[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
trans-coord/gnun/philosophy open-source-misses-...
From: |
Yavor Doganov |
Subject: |
trans-coord/gnun/philosophy open-source-misses-... |
Date: |
Sun, 15 Nov 2009 19:25:15 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /sources/trans-coord
Module name: trans-coord
Changes by: Yavor Doganov <yavor> 09/11/15 19:25:15
Modified files:
gnun/philosophy: open-source-misses-the-point.bg.html
open-source-misses-the-point.es.html
Log message:
Automatic update by GNUnited Nations.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/trans-coord/gnun/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.bg.html?cvsroot=trans-coord&r1=1.19&r2=1.20
http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/trans-coord/gnun/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.es.html?cvsroot=trans-coord&r1=1.13&r2=1.14
Patches:
Index: open-source-misses-the-point.bg.html
===================================================================
RCS file:
/sources/trans-coord/trans-coord/gnun/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.bg.html,v
retrieving revision 1.19
retrieving revision 1.20
diff -u -b -r1.19 -r1.20
--- open-source-misses-the-point.bg.html 2 Aug 2009 18:25:30 -0000
1.19
+++ open-source-misses-the-point.bg.html 15 Nov 2009 19:25:15 -0000
1.20
@@ -3,11 +3,11 @@
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.bg.html" -->
<!-- This file is automatically generated by GNUnited Nations! -->
-<title>ÐаÑо âÐÑвоÑениÑÑ ÐºÐ¾Ð´â пÑопÑÑка
най-важноÑо за ÑÐ²Ð¾Ð±Ð¾Ð´Ð½Ð¸Ñ ÑоÑÑÑÐµÑ - ÐÑоекÑÑÑ
-GNU - ФондаÑÐ¸Ñ Ð·Ð° Ñвободен ÑоÑÑÑÐµÑ (ФСС)</title>
+<title>Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software - GNU Project - Free
+Software Foundation (FSF)</title>
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.bg.html" -->
-<h2>ÐаÑо âÐÑвоÑениÑÑ ÐºÐ¾Ð´â пÑопÑÑка
най-важноÑо за ÑÐ²Ð¾Ð±Ð¾Ð´Ð½Ð¸Ñ ÑоÑÑÑеÑ</h2>
+<h2>Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software</h2>
<p>by <strong>Richard Stallman</strong></p>
@@ -18,161 +18,154 @@
не на Ñена, Ñака Ñе миÑлеÑе за âÑвобода на
ÑловоÑоâ, а не за âбезплаÑен
обÑдâ<sup><a href="#TransNote1">1</a></sup>.</p>
-<p>Тези Ñвободи Ñа жизненоважни. Те Ñа
ÑÑÑеÑÑвени не пÑоÑÑо заÑади
-индивидÑалниÑе поÑÑебиÑели, а заÑоÑо
пооÑÑÑÐ²Ð°Ñ ÑоÑиална ÑолидаÑноÑÑ â
-ÑподелÑне и ÑÑÑÑÑдниÑеÑÑво. Те ÑÑÐ°Ð²Ð°Ñ Ð²Ñе
по-важни, ÑÑй каÑо голÑма ÑаÑÑ Ð¾Ñ
-наÑаÑа кÑлÑÑÑа и ежедневие Ñе
ÑиÑÑовизиÑаÑ. Редин ÑвÑÑ Ñ ÑиÑÑови звÑÑи,
-изобÑÐ°Ð¶ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ Ð¸ дÑми, ÑвободниÑÑ ÑоÑÑÑÐµÑ Ñ
вÑе по-голÑма Ñила Ñе ÑавнÑва ÑÑÑ
-ÑвободаÑа каÑо обÑо понÑÑие.</p>
-
-<p>ÐÐ½ÐµÑ Ð´ÐµÑеÑки милиони дÑÑи по ÑвеÑа
Ð¸Ð·Ð¿Ð¾Ð»Ð·Ð²Ð°Ñ Ñвободен ÑоÑÑÑÐµÑ â ÑÑилиÑаÑа оÑ
-Ñайони на ÐÐ½Ð´Ð¸Ñ Ð¸ ÐÑÐ¿Ð°Ð½Ð¸Ñ Ð²ÐµÑе ÑÑаÑ
ÑÑениÑиÑе Ñи да Ð¸Ð·Ð¿Ð¾Ð»Ð·Ð²Ð°Ñ ÑвободнаÑа <a
-href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.bg.html">опеÑаÑионна ÑиÑÑема
GNU/ÐинÑкÑ</a>. Ðо
-повеÑеÑо Ð¾Ñ Ñези поÑÑебиÑели никога не Ñа
ÑÑвали за еÑиÑниÑе пÑиÑини, поÑади
-коиÑо ÑазÑабоÑиÑ
ме Ñази ÑиÑÑема и изгÑадиÑ
ме обÑноÑÑÑа на ÑÐ²Ð¾Ð±Ð¾Ð´Ð½Ð¸Ñ ÑоÑÑÑеÑ,
-заÑоÑо Ð´Ð½ÐµÑ Ñази ÑиÑÑема и обÑноÑÑÑа
по-ÑеÑÑо Ñе пÑедÑÑавÑÑ ÐºÐ°Ñо âоÑвоÑен
-кодâ. ÐÑипиÑÐ²Ð°Ñ Ñе и на ÑазлиÑна
ÑилоÑоÑиÑ, в коÑÑо Ñези Ñвободи поÑÑи не
-Ñе ÑпоменаваÑ.</p>
-
-<p>ÐвижениеÑо за Ñвободен ÑоÑÑÑÐµÑ Ñе е
боÑило за ÑвободаÑа на компÑÑÑÑниÑе
-поÑÑебиÑели Ð¾Ñ 1983 г. наÑам. ÐÑез 1984 г.
запоÑнаÑ
ме ÑазÑабоÑкаÑа на
-ÑвободнаÑа опеÑаÑионна ÑиÑÑема GNU, за да
можем да избегнем неÑвободниÑе
-опеÑаÑионни ÑиÑÑеми, коиÑо оÑнемаÑ
ÑвободаÑа на поÑÑебиÑелиÑе Ñи. ÐÑез
-80-Ñе години ÑазÑабоÑиÑ
ме повеÑеÑо оÑ
ÑÑÑеÑÑвениÑе компоненÑи на ÑиÑÑемаÑа,
-какÑо и <a href="/licenses/gpl.html">GNU General Public License</a> â
-лиÑенз, ÑÑздаден ÑоÑно за да заÑиÑава
ÑвободаÑа на вÑиÑки поÑÑебиÑели на
-дадена пÑогÑама.</p>
-
-<p>Ðо не вÑиÑки поÑÑебиÑели и ÑазÑабоÑÑиÑи
на Ñвободен ÑоÑÑÑÐµÑ Ð±ÑÑ
а ÑÑглаÑни Ñ
-ÑелиÑе на ÐвижениеÑо за Ñвободен ÑоÑÑÑеÑ.
