins></span>
Inc.</a>
is a non-profit Internet digest, news service, library, dialogue
center, and archive dedicated to the promotion and defense of
international free thought, free speech, and privacy rights.
</li>
<li>
- The <a href="http://www.eff.org/blueribbon.html">Blue Ribbon
Campaign</a>
+ The <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.eff.org/blueribbon.html">Blue</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://www.eff.org/pages/blue-ribbon-campaign">Blue</em></ins></span>
Ribbon Campaign</a>
for Online Freedom of Speech, Press and Association.
</li>
@@ -74,10 +81,11 @@
communications.
</li>
</ul>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div></em></ins></span>
</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
-<div id="footer">
+<div <span
class="removed"><del><strong>id="footer"></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>id="footer" role="contentinfo"></em></ins></span>
<div class="unprintable">
<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to <a
@@ -95,18 +103,36 @@
to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">
<web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p>
- <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ <p>For information on coordinating and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> translations of
our web pages, see <a
href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
README</a>. -->
Please see the <a
href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
-README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> translations
of this article.</p>
</div>
-<p>Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004,
-2007, 2014, <span class="removed"><del><strong>2016</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>2016, 2018</em></ins></span> Free Software
Foundation, Inc.</p>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!-- 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. --></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>1999,</strong></del></span> 2000, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2001, 2002, 2003,</strong></del></span> 2004,
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>2007, 2014, 2016,
2018</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2021</em></ins></span> Free Software
+Foundation, Inc.</p>
<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
@@ -116,12 +142,11 @@
<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2018/12/15 14:46:34 $
+$Date: 2021/10/19 20:33:11 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
-<span class="removed"><del><strong></div></strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div><!-- for class="inner", starts
in the banner include --></em></ins></span>
+</div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include -->
</body>
</html>
</pre></body></html>
Index: po/copyright-and-globalization.cs-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/copyright-and-globalization.cs-diff.html,v
retrieving revision 1.3
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -u -b -r1.3 -r1.4
--- po/copyright-and-globalization.cs-diff.html 15 Dec 2018 14:46:36 -0000
1.3
+++ po/copyright-and-globalization.cs-diff.html 19 Oct 2021 20:33:11 -0000
1.4
@@ -11,30 +11,44 @@
</style></head>
<body><pre>
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
-<!-- Parent-Version: <span
class="removed"><del><strong>1.77</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>1.86</em></ins></span> -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: <span
class="removed"><del><strong>1.86</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>1.96 -->
+<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
+<!--#set var="TAGS" value="speeches" -->
+<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes"</em></ins></span> -->
<title>Copyright and Globalization in the Age of Computer Networks -
GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/copyright-and-globalization.translist"
-->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
+<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
+<div class="article reduced-width"></em></ins></span>
<h2>Copyright and Globalization in the Age of Computer
Networks</h2>
-<p>
-<i>The following is an edited transcript from a speech given
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>
+<i>The</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="infobox">
+<p>The</em></ins></span> following is an edited transcript from a speech
given
at <abbr title="Massachusetts Institute of Technology">MIT</abbr>
in
-the Communications Forum on Thursday, April 19, 2001 from 5:00pm -
-7:00pm</i></p>
+the Communications Forum on Thursday, April 19, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2001 from 5:00pm -
+7:00pm</i></p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2001.</p>
+</div>
+<hr class="thin" /></em></ins></span>
<p>
<b>DAVID THORBURN, moderator</b>: Our speaker today, Richard
Stallman,
is a legendary figure in the computing world, and my experience in
trying to find a respondent to share the podium with him was
-instructive. One distinguished <abbr>MIT</abbr> professor told me
+instructive. One distinguished <span
class="removed"><del><strong><abbr>MIT</abbr></strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>MIT</em></ins></span> professor told me
that Stallman needs to be understood as a charismatic figure in a
-biblical parable — a kind of Old Testament anecdote-lesson.
-“Imagine,” he said, “a Moses or a Jeremiah —
-better a Jeremiah.” And I said, “Well, that's very
-admirable.”</p>
-<p>
+biblical <span class="removed"><del><strong>parable —
a</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>parable—a</em></ins></span> kind of Old
Testament anecdote-lesson.
+“Imagine,” he said, “a Moses or a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Jeremiah —
+better</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Jeremiah—better</em></ins></span>
+a Jeremiah.” And I said, “Well, that's very
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>admirable.”</p>
+<p></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>admirable.</em></ins></span>
That sounds wonderful. It confirms my sense of the kind of
contribution he has made to the world. Then why are you reluctant to
share the podium with him?” His answer: “Like Jeremiah or
@@ -75,7 +89,7 @@
Well, what does that mean? Should you be free to copy it and change
it? Well, as for changing it, if you buy the microphone, nobody is
going to stop you from changing it. And as for copying it, nobody has
-a microphone copier. Outside of “Star Trek,” those things
+a microphone copier. Outside of <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“Star Trek,”</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em><cite>Star
Trek</cite>,</em></ins></span> those things
don't exist. Maybe some day there'll be nanotechnological analyzers
and assemblers, and it really will be possible to copy a physical
object, and then these issues of whether you're free to do that will
@@ -113,8 +127,8 @@
writing a book and copying a book, there were other useful things you
could do. For instance, you could copy a part of a book, then write
some new words, copy some more and write some new words and on and on.
-This was called “writing a commentary” — that was a
-common thing to do — and these commentaries were
+This was called “writing a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>commentary” —
that</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>commentary”—that</em></ins></span> was a
+common thing to <span class="removed"><del><strong>do —
and</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>do—and</em></ins></span> these commentaries were
appreciated.</p>
<p>
You could also copy a passage out of one book, then write some other
@@ -204,8 +218,9 @@
<p>
Now, is this an advantageous trade? Well, when the general public
can't make copies because they can only be efficiently made on
-printing presses — and most people don't own printing presses
-— the result is that the general public is trading away a
+printing <span class="removed"><del><strong>presses —
and</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>presses—and</em></ins></span> most people don't
own printing <span class="removed"><del><strong>presses
+— the</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>presses—the</em></ins></span>
+result is that the general public is trading away a
freedom it is unable to exercise, a freedom that is of no practical
value. So if you have something that is a byproduct of your life and
it's useless and you have the opportunity to exchange it for something
@@ -241,8 +256,9 @@
priority. Copyright was easy to enforce because it was a restriction
only on publishers who were easy to find and what they published was
easy to see. Now the copyright is a restriction on each and everyone
-of you. To enforce it requires surveillance — an intrusion
-— and harsh punishments, and we are seeing these being enacted
+of you. To enforce it requires <span
class="removed"><del><strong>surveillance — an intrusion
+— and</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>surveillance—an
intrusion—and</em></ins></span>
+harsh punishments, and we are seeing these being enacted
into law in the U.S. and other countries.</p>
<p>
And copyright used to be, arguably, an advantageous trade for the
@@ -277,7 +293,7 @@
Clearly, this kind of campaign comes from somebody paying for it. Now
why are they doing that? I think I know. The reason is that e-books
are the opportunity to take away some of the residual freedoms that
-readers of printed books have always had and still have — the
+readers of printed books have always had and still <span
class="removed"><del><strong>have — the</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>have—the</em></ins></span>
freedom, for instance, to lend a book to your friend or borrow it from
the public library or sell a copy to a used bookstore or buy a copy
anonymously, without putting a record in the database of who bought
@@ -298,8 +314,8 @@
<p>
We see at the same time efforts to take away people's freedom in using
other kinds of published works. For instance, movies that are on DVDs
-are published in an encrypted format that used to be secret — it
-was meant to be secret — and the only way the movie companies
+are published in an encrypted format that used to be <span
class="removed"><del><strong>secret — it</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>secret—it</em></ins></span>
+was meant to be <span class="removed"><del><strong>secret —
and</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>secret—and</em></ins></span> the only way the
movie companies
would tell you the format, so that you could make a DVD player, was if
you signed a contract to build certain restrictions into the player,
with the result that the public would be stopped even from fully
@@ -328,8 +344,9 @@
Act was passed in the first place. The reason is the campaign finance
system that we have in the U.S., which is essentially legalized
bribery where the candidates are bought by business before they even
-get elected. And, of course, they know who their master is —
-they know whom they're working for — and they pass the laws to
+get elected. And, of course, they know who their master <span
class="removed"><del><strong>is —
+they</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>is—they</em></ins></span>
+know whom they're working <span class="removed"><del><strong>for —
and</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>for—and</em></ins></span> they pass the laws to
give business more power.</p>
<p>
What will happen with that particular battle, we don't know. But
@@ -341,14 +358,15 @@
<p>
The U.S. though is not the first country to make a priority of this.
The Soviet Union treated it as very important. There this
-unauthorized copying and redistribution was known as Samizdat and to
+unauthorized copying and redistribution was known as <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Samizdat</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em><i>samizdat</i></em></ins></span> and to
stamp it out, they developed a series of methods: First, guards
watching every piece of copying equipment to check what people were
copying to prevent forbidden copying. Second, harsh punishments for
anyone caught doing forbidden copying. You could be sent to Siberia.
Third, soliciting informers, asking everyone to rat on their neighbors
and co-workers to the information police. Fourth, collective
-responsibility — You! You're going to watch that group! If I
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>responsibility —
You!</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>responsibility—You!</em></ins></span>
You're going to watch that group! If I
catch any of them doing forbidden copying, you are going to prison.
So watch them hard. And, fifth, propaganda, starting in childhood to
convince everyone that only a horrible enemy of the people would ever
@@ -441,7 +459,7 @@
companies have more power than citizens of the country.</p>
<p>
There are attempts being made to extend this
-beyond <abbr>NAFTA</abbr>. For instance, this is one of the goals
of
+beyond <span
class="removed"><del><strong><abbr>NAFTA</abbr>.</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>NAFTA.</em></ins></span> For instance, this
is one of the goals of
the so-called free trade area of the Americas, to extend this
principle to all the countries in South America and the Caribbean as
well, and the multilateral agreement on investment was intended to
@@ -543,7 +561,7 @@
have the recipe?” Then maybe you'll write down your version and
give them copies. That is exactly the same thing that we much later
started doing in the free-software community.</p>
-<p><a name="opinions"></a>
+<p id="opinions">
So that's one class of work. The second class of work is works whose
purpose is to say what certain people think. Talking about those
people is their purpose. This includes, say, memoirs, essays of
@@ -555,24 +573,26 @@
the only thing that people really need to be allowed to do.</p>
<p>
The next question is: Should people have the right to do commercial
-verbatim copying? Or is non-commercial enough? You see, these are
+verbatim copying? Or is <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-commercial</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>noncommercial</em></ins></span> enough? You see,
these are
two different activities we can distinguish, so that we can consider
-the questions separately — the right to do non-commercial
+the questions <span class="removed"><del><strong>separately —
the</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>separately—the</em></ins></span> right to do
<span class="removed"><del><strong>non-commercial</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>noncommercial</em></ins></span>
verbatim copying and the right to do commercial verbatim copying.
Well, it might be a good compromise policy to have copyright cover
commercial verbatim copying but allow everyone the right to do
-non-commercial verbatim copying. This way, the copyright on the
-commercial verbatim copying, as well as on all modified versions
-— only the author could approve a modified version — would
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>non-commercial</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>noncommercial</em></ins></span> verbatim
copying. This way, the copyright on the
+commercial verbatim copying, as well as on all modified <span
class="removed"><del><strong>versions
+— only</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>versions—only</em></ins></span>
+the author could approve a modified <span class="removed"><del><strong>version
— would</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>version—would</em></ins></span>
still provide the same revenue stream that it provides now to fund the
writing of these works, to whatever extent it does.</p>
<p>
-By allowing the non-commercial verbatim copying, it means the
+By allowing the <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-commercial</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>noncommercial</em></ins></span> verbatim copying, it
means the
copyright no longer has to intrude into everybody's home. It becomes
an industrial regulation again, easy to enforce and painless, no
longer requiring draconian punishments and informers for the sake of
-its enforcement. So we get most of the benefit — and avoid most
-of the horror — of the current system.</p>
+its enforcement. So we get most of the <span
class="removed"><del><strong>benefit — and</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>benefit—and</em></ins></span> avoid most
+of the <span class="removed"><del><strong>horror —
of</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>horror—of</em></ins></span> the current
system.</p>
<p>
The third category of works is aesthetic or entertaining works, where
the most important thing is just the sensation of looking at the
@@ -633,7 +653,7 @@
public in the name of the authors and musicians are giving those
authors and musicians the shaft all the time.</p>
<p>
-I recommend you read Courtney Love's article in “Salon”
+I recommend you read Courtney Love's article in <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“Salon”</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em><cite>Salon</cite></em></ins></span>
magazine, an article about pirates that plan to use musicians' work
without paying them. These pirates are the record companies that pay
musicians 4% of the sales figures, on the average. Of course, the
@@ -817,7 +837,7 @@
The other thing is, we do not have this digital cash payment system;
so we can't really try it today. You could try to do something a
little bit like it. There are services you can sign up for where you
-can pay money to someone — things like PayPal. But before you
+can pay money to <span class="removed"><del><strong>someone —
things</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>someone—things</em></ins></span> like PayPal.
But before you
can pay anyone through PayPal, you have to go through a lot of
rigmarole and give them personal information about you, and they
collect records of whom you pay. Can you trust them not to misuse
@@ -838,7 +858,8 @@
We are gradually moving from the age of the printing press to the age
of the computer network, but it's not happening in a day. People are
still buying lots of records, and that will probably continue for many
-years — maybe forever. As long as that continues, simply having
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>years — maybe</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>years—maybe</em></ins></span> forever.
