[Top][All Lists]

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

www/philosophy open-source-misses-the-point.pt-...

From: GNUN
Subject: www/philosophy open-source-misses-the-point.pt-...
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 23:31:34 +0000

CVSROOT:        /web/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     GNUN <gnun>     13/02/27 23:31:34

Modified files:
        philosophy     : open-source-misses-the-point.pt-br.html 
Added files:
        philosophy/po  : open-source-misses-the-point.pt-br-diff.html 

Log message:
        Automatic update by GNUnited Nations.


Index: open-source-misses-the-point.pt-br.html
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.pt-br.html,v
retrieving revision 1.5
retrieving revision 1.6
diff -u -b -r1.5 -r1.6
--- open-source-misses-the-point.pt-br.html     27 Sep 2012 16:54:07 -0000      
+++ open-source-misses-the-point.pt-br.html     27 Feb 2013 23:31:33 -0000      
@@ -9,6 +9,13 @@
 Projeto GNU - Free Software Foundation (FSF)</title>
 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.pt-br.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a 
+ http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.pt-br.po</a>' 
+ <!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" 
value="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" 
value="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.pt-br-diff.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2012-12-29" -->
+ <!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.pt-br.html" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.translist" 
 <h2>Por que o Código Aberto não compartilha dos objetivos do Software 
@@ -371,7 +378,7 @@
 <!-- timestamp start -->
 Última atualização:
-$Date: 2012/09/27 16:54:07 $
+$Date: 2013/02/27 23:31:33 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->