ÐÑез 1998 г., ÑаÑÑ Ð¾Ñ Ð¾Ð±ÑноÑÑÑа
-на ÑÐ²Ð¾Ð±Ð¾Ð´Ð½Ð¸Ñ ÑоÑÑÑÐµÑ Ñе оÑÑепи и запоÑна
ÐºÐ°Ð¼Ð¿Ð°Ð½Ð¸Ñ Ð² имеÑо на âоÑвоÑениÑ
-кодâ. ÐÑÑвонаÑално ÑеÑминÑÑ Ð±Ðµ пÑедложен,
за да Ñе избегне евенÑÑално
-погÑеÑно ÑÑлкÑване на ÑеÑмина âÑвободен
ÑоÑÑÑеÑâ, но ÑкоÑо бе обвÑÑзан Ñ
-ÑилоÑоÑÑки вÑзгледи, ÑвÑÑде ÑазлиÑни оÑ
Ñези на ÐвижениеÑо за Ñвободен
-ÑоÑÑÑеÑ.</p>
-
-<p>ÐÑкои Ð¾Ñ Ð¿ÑивÑÑжениÑиÑе на âоÑвоÑениÑ
кодâ го ÑмÑÑаÑ
а за âмаÑкеÑингова
-ÐºÐ°Ð¼Ð¿Ð°Ð½Ð¸Ñ Ð·Ð° Ñвободен ÑоÑÑÑеÑâ, коÑÑо да
пÑивлиÑа Ñ
оÑа Ñ Ð¿Ð¾Ð·Ð¸Ñии в бизнеÑа
-ÑÑез изÑÑкване на пÑакÑиÑеÑкиÑе ползи,
каÑо ÑÑÑевÑеменно Ñе избÑÐ³Ð²Ð°Ñ Ð¸Ð´ÐµÐ¸Ñе
-за âдобÑоâ и âлоÑоâ, коиÑо Ñе не биÑ
а
иÑкали да ÑÑÑÑ. ÐÑÑги пÑивÑÑжениÑи
-ÑеÑиÑелно оÑÑ
вÑÑлиÑ
а еÑиÑниÑе и ÑоÑиални
ÑенноÑÑи на ÐвижениеÑо за Ñвободен
-ÑоÑÑÑеÑ. ÐаквиÑо и да Ñа били вÑзгледиÑе
им, пÑи воденеÑо на ÐºÐ°Ð¼Ð¿Ð°Ð½Ð¸Ñ Ð·Ð°
-âоÑвоÑен кодâ Ñе не Ñа ÑиÑиÑали или
заÑÑавали зад Ñези ÑенноÑÑи. ТеÑминÑÑ
-âоÑвоÑен кодâ бÑÑзо Ñе обвÑÑза Ñ
пÑакÑикаÑа на ÑиÑиÑане Ñамо на пÑакÑиÑеÑки
-ÑенноÑÑи, каÑо пиÑанеÑо на моÑен и
надежден ÑоÑÑÑеÑ. ÐовеÑеÑо оÑ
-поддÑÑжниÑиÑе на âоÑвоÑÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ ÐºÐ¾Ð´â оÑе
оÑÑогава Ð¸Ð¼Ð°Ñ Ñова пÑедвид и за ÑÑÑ
-Ñова е пÑакÑикаÑа, коÑÑо олиÑеÑвоÑÑва ÑÑÑ
наÑа кампаниÑ.</p>
-
-<p>ÐоÑÑи вÑеки ÑоÑÑÑÐµÑ Ñ Ð¾ÑвоÑен код е
Ñвободен ÑоÑÑÑÐµÑ â двеÑе понÑÑÐ¸Ñ Ð¾Ð¿Ð¸ÑваÑ
-поÑÑи една и ÑÑÑа каÑегоÑÐ¸Ñ ÑоÑÑÑеÑ. Ðо Ñе
ÑÑоÑÑ Ð·Ð°Ð´ вÑзгледи, базиÑани на
-коÑенно ÑазлиÑни в оÑноваÑа Ñи ÑенноÑÑи.
ÐÑвоÑениÑÑ ÐºÐ¾Ð´ е меÑодика за
-ÑазÑабоÑка; ÑвободниÑÑ ÑоÑÑÑÐµÑ Ðµ ÑоÑиално
движение. Ðа ÐвижениеÑо за
-Ñвободен ÑоÑÑÑеÑ, ÑвободниÑÑ ÑоÑÑÑÐµÑ Ðµ
еÑиÑеÑки импеÑаÑив, заÑоÑо Ñамо
-ÑвободниÑÑ ÑоÑÑÑÐµÑ Ð·Ð°ÑиÑа ÑвободаÑа на
поÑÑебиÑелиÑе. Ðа Ñазлика Ð¾Ñ Ð½ÐµÐ³Ð¾,
-ÑилоÑоÑиÑÑа на оÑвоÑÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ ÐºÐ¾Ð´ Ñазглежда
вÑпÑоÑиÑе в ÑвеÑлинаÑа на пÑавенеÑо
-на âпо-добÑÑâ ÑоÑÑÑÐµÑ â Ñамо оÑ
пÑакÑиÑеÑка гледна ÑоÑка. Ð Ð½ÐµÑ Ñе ÑвÑÑди,
-Ñе неÑвободниÑÑ ÑоÑÑÑÐµÑ Ðµ лоÑо, но
пÑиемливо ÑеÑение. Ðа ÐвижениеÑо за
-Ñвободен ÑоÑÑÑеÑ, обаÑе, неÑвободниÑÑ
ÑоÑÑÑÐµÑ Ðµ ÑоÑиален пÑоблем и ÑеÑениеÑо
-е мигÑиÑанеÑо кÑм Ñвободен ÑоÑÑÑеÑ.</p>
-
-<p>Свободен ÑоÑÑÑеÑ, ÑоÑÑÑÐµÑ Ñ Ð¾ÑвоÑен код.
Ðко Ñова е един и ÑÑÑ ÑоÑÑÑеÑ, има
-ли знаÑение какво име използваÑе? Ðа,
заÑоÑо ÑазлиÑниÑе дÑми вÑплÑÑаваÑ
-ÑазлиÑни идеи. ÐокаÑо една Ñвободна
пÑогÑама под каквоÑо и да е име би ви
-пÑедоÑÑавила ÑÑÑаÑа Ñвобода днеÑ,
заÑвÑÑждаванеÑо на ÑвободаÑа в дÑлгоÑÑоÑен
-план завиÑи пÑеди вÑиÑко Ð¾Ñ Ñова â Ñ
оÑаÑа
да Ñе наÑÑÐ°Ñ Ð´Ð° ÑенÑÑ ÑвободаÑа.
-Ðко иÑкаÑе да ни помогнеÑе да напÑавим
Ñова, кÑайно необÑ
одимо е да говоÑиÑе
-за âÑвободен ÑоÑÑÑеÑâ.</p>
-
-<p>Ðие в ÐвижениеÑо за Ñвободен ÑоÑÑÑÐµÑ Ð½Ðµ
миÑлим за лагеÑа на ÑоÑÑÑеÑа Ñ
-оÑвоÑен код каÑо за вÑаг â вÑагÑÑ Ðµ
ÑобÑÑвениÑеÑÐºÐ¸Ñ ÑоÑÑÑеÑ. Ðо иÑкаме
-Ñ
оÑаÑа да знаÑÑ, Ñе дÑÑжим на ÑвободаÑа,
Ñака Ñе не пÑиемаме да бÑдем
-иденÑиÑиÑиÑани погÑеÑно каÑо поддÑÑжниÑи
на âоÑвоÑÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ ÐºÐ¾Ð´â.</p>
-
-<h3>ШиÑоко ÑазпÑоÑÑÑанено погÑеÑно
ÑÑлкÑване на âÑвободен ÑоÑÑÑеÑâ и
âоÑвоÑен
-кодâ</h3>
-
-<p>ТеÑминÑÑ âÑвободен ÑоÑÑÑеÑâ има
пÑоблем Ñ Ð´Ð²ÑÑмиÑлиеÑо<sup><a
-href="#TransNote2">2</a></sup> Ñи. Ðа английÑки език
ÑеÑминÑÑ Ð¼Ð¾Ð¶Ðµ да знаÑи
-âÑоÑÑÑеÑ, Ñ ÐºÐ¾Ð¹Ñо може да Ñе ÑдобиеÑе на
нÑлева Ñенаâ, а може да знаÑи и
-âÑоÑÑÑеÑ, койÑо пÑедоÑÑÐ°Ð²Ñ Ð½Ð° поÑÑебиÑелÑ
опÑеделени Ñвободиâ, коеÑо
-вÑÑÑноÑÑ Ðµ желаноÑо знаÑение. Ðие
адÑеÑиÑаме пÑоблема, каÑо пÑбликÑваме
-деÑиниÑиÑÑа за Ñвободен ÑоÑÑÑеÑ, и каÑо
казваме âÐиÑлеÑе за Ñвобода на
-ÑловоÑо, не за безплаÑен обÑдâ. Това не е
идеално ÑеÑение и не може да
-елиминиÑа пÑоблема напÑлно. Ðи било
по-добÑе да има недвÑÑмиÑлен ÑеÑмин,
-ако Ñой нÑмаÑе дÑÑги пÑоблеми.</p>
+<p>These freedoms are vitally important. They are essential, not just for the
+individual users' sake, but for society as a whole because they promote
+social solidarity—that is, sharing and cooperation. They become even
+more important as our culture and life activities are increasingly
+digitized. In a world of digital sounds, images, and words, free software
+becomes increasingly essential for freedom in general.</p>
+
+<p>Tens of millions of people around the world now use free software; the
+schools of regions of India and Spain now teach all students to use the free
+<a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux operating system</a>. Most of
+these users, however, have never heard of the ethical reasons for which we
+developed this system and built the free software community, because
+nowadays this system and community are more often spoken of as “open
+source,”, attributing them to a different philosophy in which these
+freedoms are hardly mentioned.</p>
+
+<p>The free software movement has campaigned for computer users' freedom since
+1983. In 1984 we launched the development of the free operating system GNU,
+so that we could avoid the nonfree operating systems that deny freedom to
+their users. During the 1980s, we developed most of the essential
+components of the system and designed the <a href="/licenses/gpl.html">GNU
+General Public License</a> (GNU GPL) to release them under—a license
+designed specifically to protect freedom for all users of a program.</p>
+
+<p>Not all of the users and developers of free software agreed with the goals
+of the free software movement. In 1998, a part of the free software
+community splintered off and began campaigning in the name of “open
+source.” The term was originally proposed to avoid a possible
+misunderstanding of the term “free software,” but it soon became
+associated with philosophical views quite different from those of the free
+software movement.</p>
+
+<p>Some of the supporters of open source considered the term a “marketing
+campaign for free software,” which would appeal to business executives
+by highlighting the software's practical benefits, while not raising issues
+of right and wrong that they might not like to hear. Other supporters
+flatly rejected the free software movement's ethical and social values.
