1
Fork 0
mirror of git://git.sv.gnu.org/emacs.git synced 2026-04-28 01:00:52 -07:00

Update footnotes.

This commit is contained in:
Richard M. Stallman 2005-05-14 14:12:36 +00:00
parent 0644322d90
commit da0e78ac36

20
etc/GNU
View file

@ -518,23 +518,19 @@ friends or over the net. But it does suggest the wrong idea.
(3) Several such companies now exist.
(4) The Free Software Foundation raises most of its funds from a
distribution service, although it is a charity rather than a company.
If *no one* chooses to obtain copies by ordering from the FSF, it
will be unable to do its work. But this does not mean that proprietary
restrictions are justified to force every user to pay. If a small
fraction of all the users order copies from the FSF, that is sufficient
to keep the FSF afloat. So we ask users to choose to support us in
this way. Have you done your part?
(4) The Free Software Foundation raisesd most of its funds for 10
years from a distribution service, although it is a charity rather
than a company.
(5) A group of computer companies recently pooled funds to support
maintenance of the GNU C Compiler.
(5) A group of computer companies pooled funds around 1991 to
support maintenance of the GNU C Compiler.
(6) In the 80s I had not yet realized how confusing it was to speak
of "the issue" of "intellectual property". That term is obviously
biased; more subtle is the fact that it lumps together various
disparate laws which raise very different issues. Nowadays I urge
people to reject the term "intellectual property" entirely, lest it
lead others to suppose this is one coherent issue. The way to be
lead others to suppose that those laws form one coherent issue. The way to be
clear is to to discuss patents, copyrights, and trademarks separately.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml for more explanation
of how this term spreads confusion and bias.