Index: po/open-source-misses-the-point.pt-br-diff.html
RCS file: po/open-source-misses-the-point.pt-br-diff.html
diff -N po/open-source-misses-the-point.pt-br-diff.html
--- /dev/null   1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/open-source-misses-the-point.pt-br-diff.html     27 Feb 2013 23:31:34 
-0000      1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,444 @@
+<!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">
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --&gt;
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;!-- Parent-Version: 1.72 
+&lt;title&gt;Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software - GNU Project - 
+Free Software <span class="removed"><del><strong>Foundation 
(FSF)&lt;/title&gt;</strong></del></span> <span 
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --&gt;
+ &lt;!--#include 
virtual="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.translist" --&gt;
+&lt;h2&gt;Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software&lt;/h2&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;by &lt;strong&gt;Richard Stallman&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;When we call software &ldquo;free,&rdquo; we mean that it respects
+the &lt;a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html"&gt;users' essential 
+the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute
+copies with or without changes.  This is a matter of freedom, not
+price, so think of &ldquo;free speech,&rdquo; not &ldquo;free
+&lt;p&gt;These freedoms are vitally important.  They are essential, not just
+for the individual users' sake, but for society as a whole because they 
+promote social solidarity&mdash;that is, sharing and cooperation.  They 
+become even more important as our culture and life activities are 
+increasingly digitized. In a world of digital sounds, images, and words, 
+free software becomes increasingly essential for freedom in general.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;Tens of millions of people around the world now use free software;
+the public schools of some regions of India and Spain now teach all 
+students to use the free &lt;a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html"&gt;GNU/Linux 
+operating system&lt;/a&gt;.  Most of these users, however, have never heard of 
+the ethical reasons for which we developed this system and built the free 
+software community, because nowadays this system and community are more 
+often spoken of as &ldquo;open source&rdquo;, attributing them to a 
+different philosophy in which these freedoms are hardly mentioned.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;The free software movement has campaigned for computer users'
+freedom since 1983.  In 1984 we launched the development of the free
+operating system GNU, so that we could avoid the nonfree operating systems 
+that deny freedom to their users.  During the 1980s, we developed most
+of the essential components of the system and designed
+the &lt;a href="/licenses/gpl.html"&gt;GNU General Public License&lt;/a&gt; 
+to release them under&mdash;a license designed specifically to protect 
+freedom for all users of a program.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;Not all of the users and developers of free software
+agreed with the goals of the free software movement.  In 1998, a part
+of the free software community splintered off and began campaigning in
+the name of &ldquo;open source.&rdquo;  The term was originally
+proposed to avoid a possible misunderstanding of the term &ldquo;free
+software,&rdquo; but it soon became associated with philosophical
+views quite different from those of the free software movement.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;Some of the supporters of open source considered the term a
+&ldquo;marketing campaign for free software,&rdquo; which would appeal
+to business executives by highlighting the software's practical
+benefits, while not raising issues of right and wrong that they might
+not like to hear.  Other supporters flatly rejected the free software
+movement's ethical and social values.  Whichever their views, when
+campaigning for open source, they neither cited nor advocated those
+values.  The term &ldquo;open source&rdquo; quickly became associated
+with ideas and arguments based only on practical values, such as
+making or having powerful, reliable software.  Most of the supporters
+of open source have come to it since then, and they make the same
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>&lt;p&gt;Nearly all open source software is 
free software.  The</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;p&gt;The</em></ins></span> two terms
+describe almost the same category of software, but they stand for
+views based on fundamentally different values.  Open source is a
+development methodology; free software is a social movement.  For the
+free software movement, free software is an ethical imperative,
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>because only free software 
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>essential respect for</em></ins></span> the 
users' freedom.  By contrast,
+the philosophy of open source considers issues in terms of how to make
+software &ldquo;better&rdquo;&mdash;in a practical sense only.  It
+says that nonfree software is an inferior solution to the practical
+problem at hand.  For the free software movement, however, nonfree
+software is a social problem, and the solution is to stop using it and
+move to free software.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;&ldquo;Free software.&rdquo; &ldquo;Open source.&rdquo; If it's the 
same <span class="removed"><del><strong>software,</strong></del></span> 
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>software (or nearly so),</em></ins></span> 
does it matter which name you use?  Yes, because 
+different words convey different ideas.  While a free program by any other 
+name would give you the same freedom today, establishing freedom in a 
+lasting way depends above all on teaching people to value freedom.  If you 
+want to help do this, it is essential to speak of 
+&ldquo;free software.&rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;We in the free software movement don't think of the open source
+camp as an enemy; the enemy is proprietary (nonfree) software.  But
+we want people to know we stand for freedom, so we do not accept being
+mislabeled as open source supporters.&lt;/p&gt;
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;h3&gt;Practical Differences between Free 