+Whichever their views, when campaigning for open source, they neither cited
+nor advocated those values. The term “open source” quickly
+became associated with ideas and arguments based only on practical values,
+such as making or having powerful, reliable software. Most of the
+supporters of open source have come to it since then, and they make the same
+association.</p>
+
+<p>Nearly all open source software is free software. The two terms describe
+almost the same category of software, but they stand for views based on
+fundamentally different values. Open source is a development methodology;
+free software is a social movement. For the free software movement, free
+software is an ethical imperative, because only free software respects the
+users' freedom. By contrast, the philosophy of open source considers issues
+in terms of how to make software “better”—in a practical
+sense only. It says that nonfree software is an inferior solution to the
+practical problem at hand. For the free software movement, however, nonfree
+software is a social problem, and the solution is to stop using it and move
+to free software.</p>
+
+<p>“Free software.” “Open source.” If it's the same
+software, does it matter which name you use? Yes, because different words
+convey different ideas. While a free program by any other name would give
+you the same freedom today, establishing freedom in a lasting way depends
+above all on teaching people to value freedom. If you want to help do this,
+it is essential to speak of “free software.”</p>
+
+<p>We in the free software movement don't think of the open source camp as an
+enemy; the enemy is proprietary (nonfree) software. But we want people to
+know we stand for freedom, so we do not accept being mislabeled as open
+source supporters.</p>
+
+<h3>Common Misunderstandings of “Free Software” and “Open
+Source”</h3>
+
+<p>The term “free software” is prone to misinterpretation: an
+unintended meaning, “software you can get for zero price,” fits
+the term just as well as the intended meaning, “software which gives
+the user certain freedoms.” We address this problem by publishing the
+definition of free software, and by saying “Think of ‘free
+speech,’ not ‘free beer.’” This is not a perfect
+solution; it cannot completely eliminate the problem. An unambiguous and
+correct term would be better, if it didn't present other problems.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, all the alternatives in English have problems of their own.
-We've looked at many alternatives that people have suggested, but none is so
-clearly “right” that switching to it would be a good idea. (For
-instance, in some contexts the French/Spanish word "libre" can be used, but
-people in India do not recognize the word at all.) Every proposed
+We've looked at many that people have suggested, but none is so clearly
+“right” that switching to it would be a good idea. (For
+instance, in some contexts the French and Spanish word “libre”
+works well, but people in India do not recognize it at all.) Every proposed
replacement for “free software” has some kind of semantic
problem—and this includes “open source software.”</p>
-<p><a href="http://opensource.org/docs/osd">ÐÑиÑиалнаÑа
деÑиниÑÐ¸Ñ Ð·Ð° âÑоÑÑÑÐµÑ Ñ
-оÑвоÑен кодâ</a> (коÑÑо е пÑбликÑвана оÑ
ÐниÑиаÑиваÑа за оÑвоÑен код и е
-ÑвÑÑде дÑлга, за да Ñ ÑиÑиÑаме ÑÑк), пÑоизÑ
ожда непÑÑко Ð¾Ñ Ð½Ð°ÑиÑе кÑиÑеÑии
-за Ñвободен ÑоÑÑÑеÑ. Ðе е ÑÑÑаÑа, по-Ñ
лабава е в нÑкои оÑноÑÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ â
-поддÑÑжниÑиÑе на оÑвоÑÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ ÐºÐ¾Ð´ Ñа пÑиели
нÑкои лиÑензи, коиÑо ние ÑÑиÑаме за
-недопÑÑÑимо огÑаниÑаваÑи поÑÑебиÑелиÑе.
ÐÑпÑеки Ñова, на пÑакÑика ÑÑ Ðµ
-доÑÑа близка до наÑаÑа деÑиниÑиÑ.</p>
-
-<p>Ðо оÑевидноÑо знаÑение на изÑаза
âÑоÑÑÑÐµÑ Ñ Ð¾ÑвоÑен кодâ е âможе да
-погледнеÑе изÑ
Ð¾Ð´Ð½Ð¸Ñ ÐºÐ¾Ð´â и повеÑеÑо Ñ
оÑа
изглежда миÑлÑÑ, Ñе Ñова е
-знаÑениеÑо. Това е много по-Ñлаб кÑиÑеÑий
Ð¾Ñ ÑÐ²Ð¾Ð±Ð¾Ð´Ð½Ð¸Ñ ÑоÑÑÑеÑ, и по-Ñлаб
-Ð¾Ñ Ð¾ÑиÑиалнаÑа деÑиниÑÐ¸Ñ Ð·Ð° оÑвоÑен код.
Това опÑеделение вклÑÑва много
-пÑогÑами, коиÑо не Ñа ниÑо Ñвободен
ÑоÑÑÑеÑ, ниÑо ÑоÑÑÑÐµÑ Ñ Ð¾ÑвоÑен код.</p>
-
-<p>Ðонеже Ñова оÑевидно знаÑение на
âоÑвоÑен кодâ не е знаÑениеÑо, коеÑо
-заÑÑÑпниÑиÑе Ð¼Ñ Ñа имали пÑедвид,
ÑезÑлÑаÑÑÑ Ðµ, Ñе повеÑеÑо Ñ
оÑа ÑазбиÑаÑ
-погÑеÑно ÑеÑмина. ÐÑо как пиÑаÑелÑÑ Ðийл
СÑивÑнÑÑн опÑÐµÐ´ÐµÐ»Ñ âоÑвоÑен кодâ:</p>
-
- <blockquote><p>ÐинÑÐºÑ Ðµ âÑоÑÑÑÐµÑ Ñ Ð¾ÑвоÑен
кодâ, коеÑо пÑоÑÑо ознаÑава, Ñе вÑеки може
да Ñе
-Ñдобие Ñ ÐºÐ¾Ð¿Ð¸Ðµ на ÑайловеÑе Ñ Ð¸Ð·Ñ
оден
код.</p></blockquote>
-
-<p>Ðе миÑлÑ, Ñе Ñой наÑоÑно е ÑеÑил да оÑÑ
вÑÑли или да оÑпоÑи âоÑиÑиалнаÑаâ
-деÑиниÑиÑ. СпоÑед мен Ñой пÑоÑÑо е
пÑиложил конвенÑииÑе на английÑÐºÐ¸Ñ ÐµÐ·Ð¸Ðº,
-за да полÑÑи Ñова знаÑение на ÑеÑмина.
