[gnu-pl] wwwgnudiff - raport nr 233

[Wojciech Kotwica]

--- prev/www/licenses/gpl-faq.html      Wed Feb  4 05:28:13 2004
+++ curr/www/licenses/gpl-faq.html      Wed Feb 18 05:27:43 2004
@@ -109,9 +109,13 @@
     program and an unrelated non-free program on the same
     computer?</A>
+  
+    <LI><A HREF="#CanIDemandACopy" NAME="TOCCanIDemandACopy">If I know
+    someone has a copy of a GPL-covered program, can I demand he give
+    me a copy?</A>
 
     <LI><A HREF="#WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid" 
NAME="TOCWhatDoesWrittenOfferValid">What
     does this "written offer valid for any third party" mean? Does that mean 
everyone
     in the world can get the source to any GPL'ed program no matter what?</A>
-  
+
     <LI><A HREF="#TheGPLSaysModifiedVersions" 
NAME="TOCTheGPLSaysModifiedVersions">The
     GPL says that modified versions, if released, must be "licensed ... to all 
third
@@ -619,4 +623,13 @@
 <p>
 
+<dt><h4><A HREF="#TOCCanIDemandACopy" NAME="CanIDemandACopy">If I know
+    someone has a copy of a GPL-covered program, can I demand he give
+    me a copy?</A></h4>
+
+<dd>
+No.  The GPL gives him permission to make and redistribute copies of
+the program <em>if he chooses to do so</em>.  He also has the right
+not to redistribute the program, if that is what he chooses.
+<p>
 
 <dt><h4><A HREF="#TOCWhatDoesWrittenOfferValid" 
NAME="WhatDoesWrittenOfferValid">
@@ -1929,18 +1942,23 @@
 <p>
 The GPL was designed for programs; it contains lots of complex clauses
-that are important for programs, but that are dead weight for a book
-or manual.  Conversely, the GFDL has clauses that help publishers
-of free manuals make a profit from them.
-<p>
-We permit changes in the text that covers technical topics, but we do
-not permit changes in sections that state our legal or political or
-ethical position.  We do this by explicitly listing the sections that
-may not be changed.  The GFDL makes provisions for these "invariant
-sections"--the GPL would not allow them. 
-<p>
-It is important to permit changes in technical parts, because people
-who change a program ought to change the documentation to correspond.
-We can't require them to do this job, but if we hope they will, we 
-had better not stand in their way.
+that are crucial for programs, but that would be cumbersome and
+unnecessary for a book or manual.  For instance, anyone publishing the
+book on paper would have to either include machine-readable "source
+code" of the book along with each printed copy, or provide a written
+offer to send the "source code" later.
+<p>
+Meanwhile, the GFDL has clauses that help publishers of free manuals
+make a profit from selling copies--cover texts, for instance.  It has
+other 
+<p>
+Using the GFDL, we permit changes in the text of a manual that covers
+its technical topic.  It is important to permit changes in technical
+parts, because people who change a program ought to change the
+documentation to correspond.
+<p>
+However, our manuals also include sections that state our political
+position about free software.  We mark these as "invariant", so that
+they cannot be changed our removed.  The GFDL makes provisions for
+these "invariant sections".
 <p>
 
@@ -2200,5 +2218,5 @@
 Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2004/02/03 18:54:37 $ $Author: novalis $
+$Date: 2004/02/17 12:02:43 $ $Author: rms $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 <HR>
--- prev/www/licenses/license-list.html Sat Feb 14 05:27:47 2004
+++ curr/www/licenses/license-list.html Wed Feb 18 05:27:43 2004
@@ -535,4 +535,14 @@
 released under this license, such as Apache.
 
+<DT><a HREF="http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0";>The Apache
+Software License, version 2.0</a>
+
+<dd> This is a free software license but it is incompatible with the
+GPL. The Apache Software License is incompatible with the GPL because
+it has a specific requirement that is not in the GPL: it has certain
+patent termination cases that the GPL does not require. (We don't
+think those patent termination cases are inherently a bad idea, but
+nonetheless they are incompatible with the GNU GPL.) </dd>
+
 <P>
 