Software and Open Source&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;In practice, open source stands for criteria a little weaker than
+those of free software.  As far as we know, all existing free software
+would qualify as open source.  Nearly all open source software is free
+software, but there are exceptions.  First, some open source licenses
+are too restrictive, so they do not qualify as free licenses.
+Fortunately, few programs use those licenses.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;Second, and more important, many products containing computers
+(including many Android devices) come with executable programs that
+correspond to free software source code, but the devices do not allow
+the user to install modified versions of those executables; only one
+special company has the power to modify them.  We call these devices
+&ldquo;tyrants&rdquo;, and the practice is called
+&ldquo;tivoization&rdquo; after the product where we first saw it.
+These executables are not free software even though their source code
+is free software.  The criteria for open source do not recognize this
+issue; they are concerned solely with the licensing of the source 
+&lt;h3&gt;Common Misunderstandings of &ldquo;Free Software&rdquo; and
+&ldquo;Open Source&rdquo;&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;The term &ldquo;free software&rdquo; is prone to misinterpretation:
+an unintended meaning, &ldquo;software you can get
+for zero price,&rdquo; fits the term just as well as the intended
+meaning, &ldquo;software which gives the user certain freedoms.&rdquo;
+We address this problem by publishing the definition of free software,
+and by saying &ldquo;Think of &lsquo;free speech,&rsquo; not &lsquo;free 
+beer.&rsquo;&rdquo; This is not a perfect solution; it cannot completely 
+eliminate the problem. An unambiguous and correct term would be better, if 
+it didn't present other problems.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, all the alternatives in English have problems of
+their own.  We've looked at many that people have
+suggested, but none is so clearly &ldquo;right&rdquo; that switching
+to it would be a good idea.  (For instance, in some contexts the
+French and Spanish word &ldquo;libre&rdquo; works well, but people in India 
+do not recognize it at all.)  Every proposed replacement for
+&ldquo;free software&rdquo; has some kind of semantic problem&mdash;and 
+this includes &ldquo;open source software.&rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href="http://opensource.org/docs/osd"&gt;official 
definition of
+&ldquo;open source software&rdquo;&lt;/a&gt; (which is published by the Open
+Source Initiative and is too long to include here) was derived
+indirectly from our criteria for free software.  It is not the same;
+it is a little looser in some <span class="removed"><del><strong>respects, so 
the open source people have
+accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive.
+Also, they judge solely by the license of the source code, whereas our
+criterion also considers whether a device will let you &lt;em&gt;run&lt;/em&gt;
+your modified version of the program.</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>respects.</em></ins></span>  Nonetheless, their 
+agrees with our definition in most cases.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;However, the obvious meaning for the expression &ldquo;open source
+software&rdquo;&mdash;and the one most people seem to think it
+means&mdash;is &ldquo;You can look at the source code.&rdquo; That
+criterion is much weaker than the free software definition, much
+weaker also than the official definition of open source.  It includes
+many programs that are neither free nor open source.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;Since <span class="removed"><del><strong>that</strong></del></span> 
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>the</em></ins></span> obvious meaning for 
&ldquo;open source&rdquo; is not the
+meaning that its advocates intend, the result is that most people
+misunderstand the term.  According to writer Neal Stephenson,
+&ldquo;Linux is &lsquo;open source&rsquo; software meaning, simply,
+that anyone can get copies of its source code files.&rdquo; I don't
+think he deliberately sought to reject or dispute the
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>&ldquo;official&rdquo;</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>official</em></ins></span> definition.  I 
think he simply applied the
+conventions of the English language to come up with a meaning for the
+term.  The state of Kansas published a similar definition:
+&lt;!-- It was from http://da.state.ks.us/itec/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf, but
+that page is no longer available. --&gt; &ldquo;Make use of open-source
+software (OSS).  OSS is software for which the source code is freely
+and publicly available, though the specific licensing agreements vary
+as to what one is allowed to do with that code.&rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;The &lt;i&gt;New York Times&lt;/i&gt;
+has &lt;a 
+run an article that stretches the meaning of the term&lt;/a&gt; to refer to
+user beta testing&mdash;letting a few users try an early version and
+give confidential feedback&mdash;which proprietary software developers
+have practiced for decades.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;Open source supporters try to deal with this by pointing to their
+official definition, but that corrective approach is less effective
+for them than it is for us.  The term &ldquo;free software&rdquo; has
+two natural meanings, one of which is the intended meaning, so a
+person who has grasped the idea of &ldquo;free speech, not free
+beer&rdquo; will not get it wrong again.  But the term &ldquo;open
+source&rdquo; has only one natural meaning, which is different from
+the meaning its supporters intend.  So there is no succinct way to
+explain and justify its official definition.  That makes for worse 
+&lt;p&gt;Another misunderstanding of &ldquo;open source&rdquo; is the idea
+that it means &ldquo;not using the GNU GPL.&rdquo; This tends to
+accompany another misunderstanding that &ldquo;free software&rdquo;
+means &ldquo;GPL-covered software.&rdquo; These are both mistaken,
+since the GNU GPL qualifies as an open source license and most of the
+open source licenses qualify as free software <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>licenses.&lt;/p&gt;</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>licenses.  There
