[Emacs-diffs] Changes to emacs/etc/GNU

[Richard M . Stallman]

Index: emacs/etc/GNU
diff -c emacs/etc/GNU:1.3 emacs/etc/GNU:1.4
*** emacs/etc/GNU:1.3   Sat Jan 24 21:54:06 2004
--- emacs/etc/GNU       Sat May 14 14:12:36 2005
***************
*** 518,540 ****
  
     (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?
  
!    (5)  A group of computer companies recently pooled funds 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
  clear is to to discuss patents, copyrights, and trademarks separately.
! See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html.
\ No newline at end of file
--- 518,536 ----
  
     (3)  Several such companies now exist.
  
!    (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 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 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/not-ipr.xhtml for more explanation
! of how this term spreads confusion and bias.