Update footnotes.

1 files changed, 9 insertions, 13 deletions

diff --git a/etc/GNU b/etc/GNU
index 1df59f049ee..489afb8105f 100644
--- a/etc/GNU
+++ b/etc/GNU
@@ -518,23 +518,19 @@ friends or over the net.  But it does suggest the wrong idea.
 
    (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.