Possible fixes for incomplete or unclear phrases
Signed-off-by: enyst <engel.nyst@gmail.com>
This commit is contained in:
		
							parent
							
								
									d638f60cd9
								
							
						
					
					
						commit
						f31235afbc
					
				
					 1 changed files with 9 additions and 9 deletions
				
			
		
							
								
								
									
										18
									
								
								gpl-lgpl.tex
									
										
									
									
									
								
							
							
						
						
									
										18
									
								
								gpl-lgpl.tex
									
										
									
									
									
								
							|  | @ -2975,8 +2975,8 @@ family, or household use.  Distributors are only required to provide | |||
| Installation Information when they convey object code in a User Product. | ||||
| 
 | ||||
| In brief, the right to convey object code in a defined class of ``User | ||||
| Products,'' under certain circumstances, on providing whatever information is | ||||
| required to enable a recipient to replace the object code with a functioning | ||||
| Products,'' under certain circumstances, depends on providing whatever information | ||||
| is required to enable a recipient to replace the object code with a functioning | ||||
| modified version. | ||||
| 
 | ||||
| This was a compromise that was difficult for the FSF to agree to during the | ||||
|  | @ -4280,13 +4280,13 @@ market for Free Software-oriented business models also exists. There is the | |||
| traditional model of selling copies of Free Software distributions. | ||||
| Many companies make substantial revenue | ||||
| from this model. Some choose this model because they have | ||||
| found that for higher-end hardware, the cost of the profit made from | ||||
| proprietary software licensing fees is negligible. The real profit is | ||||
| in the hardware, but it is essential that software be stable, reliable | ||||
| and dependable, and the users be allowed to have unfettered access to | ||||
| it. Free Software, and GPL'd software in particular (because IBM can | ||||
| be assured that proprietary versions of the same software will not | ||||
| exist to compete on their hardware) is the right choice. | ||||
| found that for higher-end hardware, the profit made from proprietary | ||||
| software licensing fees is negligible. The real profit is in the hardware, | ||||
| but it is essential that software be stable, reliable and dependable, and | ||||
| the users be allowed to have unfettered access to it. Free Software, and | ||||
| GPL'd software in particular (because IBM can be assured that proprietary | ||||
| versions of the same software will not exist to compete on their hardware) | ||||
| is the right choice. | ||||
| 
 | ||||
| For example, charging a ``convenience fee'' for Free Software, | ||||
| when set at a reasonable price (around \$60 or so), can produce some | ||||
|  |  | |||
		Loading…
	
	Add table
		
		Reference in a new issue
	
	 enyst
						enyst