As long as that continues, simply having
copyrights that still apply to commercial sales of records ought to do
about as good a job of supporting musicians as it does today. Of
course, that's not very good, but, at least, it won't get any
@@ -865,9 +886,11 @@
Well, clearly, that's not the way to make the public feel like sending
you money. You've got to make them love you, not fear you.</p>
<p>
-<b>SPEAKER</b>: The details were that he required a certain
percentage
-— I don't know the exact percentage, around 90% sounds correct
-— of people to send a certain amount of money, which, I believe,
+<b>SPEAKER</b>: The details were that he required a certain <span
class="removed"><del><strong>percentage
+— I</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>percentage—I</em></ins></span>
+don't know the exact percentage, around 90% sounds <span
class="removed"><del><strong>correct
+— of</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>correct—of</em></ins></span>
+people to send a certain amount of money, which, I believe,
was a dollar or two dollars, or somewhere in that order of magnitude.
You had to type in your name and your e-mail address and some other
information to get to download it and if that percentage of people was
@@ -881,7 +904,7 @@
<p>
<b>STALLMAN</b>: No. That's not what I proposed. Remember, I'm
proposing
that there should be copyright covering commercial distribution and
-permitting only verbatim redistribution non-commercially. So anyone
+permitting only verbatim redistribution <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-commercially.</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>noncommercially.</em></ins></span> So anyone
who modified it to put in a pointer to his website, instead of a
pointer to the real author's website, would still be infringing the
copyright and could be sued exactly as he could be sued today.</p>
@@ -896,8 +919,8 @@
<b>THORBURN</b>: I guess one question that occurred to me while you
were speaking, Richard, and, again, now when you're responding here to
this question is why you don't consider the ways in which the
-computer, itself, eliminates the middle men completely — in the
-way that Stephen King refused to do — and might establish a
+computer, itself, eliminates the middle men <span
class="removed"><del><strong>completely — in</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>completely—in</em></ins></span> the
+way that Stephen King refused to <span class="removed"><del><strong>do —
and</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>do—and</em></ins></span> might establish a
personal relationship.</p>
<p>
<b>STALLMAN</b>: Well, they can and, in fact, this voluntary
donation
@@ -1001,7 +1024,7 @@
problem, you know. Which do we do first? How do we get the world
where people don't have to desperately get money except by removing
the control by business? And how can we remove the control by
-business except — Anyway, I don't know, but that's why I'm
+business <span class="removed"><del><strong>except —
Anyway,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>except—Anyway,</em></ins></span> I don't know,
but that's why I'm
trying to propose first a compromise copyright system and, second, the
voluntary payment supported by a compromise copyright system as a way
to provide a revenue stream to the people who write those works.</p>
@@ -1047,8 +1070,8 @@
years in a way that had never been in place before. If I write an
essay in which I want to use still images, even from films, they are
much harder to get permission to use, and the prices charged to use
-those still images are much higher — even when I make arguments
-about intellectual inquiry and the <span
class="removed"><del><strong>the</strong></del></span> legal category of
“fair
+those still images are much <span class="removed"><del><strong>higher —
even</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>higher—even</em></ins></span> when I make
arguments
+about intellectual inquiry and the legal category of “fair
use.” So I think, in this moment of extended transformation, the
longer-term prospects may, in fact, not be as disturbing as what's
happening in the shorter term. But in any case, we need to understand
@@ -1091,7 +1114,8 @@
care to lay out for us?</p>
<p>
<b>STALLMAN</b>: Well, the idea of giving everyone permission for
-non-commercial verbatim copying of two kinds of works, certainly, may
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>non-commercial</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>noncommercial</em></ins></span> verbatim
copying of two kinds of works, certainly, may
be thought of as extending what fair use is. It's bigger than what's
fair use currently. If your idea is that the public trades away
certain freedoms to get more progress, then you can draw the line at
@@ -1103,18 +1127,20 @@
So, for example, copyright does not prevent us from singing Christmas
carols seasonally but it prevents the public performance. And I'm
wondering if it might be useful to think about instead of expanding
-fair use to unlimited, non-commercial, verbatim copying, to something
+fair use to unlimited, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-commercial,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>noncommercial,</em></ins></span> verbatim copying, to
something
less than that but more than the present concept of fair use.</p>
<p>
<b>STALLMAN</b>: I used to think that that might be enough, and
then Napster
convinced me otherwise because Napster is used by its users for
-non-commercial, verbatim redistribution. The Napster server, itself,
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>non-commercial,</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>noncommercial,</em></ins></span> verbatim
redistribution. The Napster server, itself,
is a commercial activity but the people who are actually putting
-things up are doing so non-commercially, and they could have done so
+things up are doing so <span
class="removed"><del><strong>non-commercially,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>noncommercially,</em></ins></span> and they could
have done so
on their websites just as easily. The tremendous excitement about,
interest in, and use of Napster shows that that's very useful. So I'm
convinced now that people should have the right to publicly
-non-commercially, redistributed, verbatim copies of everything.</p>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>non-commercially,</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>noncommercially,</em></ins></span>
redistributed, verbatim copies of everything.</p>
<p>
<b>QUESTION</b>: One analogy that was recently suggested to me for
the
whole Napster question was the analogy of the public library. I
@@ -1161,7 +1187,7 @@
issue. There's just one area where an issue arises with patents that
is actually similar to these issues of freedom to copy, and that is in
the area of agriculture. Because there are certain patented things
-that can be copies, more or less — namely, living things. They
+that can be copies, more or <span class="removed"><del><strong>less —
namely,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>less—namely,</em></ins></span> living things.
They
copy themselves when they reproduce. It's not necessarily exact
copying; they re-shuffle the genes. But the fact is, farmers for
millennia have been making use of this capacity of the living things
@@ -1203,8 +1229,8 @@
in various different areas, but I think that in the area of education,
when you're looking for textbooks, I think I see a way it can be done.
There are a lot of teachers in the world, teachers who are not at
-prestigious universities — maybe they're in high-school; maybe
-they're in college — where they don't write and publish a lot of
+prestigious <span class="removed"><del><strong>universities —
maybe</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>universities—maybe</em></ins></span> they're in
high-school; maybe
+they're in <span class="removed"><del><strong>college —
where</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>college—where</em></ins></span> they don't
write and publish a lot of
things and there's not a tremendous demand for them. But a lot of
them are smart. A lot of them know their subjects well and they could
write textbooks about lots of subjects and share them with the world
@@ -1212,7 +1238,7 @@
will have learned from them.</p>
<p>
<b>QUESTION</b>: That's what I proposed. But the funny thing is,
I do
-know the history of education. That's what I do — educational,
+know the history of education. That's what I <span
class="removed"><del><strong>do — educational,</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>do—educational,</em></ins></span>
electronic media projects. I couldn't find an example. Do you know
of one?</p>
<p>
@@ -1261,16 +1287,17 @@
that you're going to do. That will show people it can be done, and so
others will do other pieces.</p>
-
-<hr />
-<blockquote id="fsfs"><p class="big">This speech is published
-in <a
href="http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free
+<hr <span class="inserted"><ins><em>class="no-display"</em></ins></span>
/>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><blockquote
id="fsfs"><p>This</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="edu-note c"><p
id="fsfs">This</em></ins></span> speech is published in
+<a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free</em></ins></span>
Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard
-M. Stallman</cite></a>.</p></blockquote>
+M. <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Stallman</cite></a>.</p></blockquote></strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Stallman</cite></a>.</p></div>
+</div></em></ins></span>
</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
-<div id="footer">
+<div <span
class="removed"><del><strong>id="footer"></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>id="footer" role="contentinfo"></em></ins></span>
<div class="unprintable">
<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
@@ -1288,19 +1315,19 @@
to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">
<web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p>
- <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ <p>For information on coordinating and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> translations of
our web pages, see <a
href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
README</a>. -->
Please see the <a
href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
-README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> translations
of this article.</p>
</div>
<!-- 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 <span class="removed"><del><strong>3.0
US.</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>4.0.</em></ins></span> Please do NOT change or
remove this
+ be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this
without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
@@ -1315,23 +1342,21 @@
There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
-<p>Copyright © 2001, 2007, 2008, 2012, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2014</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2014, 2018</em></ins></span> Free Software
Foundation, Inc.</p>
+<p>Copyright © 2001, <span class="removed"><del><strong>2007, 2008,
2012, 2014, 2018, 2020</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2021</em></ins></span> Free Software Foundation,
Inc.</p>
<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
-<span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative</strong></del></span>
-<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative</em></ins></span>
-Commons <span class="removed"><del><strong>Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United
States</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0
International</em></ins></span> License</a>.</p>
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
License</a>.</p>
<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2018/12/15 14:46:36 $
+$Date: 2021/10/19 20:33:11 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
-<span class="removed"><del><strong></div></strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div><!-- for class="inner", starts
in the banner include --></em></ins></span>
+</div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include -->
</body>
</html>
</pre></body></html>
Index: po/lessig-fsfs-intro.pl-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/lessig-fsfs-intro.pl-diff.html,v
retrieving revision 1.4
retrieving revision 1.5
diff -u -b -r1.4 -r1.5
--- po/lessig-fsfs-intro.pl-diff.html 25 Dec 2020 13:32:02 -0000 1.4
+++ po/lessig-fsfs-intro.pl-diff.html 19 Oct 2021 20:33:11 -0000 1.5
@@ -11,24 +11,31 @@
</style></head>
<body><pre>
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
-<!-- Parent-Version: 1.86 -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: <span
class="removed"><del><strong>1.86</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>1.96 -->
+<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
+<!--#set var="TAGS" value="thirdparty" -->
+<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes"</em></ins></span> -->
<title>Introduction to Free Software, Free Society
- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
-
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/lessig-fsfs-intro.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
-
-<h2>Introduction
-to <a
href="http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><i>Free
-Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard
-M. Stallman</i></a></h2>
-
-<p>
-by Lawrence Lessig, Professor of Law, Stanford Law School
-</p>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
+<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
+<div class="article reduced-width"></em></ins></span>
+<h2>Introduction to <span class="removed"><del><strong><a
href="http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><i>Free</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><cite>Free</em></ins></span> Software,
Free Society: The Selected Essays of
+Richard M. <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Stallman</i></a></h2>
+
+<p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Stallman</cite></h2>
+
+<address class="byline"></em></ins></span>
+by Lawrence <span class="removed"><del><strong>Lessig, Professor of Law,
Stanford Law School
+</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Lessig <a
href="#lessig"><sup>[*]</sup></a>
+</address></em></ins></span>
<p>
-Every generation has its philosopher — a writer or an artist who
+Every generation has its <span class="removed"><del><strong>philosopher
— a</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>philosopher—a</em></ins></span> writer or an
artist who
captures the imagination of a time. Sometimes these philosophers are
recognized as such; often it takes generations before the connection
is made real. But recognized or not, a time gets marked by the people
@@ -48,7 +55,7 @@
“Code” is the technology that makes computers run. Whether
inscribed in software or burned in hardware, it is the collection of
instructions, first written in words, that directs the functionality
-of machines. These machines — computers — increasingly
+of machines. These <span class="removed"><del><strong>machines —
computers — increasingly</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>machines—computers—increasingly</em></ins></span>
define and control our life. They determine how phones connect, and
what runs on TV. They decide whether video can be streamed across a
broadband link to a computer. They control what a computer reports
@@ -154,7 +161,8 @@
briefs. They can be copied and integrated into another brief or
opinion. The “source code” for American law is by design,
and by principle, open and free for anyone to take. And take lawyers
-do — for it is a measure of a great brief that it achieves its
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>do — for</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>do—for</em></ins></span> it is a measure
of a great brief that it achieves its
creativity through the reuse of what happened before. The source is
free; creativity and an economy is built upon it.
</p>
@@ -168,7 +176,7 @@
flourishes, with later work added to the earlier.
</p>
<p>
-We could imagine a legal practice that was different — briefs
+We could imagine a legal practice that was <span
class="removed"><del><strong>different — briefs</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>different—briefs</em></ins></span>
and arguments that were kept secret; rulings that announced a result
but not the reasoning. Laws that were kept by the police but
published to no one else. Regulation that operated without explaining
@@ -201,7 +209,7 @@
known, and among these, an especially insightful account of the
changed circumstances that render copyright in the digital world
suspect. They will serve as a resource for those who seek to
-understand the thought of this most powerful man — powerful in
+understand the thought of this most powerful <span
class="removed"><del><strong>man — powerful</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>man—powerful</em></ins></span> in
his ideas, his passion, and his integrity, even if powerless in every
other way. They will inspire others who would take these ideas, and
build upon them.
@@ -214,8 +222,9 @@
</p>
<p>
Yet when our world finally comes to understand the power and danger of
-code — when it finally sees that code, like laws, or like
-government, must be transparent to be free — then we will look
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>code — when</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>code—when</em></ins></span> it finally
sees that code, like laws, or like
+government, must be transparent to be <span class="removed"><del><strong>free
— then</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>free—then</em></ins></span> we will look
back at this uncompromising and persistent programmer and recognize
the vision he has fought to make real: the vision of a world where
freedom and knowledge survives the compiler. And we will come to see
@@ -230,20 +239,30 @@
fight to create this freedom.
