Revert to straight-quote apostrophes for now.

1 files changed, 5 insertions, 5 deletions

diff --git a/.html/dev/gnu-collective-action-license.html b/.html/dev/gnu-collective-action-license.html
index a16249d..f2adbea 100644
--- a/.html/dev/gnu-collective-action-license.html
+++ b/.html/dev/gnu-collective-action-license.html
@@ -64,23 +64,23 @@ is a disregard for outside expertise and outside bodies of knowledge.</p>
 for granting the right to distribute the licensed work and its derivatives, the
 GPL demands that derivative works also be released under the GPL. The <em>intent</em>,
 as derived from
-<a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html">Stallman‘s commentaries</a>
+<a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html">Stallman’s commentaries</a>
 on the GPL and on the social systems around software, is that people who <em>use</em>
 information systems should, morally and legally, be entitled to the tools to
 understand what the system will do and why, and to make changes to those tools
 as they see fit.</p>
 <p>This is a form of <em>collective action</em>, as implemented by someone who thinks of
 unions and organized labour as something that software could do better. The
-usual lens for critique of the GPL is that GPL‘d software cannot be used in
+usual lens for critique of the GPL is that GPL’d software cannot be used in
 non-GPL systems (which is increasingly true, as the Free Software Foundation
 catches up with the “as a Service” model of software deliver) <em>by developers</em>,
-but I think there‘s a more interesting angle on it as an attempt to apply the
+but I think there’s a more interesting angle on it as an attempt to apply the
 collective bargaining power of programmers as a class to extracting a
 concession from managerial -- business and government -- interests, instead. In
 that reading, the GPL demands that managerial interests in software avoid
 behaviours that would be bad for programmers (framed as “users”, as above) as a
 condition of benefitting from the labour of those programmers.</p>
-<p>Sadly, Stallman is not a labour historian or a union organizer. He‘s a public
+<p>Sadly, Stallman is not a labour historian or a union organizer. He’s a public
 speaker and a programmer. By attempting to reinvent collective action from
 first principles, and by treating collective action as a special case of
 software development, the GPL acts to divide programmers from non-programming
@@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ managerial interests. The rise of “merit”-based open source licenses, such a
 the MIT license (which I use heavily, but advisedly), and the increasing
 pervasiveness of the Github Resume, are both simple consequences of this
 mistake.</p>
-<p>I‘m pro-organized-labour, and largely pro-union. The only thing worse than
+<p>I’m pro-organized-labour, and largely pro-union. The only thing worse than
 having two competing powerful interests in the room is having only one powerful
 interest in the room. The GPL should be part of any historical case study for
 the unionization of programmers, since it captures so much of what we do wrong.</p>