ЩаÑÑÑ ÐÐ°Ð½Ð·Ð°Ñ Ðµ пÑбликÑвал подобна
-деÑиниÑиÑ:</p>
-
-<!-- It was from http://da.state.ks.us/itec/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf,
-but that page is no longer available. -->
-<blockquote><p>Ðзползване на ÑоÑÑÑÐµÑ Ñ Ð¾ÑвоÑен
код (СÐÐ). СÐРе ÑоÑÑÑеÑ, ÑийÑо изÑ
оден код
-е безплаÑен и пÑблиÑно доÑÑÑпен, вÑпÑеки,
Ñе ÑпеÑиÑиÑниÑе лиÑензионни
-ÑпоÑазÑÐ¼ÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ Ð²Ð°ÑиÑÐ°Ñ Ð² завиÑимоÑÑ Ð¾Ñ Ñова
какво е позволено да Ñе пÑави Ñ
-Ñози код.</p></blockquote>
+<p>The <a href="http://opensource.org/docs/osd">official definition of
+“open source software”</a> (which is published by the Open
+Source Initiative and is too long to include here) was derived indirectly
+from our criteria for free software. It is not the same; it is a little
+looser in some respects, so open source supporters have accepted a few
+licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive of the users.
+Nonetheless, it is fairly close to our definition in practice.</p>
+
+<p>However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source
+software”—and the one most people seem to think it
+means—is “You can look at the source code.” That criterion
+is much weaker than the free software definition, much weaker also than the
+official definition of open source. It includes many programs that are
+neither free nor open source.</p>
+
+<p><!-- It was from http://da.state.ks.us/itec/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf, but
+that page is no longer available. -->
+Since that obvious meaning for “open source” is not the meaning
+that its advocates intend, the result is that most people misunderstand the
+term. According to writer Neal Stephenson, “Linux is ‘open
+source’ software meaning, simply, that anyone can get copies of its
+source code files.” I don't think he deliberately sought to reject or
+dispute the “official” definition. I think he simply applied
+the conventions of the English language to come up with a meaning for the
+term. The state of Kansas published a similar definition: “Make use
+of open-source software (OSS). OSS is software for which the source code is
+freely and publicly available, though the specific licensing agreements vary
+as to what one is allowed to do with that code.”</p>
-<p>The New York Times has <a
+<p>The <i>New York Times</i> has <a
href="http://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-design-37415.html">
-stretched the term</a> to refer to user beta testing — letting a few
-users try an early version and give confidential feedback — which
-proprietary software developers have practiced for decades.</p>
-
-<p>ÐоддÑÑжниÑиÑе на кампаниÑÑа за ÑоÑÑÑÐµÑ Ñ
оÑвоÑен код Ñе опиÑÐ²Ð°Ñ Ð´Ð° ÑазÑеÑаÑ
-пÑоблема, поÑоÑвайки ÑÑÑ
наÑа оÑиÑиална
деÑиниÑиÑ, но Ñози коÑекÑивен подÑ
од
-не е Ñолкова еÑекÑивен, колкоÑо наÑиÑ.
ТеÑминÑÑ âÑвободен ÑоÑÑÑеÑâ има две
-еÑÑеÑÑвени знаÑениÑ, едноÑо Ð¾Ñ ÐºÐ¾Ð¸Ñо е
желаноÑо. Човек, койÑо е ÑÑ
ванал
-идеÑÑа за âÑвобода на ÑловоÑо, а не
безплаÑен обÑдâ никога нÑма да го
-вÑзпÑиеме по погÑеÑÐ½Ð¸Ñ Ð½Ð°Ñин. Ðо âоÑвоÑен
кодâ има Ñамо едно еÑÑеÑÑвено
-знаÑение, коеÑо е ÑазлиÑно Ð¾Ñ Ð¶ÐµÐ»Ð°Ð½Ð¾Ñо оÑ
поддÑÑжниÑиÑе на кампаниÑÑа. ÐÑма
-кÑаÑÑк и ÑÑен наÑин да Ñе обÑÑни
оÑиÑиалноÑо знаÑение на âоÑвоÑен кодâ.
-Това води до задÑлбоÑаване на
обÑÑкванеÑо.</p>
-
-<p>ÐÑÑго недоÑазÑмение на âоÑвоÑен кодâ е
идеÑÑа, Ñе ознаÑава âда не Ñе ползва
-GNU GPLâ. Ðзглежда Ñова ÑÑпÑовожда и
погÑеÑноÑо ÑазбиÑане за âÑвободен
-ÑоÑÑÑеÑâ, пÑиÑавнÑвайки го кÑм âÑоÑÑÑеÑ
под GPLâ. Те Ñа еднакво погÑеÑни,
-понеже GNU GPL Ñе ÑÑиÑа за лиÑенз за ÑоÑÑÑÐµÑ Ñ
оÑвоÑен код, какÑо и повеÑеÑо
-Ð¾Ñ Ð»Ð¸ÑензиÑе за оÑвоÑен код Ñе ÑÑиÑÐ°Ñ Ð·Ð°
лиÑензи за Ñвободен ÑоÑÑÑеÑ.</p>
-
-<h3>РазлиÑниÑе ÑенноÑÑи Ð¼Ð¾Ð³Ð°Ñ Ð´Ð° Ð´Ð¾Ð²ÐµÐ´Ð°Ñ Ð´Ð¾
поÑÑи едни и ÑÑÑи изводи…но
-не винаги</h3>
-
-<p>ÐÑез 60-Ñе години Ñадикални гÑÑпи Ñи
издейÑÑваÑ
а ÑепÑÑаÑиÑÑа на
-ÑÑакÑиониÑÑи. ÐÑкои оÑганизаÑии Ñе
ÑазделÑÑ
а поÑади ÑазлиÑÐ¸Ñ Ð¾ÑноÑно
-подÑобноÑÑи за ÑÑÑаÑегииÑе и впоÑледÑÑвие
двеÑе дÑÑеÑни гÑÑпи Ñе оÑнаÑÑÑ
а
-един Ñ Ð´ÑÑг каÑо Ñ Ð²Ñагове, вÑпÑеки ÑÑ
одниÑе оÑновни Ñели и ÑенноÑÑи.
-ÐеÑниÑе ÑеÑÑо пÑавеÑ
а Ñова и кÑиÑикÑваÑ
а
ÑÑлоÑо лÑво пÑоÑÑÑанÑÑво за Ñази
-пÑакÑика.</p>
+run an article that stretches the meaning of the term</a> to refer to user
+beta testing—letting a few users try an early version and give
+confidential feedback—which proprietary software developers have
+practiced for decades.</p>
+
+<p>Open source supporters try to deal with this by pointing to their official
+definition, but that corrective approach is less effective for them than it
+is for us. The term “free software” has two natural meanings,
+one of which is the intended meaning, so a person who has grasped the idea
+of “free speech, not free beer” will not get it wrong again.