</p>
-<p>
-<strong>Lawrence Lessig</strong><br />
-<strong>Professor of Law, Stanford Law School.</strong>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>
+<strong>Lawrence Lessig</strong><br</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="infobox extra"
role="complementary">
+<hr</em></ins></span> />
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong><strong>Professor</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p id="lessig">
+[*] Lawrence Lessig was then Professor</em></ins></span> of <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Law,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Law at</em></ins></span> Stanford Law <span
class="removed"><del><strong>School.</strong>
</p>
<hr />
-<blockquote <span class="removed"><del><strong>id="fsfs"><p
class="big">Learn</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>id="fsfs"><p>Learn</em></ins></span> more
about
-<a
href="http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free
+<blockquote id="fsfs"><p>Learn</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>School.</p>
+</div>
+
+<div class="edu-note c"><p id="fsfs">Learn</em></ins></span> more
about
+<a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free</em></ins></span>
Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard
-M. Stallman</cite></a>.</p></blockquote>
+M. <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Stallman</cite></a>.</p></blockquote></strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Stallman</cite></a>.</p></div>
+</div></em></ins></span>
</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
-<div id="footer">
+<div <span
class="removed"><del><strong>id="footer"></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>id="footer" role="contentinfo"></em></ins></span>
<div class="unprintable">
<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
@@ -261,17 +280,34 @@
to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">
<web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p>
- <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ <p>For information on coordinating and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> translations of
our web pages, see <a
href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
README</a>. -->
Please see the <a
href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
-README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> translations
of this article.</p>
</div>
-<p>Copyright © 2002, 2013, 2017, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2018</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2018, 2020</em></ins></span> Free Software
Foundation, Inc.</p>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!-- 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. --></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>Copyright © 2002, <span class="removed"><del><strong>2013, 2017,
2018, 2020</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2021</em></ins></span> Free Software Foundation,
Inc.</p>
<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
@@ -281,7 +317,7 @@
<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2020/12/25 13:32:02 $
+$Date: 2021/10/19 20:33:11 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
Index: po/can-you-trust.ml-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/can-you-trust.ml-diff.html
diff -N po/can-you-trust.ml-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/can-you-trust.ml-diff.html 19 Oct 2021 20:33:11 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,361 @@
+<!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/can-you-trust.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: <span
class="removed"><del><strong>1.79</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>1.96 -->
+<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
+<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays cultural drm" -->
+<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes"</em></ins></span> -->
+<title>Can You Trust Your Computer?
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/can-you-trust.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
+<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
+<div class="article reduced-width"></em></ins></span>
+<h2>Can You Trust Your Computer?</h2>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>by</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><address
class="byline">by</em></ins></span> <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.stallman.org/">Richard
Stallman</a></p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://www.stallman.org/">Richard
+Stallman</a></address></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>
+Who should your computer take its orders from? Most people think
+their computers should obey them, not obey someone else. With a plan
+they call “trusted <span
class="removed"><del><strong>computing”,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>computing,”</em></ins></span> large media
corporations
+(including the movie companies and record companies), together with
+computer companies such as Microsoft and Intel, are planning to make
+your computer obey them instead of you. (Microsoft's version of this
+scheme is called Palladium.) Proprietary programs have
+included malicious features before, but this plan would make it
+universal.</p>
+<p>
+Proprietary software means, fundamentally, that you don't control what
+it does; you can't study the source code, or change it. It's not
+surprising that clever businessmen find ways to use their control to
+put you at a disadvantage. Microsoft has done this several times: one
+version of Windows was designed to report to Microsoft all the
+software on your hard disk; a recent “security” upgrade in
+Windows Media Player required users to agree to new restrictions. But
+Microsoft is not alone: the KaZaa music-sharing software is designed
+so that KaZaa's business partner can rent out the use of your computer
+to its clients. These malicious features are often secret, but even
+once you know about them it is hard to remove them, since you don't
+have the source code.</p>
+<p>
+In the past, these were isolated incidents. “Trusted
+computing” would make the practice pervasive. “Treacherous
+computing” is a more appropriate name, because the plan is
+designed to make sure your computer will systematically disobey you.
+In fact, it is designed to stop your computer from functioning as a
+general-purpose computer. Every operation may require explicit
+permission.</p>
+<p>
+The technical idea underlying treacherous computing is that the
+computer includes a digital encryption and signature device, and the
+keys are kept secret from you. Proprietary programs will use this
+device to control which other programs you can run, which documents or
+data you can access, and what programs you can pass them to. These
+programs will continually download new authorization rules through the
+Internet, and impose those rules automatically on your work. If you
+don't allow your computer to obtain the new rules periodically from
+the Internet, some capabilities will automatically cease to function.</p>
+<p>
+Of course, Hollywood and the record companies plan to use treacherous
+computing for Digital Restrictions Management (DRM), so
+that downloaded videos and music can be played only on one specified
+computer. Sharing will be entirely impossible, at least using the
+authorized files that you would get from those companies. You, the
+public, ought to have both the freedom and the ability to share these
+things. (I expect that someone will find a way to produce unencrypted
+versions, and to upload and share them, so DRM will not entirely
+succeed, but that is no excuse for the system.)</p>
+<p>
+Making sharing impossible is bad enough, but it gets worse. There are
+plans to use the same facility for email and documents—resulting
+in email that disappears in two weeks, or documents that can only be
+read on the computers in one company.</p>
+<p>
+Imagine if you get an email from your boss telling you to do something
+that you think is risky; a month later, when it backfires, you can't
+use the email to show that the decision was not yours. “Getting
+it in writing” doesn't protect you when the order is written in
+disappearing ink.</p>
+<p>
+Imagine if you get an email from your boss stating a policy that is
+illegal or morally outrageous, such as to shred your company's audit
+documents, or to allow a dangerous threat to your country to move
+forward unchecked. Today you can send this to a reporter and expose
+the activity. With treacherous computing, the reporter won't be able
+to read the document; her computer will refuse to obey her.
+Treacherous computing becomes a paradise for corruption.</p>
+<p>
+Word processors such as Microsoft Word could use treacherous computing
+when they save your documents, to make sure no competing word
+processors can read them. Today we must figure out the secrets of
+Word format by laborious experiments in order to make free word
+processors read Word documents. If Word encrypts documents using
+treacherous computing when saving them, the free software community
+won't have a chance of developing software to read them—and if
+we could, such programs might even be forbidden by the Digital
+Millennium Copyright Act.</p>
+<p>
+Programs that use treacherous computing will continually download new
+authorization rules through the Internet, and impose those rules
+automatically on your work. If Microsoft, or the US government, does
+not like what you said in a document you wrote, they could post new
+instructions telling all computers to refuse to let anyone read that
+document. Each computer would obey when it downloads the new
+instructions. Your writing would be subject to 1984-style retroactive
+erasure. You might be unable to read it yourself.</p>
+<p>
+You might think you can find out what nasty things a treacherous-computing
+application does, study how painful they are, and decide
+whether to accept them. Even if you can find this out, it would
+be foolish to accept the deal, but you can't even expect the deal
+to stand still. Once you come to depend on using the program, you are
+hooked and they know it; then they can change the deal. Some
+applications will automatically download upgrades that will do
+something different—and they won't give you a choice about
+whether to upgrade.</p>
+<p>
+Today you can avoid being restricted by proprietary software by not
+using it. If you run GNU/Linux or another free operating system, and
+if you avoid installing proprietary applications on it, then you are
+in charge of what your computer does. If a free program has a
+malicious feature, other developers in the community will take it out,
+and you can use the corrected version. You can also run free
+application programs and tools on nonfree operating systems; this
+falls short of fully giving you freedom, but many users do it.</p>
+<p>
+Treacherous computing puts the existence of free operating systems and
+free applications at risk, because you may not be able to run them at
+all. Some versions of treacherous computing would require the
+operating system to be specifically authorized by a particular
+company. Free operating systems could not be installed. Some
+versions of treacherous computing would require every program to be
+specifically authorized by the operating system developer. You could
+not run free applications on such a system. If you did figure out
+how, and told someone, that could be a crime.</p>
+<p>
+There are proposals already for US laws that would require all computers to
+support treacherous computing, and to prohibit connecting old computers to
+the Internet. The CBDTPA (we call it the Consume But Don't Try Programming
+Act) is one of them. But even if they don't legally force you to switch to
+treacherous computing, the pressure to accept it may be enormous. Today
+people often use Word format for communication, although this causes
+several sorts of problems (see
+<a href="/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html">“We Can Put an End
to Word
+Attachments”</a>). If only a treacherous-computing machine can
read the
+latest Word documents, many people will switch to it, if they view the
+situation only in terms of individual action (take it or leave it). To
+oppose treacherous computing, we must join together and confront the
+situation as a collective choice.</p>
+<p>
+For further information about treacherous computing, see <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>the</em></ins></span>
+<a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/rja14/tcpa-faq.html">http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/rja14/tcpa-faq.html</a>.</p></strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html">
+“Trusted Computing” Frequently Asked
Questions</a>.</p></em></ins></span>
+<p>
+To block treacherous computing will require large numbers of citizens
+to organize. We need your help! Please support
+<a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://DefectiveByDesign.org">Defective</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://www.defectivebydesign.org/">Defective</em></ins></span>
by Design</a>, the
+FSF's campaign against Digital Restrictions Management.</p>
+
+<h3>Postscripts</h3>
+
+<ol>
+<li><p>
+The computer security field uses the term “trusted
+computing” in a different way—beware of confusion
+between the two meanings.</p></li>
+
+<li><p>
+The GNU Project distributes the GNU Privacy Guard, a program that
+implements public-key encryption and digital signatures, which you can
+use to send secure and private email. It is useful to explore how GPG
+differs from treacherous computing, and see what makes one helpful and
+the other so dangerous.</p>
+<p>
+When someone uses GPG to send you an encrypted document, and you use
+GPG to decode it, the result is an unencrypted document that you can
+read, forward, copy, and even reencrypt to send it securely to
+someone else. A treacherous-computing application would let you read
+the words on the screen, but would not let you produce an unencrypted
+document that you could use in other ways. GPG, a free software
+package, makes security features available to the users;
<em>they</em> use <em>it</em>.
+Treacherous computing is designed to impose restrictions on the users;
+<em>it</em> uses <em>them</em>.</p></li>
+
+<li><p id="beneficial">
+The supporters of treacherous computing focus their discourse on its
+beneficial uses. What they say is often
+correct, just not important.</p>
+<p>
+Like most hardware, treacherous-computing hardware can be used for
+purposes which are not harmful. But these features can be implemented in
+other ways, without treacherous-computing hardware. The principal
+difference that treacherous computing makes for users is the nasty
+consequence: rigging your computer to work against you.</p>
+<p>
+What they say is true, and what I say is true. Put them together and
+what do you get? Treacherous computing is a plan to take away our
+freedom, while offering minor benefits to distract us from what we
+would lose.</p></li>
+
+<li><p>
+Microsoft presents Palladium as a security measure, and claims that
+it will protect against viruses, but this claim is evidently false. A
+presentation by Microsoft Research in October 2002 stated that one of
+the specifications of Palladium is that existing operating systems and
+applications will continue to run; therefore, viruses will continue to
+be able to do all the things that they can do today.</p>
+<p>
+When Microsoft employees speak of “security” in connection with
+Palladium, they do not mean what we normally mean by that word:
+protecting your machine from things you do not want. They mean
+protecting your copies of data on your machine from access by you in
+ways others do not want. A slide in the presentation listed several
+types of secrets Palladium could be used to keep, including
+“third party secrets” and “user
+secrets”—but it put “user secrets” in
+quotation marks, recognizing that this is somewhat of an absurdity in the
+context of Palladium.</p>
+<p>
+The presentation made frequent use of other terms that we frequently
+associate with the context of security, such as <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“attack”,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“attack,”</em></ins></span>
+“malicious <span class="removed"><del><strong>code”,
“spoofing”,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>code,”
“spoofing,”</em></ins></span> as well as
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>“trusted”.</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“trusted.”</em></ins></span> None
of them means what it normally means.