@@ -1367,5 +1377,5 @@
 Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2004/02/13 17:01:46 $ $Author: novalis $
+$Date: 2004/02/17 22:51:34 $ $Author: novalis $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 <HR>
--- prev/www/philosophy/free-sw.html    Fri Feb  7 17:52:55 2003
+++ curr/www/philosophy/free-sw.html    Wed Feb 18 05:28:01 2004
@@ -165,4 +165,20 @@
 
 <P>
+Most free software licenses are based on copyright, and there are
+limits on what kinds of requirements can be imposed through copyright.
+If a copyright-based license respects freedom in the ways described
+above, it is unlikely to have some other sort of problem that we never
+anticipated (though this does happen occasionally).  However, some
+free software licenses are based on contracts, and contracts can
+impose a much larger range of possible restrictions.  That means there
+are many possible ways such a license could be unacceptably
+restrictive and non-free.
+<P>
+We can't possibly list all the possible contract restrictions that
+would be unacceptable.  If a contract-based license restricts the user
+in an unusual way that copyright-based licenses cannot, and which
+isn't mentioned here as legitimate, we will have to think about it,
+and we will probably decide it is non-free.
+<P>
 When talking about free software, it is best to avoid using terms like
 ``give away'' or ``for free'', because those terms imply that the
@@ -263,5 +279,5 @@
 Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2003/02/07 16:52:55 $ $Author: rps $
+$Date: 2004/02/17 12:12:30 $ $Author: rms $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 <HR>
--- prev/www/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html     Thu Feb 12 05:29:38 2004
+++ curr/www/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html     Wed Feb 18 05:28:02 2004
@@ -119,6 +119,6 @@
 packages were almost always noncommercial; the components of the
 GNU/Linux operating system were developed by individuals or by
-nonprofit organizations such as the FSF and universities.  But in the
-90s, free commercial software started to appear.
+nonprofit organizations such as the FSF and universities.  Later, in
+the 90s, free commercial software started to appear.
 <P>
 Free commercial software is a contribution to our community, so we
@@ -136,8 +136,8 @@
 <p>
 Economic theory uses the terms "producer" and "consumer".  In that
-context these words are appropriate.  But when people describe the
-users of software as "consumers", that assumes a narrow role for them.
-It assumes that the only role for people is as cattle that passively
-graze on what others make available to them.
+context these words are appropriate.  But describing the users of
+software as "consumers" presumes a narrow role for them.  It treats
+them like cattle that passively graze on what others make available to
+them.
 <p>
 This kind of thinking leads to travesties like the CBDTPA "Consumer
@@ -222,5 +222,5 @@
 Also, if you use other languages than English, please try to avoid
 borrowing English words such as ``free software'' or ``freeware.''  Try
-to use the often less ambiguous wording that <a 
href="/philosophy/fs-translations.html">your language</a> offers, e.g.
+to use the less ambiguous wording that <a 
href="/philosophy/fs-translations.html">your language</a> probably offers, e.g.
 <P>
 <UL>
@@ -247,8 +247,8 @@
 </UL>
 <P>
-By forming a word in your own language, you show that you are really
+By using a word in your own language, you show that you are really
 referring to freedom and not just parroting some mysterious foreign
 marketing concept.  The reference to freedom may at first seem strange
-or disturbing to your countrymen, but once they see that it means
+or disturbing to your compatriots, but once they see that it means
 exactly what it says, they will really understand what the issue is.
 <P>
@@ -358,5 +358,5 @@
 Publishers often refer to prohibited copying as ``piracy.''  In this
 way, they imply that illegal copying is ethically equivalent to
-attacking ships on the high seas, kidnapping and murdering the people
+attacking ships on the high seas, kidnaping and murdering the people
 on them.
 <P>
@@ -408,5 +408,5 @@
 companies dictate the views you express.
 <P>
-I suggest the term ``uniform fee only,'' or ``UFO'' for short, as a
+We suggest the term ``uniform fee only,'' or ``UFO'' for short, as a
 replacement.  It is accurate because the only condition in these
 licenses is a uniform royalty fee.
@@ -463,5 +463,5 @@
 US--rejects the idea that copyright infringement is ``theft.''
 Copyright apologists are making an appeal to authority...and
-misrepresenting what the authority says.
+misrepresenting what authority says.
 
 <P>
@@ -521,5 +521,5 @@
 Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start >
-$Date: 2004/02/11 02:51:36 $ $Author: derekgnu $
+$Date: 2004/02/17 12:09:03 $ $Author: rms $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 <HR>