+But the term “open source” has only one natural meaning, which
+is different from the meaning its supporters intend. So there is no
+succinct way to explain and justify its official definition. That makes for
+worse confusion.</p>
+
+<p>Another misunderstanding of “open source” is the idea that it
+means “not using the GNU GPL.” This tends to accompany another
+misunderstanding that “free software” means “GPL-covered
+software.” These are equally mistaken, since the GNU GPL is accepted
+as an open source license and most of the open source licenses qualify as
+free software licenses.</p>
+
+<h3>Different Values Can Lead to Similar Conclusions…but Not Always</h3>
+
+<p>Radical groups in the 1960s had a reputation for factionalism: some
+organizations split because of disagreements on details of strategy, and the
+two daughter groups treated each other as enemies despite having similar
+basic goals and values. The right wing made much of this and used it to
+criticize the entire left.</p>
<p>ÐÑкои Ñе опиÑÐ²Ð°Ñ Ð´Ð° оÑеÑнÑÑ ÐвижениеÑо
за Ñвободен ÑоÑÑÑеÑ, каÑо ÑÑавнÑваÑ
наÑиÑе ÑазлиÑÐ¸Ñ Ñ Ð»Ð°Ð³ÐµÑа на оÑвоÑÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ ÐºÐ¾Ð´
Ñ ÑазлиÑиÑÑа на онези Ñадикални
@@ -181,20 +174,19 @@
вÑзгледи в много ÑлÑÑаи водÑÑ Ð´Ð¾ едно и
ÑÑÑо поведение на пÑакÑика, каÑо
ÑазÑабоÑкаÑа на Ñвободен ÑоÑÑÑеÑ.</p>
-<p>Ð ÑезÑлÑÐ°Ñ Ð½Ð° Ñова, Ñ
оÑа Ð¾Ñ ÐвижениеÑо за
Ñвободен ÑоÑÑÑÐµÑ Ð¸ Ð¾Ñ Ð»Ð°Ð³ÐµÑа на
-оÑвоÑÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ ÐºÐ¾Ð´ ÑабоÑÑÑ Ð·Ð°ÐµÐ´Ð½Ð¾ по
пÑакÑиÑеÑки пÑоекÑи каÑо ÑазÑабоÑка на
-ÑоÑÑÑеÑ. ÐабележиÑелно е, Ñе Ñолкова
ÑазлиÑни ÑилоÑоÑÑки вÑзгледи могаÑ
-Ñолкова ÑеÑÑо да моÑивиÑÐ°Ñ ÑазлиÑни Ñ
оÑа
да ÑÑаÑÑÐ²Ð°Ñ Ð² едни и ÑÑÑи пÑоекÑи.
-ÐÑпÑеки Ñова, Ñези вÑзгледи Ñа много
ÑазлиÑни, и има ÑиÑÑаÑии, в коиÑо водÑÑ
-до много ÑазлиÑни дейÑÑвиÑ.</p>
-
-<p>ÐдеÑÑа на оÑвоÑÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ ÐºÐ¾Ð´ е, Ñе каÑо Ñе
позволÑва на поÑÑебиÑелиÑе да пÑоменÑÑ
-и ÑазпÑоÑÑÑанÑÐ²Ð°Ñ ÑоÑÑÑеÑа, Ñова Ñе го
напÑави по-моÑен и по-надежден. Ðо
-Ñова не винаги е гаÑанÑиÑано. Ð
азÑабоÑÑиÑиÑе на ÑобÑÑвениÑеÑки ÑоÑÑÑÐµÑ Ð½Ðµ
-винаги Ñа некомпеÑенÑни. ÐонÑкога Ñе
ÑазÑабоÑÐ²Ð°Ñ Ð¿ÑогÑама, коÑÑо е моÑна и
-надеждна, доÑи и да не заÑиÑа ÑвободаÑа на
поÑÑебиÑелиÑе. Ðак биÑ
а
-ÑеагиÑали акÑивиÑÑи на ÐвижениеÑо за
Ñвободен ÑоÑÑÑÐµÑ Ð¸ енÑÑÑиаÑÑи на
-оÑвоÑÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ ÐºÐ¾Ð´ на Ñова?</p>
+<p>As a result, people from the free software movement and the open source camp
+often work together on practical projects such as software development. It
+is remarkable that such different philosophical views can so often motivate
+different people to participate in the same projects. Nonetheless, there
+are situations where these fundamentally different views lead to very
+different actions.</p>
+
+<p>The idea of open source is that allowing users to change and redistribute
+the software will make it more powerful and reliable. But this is not
+guaranteed. Developers of proprietary software are not necessarily
+incompetent. Sometimes they produce a program that is powerful and
+reliable, even though it does not respect the users' freedom. Free software
+activists and open source enthusiasts will react very differently to that.</p>
<p>Ðдин ÑÑÑинÑки енÑÑÑиаÑÑ Ð½Ð° оÑвоÑениÑ
код, койÑо изобÑо не е повлиÑн оÑ
идеалиÑе на ÑÐ²Ð¾Ð±Ð¾Ð´Ð½Ð¸Ñ ÑоÑÑÑеÑ, би казал:
âÐзненадан ÑÑм, Ñе ÑÑе ÑÑпели да
@@ -203,66 +195,63 @@
оÑноÑение би било в полза на ÑÑ
еми, коиÑо
оÑÐ½ÐµÐ¼Ð°Ñ ÑвободаÑа ни и водÑÑ Ð´Ð¾
пÑлнаÑа Ñ Ð·Ð°Ð³Ñба.</p>
-<p>ÐкÑивиÑÑÑÑ Ð½Ð° ÐвижениеÑо за Ñвободен
ÑоÑÑÑÐµÑ Ð±Ð¸ казал: âÐаÑаÑа пÑогÑама е
-много пÑивлекаÑелна, но не и на ÑенаÑа на
ÑвободаÑа ми. Така Ñе Ñе мина и
-без неÑ. ÐмеÑÑо Ñова Ñе поддÑÑжам пÑоекÑ
за ÑазÑабоÑкаÑа на Ñвободен
-замеÑÑиÑел.â Ðко Ñеним ÑвободаÑа Ñи, може
да Ñ Ð¿Ð¾Ð´Ð´ÑÑжаме и заÑиÑаваме.</p>
+<p>The free software activist will say, “Your program is very attractive,
+but I value my freedom more. So I reject your program. Instead I will
+support a project to develop a free replacement.” If we value our
+freedom, we can act to maintain and defend it.</p>
-<h3>ÐоÑниÑÑ, надежден ÑоÑÑÑÐµÑ Ð¼Ð¾Ð¶Ðµ да бÑде
лоÑо неÑо</h3>
+<h3>Powerful, Reliable Software Can Be Bad</h3>
<p>ÐдеÑÑа, Ñе иÑкаме ÑоÑÑÑеÑÑÑ Ð´Ð° е моÑен и
надежден, Ñледва оÑ
пÑедположениеÑо, Ñе ÑоÑÑÑеÑа би ÑÑÑбвало