+“Attack” doesn't mean someone trying to hurt you, it means
+you trying to copy music. “Malicious code” means code
+installed by you to do what someone else doesn't want your machine to
+do. “Spoofing” doesn't mean someone's fooling you, it means
+you're fooling Palladium. And so on.</p></li>
+
+<li><p>
+A previous statement by the Palladium developers stated the basic
+premise that whoever developed or collected information should have
+total control of how you use it. This would represent a revolutionary
+overturn of past ideas of ethics and of the legal system, and create
+an unprecedented system of control. The specific problems of these
+systems are no accident; they result from the basic goal. It is the
+goal we must reject.</p></li>
+</ol>
+
+<hr class="thin" />
+
+<p>As of 2015, treacherous computing has been implemented for PCs in
+the form of the “Trusted Platform Module”; however, for
+practical reasons, the TPM has proved a total failure for the goal of
+providing a platform for remote attestation to verify Digital
+Restrictions Management. Thus, companies implement DRM using other
+methods. At present, “Trusted Platform Modules” are not
+being used for DRM at all, and there are reasons to think that it will
+not be feasible to use them for DRM. Ironically, this means that the
+only current uses of the “Trusted Platform Modules” are
+the innocent secondary uses—for instance, to verify that no one
+has surreptitiously changed the system in a computer.</p>
+
+<p>Therefore, we conclude that the “Trusted Platform
+Modules” available for PCs are not dangerous, and there is no
+reason not to include one in a computer or support it in system
+software.</p>
+
+<p>This does not mean that everything is rosy. Other hardware systems
+for blocking the owner of a computer from changing the software in it
+are in use in some ARM PCs as well as processors in portable phones,
+cars, TVs and other devices, and these are fully as bad as we
+expected.</p>
+
+<p>This also does not mean that remote attestation is harmless. If
+ever a device succeeds in implementing that, it will be a grave threat
+to users' freedom. The current “Trusted Platform Module”
+is harmless only because it failed in the attempt to make remote
+attestation feasible. We must not presume that all future attempts
+will fail too.</p>
+
+<hr <span class="removed"><del><strong>class="thin"</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>class="no-display"</em></ins></span> />
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><blockquote
id="fsfs"><p>This</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="edu-note c"><p
id="fsfs">This</em></ins></span> essay is published in
+<a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free</em></ins></span>
+Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard
+M. <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Stallman</cite></a>.</p></blockquote></strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Stallman</cite></a>.</p></div>
+</div></em></ins></span>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div <span
class="removed"><del><strong>id="footer"></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>id="footer" role="contentinfo"></em></ins></span>
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to <a
+href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>. There are also
<a
+href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> the FSF. Broken links and
other
+corrections or suggestions can be sent to <a
+href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">
+ <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. -->
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
README</a> for
+information on coordinating and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> translations of this
article.</p>
+</div>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!-- 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. --></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>Copyright © 2002, 2007, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2014,</strong></del></span> 2015, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2016, 2020</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2021</em></ins></span> Richard Stallman</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2021/10/19 20:33:11 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong></div></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div><!-- for class="inner", starts
in the banner include --></em></ins></span>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: po/danger-of-software-patents.zh-tw-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/danger-of-software-patents.zh-tw-diff.html
diff -N po/danger-of-software-patents.zh-tw-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/danger-of-software-patents.zh-tw-diff.html 19 Oct 2021 20:33:11
-0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,1505 @@
+<!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/danger-of-software-patents.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: <span
class="removed"><del><strong>1.77</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>1.96 -->
+<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
+<!--#set var="TAGS" value="speeches" -->
+<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes"</em></ins></span> -->
+<title>The Danger of Software Patents
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/danger-of-software-patents.translist"
-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
+<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
+<div class="article reduced-width"></em></ins></span>
+<h2>The Danger of Software Patents</h2>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>by</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><address
class="byline">by</em></ins></span> <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.stallman.org/">Richard
Stallman</a></p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://www.stallman.org/">Richard
+Stallman</a></address>
+
+<div class="infobox"></em></ins></span>
+<p>This is the transcript of a talk presented <span
class="removed"><del><strong>by Richard M. Stallman</strong></del></span> on 8
October 2009 at
+Victoria University of Wellington.</p>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div>
+<hr class="thin" /></em></ins></span>
+
+<dl>
+<dt>SF:</dt>
+<dd><p>My name is Susy Frankel and on behalf of myself and Meredith
+Kolsky Lewis, I'd like to welcome you to this seminar hosted by the
+New Zealand Centre for International Economic Law. Brenda Chawner,
+who is part of the Victoria University School of Information
+Management, rather than the Centre I just named being part of the Law
+Faculty, is really responsible for bringing Richard Stallman back to
+New Zealand and hosting his tour of New Zealand, including this stop
+here in Wellington tonight. She's unfortunately unable to be with us
+at this moment because she's doing what we do in universities which is
+teach.</p>
+
+<p>So it's my pleasure to welcome you to the lecture “The Danger
+of Software <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Patents”.</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Patents.”</em></ins></span> Richard Stallman
has a suite of lectures
+that he offers, and after discussion with Brenda, I chose this topic
+precisely because for the first real time in New Zealand history, we
+have a somewhat prolonged, but important, debate about patent law
+reform, and many of you in the room are responsible for the debate
+relating to software patents. So it seemed very topical, very timely.
+So thank you, Richard, for making that offer.</p>
+
+<p>Richard Stallman needs little introduction. Nonetheless, for some
+of you who have not heard of him previously, he has launched the
+development of the GNU operating system. I had never heard GNU said
+before, and I went online to YouTube (where would we be be without
+YouTube)…</p></dd>
+
+<dt>RMS:</dt>
+<dd>Oh, you shouldn't recommend YouTube, because they distribute in a
+patented video format.</dd>
+
+<dt>SF:</dt>
+<dd>Good point. I only recommend it for the point that I thought do
+you say G N U or GNU?</dd>
+
+<dt>RMS:</dt>
+<dd>Wikipedia says that. [The answer is, pronounce it as a one
+syllable, with a hard G.]</dd>
+
+<dt>SF:</dt>
+<dd>Yes, but live I heard you say it on YouTube. But nonetheless, the
+important point is that it's not proprietorial. But the most
+interesting point is that Richard has received many honors for his
+work. My favorite, and therefore the one that I'm going to mention,
+is the Takeda Award for Social and Economic Betterment, and I imagine
+we're going to hear a lot of that tonight, so join me in welcoming
+Richard.</dd>
+
+<dt>RMS:</dt>
+<dd><p>First of all, I'd like to mention one of the reasons why I'm
+drinking this [a can or bottle of a cola which is not coke] is there's
+a worldwide boycott of Coca-Cola Company for murdering union
+organizers in Colombia. Look at the
+site <a href="http://killercoke.org">killercoke.org</a>. And
they're
+not talking about the effects of drinking the product—after all,
+the same might be true of many other products—it's murder. So
+before you buy any drink product, look at the fine print and see if
+it's made by Coca-Cola Company.</p>
+
+<p>I'm most known for starting the free software movement and leading
+development of the GNU operating system—although most of the
+people who use the system mistakenly believe it's Linux and think it
+was started by somebody else a decade later. But I'm not going to be
+speaking about any of that today. I'm here to talk about a legal
+danger to all software developers, distributors, and users: the danger
+of patents—on computational ideas, computational techniques, an
+idea for something you can do on a computer.</p>
+
+<p>Now, to understand this issue, the first thing you need to realize
+is that patent law has nothing to do with copyright law—they're
+totally different. Whatever you learn about one of them, you can be
+sure it doesn't apply to the other.</p>
+
+<p>So, for example, any time a person makes a statement about
+“intellectual property,” that's spreading confusion,
+because it's lumping together not only these two laws but also at
+least a dozen others. They're all different, and the result is any
+statement which purports to be about “intellectual
+property” is pure confusion—either the person making the
+statement is confused, or the person is trying to confuse others. But
+either way, whether it's accidental or malicious, it's confusion.</p>
+
+<p>Protect yourself from this confusion by rejecting any statement
+which makes use of that term. The only way to make thoughtful
+comments and think clear thoughts about any one of these laws is to
+distinguish it first from all the others, and talk or think about one
+particular law, so that we can understand what it actually does and
+then form conclusions about it. So I'll be talking about patent law,
+and what happens in those countries which have allowed patent law to
+restrict software.</p>
+
+<p>So, what does a patent do? A patent is an explicit,
+government-issued monopoly on using a certain idea. In the patent
+there's a part called the claims, which describe exactly what you're
+not allowed to do (although they're written in a way you probably
+can't understand). It's a struggle to figure out what those
+prohibitions actually mean, and they may go on for many pages of fine
+print.</p>
+
+<p>So the patent typically lasts for 20 years, which is a fairly long
+time in our field. Twenty years ago there was no World Wide
+Web—a tremendous amount of the use of computers goes on in an
+area which wasn't even possible to propose 20 years ago. So of course
+everything that people do on it is something that's new since 20 years
+ago—at least in some aspect it is new. So if patents had been
+applied for we'd be prohibited from doing all of it, and we may be
+prohibited from doing all of it in countries that have been foolish
+enough to have such a policy.</p>
+
+<p>Most of the time, when people describe the function of the patent
+system, they have a vested interest in the system. They may be patent
+lawyers, or they may work in the Patent Office, or they may be in the
+patent office of a megacorporation, so they want you to like the
+system.</p>
+
+<p>The <cite>Economist</cite> once referred to the patent
system as
+“a time-consuming lottery.” If you've ever seen publicity
+for a lottery, you understand how it works: they dwell on the very
+unlikely probability of winning, and they don't talk about the
+overwhelming likelihood of losing. In this way, they intentionally
+and systematically present a biased picture of what's likely to happen
+to you, without actually lying about any particular fact.</p>
+
+<p>It's the same way for the publicity for the patent system: they
+talk about what it's like to walk down the street with a patent in
+your pocket—or first of all, what it's like to get a patent,
+then what it's like to have a patent in your pocket, and every so
+often you can pull it out and point it at somebody and say,
+“Give me your money.”</p>
+
+<p>To compensate for their bias, I'm going to describe it from the
+other side, the victim side—what it's like for people who want
+to develop or distribute or run software. You have to worry that any
+day someone might walk up to you and point a patent at you and say,
+“Give me your money.”</p>
+
+<p>If you want to develop software in a country that allows software
+patents, and you want to work with patent law, what will you have to
+do?</p>
+
+<p>You could try to make a list of all the ideas that one might be
+able to find in the program that you're about to write, aside from the
+fact that you don't know that when you start writing the program.
+[But] even after you finish writing the program you wouldn't be able
+to make such a list.</p>
+
+<p>The reason is… in the process you conceived of it in one
+particular way—you've got a mental structure to apply to your
+design. And because of that, it will block you from seeing other
+structures that somebody might use to understand the same
+program—because you're not coming to it fresh; you already
+designed it with one structure in mind. Someone else who sees it for
+the first time might see a different structure, which involves
+different ideas, and it would be hard for you to see what those other
+ideas are. But nonetheless they're implemented in your program, and
+those patents could prohibit your program, if those ideas are
+patented.</p>
+
+<p>For instance, suppose there were graphical-idea patents and you
+wanted to draw a square. Well, you would realize that if there was a
+patent on a bottom edge, it would prohibit your square. You could put
+“bottom edge” on the list of all ideas implemented in your
+drawing. But you might not realize that somebody else with a patent
+on bottom corners could sue you easily also, because he could take
+your drawing and turn it by 45 degrees. And now your square is like
+this, and it has a bottom corner.</p>
+
+<p>So you couldn't make a list of all the ideas which, if patented,
+could prohibit your program.</p>
+
+<p>What you might try to do is find out all the ideas that are
+patented that might be in your program. Now you can't do that
+actually, because patent applications are kept secret for at least
+eighteen months; and the result is the Patent Office could be
+considering now whether to issue a patent, and they won't tell you.
+And this is not just an academic, theoretical possibility.</p>
+
+<p>For instance, in 1984 the Compress program was written, a program
+for compressing files using the <abbr title="Lempel-Ziv-Welch">
+LZW</abbr> data compression algorithm, and at that time there was
+no patent on that algorithm for compressing files. The author got the
+algorithm from an article in a journal. That was when we thought that
+the purpose of computer science journals was to publish algorithms so
+people could use them.</p>
+
+<p>He wrote this program, he released it, and in 1985 a patent was
+issued on that algorithm. But the patent holder was cunning and
+didn't immediately go around telling people to stop using it. The
+patent holder figured, “Let's let everybody dig their grave
+deeper.” A few years later they started threatening people; it
+became clear we couldn't use Compress, so I asked for people to
+suggest other algorithms we could use for compressing files.</p>
+
+<p>And somebody wrote and said, “I developed another data
compression
+algorithm that works better, I've written a program, I'd like to give
+it to you.” So we got ready to release it, and a week before it was
+ready to be released, I read in the <cite>New York Times</cite>
weekly
+patent column, which I rarely saw—it's a couple of times a year
+I might see it—but just by luck I saw that someone had gotten a
+patent for “inventing a new method of compressing data.”
