trans-coord/gnun/philosophy why-free.html

[Yavor Doganov]

CVSROOT:        /sources/trans-coord
Module name:    trans-coord
Changes by:     Yavor Doganov <yavor>   08/02/24 21:10:05

Modified files:
        gnun/philosophy: why-free.html 

Log message:
        Automatic sync from the master www repository.

CVSWeb URLs:
http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/trans-coord/gnun/philosophy/why-free.html?cvsroot=trans-coord&r1=1.1&r2=1.2

Patches:
Index: why-free.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /sources/trans-coord/trans-coord/gnun/philosophy/why-free.html,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -b -r1.1 -r1.2
--- why-free.html       21 Feb 2008 20:18:03 -0000      1.1
+++ why-free.html       24 Feb 2008 21:10:05 -0000      1.2
@@ -23,7 +23,7 @@
 use.</p>
 
 <p>
-The copyright system grew up with printing---a technology for mass
+The copyright system grew up with printing&mdash;a technology for mass
 production copying.  Copyright fit in well with this technology
 because it restricted only the mass producers of copies.  It did not
 take freedom away from readers of books.  An ordinary reader, who did
@@ -79,7 +79,7 @@
 Owners use smear words such as &ldquo;piracy&rdquo; and
 &ldquo;theft&rdquo;, as well as expert terminology such as
 &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; and &ldquo;damage&rdquo;, to
-suggest a certain line of thinking to the public---a simplistic
+suggest a certain line of thinking to the public&mdash;a simplistic
 analogy between programs and physical objects.</p>
 
 <p>
@@ -100,8 +100,8 @@
 <p>
 A little thought shows that most such people would not have bought
 copies.  Yet the owners compute their &ldquo;losses&rdquo; as if each
-and every one would have bought a copy.  That is exaggeration---to put
-it kindly.</p></li>
+and every one would have bought a copy.  That is exaggeration&mdash;to
+put it kindly.</p></li>
 
 <li id="law">The law.
 
@@ -109,8 +109,8 @@
 Owners often describe the current state of the law, and the harsh
 penalties they can threaten us with.  Implicit in this approach is the
 suggestion that today's law reflects an unquestionable view of
-morality---yet at the same time, we are urged to regard these penalties
-as facts of nature that can't be blamed on anyone.</p>
+morality&mdash;yet at the same time, we are urged to regard these
+penalties as facts of nature that can't be blamed on anyone.</p>
 
 <p>
 This line of persuasion isn't designed to stand up to critical
@@ -128,14 +128,14 @@
 Authors often claim a special connection with programs they have
 written, and go on to assert that, as a result, their desires and
 interests concerning the program simply outweigh those of anyone
-else---or even those of the whole rest of the world.  (Typically
+else&mdash;or even those of the whole rest of the world.  (Typically
 companies, not authors, hold the copyrights on software, but we are
 expected to ignore this discrepancy.)</p>
 
 <p>
-To those who propose this as an ethical axiom---the author is more
-important than you---I can only say that I, a notable software author
-myself, call it bunk.</p>
+To those who propose this as an ethical axiom&mdash;the author is more
+important than you&mdash;I can only say that I, a notable software
+author myself, call it bunk.</p>
 
 <p>
 But people in general are only likely to feel any sympathy with the
@@ -165,14 +165,14 @@
 Constitution was drawn up.  That's why the Constitution only
 <em>permits</em> a system of copyright and does not <em>require</em>
 one; that's why it says that copyright must be temporary.  It also
-states that the purpose of copyright is to promote progress---not to
-reward authors.  Copyright does reward authors somewhat, and
+states that the purpose of copyright is to promote progress&mdash;not
+to reward authors.  Copyright does reward authors somewhat, and
 publishers more, but that is intended as a means of modifying their
 behavior.</p>
 
 <p>
 The real established tradition of our society is that copyright cuts
-into the natural rights of the public---and that this can only be
+into the natural rights of the public&mdash;and that this can only be
 justified for the public's sake.</p></li>
 
 <li id="economics">Economics.
@@ -183,9 +183,9 @@
 
 <p>
 Unlike the others, this argument at least takes a legitimate approach
-to the subject.  It is based on a valid goal---satisfying the users of
-software.  And it is empirically clear that people will produce more of
-something if they are well paid for doing so.</p>
+to the subject.  It is based on a valid goal&mdash;satisfying the
+users of software.  And it is empirically clear that people will
+produce more of something if they are well paid for doing so.</p>
 
 <p>
 But the economic argument has a flaw: it is based on the assumption
@@ -204,15 +204,15 @@
 directly affect anything but the amount of money you have afterwards.</p>
 
 <p>
-This is true for any kind of material object---whether or not it has an
-owner does not directly affect what it <em>is</em>, or what you can do with
-it if you acquire it.</p>
+This is true for any kind of material object&mdash;whether or not it
+has an owner does not directly affect what it <em>is</em>, or what you
+can do with it if you acquire it.</p>
 
 <p>
 But if a program has an owner, this very much affects what it is, and
 what you can do with a copy if you buy one.  The difference is not
 just a matter of money.  The system of owners of software encourages
-software owners to produce something---but not what society really
+software owners to produce something&mdash;but not what society really
 needs.  And it causes intangible ethical pollution that affects us
 all.</p></li>
 
@@ -220,7 +220,7 @@
 
 <p>
 What does society need?  It needs information that is truly available
-to its citizens---for example, programs that people can read, fix,
+to its citizens&mdash;for example, programs that people can read, fix,
 adapt, and improve, not just operate.  But what software owners
 typically deliver is a black box that we can't study or change.</p>
 
@@ -277,8 +277,8 @@
 Some free software developers make money by selling support services.
 Cygnus Support, with around 50 employees [when this article was
 written], estimates that about 15 per cent of its staff activity is
-free software development---a respectable percentage for a software
-company.</p>
+free software development&mdash;a respectable percentage for a
+software company.</p>
 
 <p>
 Companies including Intel, Motorola, Texas Instruments and Analog
@@ -335,7 +335,7 @@
 There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> 
 the FSF.
 <br />
-Please send broken links and other corrections (or suggestions) to
+Please send broken links and other corrections or suggestions to
 <a href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
 </p>
 
@@ -357,7 +357,7 @@
 <p>
 Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2008/02/21 20:18:03 $
+$Date: 2008/02/24 21:10:05 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>