да ÑлÑжи на поÑÑебиÑелиÑе. Ðко е
моÑен и надежден, Ñой им ÑлÑжи по-добÑе.</p>
-<p>Ðо може да Ñе каже, Ñе ÑоÑÑÑеÑÑÑ ÑлÑжи на
поÑÑебиÑелиÑе, Ñамо ако заÑиÑа
-ÑÑÑ
наÑа Ñвобода. Ðми ако ÑоÑÑÑеÑÑÑ Ðµ
пÑоекÑиÑан, за да Ñлага окови на
-поÑÑебиÑелиÑе? Тогава моÑноÑÑÑа Ñамо
ознаÑава, Ñе оковиÑе Ñа оÑе по-здÑави
-и ÑÑегнаÑи, а надеждноÑÑÑа пÑоÑÑо
ознаÑава, Ñе е по-ÑÑÑдно Ñе да бÑдаÑ
-пÑемаÑ
наÑи. ÐлонамеÑени ÑÑнкÑионалноÑÑи
каÑо ÑпиониÑане на поÑÑебиÑелиÑе,
-огÑаниÑаванеÑо им, задни вÑаÑи и
пÑинÑдиÑелна акÑÑализаÑÐ¸Ñ Ñа ÑеÑÑо ÑÑеÑани
-ÑÑед ÑобÑÑвениÑеÑÐºÐ¸Ñ ÑоÑÑÑеÑ, и нÑкои оÑ
поддÑÑжниÑиÑе на оÑвоÑÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ ÐºÐ¾Ð´
-иÑÐºÐ°Ñ Ð´Ð° поÑÑÑÐ¿Ð²Ð°Ñ Ð¿Ð¾ ÑÑÑÐ¸Ñ Ð½Ð°Ñин.</p>
-
-<p>Ðод наÑиÑка на Ñилмови и звÑкозапиÑни
компании, ÑоÑÑÑеÑÑÑ Ð²Ñе по-ÑеÑÑо Ñе
-пÑоекÑиÑа ÑпеÑиално за да огÑаниÑава
пÑаваÑа на ползваÑиÑе го. Тази
-злонамеÑена ÑеÑ
Ð½Ð¾Ð»Ð¾Ð³Ð¸Ñ Ðµ познаÑа каÑо DRM,
или âÑиÑÑово ÑпÑавление на
-огÑаниÑениÑÑаâ (вижÑе <a
-href="http://defectivebydesign.org/">DefectiveByDesign.org</a>), и по дÑÑ
е
-анÑиÑезаÑа на ÑвободаÑа, коÑÑо ÑвободниÑ
ÑоÑÑÑÐµÑ Ñе ÑÑÑеми да оÑигÑÑи. Рне
-Ñамо по дÑÑ
â понеже ÑелÑа на DRM е да погази
ÑвободаÑа ви, ÑазÑабоÑÑиÑиÑе
-на DRM Ñе опиÑÐ²Ð°Ñ Ð´Ð° напÑавÑÑ ÑÑÑдно,
невÑзможно и доÑи незаконно за Ð²Ð°Ñ Ð´Ð°
-пÑоменÑÑе ÑоÑÑÑеÑа, койÑо ÑеализиÑа DRM.</p>
-
-<p>ÐÑпÑеки Ñова нÑкои поддÑÑжниÑи на
оÑвоÑÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ ÐºÐ¾Ð´ пÑедложиÑ
а ÑоÑÑÑÐµÑ Ñ âDRM Ñ
-оÑвоÑен кодâ. ÐдеÑÑа им е, Ñе ÑÑез
пÑбликÑванеÑо на изÑ
Ð¾Ð´Ð½Ð¸Ñ ÐºÐ¾Ð´ на
-пÑогÑамиÑе, ÑÑздадени да огÑаниÑаваÑ
доÑÑÑпа ви до ÑиÑÑиÑани ноÑиÑели, и
-позволÑвайки на дÑÑгиÑе да го пÑоменÑÑ, Ñе
Ñе Ð¼Ð¾Ð³Ð°Ñ Ð´Ð° ÑÑÐ·Ð´Ð°Ð´Ð°Ñ Ð¿Ð¾-моÑен и
-надежден ÑоÑÑÑÐµÑ Ð·Ð° огÑаниÑаванеÑо на
поÑÑебиÑели каÑо ваÑ. ÐоÑле Ñой Ñе ви
-бÑде пÑедоÑÑавен в ÑÑÑÑойÑÑва, коиÑо не ви
позволÑÐ²Ð°Ñ Ð´Ð° го пÑоменÑÑе.</p>
-
-<p>Този ÑоÑÑÑÐµÑ Ð¼Ð¾Ð¶Ðµ и да е Ñ âоÑвоÑен кодâ
и да Ñе използва модела за
-ÑазÑабоÑка на оÑвоÑÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ ÐºÐ¾Ð´, но Ñой нÑма да
бÑде Ñвободен ÑоÑÑÑеÑ, понеже
-нÑма да заÑиÑа ÑвободаÑа на поÑÑебиÑелиÑе,
коиÑо в дейÑÑвиÑелноÑÑ Ð³Ð¾
-използваÑ. Ðко моделÑÑ Ð·Ð° ÑазÑабоÑка на
оÑвоÑÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ ÐºÐ¾Ð´ ÑÑпее да напÑави Ñози
-ÑоÑÑÑÐµÑ Ð¿Ð¾-моÑен и надежден в
огÑаниÑаванеÑо ви, Ñова Ñе го пÑевÑÑне в оÑе
-по-лоÑ.</p>
-
-<h3>СÑÑаÑ
Ð¾Ñ ÑвободаÑа</h3>
-
-<p>ÐÑновнаÑа пÑÑвонаÑална моÑиваÑÐ¸Ñ Ð·Ð°
ÑеÑмина âÑоÑÑÑÐµÑ Ñ Ð¾ÑвоÑен кодâ е, Ñе
-еÑиÑниÑе идеи на âÑвободен ÑоÑÑÑеÑâ
каÑÐ°Ñ Ð½Ñкои Ñ
оÑа да Ñе ÑÑвÑÑваÑ
-неловко. ÐÑÑно е â да Ñе говоÑи за
ÑвободаÑа, за еÑиÑни вÑпÑоÑи, за
-оÑговоÑноÑÑи, какÑо и за ÑдобÑÑво, знаÑи да
Ñе Ð¿Ð¾Ð´ÐºÐ°Ð½Ð²Ð°Ñ Ñ
оÑаÑа да Ñе
-замиÑлÑÑ Ð·Ð° неÑа, коиÑо Ñе навÑÑно биÑ
а
пÑедпоÑели да пÑенебÑÐµÐ³Ð½Ð°Ñ â
-напÑÐ¸Ð¼ÐµÑ Ð´Ð°Ð»Ð¸ поведениеÑо им е еÑиÑно.
Това може да пÑедизвика неÑдобÑÑво и
-ÑмÑÑение, и нÑкои Ñ
оÑа пÑоÑÑо биÑ
а оÑÑ
вÑÑлили идеÑÑа. Ðо Ð¾Ñ Ñова не Ñледва,
-Ñе би ÑÑÑбвало да ÑпÑем да говоÑим за Ñези
неÑа.</p>
-
-<p>Само Ñе ÑоÑно Ñова Ñа ÑеÑили да напÑавÑÑ
пÑедводиÑелиÑе на âоÑвоÑÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ ÐºÐ¾Ð´â.
-ÐÑкÑили Ñа, Ñе ако Ñи мÑлÑÐ°Ñ Ð·Ð° еÑикаÑа и
ÑвободаÑа, и говоÑÑÑ Ñамо за
-бÑÑзиÑе пÑакÑиÑеÑки ползи на даден
Ñвободен ÑоÑÑÑеÑ, Ñе биÑ
а могли да
-âпÑодадаÑâ ÑоÑÑÑеÑа по-еÑекÑивно на
опÑеделени поÑÑебиÑели, оÑобено оÑ
-ÑÑедиÑе на бизнеÑа.</p>
+<p>But software can be said to serve its users only if it respects their
+freedom. What if the software is designed to put chains on its users? Then
+powerfulness means the chains are more constricting, and reliability that
+they are harder to remove. Malicious features, such as spying on the users,
+restricting the users, back doors, and imposed upgrades are common in
+proprietary software, and some open source supporters want to implement them
+in open source programs.</p>
+
+<p>Under pressure from the movie and record companies, software for individuals
+to use is increasingly designed specifically to restrict them. This
+malicious feature is known as Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) (see <a
+href="http://defectivebydesign.org/">DefectiveByDesign.org</a> and is the
+antithesis in spirit of the freedom that free software aims to provide. And
+not just in spirit: since the goal of DRM is to trample your freedom, DRM