+And so I said we had better look at this, and sure enough it covered
+the program we were about to release. But it could have been worse:
+the patent could have been issued a year later, or two years later, or
+three years later, or five years later.</p>
+
+<p>Anyway, someone else came up with another, even better compression
+algorithm, which was used in the program gzip, and just about
+everybody who wanted to compress files switched to gzip, so
+it sounds like a happy ending. But you'll hear more later. It's not
+entirely so happy.</p>
+
+<p>So, you can't find out about the patents that are being considered
+even though they may prohibit your work once they come out, but you
+can find out about the already issued patents. They're all published
+by the Patent Office. The problem is you can't read them all, because
+there are too many of them.</p>
+
+<p>In the US I believe there are hundreds of thousands of
+software patents; keeping track of them would be a tremendous job. So
+you're going to have to search for relevant patents. And you'll find
+a lot of relevant patents, but you won't necessarily find them
+all.</p>
+
+<p>For instance, in the 80s and 90s, there was a patent on
+“natural order recalculation” in spreadsheets. Somebody
+once asked me for a copy of it, so I looked in our computer file which
+lists the patent numbers. And then I pulled out the drawer to get the
+paper copy of this patent and xeroxed it and sent it to him. And when
+he got it, he said, “I think you sent me the wrong patent. This
+is something about compilers.” So I thought maybe our file has
+the wrong number in it. I looked in it again, and sure enough it said,
+“A method for compiling formulas into object code.” So I
+started to read it to see if it was indeed the wrong patent. I read
+the claims, and sure enough it was the natural order recalculation
+patent, but it didn't use those terms. It didn't use the term
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong>“spreadsheet”.</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“spreadsheet.”</em></ins></span>
In fact, what the patent prohibited was
+dozens of different ways of implementing topological sort—all
+the ways they could think of. But I don't think it used the term
+“topological <span
class="removed"><del><strong>sort”.</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>sort.”</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>So if you were writing a spreadsheet and you tried to find relevant
+patents by searching, you might have found a lot of patents. But you
+wouldn't have found this one until you told somebody, “Oh, I'm
+working on a spreadsheet,” and he said, “Oh, did you know
+those other companies that are making spreadsheets are getting
+sued?” Then you would have found out.</p>
+
+<p>Well, you can't find all the patents by searching, but you can find
+a lot of them. And then you've got to figure out what they mean,
+which is hard, because patents are written in tortuous legal language
+which is very hard to understand the real meaning of. So you're going
+to have to spend a lot of time talking with an expensive lawyer
+explaining what you want to do in order to find out from the lawyer
+whether you're allowed to do it.</p>
+
+<p>Even the patent holders often can't recognize just what their
+patents mean. For instance, there's somebody named Paul Heckel who
+released a program for displaying a lot of data on a small screen, and
+based on a couple of the ideas in that program he got a couple of
+patents.</p>
+
+<p>I once tried to find a simple way to describe what claim 1 of one
+of those patents covered. I found that I couldn't find any simpler
+way of saying it than what was in the patent itself; and that
+sentence, I couldn't manage to keep it all in my mind at once, no
+matter how hard I tried.</p>
+
+<p>And Heckel couldn't follow it either, because when he saw
+HyperCard, all he noticed was it was nothing like his program. It
+didn't occur to him that the way his patent was written it might
+prohibit HyperCard; but his lawyer had that idea, so he threatened
+Apple. And then he threatened Apple's customers, and eventually Apple
+made a settlement with him which is secret, so we don't know who
+really won. And this is just an illustration of how hard it is for
+anybody to understand what a patent does or doesn't prohibit.</p>
+
+<p>In fact, I once gave this speech and Heckel was in the audience.
+And at this point he jumped up and said, “That's not true, I
+just didn't know the scope of my protection.” And I said,
+“Yeah, that's what I said,” at which point he sat down and
+that was the end of my experience being heckled by Heckel. If I had
+said no, he probably would have found a way to argue with me.</p>
+
+<p>Anyway, after a long, expensive conversation with a lawyer, the
+lawyer will give you an answer like this:</p>
+
+<blockquote><p>If you do something in this area, you're almost
certain
+to lose a lawsuit; if you do something in this area, there's a
+considerable chance of losing a lawsuit; and if you really want to be
+safe you've got to stay out of this area. But there's a sizeable
+element of chance in the outcome of any lawsuit.</p></blockquote>
+
+<p>So now that you have clear, predictable rules for doing business,
+what are you actually going to do? Well, there are three things that
+you could do to deal with the issue of any particular patent. One is
+to avoid it, another is to get a license for it, and the third is to
+invalidate it. So I'll talk about these one by one.</p>
+
+<p>First, there's the possibility of avoiding the patent, which means,
+don't implement what it prohibits. Of course, if it's hard to tell
+what it prohibits, it might be hard to tell what would suffice to
+avoid it.</p>
+
+<p>A couple of years ago Kodak sued Sun [for] using a patent for
+something having to do with object-oriented programming, and Sun
+didn't think it was infringing that patent. But the court decided it
+was; and when other people look at that patent they haven't the
+faintest idea whether that decision was right or not. No one can tell
+what that patent does or doesn't cover, but Sun had to pay hundreds of
+millions of dollars because of violating a completely incomprehensible
+law.</p>
+
+<p>Sometimes you can tell what you need to avoid, and sometimes what
+you need to avoid is an algorithm.</p>
+
+<p>For instance, I saw a patent for something like the fast Fourier
+transform, but it ran twice as fast. Well, if the ordinary FFT is
+fast enough for your application then that's an easy way to avoid this
+other one. And most of the time that would work. Once in a while you
+might be trying to do something where it runs doing FFT all the time,
+and it's just barely fast enough using the faster algorithm. And then
+you can't avoid it, although maybe you could wait a couple of years
+for a faster computer. But that's going to be rare. Most of the time
+that patent will to be easy to avoid.</p>
+
+<p>On the other hand, a patent on an algorithm may be impossible to
+avoid. Consider the LZW data compression algorithm. Well, as I
+explained, we found a better data compression algorithm, and everybody
+who wanted to compress files switched to the program gzip
+which used the better algorithm. And the reason is, if you just want
+to compress the file and uncompress it later, you can tell people to
+use this program to uncompress it; then you can use any program with
+any algorithm, and you only care how well it works.</p>
+
+<p>But LZW is used for other things, too; for instance the PostScript
+language specifies operators for LZW compression and LZW
+uncompression. It's no use having another, better algorithm because
+it makes a different format of data. They're not interoperable. If
+you compress it with the gzip algorithm, you won't be able to
+uncompress it using LZW. So no matter how good your other algorithm
+is, and no matter what it is, it just doesn't enable you to implement
+PostScript according to the specs.</p>
+
+<p>But I noticed that users rarely ask their printers to compress
+things. Generally the only thing they want their printers to do is to
+uncompress; and I also noticed that both of the patents on the LZW
+algorithm were written in such a way that if your system can only
+uncompress, it's not forbidden. These patents were written so that
+they covered compression, and they had other claims covering both
+compression and uncompression; but there was no claim covering only
+uncompression. So I realized that if we implement only the
+uncompression for LZW, we would be safe. And although it would not
+satisfy the specification, it would please the users sufficiently; it
+would do what they actually needed. So that's how we barely squeaked
+by avoiding the two patents.</p>
+
+<p>Now there is GIF format, for images. That uses the LZW
+algorithm also. It didn't take long for people to define another
+image format, called PNG, which stands for “PNG's Not
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>GIF”.</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>GIF.”</em></ins></span> I think it uses
the gzip algorithm. And we
+started saying to people, “Don't use GIF format, it's
+dangerous. Switch to PNG.” And the users said,
+“Well, maybe some day, but the browsers don't implement it
+yet,” and the browser developers said, “We may implement
+it someday, but there's not much demand from users.”</p>
+
+<p>Well, it's pretty obvious what's going on—GIF was a
+de facto standard. In effect, asking people to switch to a different
+format, instead of their de facto standard, is like asking everyone in
+New Zealand to speak Hungarian. People will say, “Well, yeah,
+I'll learn to speak it after everyone else does.” And so we
+never succeeded in asking people to stop using GIF, even
+though one of those patent holders was going around to operators of
+web sites, threatening to sue them unless they could prove that all of
+the GIFs on the site were made with authorized, licensed
+software.</p>
+
+<p>So GIF was a dangerous trap for a large part of our
+community. We thought we had an alternative to GIF format,
+namely JPEG, but then somebody said, “I was just looking
+through my portfolio of patents”—I think it was somebody that
+just bought patents and used them to threaten people—and he
+said, “and I found that one of them covers JPEG format.”</p>
+
+<p>Well, JPEG was not a de facto standard, it's an official
+standard, issued by a standards committee; and the committee had a
+lawyer too. Their lawyer said he didn't think that this patent
+actually covered JPEG format.</p>
+
+<p>So who's right? Well, this patent holder sued a bunch of
+companies, and if there was a decision, it would have said who was
+right. But I haven't heard about a decision; I'm not sure if there
+ever was one. I think they settled, and the settlement is almost
+certainly secret, which means that it didn't tell us anything about
+who's right.</p>
+
+<p>These are fairly lightweight cases: one patent on JPEG,
+two patents on the LZW algorithm used in GIF. Now you might
+wonder how come there are two patents on the same algorithm? It's not
+supposed to happen, but it did. And the reason is that the patent
+examiners can't possibly take the time to study every pair of things
+they might need to study and compare, because they're not allowed to
+take that much time. And because algorithms are just mathematics,
+there's no way you can narrow down which applications and patents you
+need to compare.</p>
+
+<p>You see, in physical engineering fields, they can use the physical
+nature of what's going on to narrow things down. For instance, in
+chemical engineering, they can say, “What are the substances
+going in? What are the substances coming out?” If two different
+[patent] applications are different in that way, then they're not the
+same process so you don't need to worry. But the same math can be
+represented in ways that can look very different, and until you study
+them both together, you don't realize they're talking about the same
+thing. And, because of this, it's quite common to see the same thing
+get patented multiple times [in software].</p>
+
+<p>Remember that program that was killed by a patent before we
+released it? Well, that algorithm got patented twice also. In one
+little field we've seen it happen in two cases that we ran
+into—the same algorithm being patented twice. Well, I think my
+explanation tells you why that happens.</p>
+
+<p>But one or two patents is a lightweight case. What
+about MPEG2, the video format? I saw a list of over 70
+patents covering that, and the negotiations to arrange a way for
+somebody to license all those patents took longer than developing the
+standard itself. The JPEG committee wanted to develop a
+follow-on standard, and they gave up. They said there were too many
+patents; there was no way to do it.</p>
+
+<p>Sometimes it's a feature that's patented, and the only way to avoid
+that patent is not to implement that feature. For instance, the users
+of the word processor Xywrite once got a downgrade in the mail, which
+removed a feature. The feature was that you could define a list of
+abbreviations. For instance, if you define “exp” as an
+abbreviation for <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“experiment”,</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“experiment,”</em></ins></span>
then if you type
+“exp-space“ or <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“exp-comma”,</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“exp-comma,”</em></ins></span> the
+“exp” would change automatically to
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong>“experiment”.</p></strong></del></span>
+<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“experiment.”</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>Then somebody who had a patent on this feature threatened them, and
+they concluded that the only thing they could do was to take the
+feature out. And so they sent all the users a downgrade.</p>
+
+<p>But they also contacted me, because my Emacs editor had a feature
+like that starting from the late 70s. And it was described in the
+Emacs manual, so they thought I might be able to help them invalidate
+that patent. Well, I'm happy to know I've had at least one patentable
+idea in my life, but I'm unhappy that someone else patented it.</p>
+
+<p>Fortunately, in fact, that patent was eventually invalidated, and
+partly on the strength of the fact that I had published using it
+earlier. But in the meantime they had had to remove this feature.</p>
+
+<p>Now, to remove one or two features may not be a disaster. But when
+you have to remove 50 features, you could do it, but people are likely
+to say, “This program's no good; it's missing all the features I
+want.” So it may not be a solution. And sometimes a patent is
+so broad that it wipes out an entire field, like the patent on
+public-key encryption, which in fact put public-key encryption
+basically off limits for about ten years.</p>
+
+<p>So that's the option of avoiding the patent—often possible,
+but sometimes not, and there's a limit to how many patents you can
+avoid.</p>
+
+<p>What about the next possibility, of getting a license for the
+patent?</p>
+
+<p>Well, the patent holder may not offer you a license. It's entirely
+up to him. He could say, “I just want to shut you down.”
+I once got a letter from somebody whose family business was making
+casino games, which were of course computerized, and he had been
+threatened by a patent holder who wanted to make his business shut
+down. He sent me the patent. Claim 1 was something like “a
+network with a multiplicity of computers, in which each computer
+supports a multiplicity of games, and allows a multiplicity of game
+sessions at the same <span
class="removed"><del><strong>time”.</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>time.”</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>Now, I'm sure in the 1980s there was a university that set up a
+room with a network of workstations, and each workstation had some
+kind of windowing facility. All they had to do was to install
+multiple games and it would be possible to display multiple game
+sessions at once. This is so trivial and uninteresting that nobody
+would have bothered to publish an article about doing it. No one
+would have been interested in publishing an article about doing it,
+but it was worth patenting it. If it had occurred to you that you
+could get a monopoly on this trivial thing, then you could shut down
+your competitors with it.</p>
+
+<p>But why does the Patent Office issue so many patents that seem
+absurd and trivial to us?</p>
+
+<p>It's not because the patent examiners are stupid, it's because
+they're following a system, and the system has rules, and the rules
+lead to this result.</p>
+
+<p>You see, if somebody has made a machine that does something once,
+and somebody else designs a machine that will do the same thing, but N
+times, for us that's a <code>for</code>-loop, but for the Patent
Office
+that's an invention. If there are machines that can do A, and there
+are machines that can do B, and somebody designs a machine that can do
+A or B, for us that's an <code>if-then-else</code> statement, but
for the
+Patent Office that's an invention. So they have very low standards,
+and they follow those standards; and the result is patents that look
+absurd and trivial to us. Whether they're legally valid I can't say.
+But every programmer who sees them laughs.</p>
+
+<p>In any case, I was unable to suggest anything he could do to help
+himself, and he had to shut down his business. But most patent
+holders will offer you a license. It's likely to be rather
+expensive.</p>
+
+<p>But there are some software developers that find it particularly
+easy to get licenses, most of the time. Those are the
+megacorporations. In any field the megacorporations generally own
+about half the patents, and they cross-license each other, and they
+can make anybody else cross-license if he's really producing anything.