+are &lt;a href="/licenses/license-list.html"&gt; many free software
+licenses&lt;/a&gt; aside from the GNU GPL.&lt;/p&gt;</em></ins></span>
+&lt;p&gt;The term &ldquo;open source&rdquo; has been further stretched by
+its application to other activities, such as government, education,
+and science, where there is no such thing as source code, and where
+criteria for software licensing are simply not pertinent.  The only
+thing these activities have in common is that they somehow invite
+people to participate.  They stretch the term so far that it only means
+&lt;h3&gt;Different Values Can Lead to Similar Conclusions&hellip;but Not 
+&lt;p&gt;Radical groups in the 1960s had a reputation for factionalism: some
+organizations split because of disagreements on details of strategy,
+and the two daughter groups treated each other as enemies despite
+having similar basic goals and values.  The right wing made much of
+this and used it to criticize the entire left.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;Some try to disparage the free software movement by comparing our
+disagreement with open source to the disagreements of those radical
+groups.  They have it backwards.  We disagree with the open source
+camp on the basic goals and values, but their views and ours lead in
+many cases to the same practical behavior&mdash;such as developing
+free software.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;As a result, people from the free software movement and the open
+source camp often work together on practical projects such as software
+development.  It is remarkable that such different philosophical views
+can so often motivate different people to participate in the same
+projects.  Nonetheless, there are situations where these fundamentally
+different views lead to very different actions.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;The idea of open source is that allowing users to change and
+redistribute the software will make it more powerful and reliable.
+But this is not guaranteed.  Developers of proprietary software are
+not necessarily incompetent.  Sometimes they produce a program that
+is powerful and reliable, even though it does not respect the users'
+freedom.   Free software activists and open source enthusiasts will
+react very differently to that.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;A pure open source enthusiast, one that is not at all influenced by
+the ideals of free software, will say, &ldquo;I am surprised you were able
+to make the program work so well without using our development model,
+but you did.  How can I get a copy?&rdquo;  This attitude will reward
+schemes that take away our freedom, leading to its loss.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;The free software activist will say, &ldquo;Your program is very
+attractive, but I value my freedom more.  So I reject your program.
+Instead I will support a project to develop a free
+replacement.&rdquo;  If we value our freedom, we can act to maintain and
+defend it.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;h3&gt;Powerful, Reliable Software Can Be Bad&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;The idea that we want software to be powerful and reliable comes
+from the supposition that the software is designed to serve its users.
+If it is powerful and reliable, that means it serves them better.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;But software can be said to serve its users only if it respects
+their freedom.  What if the software is designed to put chains on its
+users?  Then powerfulness means the chains are more constricting,
+and reliability that they are harder to remove.  Malicious features,
+such as spying on the users, restricting the users, back doors, and
+imposed upgrades are common in proprietary software, and some open
+source supporters want to implement them in open source programs.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;Under pressure from the movie and record companies, software for
+individuals to use is increasingly designed specifically to restrict
+them.  This malicious feature is known as Digital Restrictions
+Management (DRM) (see &lt;a
+href="http://defectivebydesign.org/"&gt;DefectiveByDesign.org&lt;/a&gt;) and is
+the antithesis in spirit of the freedom that free software aims
+to provide.  And not just in spirit: since the goal of DRM is to
+trample your freedom, DRM developers try to make it hard, impossible,
+or even illegal for you to change the software that implements the 
+&lt;p&gt;Yet some open source supporters have proposed &ldquo;open source
+DRM&rdquo; software.  Their idea is that, by publishing the source code
+of programs designed to restrict your access to encrypted media and by
+allowing others to change it, they will produce more powerful and
+reliable software for restricting users like you.  The software would then 
+be delivered to you in devices that do not allow you to change it.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;This software might be open source and use the open
+source development model, but it won't be free software since it
+won't respect the freedom of the users that actually run it.  If the
+open source development model succeeds in making this software more
+powerful and reliable for restricting you, that will make it even
+&lt;h3&gt;Fear of Freedom&lt;/h3&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;The main initial motivation of those who split off the open source
+camp from the free software movement was that the ethical ideas of
+&ldquo;free software&rdquo; made some people uneasy.  That's true: raising 
+ethical issues such as freedom, talking about responsibilities as well as
+convenience, is asking people to think about things they might prefer
+to ignore, such as whether their conduct is ethical.  This can trigger
+discomfort, and some people may simply close their minds to it.  It
+does not follow that we ought to stop talking about these issues.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;That is, however, what the leaders of open source
+decided to do.  They figured that by keeping quiet about ethics and
+freedom, and talking only about the immediate practical benefits of
+certain free software, they might be able to &ldquo;sell&rdquo; the
+software more effectively to certain users, especially business.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;This approach has proved effective, in its own terms.  The rhetoric
+of open source has convinced many businesses and individuals to use,