+developers try to make it hard, impossible, or even illegal for you to
+change the software that implements the DRM.</p>
+
+<p>Yet some open source supporters have proposed “open source DRM”
+software. Their idea is that, by publishing the source code of programs
+designed to restrict your access to encrypted media and by allowing others
+to change it, they will produce more powerful and reliable software for
+restricting users like you. The software would then be delivered to you in
+devices that do not allow you to change it.</p>
+
+<p>This software might be open source and use the open source development
+model, but it won't be free software since it won't respect the freedom of
+the users that actually run it. If the open source development model
+succeeds in making this software more powerful and reliable for restricting
+you, that will make it even worse.</p>
+
+<h3>Fear of Freedom</h3>
+
+<p>The main initial motivation of those who split off the open source camp from
+the free software movement was that the ethical ideas of “free
+software” made some people uneasy. That's true: raising ethical
+issues such as freedom, talking about responsibilities as well as
+convenience, is asking people to think about things they might prefer to
+ignore, such as whether their conduct is ethical. This can trigger
+discomfort, and some people may simply close their minds to it. It does not
+follow that we ought to stop talking about these issues.</p>
+
+<p>That is, however, what the leaders of open source decided to do. They
+figured that by keeping quiet about ethics and freedom, and talking only
+about the immediate practical benefits of certain free software, they might
+be able to “sell” the software more effectively to certain
+users, especially business.</p>
<p>Този подÑ
од Ñе оказа еÑекÑивен, по Ñвой
ÑобÑÑвен наÑин. РеÑоÑикаÑа на
оÑвоÑÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ ÐºÐ¾Ð´ е Ñбедила много Ñ
оÑа и
Ð±Ð¸Ð·Ð½ÐµÑ Ð¿Ð¾ÑÑебиÑели да Ð¸Ð·Ð¿Ð¾Ð»Ð·Ð²Ð°Ñ Ð¸ доÑи
@@ -274,51 +263,47 @@
оÑигÑÑим ÑвободаÑа. ÐÑивлиÑанеÑо на
поÑÑебиÑели кÑм ÑÐ²Ð¾Ð±Ð¾Ð´Ð½Ð¸Ñ ÑоÑÑÑÐµÑ Ð³Ð¸
оÑвежда Ñамо до ÑаÑÑ Ð¾Ñ Ð¿ÑÑÑ Ð´Ð° ÑÑанаÑ
заÑиÑниÑи на ÑобÑÑвенаÑа Ñи Ñвобода.</p>
-<p>Рано или кÑÑно Ñези поÑÑебиÑели Ñе бÑдаÑ
поканени да Ñе пÑеÑ
вÑÑлÑÑ Ð½Ð°
-ÑобÑÑвениÑеÑки ÑоÑÑÑÐµÑ Ð·Ð°Ñади нÑкакво
пÑакÑиÑеÑко пÑеимÑÑеÑÑво. ÐезбÑой
-компании Ñе ÑÑÑемÑÑ Ð´Ð° пÑÐµÐ´Ð»Ð¾Ð¶Ð°Ñ Ñакова
изкÑÑение, нÑкои доÑи пÑедлагаÑ
-безплаÑни копиÑ. ÐаÑо биÑ
а оÑказали
поÑÑебиÑелиÑе? Само ако Ñе Ñа наÑÑили
-да оÑенÑÐ²Ð°Ñ ÑвободаÑа, коÑÑо ÑвободниÑÑ
ÑоÑÑÑÐµÑ Ð¸Ð¼ пÑедоÑÑавÑ, да оÑенÑваÑ
-ÑвободаÑа Ñама по Ñебе Ñи, вмеÑÑо ÑеÑ
ниÑеÑкоÑо и пÑакÑиÑеÑко ÑдобÑÑво на
-даден Ñвободен ÑоÑÑÑеÑ. Ðа да
ÑазпÑоÑÑÑанÑваме Ñази идеÑ, ÑÑÑбва да
говоÑим
-за ÑвободаÑа. ÐпÑеделена доза Ð¾Ñ Ð¿Ð¾Ð´Ñ
ода
âда Ñи мÑлÑимâ кÑм бизнеÑа може да
-бÑде полезна за обÑноÑÑÑа, но е опаÑно ако
ÑÑане Ñолкова ÑеÑÑо ÑÑеÑан, Ñе
-лÑбовÑа кÑм ÑвободаÑа да изглежда каÑо
екÑÑенÑÑиÑноÑÑ.</p>
-
-<p>ТоÑно в Ñакава опаÑна ÑиÑÑаÑÐ¸Ñ Ñе
намиÑаме в моменÑа. ÐовеÑеÑо Ñ
оÑа,
-ÑвÑÑзвани ÑÑÑ ÑÐ²Ð¾Ð±Ð¾Ð´Ð½Ð¸Ñ ÑоÑÑÑеÑ, говоÑÑÑ
малко за ÑвободаÑа â обикновено
-заÑоÑо Ñе ÑÑÑемÑÑ Ð´Ð° Ñа âпо-пÑиемливи за
бизнеÑаâ. РазпÑоÑÑÑаниÑелиÑе на
-ÑоÑÑÑÐµÑ Ð½Ð°Ð¹-веÑе ÑÐ»ÐµÐ´Ð²Ð°Ñ Ñози пÑимеÑ.
ÐоÑÑи вÑиÑки диÑÑÑибÑÑии на
-опеÑаÑионнаÑа ÑиÑÑема GNU/ÐинÑÐºÑ Ð´Ð¾Ð±Ð°Ð²ÑÑ
ÑобÑÑвениÑеÑки пакеÑи кÑм оÑновнаÑа
-Ñвободна ÑиÑÑема, и подканваÑ
поÑÑебиÑелиÑе да ÑÐ°Ð·Ð³Ð»ÐµÐ¶Ð´Ð°Ñ Ñова каÑо
-пÑеимÑÑеÑÑво, вмеÑÑо каÑо ÑÑÑпка назад оÑ
ÑвободаÑа.</p>
-
-<p>ÐобавениÑÑ ÑобÑÑвениÑеÑки ÑоÑÑÑÐµÑ Ð¸
ÑаÑÑиÑно неÑвободниÑе диÑÑÑибÑÑии на
-GNU/ÐинÑÐºÑ Ð½Ð°Ð¼Ð¸ÑÐ°Ñ Ð¿Ð»Ð¾Ð´Ð¾ÑвоÑна поÑва,
заÑоÑо по-голÑмаÑа ÑаÑÑ Ð¾Ñ Ð½Ð°ÑаÑа
-обÑноÑÑ Ð½Ðµ изиÑква ÑоÑÑÑеÑа да е Ñвободен.
Това не е ÑлÑÑайно. ÐовеÑеÑо
-поÑÑебиÑели на GNU/ÐинÑÐºÑ Ñа Ñе запознали
ÑÑÑ ÑиÑÑемаÑа ÑÑез обÑÑÐ¶Ð´Ð°Ð½Ð¸Ñ Ð·Ð°
-âоÑвоÑен кодâ, кÑдеÑо не Ñе говоÑи, Ñе
ÑвободаÑа е Ñел. ÐÑакÑикиÑе, коиÑо
-не поддÑÑÐ¶Ð°Ñ ÑвободаÑа и дÑмиÑе, коиÑо не
говоÑÑÑ Ð·Ð° ÑвободаÑа, вÑÑвÑÑ ÑÑка
-за ÑÑка â вÑÑка наÑÑÑÑава дÑÑгаÑа. Ðа да
пÑевÑзмогнем Ñази ÑенденÑиÑ, е
-нÑжно да говоÑим повеÑе, а не по-малко за
ÑвободаÑа.</p>
+<p>Sooner or later these users will be invited to switch back to proprietary
+software for some practical advantage. Countless companies seek to offer
+such temptation, some even offering copies gratis. Why would users decline?