+The result is that they end up painlessly with licenses for almost all
+the patents.</p>
+
+<p>IBM wrote an article in its house magazine,
<cite>Think</cite>
+magazine—I think it's issue 5, 1990—about the benefit IBM
+got from its almost 9,000 US patents at the time (now it's up to
+45,000 or more). They said that one of the benefits was that they
+collected money, but the main benefit, which they said was perhaps an
+order of magnitude greater, was “getting access to the patents
+of others,” namely cross-licensing.</p>
+
+<p>What this means is since IBM, with so many patents, can make almost
+everybody give them a cross-license, IBM avoids almost all the grief
+that the patent system would have inflicted on anybody else. So
+that's why IBM wants software patents. That's why the
+megacorporations in general want software patents, because they know
+that by cross-licensing, they will have a sort of exclusive club on
+top of a mountain peak. And all the rest of us will be down here, and
+there's no way we can get up there. You know, if you're a genius, you
+might start up a small company and get some patents, but you'll never
+get into IBM's league, no matter what you do.</p>
+
+<p>Now a lot of companies tell their employees, “Get us patents
+so we can defend ourselves” and they mean, “use them to
+try to get cross-licensing,” but it just doesn't work well.
+It's not an effective strategy if you've got a small number of
+patents.</p>
+
+<p>Suppose you've got three patents. One points there, one points
+there, and one points there, and somebody over there points a patent
+at you. Well, your three patents don't help you at all, because none
+of them points at him. On the other hand, sooner or later, somebody
+in the company is going to notice that this patent is actually
+pointing at some people, and [the company] could threaten them and
+squeeze money out of them—never mind that those people didn't
+attack this company.</p>
+
+<p>So if your employer says to you, “We need some patents to
+defend ourselves, so help us get patents,” I recommend this
+response:</p>
+
+<blockquote><p>Boss, I trust you and I'm sure you would only use
those
+patents to defend the company if it's attacked. But I don't know
+who's going to be the CEO of this company in five years. For all I
+know, it might get acquired by Microsoft. So I really can't trust the
+company's word to only use these patents for defense unless I get it
+in writing. Please put it in writing that any patents I provide for
+the company will only be used for self-defense and collective
+security, and not for repression, and then I'll be able to get patents
+for the company with a clean conscience.</p></blockquote>
+
+<p>It would be most interesting to raise this not just in private with
+your boss, but also on the company's discussion list.</p>
+
+<p>The other thing that could happen is that the company could fail
+and its assets could be auctioned off, including the patents; and the
+patents will be bought by someone who means to use them to do
+something nasty.</p>
+
+<p>This cross-licensing practice is very important to understand,
+because this is what punctures the argument of the software patent
+advocates who say that software patents are needed to protect the
+starving genius. They give you a scenario which is a series of
+unlikelihoods.</p>
+
+<p>So let's look at it. According to this scenario, there's a
+brilliant designer of whatever, who's been working for years by
+himself in his attic coming up with a better way to do whatever it is.
+And now that it's ready, he wants to start a business and mass-produce
+this thing; and because his idea is so good his company will
+inevitably <span class="removed"><del><strong>succeed—
except</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>succeed—except</em></ins></span> for one thing:
the big companies will
+compete with him and take all his market the away. And because of
+this, his business will almost certainly fail, and then he will
+starve.</p>
+
+<p>Well, let's look at all the unlikely assumptions here.</p>
+
+<p>First of all, that he comes up with this idea working by himself.
+That's not very likely. In a high-tech field, most progress is made
+by people working in a field, doing things and talking with people in
+the field. But I wouldn't say it's impossible, not that one thing by
+itself.</p>
+
+<p>But anyway the next supposition is that he's going to start a
+business and that it's going to succeed. Well, just because he's a
+brilliant engineer doesn't mean that he's any good at running a
+business. Most new businesses fail; more than 95 percent of them, I think,
+fail within a few years. So that's probably what's going to happen to
+him, no matter what.</p>
+
+<p>Ok, let's assume that in addition to being a brilliant engineer who
+came up with something great by himself, he's also talented at running
+businesses. If he has a knack for running businesses, then maybe his
+business won't fail. After all, not all new businesses fail, there
+are a certain few that succeed. Well, if he understands business,
+then instead of trying to go head to head with large companies, he
+might try to do things that small companies are better at and have a
+better chance of succeeding. He might succeed. But let's suppose it
+fails anyway. If he's so brilliant and has a knack for running
+businesses, I'm sure he won't starve, because somebody will want to
+give him a job.</p>
+
+<p>So a series of unlikelihoods—it's not a very plausible
+scenario. But let's look at it anyway.</p>
+
+<p>Because where they go from there is to say the patent system will
+“protect” our starving genius, because he can get a patent
+on this technique. And then when IBM wants to compete with him, he
+says, “IBM, you can't compete with me, because I've got this
+patent,” and IBM says, “Oh, no, not again!”</p>
+
+<p>Well, here's what really happens.</p>
+
+<p>IBM says, “Oh, how nice, you have a patent. Well, we have
+this patent, and this patent, and this patent, and this patent, and
+this patent, all of which cover other ideas implemented in your
+product, and if you think you can fight us on all those, we'll pull
+out some more. So let's sign a cross-license agreement, and that way
+nobody will get hurt.” Now since we've assumed that our genius
+understands business, he's going to realize that he has no choice.
+He's going to sign the cross-license agreement, as just about
+everybody does when IBM demands it. And then this means that IBM will
+get “access” to his patent, meaning IBM would be free to
+compete with him just as if there were no patents, which means that
+the supposed benefit that they claim he would get by having this
+patent is not real. He won't get this benefit.</p>
+
+<p>The patent might “protect” him from competition from
+you or me, but not from IBM—not from the very megacorporations
+which the scenario says are the threat to him. You know in advance
+that there's got to be a flaw in this reasoning when people who are
+lobbyists for megacorporations recommend a policy supposedly because
+it's going to protect their small competitors from them. If it really
+were going to do that, they wouldn't be in favor of it. But this
+explains why [software patents] won't do it.</p>
+
+<p>Even IBM can't always do this, because there are companies that we
+refer to as patent trolls or patent parasites, and their only business
+is using patents to squeeze money out of people who really make
+something.</p>
+
+<p>Patent lawyers tell us that it's really wonderful to have patents
+in your field, but they don't have patents in their field. There are
+no patents on how to send or write a threatening letter, no patents on
+how to file a lawsuit, and no patents on how to persuade a judge or
+jury, so even IBM can't make the patent trolls cross-license. But IBM
+figures, “Our competition will have to pay them too; this is
+just part of the cost of doing business, and we can live with
+it.” IBM and the other megacorporations figure that the general
+dominion over all activity that they get from their patents is good
+for them, and paying off the trolls they can live with. So that's why
+they want software patents.</p>
+
+<p>There are also certain software developers who find it particularly
+difficult to get a patent license, and those are the developers of
+free software. The reason is that the usual patent license has
+conditions we can't possibly fulfill, because usual patent licenses
+demand a payment per copy. But when software gives users the freedom
+to distribute and make more copies, we have no way to count the copies
+that exist.</p>
+
+<p>If someone offered me a patent license for a payment of
+one-millionth of a dollar per copy, the total amount of money I'd have
+to pay maybe is in my pocket now. Maybe it's 50 dollars, but I don't
+know if it's 50 dollars, or 49, or what, because there's no way I can
+count the copies that people have made.</p>
+
+<p>A patent holder doesn't have to demand a payment per copy; a patent
+holder could offer you a license for a single lump sum, but those lump
+sums tend to be big, like US$100,000.</p>
+
+<p>And the reason that we've been able to develop so much
+freedom-respecting software is [that] we can develop software without
+money, but we can't pay a lot of money without money. If we're forced
+to pay for the privilege of writing software for the public, we won't
+be able to do it very much.</p>
+
+<p>That's the possibility of getting a license for the patent. The
+other possibility is to invalidate the patent. If the country
+considers software patents to be basically valid, and allowed, the
+only question is whether that particular patent meets the criteria.
+It's only useful to go to court if you've got an argument to make that
+might prevail.</p>
+
+<p>What would that argument be? You have to find evidence that, years
+ago, before the patent was applied for, people knew about the same
+idea. And you'd have to find things today that demonstrate that they
+knew about it publicly at that time. So the dice were cast years ago,
+and if they came up favorably for you, and if you can prove that fact
+today, then you have an argument to use to try to invalidate the
+patent. And it might work.</p>
+
+<p>It might cost you a lot of money to go through this case, and as a
+result, a probably invalid patent is a very frightening weapon to be
+threatened with if you don't have a lot of money. There are people
+who can't afford to defend their rights—lots of them. The ones
+who can afford it are the exception.</p>
+
+<p>These are the three things that you might be able to do about each
+patent that prohibits something in your program. The thing is,
+whether each one is possible depends on different details of the
+circumstances, so some of the time, none of them is possible; and when
+that happens, your project is dead.</p>
+
+<p>But lawyers in most countries tell us, “Don't try to find the
+patents in <span
class="removed"><del><strong>advance”,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>advance,”</em></ins></span> and the reason is
that the penalty for
+infringement is bigger if you knew about the patent. So what they
+tell you is “Keep your eyes shut. Don't try to find out about
+the patents, just go blindly taking your design decisions, and
+hope.”</p>
+
+<p>And of course, with each single design decision, you probably don't
+step on a patent. Probably nothing happens to you. But there are so
+many steps you have to take to get across the minefield, it's very
+unlikely you will get through safely. And of course, the patent
+holders don't all show up at the same time, so you don't know how many
+there are going to be.</p>
+
+<p>The patent holder of the natural order recalculation patent was
+demanding 5 percent of the gross sales of every spreadsheet. You could
+imagine paying for a few such licenses, but what happens when patent
+holder number 20 comes along, and wants you to pay out the last
+remaining 5 percent? And then what happens when patent holder number 21
+comes along?</p>
+
+<p>People in business say that this scenario is amusing but absurd,
+because your business would fail long before you got there. They told
+me that two or three such licenses would make your business fail. So
+you'd never get to 20. They show up one by one, so you never know how
+many more there are going to be.</p>
+
+<p>Software patents are a mess. They're a mess for software
+developers, but in addition they're a restriction on every computer
+user because software patents restrict what you can do on your
+computer.</p>
+
+<p>This is very different from patents, for instance, on automobile
+engines. These only restrict companies that make cars; they don't
+restrict you and me. But software patents do restrict you and me, and
+everybody who uses computers. So we can't think of them in purely
+economic terms; we can't judge this issue purely in economic terms.
+There's something more important at stake.</p>
+
+<p>But even in economic terms, the system is self-defeating, because
+its purpose is supposed to be to promote progress. Supposedly by
+creating this artificial incentive for people to publish ideas, it's
+going to help the field progress. But all it does is the exact
+opposite, because the big job in software is not coming up with ideas,
+it's implementing thousands of ideas together in one program. And
+software patents obstruct that, so they're economically
+self-defeating.</p>
+
+<p>And there's even economic research showing that this is
+so—showing how in a field with a lot of incremental innovation,
+a patent system can actually reduce investment in R & D. And of
+course, it also obstructs development in other ways. So even if we
+ignore the injustice of software patents, even if we were to look at
+it in the narrow economic terms that are usually proposed, it's still
+harmful.</p>
+
+<p>People sometimes respond by saying that “People in other
+fields have been living with patents for decades, and they've gotten
+used to it, so why should you be an exception?”</p>
+
+<p>Now, that question has an absurd assumption. It's like saying,
+“Other people get cancer, why shouldn't you?” I think
+every time someone doesn't get cancer, that's good, regardless of what
+happened to the others. That question is absurd because of its
+presupposition that somehow we all have a duty to suffer the harm done
+by patents.</p>
+
+<p>But there is a sensible question buried inside it, and that
+sensible question is “What differences are there between various
+fields that might affect what is good or bad patent policy in those
+fields?”</p>
+
+<p>There is an important basic difference between fields in regard to
+how many patents are likely to prohibit or cover parts of any one
+product.</p>
+
+<p>Now we have a naive idea in our minds which I'm trying to get rid
+of, because it's not true. And it's that on any one product there is
+one patent, and that patent covers the overall design of that product.
