(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.
+ (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 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.
\ No newline at end of file
+See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml for more explanation
+of how this term spreads confusion and bias.