+and even develop, free software, which has extended our
+community&mdash;but only at the superficial, practical level.  The
+philosophy of open source, with its purely practical values, impedes
+understanding of the deeper ideas of free software; it brings many
+people into our community, but does not teach them to defend it.  That
+is good, as far as it goes, but it is not enough to make freedom
+secure.  Attracting users to free software takes them just part of the
+way to becoming defenders of their own freedom.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;Sooner or later these users will be invited to switch back to
+proprietary software for some practical advantage.  Countless
+companies seek to offer such temptation, some even offering copies
+gratis.  Why would users decline?  Only if they have learned to value
+the freedom free software gives them, to value freedom in and of itself 
+rather than the technical and practical convenience of specific free
+software.  To spread this idea, we have to talk about freedom.  A
+certain amount of the &ldquo;keep quiet&rdquo; approach to business can be
+useful for the community, but it is dangerous if it becomes so common
+that the love of freedom comes to seem like an eccentricity.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;That dangerous situation is exactly what we have.  Most people
+involved with free software, especially its distributors, say little about 
+freedom&mdash;usually because they seek to be &ldquo;more acceptable to 
+business.&rdquo; Nearly all GNU/Linux operating system distributions add 
+proprietary packages to the basic free system, and they invite users to 
+consider this an advantage rather than a flaw.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;Proprietary add-on software and partially nonfree GNU/Linux
+distributions find fertile ground because most of our community does
+not insist on freedom with its software.  This is no coincidence.
+Most GNU/Linux users were introduced to the system through &ldquo;open
+source&rdquo; discussion, which doesn't say that freedom is a goal.
+The practices that don't uphold freedom and the words that don't talk
+about freedom go hand in hand, each promoting the other.  To overcome
+this tendency, we need more, not less, talk about freedom.&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;As the advocates of open source draw new users into our community,
+we free software activists must shoulder the task of bringing the issue
+of freedom to their attention.  We have to say, &ldquo;It's
+free software and it gives you freedom!&rdquo;&mdash;more and louder
+than ever.  Every time you say &ldquo;free software&rdquo; rather than
+&ldquo;open source,&rdquo; you help our campaign.&lt;/p&gt;
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;!-- The article is incomplete (#793776) as 
of 21st January 2013.</em></ins></span>
+Joe Barr's article, 
+&lt;a href="http://www.itworld.com/LWD010523vcontrol4"&gt;&ldquo;Live and
+let license,&rdquo;&lt;/a&gt; gives his perspective on this issue.&lt;/p&gt;
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>--&gt;</em></ins></span> 
+Lakhani and Wolf's &lt;a <span 
+paper</em></ins></span> on the motivation of free software 
developers&lt;/a&gt; says that a 
+considerable fraction are motivated by the view that software should be 
+free. This is despite the fact that they surveyed the developers on 
+SourceForge, a site that does not support the view that this is an ethical 
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>&lt;/div&gt;</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;/div&gt;&lt;!-- for id="content", starts 
in the include above --&gt;</em></ins></span>
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --&gt;
+&lt;div id="footer"&gt;
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>&lt;p&gt;
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>&lt;p&gt;Please</em></ins></span> send <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>general</em></ins></span> FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to
+&lt;a href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;&lt;address@hidden&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.
+There are also &lt;a href="/contact/"&gt;other ways to contact&lt;/a&gt;
+the FSF.
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>&lt;br /&gt;
+Please send broken</strong></del></span>  <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>Broken</em></ins></span> links and other corrections 
or suggestions <span class="inserted"><ins><em>can be sent</em></ins></span>
+to &lt;a <span 
+&lt;/p&gt;</strong></del></span> <span 
+&lt;p&gt;&lt;!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+        replace it with the translation of these two:
+        We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+        translations.  However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+        Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+        to &lt;a href="mailto:address@hidden"&gt;
+        &lt;address@hidden&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
+        &lt;p&gt;For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+        our web pages, see &lt;a
+        href="/server/standards/README.translations.html"&gt;Translations
+        README&lt;/a&gt;. --&gt;
+Please see the &lt;a
+README&lt;/a&gt; for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.&lt;/p&gt;</em></ins></span>
+&lt;p&gt;Copyright &copy; 2007, <span 
class="removed"><del><strong>2010</strong></del></span> <span 
class="inserted"><ins><em>2010, 2012</em></ins></span> Richard <span 
+&lt;br /&gt;
+This</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>Stallman&lt;/p&gt;
+&lt;p&gt;This</em></ins></span> page is licensed under a &lt;a rel="license"
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States <span 
+Updated:</strong></del></span> <span 
+&lt;!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --&gt;
+&lt;!-- timestamp start --&gt;
+$Date: 2013/02/27 23:31:34 $
+&lt;!-- timestamp end --&gt;
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>&lt;!-- All pages on the GNU web server 
should have the section about    --&gt;
+&lt;!-- verbatim copying.  Please do NOT remove this without talking     --&gt;
+&lt;!-- with the webmasters first. --&gt; 
+&lt;!-- Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the document 
+&lt;!-- and that it is like this "2001, 2002" not this "2001-2002." 

reply via email to

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