+So if you design a new product, it can't be patented already, and you
+will have an opportunity to get “the patent” on that
+product.</p>
+
+<p>That's not how things work. In the 1800s, maybe they did, but not
+now. In fact, fields fall on a spectrum of how many patents [there
+are] per product. The beginning of the spectrum is one, but no field
+is like that today; fields are at various places on this spectrum.</p>
+
+<p>The field that's closest to that is pharmaceuticals. A few decades
+ago, there really was one patent per pharmaceutical, at least at any
+time, because the patent covered the entire chemical formula of that
+one particular substance. Back then, if you developed a new drug, you
+could be sure it wasn't already patented by somebody else and you
+could get the one patent on that drug.</p>
+
+<p>But that's not how it works now. Now there are broader patents, so
+now you could develop a new drug, and you're not allowed to make it
+because somebody has a broader patent which covers it already.</p>
+
+<p>And there might even be a few such patents covering your new drug
+simultaneously, but there won't be hundreds. The reason is, our
+ability to do biochemical engineering is so limited that nobody knows
+how to combine so many ideas to make something that's useful in
+medicine. If you can combine a couple of them you're doing pretty
+well at our level of knowledge. But other fields involve combining
+more ideas to make one thing.</p>
+
+<p>At the other end of the spectrum is software, where we can combine
+more ideas into one usable design than anybody else, because our field
+is basically easier than all other fields. I'm presuming that the
+intelligence of people in our field is the same as that of people in
+physical engineering. It's not that we're fundamentally better than
+they are; it's that our field is fundamentally easier, because we're
+working with mathematics.</p>
+
+<p>A program is made out of mathematical components, which have a
+definition, whereas physical objects don't have a definition. The
+matter does what it does, so through the perversity of matter, your
+design may not work the way it “should” have worked. And that's
just
+tough. You can't say that the matter has a bug in it, and the
+physical universe should get fixed. [Whereas] we [programmers] can
+make a castle that rests on a mathematically thin line, and it stays
+up because nothing weighs anything.</p>
+
+<p>There're so many complications you have to cope with in physical
+engineering that we don't have to worry about.</p>
+
+<p>For instance, when I put an <code>if</code>-statement
inside of
+a <code>while</code>-loop,
+</p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>I don't have to worry that if this
<code>while</code>-loop repeats
+ at the wrong rate, the <code>if</code>-statement might start to
+ vibrate and it might resonate and crack;</li>
+
+<li>I don't have to worry that if it resonates much faster—you
+ know, millions of times per second—that it might generate
+ radio frequency signals that might induce wrong values in other
+ parts of the program;</li>
+
+<li>I don't have to worry that corrosive fluids from the environment
+ might seep in between the <code>if</code>-statement and
+ the <code>while</code>-statement and start eating away at them
until
+ the signals don't pass anymore;</li>
+
+<li>I don't have to worry about how the heat generated by my
+ <code>if</code>-statement is going to get out through
+ the <code>while</code>-statement so that it doesn't make
+ the <code>if</code>-statement burn out; and</li>
+
+<li>I don't have to worry about how I would take out the broken
+ <code>if</code>-statement if it does crack, burn, or corrode, and
+ replace it with another <code>if</code>-statement to make the
+ program run again.</li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>For that matter, I don't have to worry about how I'm going to
+insert the <code>if</code>-statement inside
+the <code>while</code>-statement every time I produce a copy of the
+program. I don't have to design a factory to make copies of my
+program, because there are various general commands that will make
+copies of anything.</p>
+
+<p>If I want to make copies on CD, I just have to write a master; and
+there's one program I can [use to] make a master out of anything,
+write any data I want. I can make a master CD and write it and send
+it off to a factory, and they'll duplicate whatever I send them. I
+don't have to design a different factory for each thing I want to
+duplicate.</p>
+
+<p>Very often with physical engineering you have to do that; you have
+to design products for manufacturability. Designing the factory may
+even be a bigger job than designing the product, and then you may have
+to spend millions of dollars to build the factory. So with all of
+this trouble, you're not going to be able to put together so many
+different ideas in one product and have it work.</p>
+
+<p>A physical design with a million nonrepeating different design
+elements is a gigantic project. A program with a million different
+design elements, that's nothing. It's a few hundred thousand lines of
+code, and a few people will write that in a few years, so it's not a
+big deal. So the result is that the patent system weighs
+proportionately heavier on us than it does on people in any other
+field who are being held back by the perversity of matter.</p>
+
+<p>A lawyer did a study of one particular large program, namely the
+kernel Linux, which is used together with the GNU operating system
+that I launched. This was five years ago now; he found 283 different
+US patents, each of which appeared to prohibit some computation done
+somewhere in the code of Linux. At the time I saw an article saying
+that Linux was 0.25 percent of the whole system. So by multiplying 300 by
+400 we can estimate the number of patents that would prohibit
+something in the whole system as being around 100,000. This is a very
+rough estimate only, and no more accurate information is available,
+since trying to figure it out would be a gigantic task.</p>
+
+<p>Now this lawyer did not publish the list of patents, because that
+would have endangered the developers of Linux the kernel, putting them
+in a position where the penalties if they were sued would be greater.
+He didn't want to hurt them; he wanted to demonstrate how bad this
+problem is, of patent gridlock.</p>
+
+<p>Programmers can understand this immediately, but politicians
+usually don't know much about programming; they usually imagine that
+patents are basically much like copyrights, only somehow stronger.
+They imagine that since software developers are not endangered by the
+copyrights on their work, that they won't be endangered by the patents
+on their work either. They imagine that, since when you write a
+program you have the copyright, [therefore likewise] if you write a
+program you have the patents also. This is false—so how do we
+give them a clue what patents would really do? What they really do in
+countries like the US?</p>
+
+<p>I find it's useful to make an analogy between software and
+symphonies. Here's why it's a good analogy.</p>
+
+<p>A program or symphony combines many ideas. A symphony combines
+many musical ideas. But you can't just pick a bunch of ideas and say
+“Here's my combination of ideas, do you like it?” Because
+in order to make them work you have to implement them all. You can't
+just pick musical ideas and list them and say, “Hey, how do you
+like this combination?” You can't hear that [list]. You have to
+write notes which implement all these ideas together.</p>
+
+<p>The hard task, the thing most of us wouldn't be any good at, is
+writing all these notes to make the whole thing sound good. Sure,
+lots of us could pick musical ideas out of a list, but we wouldn't
+know how to write a good-sounding symphony to implement those ideas.
+Only some of us have that talent. That's the thing that limits you.
+I could probably invent a few musical ideas, but I wouldn't know how
+to use them to any effect.</p>
+
+<p>So imagine that it's the 1700s, and the governments of Europe
+decide that they want to promote the progress of symphonic music by
+establishing a system of musical idea patents, so that any musical
+idea described in words could be patented.</p>
+
+<p>For instance, using a particular sequence of notes as a motif could
+be patented, or a chord progression could be patented, or a rhythmic
+pattern could be patented, or using certain instruments by themselves
+could be patented, or a format of repetitions in a movement could be
+patented. Any sort of musical idea that could be described in words
+would have been patentable.</p>
+
+<p>Now imagine that it's 1800 and you're Beethoven, and you want to
+write a symphony. You're going to find it's much harder to write a
+symphony you don't get sued for than to write one that sounds good,
+because you have to thread your way around all the patents that exist.
+If you complained about this, the patent holders would say, “Oh,
+Beethoven, you're just jealous because we had these ideas first. Why
+don't you go and think of some ideas of your own?”</p>
+
+<p>Now Beethoven had ideas of his own. The reason he's considered a
+great composer is because of all of the new ideas that he had, and he
+actually used. And he knew how to use them in such a way that they
+would work, which was to combine them with lots of well-known ideas.
+He could put a few new ideas into a composition together with a lot of
+old and uncontroversial ideas. And the result was a piece that was
+controversial, but not so much so that people couldn't get used to
+it.</p>
+
+<p>To us, Beethoven's music doesn't sound controversial; I'm told it
+was, when it was new. But because he combined his new ideas with a
+lot of known ideas, he was able to give people a chance to stretch a
+certain amount. And they could, which is why to us those ideas sound
+just fine. But nobody, not even a Beethoven, is such a genius that he
+could reinvent music from zero, not using any of the well-known ideas,
+and make something that people would want to listen to. And nobody is
+such a genius he could reinvent computing from zero, not using any of
+the well-known ideas, and make something that people want to use.</p>
+
+<p>When the technological context changes so frequently, you end up
+with a situation where what was done 20 years ago is totally
+inadequate. Twenty years ago there was no World Wide Web. So, sure,
+people did a lot of things with computers back then, but what they
+want to do today are things that work with the World Wide Web. And
+you can't do that using only the ideas that were known 20 years ago.
+And I presume that the technological context will continue to change,
+creating fresh opportunities for somebody to get patents that give the
+shaft to the whole field.</p>
+
+<p>Big companies can even do this themselves. For instance, a few
+years ago Microsoft decided to make a phony open standard for
+documents and to get it approved as a standard by corrupting the
+International Standards Organization, which they did. But they
+designed it using something that Microsoft had patented. Microsoft is
+big enough that it can start with a patent, design a format or
+protocol to use that patented idea (whether it's helpful or not), in
+such a way that there's no way to be compatible unless you use that
+same idea too. And then Microsoft can make that a de facto standard
+with or without help from corrupted standards bodies. Just by its
+weight it can push people into using that format, and that basically
+means that they get a stranglehold over the whole world. So we need
+to show the politicians what's really going on here. We need to show
+them why this is bad.</p>
+
+<p>Now I've heard it said that the reason New Zealand is considering
+software patents is that one large company wants to be given some
+monopolies. To restrict everyone in the country so that one company
+will make more money is the absolute opposite of statesmanship.</p>
+
+<p>So, at this point, I'd like to ask for questions.</p></dd>
+
+<dt>Q.</dt>
+<dd>What is the alternative?</dd>
+
+<dt>A.</dt>
+<dd>No software patents. I know that that works fine. I was in the
+field when there were no software patents. And that meant people
+developed software, and they distributed that software in various
+ways, and they didn't have to worry about getting sued by patent
+holders for doing it, so they were safe. Software patents don't solve
+a real problem, so we don't need to ask what other solution is
+there.</dd>
+
+<dt>Q.</dt>
+<dd>How do the developers get rewarded?</dd>
+
+<dt>A.</dt>
+<dd><p>Many ways. Software patents have nothing to do with that.
+Remember if you're a software developer, software patents don't help
+you get whatever you want to get.</p>
+
+<p>Different software developers want different things. I developed
+some important software in the 1980s, and the reward I wanted was to
+see people using computers in freedom. And I got that reward,
+although not totally, not everybody has freedom. But software patents
+would only have stopped me.</p>
+
+<p>Other people developed programs because they wanted money.
+Software patents threaten them, too, and still threaten them, because
+you're not going to make any money if patent holders demand that you
+give it all to them, or if they make you shut down.</p></dd>
+
+<dt>Q.</dt>
+<dd>How do you prevent plagiarism and still…</dd>
+
+<dt>A.</dt>
+<dd><p>Plagiarism has nothing to do with this issue. It has
+absolutely nothing to do with this issue.</p>
+
+<p>Plagiarism means copying the text of a work and claiming to have
+written it yourself. But patents are not concerned with the text of
+any particular work. They simply have nothing to do with this.</p>
+
+<p>If you write a work and this work embodies some ideas, which it
+always does, there's no reason to think that the patents covering
+those ideas would belong to you. They're more likely to belong to
+lots of others, and half of them to the megacorporations, and they can
+then all sue you. So you don't even have to worry [about plagiarism];
+long before you get to the point where somebody else might copy it,
+you're going to be getting the shaft.</p>
+
+<p>You are confusing patents with copyrights, I'm afraid. They have
+nothing in common. I've explained to you what the patent system does
+to software, but I think you don't believe me because you've heard
+what copyrights do and you're confusing the two, so these impressions
+you've got about what copyrights do, you're just assuming that patents
+do them also—and they don't. If you write some code, the
+copyright on that code would belong to you; but if your code
+implements ideas, if some of these ideas are patented, those patents
+belong to others who could then sue you.</p>
+
+<p>You don't have to be afraid, with copyright, that when you write
+code yourself, that somebody else already has a copyright on it and
+can sue you, because copyright only restricts copying. In fact, even
+if you write something which is identical to what somebody else wrote,
+if you can prove you didn't copy it, that's a defense under copyright
+law, because copyright law is only concerned with copying. But
+copyright law is only concerned with the details of authorship of a
+work [i.e., not the ideas it embodies], so it has nothing in common
+with patent law in terms of what it deals with, and the effects are
+totally different.</p>
+
+<p>Now I'm not in favor personally of all the things that people do
+with copyright law, I've criticized it. But it's a totally different,
+unrelated issue. If you think that patent law helps somebody who is
+developing software, it means that you have got a completely wrong
+picture of what patent law actually does.</p></dd>
+
+<dt>Q.</dt>
+<dd>Don't get me wrong. I'm on your side.</dd>
+
+<dt>A.</dt>
+<dd>OK, but still you've got a wrong picture. I'm not blaming you for
+it, because you've just been misinformed.</dd>
+
+<dt>Q.</dt>
+<dd>If I'm writing software for commercial purposes, do I get good
+protection by treating it as a black box and keeping it secret?</dd>
+
+<dt>A.</dt>
+<dd>I don't want to discuss that question because I'm not in favor of
+it, I think it's unethical to do that, but that's an unrelated
+issue.</dd>
+
+<dt>Q.</dt>
+<dd>I understand that.</dd>
+
+<dt>A.</dt>
+<dd>I don't want to change the subject and then praise something that
+I think is bad. But because it's a change of subject I'd rather not
+get into that.</dd>
+
+<dt>Q.</dt>
+<dd>Our Foundation for Research, Science, and Technology, I think
+they're probably the equivalent of your National Science Foundation,
+provides grants for research and development and one of the things
+that they propose pretty actively is that ideas that they have funded
+should be secured if possible by patents.</dd>
+
+<dt>A.</dt>
+<dd>That shouldn't be the case in software, because software ideas
+shouldn't be patentable ever by anyone. But what you are seeing
+there, more generally, is an example of the general corruption of our
+society by putting commercial aims above all others. Now I'm not a
+communist and I don't want to abolish business, but when it becomes
+business above all, every aspect of life oriented towards business,
+that is dangerous.</dd>
+
+<dt>Q.</dt>
+<dd>So Richard, if you talk to the Foundation, perhaps you might
+propose that there are better ways for a small country like New
+Zealand to make money on software.</dd>
+
+<dt>A.</dt>
+<dd>Software patents don't help anybody make money out of software.
+They mean that you're in danger of getting sued when you try.</dd>
+
+<dt>Q.</dt>
+<dd>Which makes it difficult for New Zealand as a country to build an
+economic base using software as part of that.</dd>
+
+<dt>A.</dt>
+<dd>Sorry, when you say “which” I don't know what you are
+referring to. Software patents will make it difficult for anyone. If
+New Zealand allows software patents, that will make it difficult in
+New Zealand for anybody to develop programs and distribute them,
+because you'll be in danger of getting sued. Software patents have
+nothing to do with developing a program and then putting it to some
+use.</dd>
+
+<dt>Q.</dt>
+<dd>So New Zealand, in terms of its economic development, it would be
+better protected by having no software patents.</dd>
+
+<dt>A.</dt>
+<dd><p>Yes. You see, each country has its own patent system, and
they
+work independently, except that countries have signed up to a treaty
+that says, “If you have got a patent in that country, you can
+basically bring your application over here, and we'll judge it based
+on the year you applied for it over there.” But other than that, each
+country has its own criteria for what can be patented and has its own
+set of patents.</p>
+
+<p>So the result is if the US allows software patents and New Zealand
+does not, that means that everybody in the world, including New
+Zealanders, can get US software patents and sue us poor Americans at
+home. But if New Zealand doesn't allow software patents that means
+that neither you nor we can get New Zealand software patents to sue
+you New Zealanders at home. You can be sure that almost all the
+software patents will belong to foreigners who will use them to
+basically kick any New Zealand software developers whenever they get
+the chance.</p></dd>
+
+<dt>Q.</dt>
+<dd>Since the Hughes Aircraft case, I think it was in the
1990s</dd>
+
+<dt>A.</dt>
+<dd>I don't know about that case.</dd>
+
+<dt>Q.</dt>
+<dd>But basically New Zealand's had software patents. It's not like
+we're going into a field where we don't already have them, we do.</dd>
+
+<dt>A.</dt>
+<dd><p>I don't know, but I'm told that there's a decision being
made
+now at the legislative level of whether to allow them. But Patent
+Offices often respond to lobbying from megacorporations through
+WIPO.</p>
+
+<p>WIPO, as you can tell from its name, which is the World
+Intellectual Property Organization, is up to no good, because any use
+of that term is spreading confusion. WIPO gets a lot of its funds
+from megacorporations, and uses those funds to bring officials from
+Patent Offices to idyllic resort destinations for training. What they
+train them to do is twist the law to allow patents in areas where
+they're not supposed to be allowed.</p>
+
+<p>In many countries there are laws and court decisions which say that
+software as such can't be patented, algorithms can't be patented, or
+“mathematical” algorithms can't be patented (no one's
+quite sure what it means for an algorithm to be mathematical or not),
+and various other criteria which if interpreted naturally would rule
+out software patents, but the patent offices twist the law to allow
+them anyway.</p>
+
+<p>For instance, a lot of things which practically speaking are
+software patents have the form where they describe a system involving
+a central processing unit, a memory, input/output facilities,
+instruction-fetching facilities, and means to perform this particular
+computation. In effect they've written explicitly into the patent all
+the parts of an ordinary computer, and then they say, “Well,
+this is a physical system which we would like to <span
class="removed"><del><strong>patent”,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>patent,”</em></ins></span> but
+really it's just patenting certain software on a computer. There are
+many subterfuges that they've used.</p>
+
+<p>Patent Offices will generally try to twist the law into allowing
+more patents. In the US software patents were created by a court
+decision in 1982, in the Appeals Court that deals with all patent
+cases, which misunderstood a Supreme Court decision from the previous
+year, and misapplied it. Now it looks like that Appeals Court has
+finally changed its mind, and it's come to the conclusion that it was
+mistaken all along; and it looks like this decision will get rid of
+all software patents, unless the Supreme Court reverses it. The
+Supreme Court is now considering it, and within less than a year we
+should find out whether we've won or lost.</p></dd>
+
+<dt>Q.</dt>
+<dd>Should that case be unsuccessful, is there any movement in the
+States to take a legislated solution?</dd>
+
+<dt>A.</dt>
+<dd>Yes, and I been promoting this for about 19 years now. It's a
+battle that we fight over and over in various different
+countries.</dd>
+
+<dt>Q.</dt>
+<dd>Where in your universe do you put the in I4i case?</dd>
+
+<dt>A.</dt>
+<dd>I have no idea what that is.</dd>
+
+<dt>Q.</dt>
+<dd>It's where Microsoft has basically almost had to shut down on
+selling Word, because they were found to have infringed a Canadian
+patent.</dd>
+
+<dt>A.</dt>
+<dd>Oh, that one. That's just an example of how dangerous software
+patents are to all software developers. I don't like what Microsoft
+does, but that's an issue that's irrelevant for this purpose. It's
+not good that somebody can sue a software developer and say “I
+won't let you distribute such <span
class="removed"><del><strong>software”.</dd></strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>software.”</dd></em></ins></span>
+
+<dt>Q.</dt>
+<dd>Obviously we live in an imperfect world, and in some cases we run
+into the issue of software patents. Do you think that we should allow
+privileges for researchers to get around patents in the same way that
+copyright law allows research on copyright material?</dd>
+
+<dt>A.</dt>
+<dd>No, it's a mistake to look for partial solutions, because we have
+a much better chance of establishing a full solution. Everybody
+involved in software development and distribution and use, except the
+ones in the megacorporations, when they see how dangerous software
+patents are, they will get behind total rejection of software patents.
+Whereas an exception for some special case will only win support from
+the people in that special case. These partial solutions are
+essentially distractions. People start by saying, “Oh, I'm sure
+we can't really solve the problem, so I give up on that. Let me
+propose a partial solution.” But these partial solutions don't
+make it safe to develop software.</dd>
+
+<dt>Q.</dt>
+<dd>You wouldn't, however, oppose a partial solution that's not
+necessarily just directed at software patents, so you wouldn't oppose
+experimental use, which may be a good solution for the pharmaceutical
+patent.</dd>
+
+<dt>A.</dt>
+<dd>I wouldn't oppose that.</dd>
+
+<dt>Q.</dt>
+<dd>But what you're saying is that you don't think it's applicable to
+software, just to clarify.</dd>
+
+<dt>A.</dt>
+<dd>Something that saves only a few of us, or only certain activities,
+or gets rid of half the software patents, that's analogous to saying,
+“Well, maybe we could clear part of the minefield, or maybe we
+could destroy half the mines in the minefield.” [That's an
+improvement] but that doesn't make it safe.</dd>
+
+<dt>Q.</dt>
+<dd>So you've been speaking the same thing all around the world. How
+much uptake has there been? Have governments changed, or not adopted
+software patents?</dd>
+
+<dt>A.</dt>
+<dd>Some have. In India a few years ago, there was an attempt to
+change patent law to explicitly allow software patents and it was
+dropped. A few years ago the US proposed a trade treaty, a free
+exploitation treaty, with Latin America. And it was blocked by the
+president of Brazil, who said no to software patents and another nasty
+thing relating to computers, and that killed the whole treaty. That's
+apparently the whole thing that the US wanted to impose on the rest of
+the continent. But these things don't stay dead; there are companies
+that have full-time staff looking for some way they can subvert some
+country or other.</dd>
+
+<dt>Q.</dt>
+<dd>Is there any real hard data around what happens in economic terms
+in the innovation communities in countries that have essentially no
+software patents?</dd>
+
+<dt>A.</dt>
+<dd><p>There isn't any. It's almost impossible to measure these
+things. Actually, I shouldn't say there isn't any. There is a
+little. It's very hard to measure the effect of the patent system,
+because you're comparing the real world with a counterfactual world,
+and there's no way to be sure what would happen.</p>
+
+<p>What I can say is before there were software patents, there was
+lots of software development; not as much as there is now, because of
+course there were nowhere near as many computer users.</p>
+
+<p>How many computer users were there in 1982, even in the US? It was
+a small fraction of the public. But there were software developers.
+They weren't saying, “We desperately want <span
class="removed"><del><strong>patents”.</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>patents.”</em></ins></span> They
+weren't getting sued for patent infringement after they developed
+their programs. But there is a bit of [economic] research that I saw
+that apparently software patents resulted not in an increase in
+research, but [in] a shift of funds from research into
+patenting.</p></dd>
+
+<dt>Q.</dt>
+<dd>Do you expect that there would be any interest in trade
+secrets?</dd>
+
+<dt>A.</dt>
+<dd>No. Before there were software patents, a lot of software
+developers kept the details of their programs secret. But they
+usually wouldn't keep any of the general ideas secret, because that
+they realized that the big job in developing good software was not
+picking your general ideas, it was implementing a lot of ideas
+together. So they would publish, [or] they would let their employees
+publish, in scholarly journals any interesting new ideas that they'd
+had. So now, they'll patent those new ideas. It has very little to
+do with developing a useful program, and just letting people know some
+ideas doesn't give them a program. Besides, most of the ideas, the
+thousands of ideas you've combined in your program, are known
+anyway.</dd>
+
+<dt>Q.</dt>
+<dd>To back that up, I was listening to an interview, one of the
+founders of PayPal was interviewed, and he said that he really felt
+strongly that his success was 5 percent idea and 95 percent execution, and that
+supports your point really well.</dd>
+
+<dt>A.</dt>
+<dd>I agree.</dd>
+
+<dt>SF:</dt>
+<dd>Excellent. Richard has here stickers which I believe are
+free</dd>
+
+<dt>RMS:</dt>
+<dd>Gratis. And these [other items] are for sale.</dd>
+
+<dt>SF:</dt>
+<dd>So you're welcome to come down. It's been a great debate—thank
+you Richard.</dd>
+
+</dl>
+
+<hr <span class="inserted"><ins><em>class="no-display"</em></ins></span>
/>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><blockquote
id="fsfs"><p>This</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="edu-note c"><p
id="fsfs">This</em></ins></span> speech is published in
+<a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free</em></ins></span>
+Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard
+M. <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Stallman</cite></a>.</p></blockquote></strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Stallman</cite></a>.</p></div>
+</div></em></ins></span>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div <span
class="removed"><del><strong>id="footer"></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>id="footer" role="contentinfo"></em></ins></span>
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>.
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
+the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to <a
href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">
+ <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. -->
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> translations
+of this article.</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+ be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this
+ without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+ Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+ document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+ document was modified, or published.
+
+ If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+ Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+ years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+ year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+ being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+
+ There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+ Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
+
+<p>Copyright © 2009, <span class="removed"><del><strong>2010, 2014,
2020</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2021</em></ins></span> Richard Stallman</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2021/10/19 20:33:11 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong></div></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div><!-- for class="inner", starts
in the banner include --></em></ins></span>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: po/netscape.el-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/netscape.el-diff.html
diff -N po/netscape.el-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/netscape.el-diff.html 19 Oct 2021 20:33:11 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,130 @@
+<!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/netscape.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: <span
class="removed"><del><strong>1.77</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>1.96 -->
+<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
+<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays licensing non-cpleft" -->
+<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes"</em></ins></span> -->
+<title>Netscape <span class="inserted"><ins><em>and Free
Software</em></ins></span>
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/netscape.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
+<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
+<div class="article reduced-width"></em></ins></span>
+<h2>Netscape and Free Software</h2>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><div class="announcement">
+<blockquote></strong></del></span>
+
+<p><a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="/philosophy/netscape-npl.html">
More</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="/philosophy/netscape-npl.html">More</em></ins></span>
recent news about <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Netscape</a>.</p>
+</blockquote>
+</div></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Netscape</a></p>
+<hr class="thin" /></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>People have been writing with joy to tell us that Netscape has
+announced a plan to make its browser free software, under the GNU
GPL.</p>
+
+<p>That is getting a bit ahead of events. The announcement Netscape made
+does not actually say that they will use the GNU GPL, and does not
+assert that the program will
+be <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">free software</a> as we
define
+it in our community. It's clear that Netscape will take a big step in
+the direction of free software, but we don't know whether they will
+get all the way there or fall substantially short. In fact, Netscape
+is still deciding what to do.</p>
+
+<p>When they decide, two crucial questions will be whether people will be
+free to distribute copies for a fee (on free software CD-ROM
+collections, for example) and whether people will be free to
+redistribute modified versions just like the original version. If
+either of those freedoms is lacking, the program won't be free
+software.</p>
+
+<p>If Netscape does release the Netscape browser as free software, that
+will be a great day for the free software movement. But rather than
+rejoicing or criticizing now, let's see what actually happens, and
+then we'll know whether to celebrate. What we can usefully do now is
+urge Netscape, calmly and politely, to make the software free, and to
+copyleft it with the <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="/copyleft/gpl.html">GNU</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="/licenses/gpl.html">GNU</em></ins></span>
General Public
+License</a>.</p>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div></em></ins></span>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div <span
class="removed"><del><strong>id="footer"></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>id="footer" role="contentinfo"></em></ins></span>
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>.
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
+the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to <a
href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">
+ <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. -->
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> translations
+of this article.</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+ be under CC BY-ND <span class="removed"><del><strong>3.0
US.</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>4.0.</em></ins></span> Please do NOT change or
remove this
+ without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+ Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+ document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+ document was modified, or published.
+
+ If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+ Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+ years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+ year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+ being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+
+ There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+ Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
+
+<p>Copyright © 1998, <span class="removed"><del><strong>2007, 2008,
2013</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2021</em></ins></span> Free Software Foundation,
Inc.</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative</strong></del></span>
+<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative</em></ins></span>
+Commons <span class="removed"><del><strong>Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United
States</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0
International</em></ins></span> License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2021/10/19 20:33:11 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong></div></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div><!-- for class="inner", starts
in the banner include --></em></ins></span>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- www/philosophy basic-freedoms.uk.html can-you-t...,
GNUN <=