+Only if they have learned to value the freedom free software gives them, to
+value freedom in and of itself rather than the technical and practical
+convenience of specific free software. To spread this idea, we have to talk
+about freedom. A certain amount of the “keep quiet” approach to
+business can be useful for the community, but it is dangerous if it becomes
+so common that the love of freedom comes to seem like an eccentricity.</p>
+
+<p>That dangerous situation is exactly what we have. Most people involved with
+free software, especially its distributors, say little about
+freedom—usually because they seek to be “more acceptable to
+business.” Nearly all GNU/Linux operating system distributions add
+proprietary packages to the basic free system, and they invite users to
+consider this an advantage rather than a flaw.</p>
+
+<p>Proprietary add-on software and partially nonfree GNU/Linux distributions
+find fertile ground because most of our community does not insist on freedom
+with its software. This is no coincidence. Most GNU/Linux users were
+introduced to the system through “open source” discussion, which
+doesn't say that freedom is a goal. The practices that don't uphold freedom
+and the words that don't talk about freedom go hand in hand, each promoting
+the other. To overcome this tendency, we need more, not less, talk about
+freedom.</p>
<h3>ÐаклÑÑение</h3>
-<p>ÐокаÑо заÑÑÑпниÑиÑе на оÑвоÑÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ ÐºÐ¾Ð´
пÑивлиÑÐ°Ñ Ð½Ð¾Ð²Ð¸ поÑÑебиÑели в наÑаÑа
-обÑноÑÑ, ние, акÑивиÑÑиÑе на ÑвободниÑ
ÑоÑÑÑеÑ, ÑÑÑбва да ÑабоÑим доÑи
-по-ÑÑÑÑдно, за да повдигнем вÑпÑоÑа за
ÑвободаÑа на вниманиеÑо на Ñези нови
-поÑÑебиÑели. ТÑÑбва да казваме âТова е
Ñвободен ÑоÑÑÑÐµÑ Ð¸ ви пÑедоÑÑавÑ
-Ñвобода!â повеÑе и по-гÑÑмко Ð¾Ñ ÐºÐ¾Ð³Ð°Ñо и да
е. ÐÑеки пÑÑ, когаÑо вие
-казваÑе âÑвободен ÑоÑÑÑеÑâ вмеÑÑо
âÑоÑÑÑÐµÑ Ñ Ð¾ÑвоÑен кодâ, вие помагаÑе на
-наÑеÑо наÑинание.</p>
+<p>As the advocates of open source draw new users into our community, we free
+software activists must shoulder the task of bringing the issue of freedom
+to their attention. We have to say, “It's free software and it gives
+you freedom!”—more and louder than ever. Every time you say
+“free software” rather than “open source,” you help
+our campaign.</p>
<h4>Ðележки</h4>
<p>
-Ðжо ÐÐ°Ñ Ðµ напиÑал ÑÑаÑиÑ, озаглавена <a
-href="http://www.itworld.com/AppDev/350/LWD010523vcontrol4/">Ðивей и
-лиÑензиÑай<sup><a href="#TransNote3">3</a></sup></a>, коÑÑо
пÑедÑÑавÑ
-неговиÑе вÑзгледи по Ñози вÑпÑоÑ.</p>
+Joe Barr's article, <a
+href="http://www.itworld.com/AppDev/350/LWD010523vcontrol4/">“Live and
+let license,”</a> gives his perspective on this issue.</p>
<p>
<a href="http://freesoftware.mit.edu/papers/lakhaniwolf.pdf">ÐокладÑÑ
за
@@ -352,11 +337,11 @@
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.bg.html" -->
<div id="footer">
<p>
-ÐолÑ, оÑпÑавÑйÑе вÑпÑоÑи оÑноÑно ФСС и GNU
по е-поÑа: <a
-href="mailto:address@hidden"><em>address@hidden</em></a>. Ðма и
дÑÑги наÑини за
-<a href="/contact/">вÑÑзка</a> Ñ Ð¤Ð¡Ð¡. <br /> ÐолÑ,
изпÑаÑайÑе доклади за
-ÑÑÑпени Ñ
ипеÑвÑÑзки и дÑÑги коÑекÑии (или
пÑедложениÑ) на е-поÑа: <a
-href="mailto:address@hidden"><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
+Please send FSF & GNU inquiries to <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>. There are also <a
+href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> the FSF. <br /> Please send
+broken links and other corrections or suggestions to <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.
</p>
<p>ÐвÑоÑÑки пÑава © 2007 РиÑаÑд СÑолман <br />
ÐоÑловноÑо копиÑане и
@@ -380,7 +365,7 @@
<!-- timestamp start -->
ÐоÑледно обновÑване:
-$Date: 2009/08/02 18:25:30 $
+$Date: 2009/11/15 19:25:15 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
@@ -396,7 +381,7 @@
<ul class="translations-list">
<!-- Arabic -->
-<li><a hreflang="ar"
href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.ar.html">العربية</a> [ar]</li>
+<li><a hreflang="ar"
href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.ar.html">العربية</a> [At]</li>
<!-- Bulgarian -->
<li><a hreflang="bg"
href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.bg.html">български</a> [bg]</li>
<!-- German -->
Index: open-source-misses-the-point.es.html
===================================================================
RCS file:
/sources/trans-coord/trans-coord/gnun/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.es.html,v
retrieving revision 1.13
retrieving revision 1.14
diff -u -b -r1.13 -r1.14
--- open-source-misses-the-point.es.html 2 Aug 2009 18:25:30 -0000
1.13
+++ open-source-misses-the-point.es.html 15 Nov 2009 19:25:15 -0000
1.14
@@ -3,11 +3,11 @@
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.es.html" -->
<!-- This file is automatically generated by GNUnited Nations! -->
-<title>Por qué el código abierto pierde el punto de vista del Software Libre
-
-Proyecto GNU - Free Software Foundation (FSF)</title>
+<title>Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software - GNU Project - Free
+Software Foundation (FSF)</title>
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.es.html" -->
-<h2>Por qué el código abierto pierde el punto de vista del Software
Libre</h2>
+<h2>Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software</h2>
<p>by <strong>Richard Stallman</strong></p>
@@ -18,161 +18,154 @@
no de precio, por lo tanto piense en «libertad de expresión» y no en «barra
libre». <sup><a href="#TransNote1" id="TransNote1Home">[1]</a></sup></p>
-<p>Estas libertades son de vital importancia. Son esenciales, no solamente para
-el bien del usuario individual, porque promueven la solidaridad social: el
-compartir y cooperar. Ãstas libertades se vuelven aún más importantes
-mientras nuestra cultura y actividades de la vida diaria se vuelven más y
-más digitales. En un mundo de sonidos, imágenes y palabras digitales, el
-software libre viene a representar a la libertad en general. </p>
-
-<p>Decenas de millones de personas alrededor del mundo utilizan ahora software
-libre; las escuelas de regiones de India y España enseñan a todos los
-estudiantes a utilizar el <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.es.html">sistema
-operativo libre GNU/Linux</a>. La mayorÃa de estos usuarios nunca han
-escuchado las razones éticas por las cuales desarrollamos este sistema y
-construimos la comunidad de software libre, porque este sistema y esta
-comunidad son descritos como «de código abierto», y atribuidos a una
-filosofÃa diferente, en la cual estas libertades son rara vez mencionadas.</p>
-
-<p>El movimiento de software libre ha hecho campaña por la libertad de los
-usuarios de ordenador desde 1983. En 1984 iniciamos el desarrollo del
-sistema operativo libre GNU, para poder evitar los sistemas operativos que
-no son libres y niegan la libertad a sus usuarios. Durante los años 80
-creamos la mayor parte de los componentes esenciales de dicho sistema, tal
-como la <a href="/licenses/gpl.es.html">Licencia Pública General GNU</a>,
-una licencia diseñada especÃficamente para proteger la libertad de todos los
-usuarios de un programa.</p>
-
-<p>Sin embargo, no todos los usuarios y programadores de software libre estaban
-de acuerdo con las metas del movimiento del software libre. En 1998, una
-parte de la comunidad de software libre se bifurcó y empezó a hacer una
-campaña en nombre del «código abierto» («<span
-style="font-style:italic;">Open Source</span>» en inglés). El término se
-propuso originalmente para evitar un posible malentendido con el término
-«software libre», pero pronto se asoció con visiones filosóficas diferentes
-a las del movimiento del software libre.</p>
-
-<p>Algunos de los defensores del «código abierto» lo consideraron una
«campaña
-de marketing para el software libre»; la cual atraerÃa a los ejecutivos de
-empresas al citar los beneficios prácticos, mientras evitaba las ideas de
-correcto e incorrecto que quizá no deseaban oÃr. Otros defensores rechazaban
-frontalmente los valores éticos y sociológicos del software
-libre. Cualesquiera que hayan sido sus perspectivas, cuando hacÃan campaña
-por el «código abierto» no citaban o abogaban por esos valores. El término
-«código abierto» fue rápidamente asociado con la costumbre de citar
-solamente los valores prácticos, como el hacer software potente y
-confiable. La mayorÃa de simpatizantes del «código abierto» han llegado a
-dicho movimiento desde entonces y ése es el significado que le atribuyen.</p>
-
-<p>Casi todo el software de código abierto es software libre. Los dos
conceptos
-describen casi la misma categorÃa de software, pero representan puntos de
-vista basados en valores fundamentalmente diferentes. El código abierto es
-una metodologÃa de programación, el software libre es un movimiento
-social. Para el movimiento del software libre, el software libre es un
-imperativo ético porque solamente el software libre respeta la libertad del
-usuario. En cambio, la filosofÃa del código abierto considera los asuntos
-bajo los términos de cómo hacer «mejor» al software, en un sentido
práctico
-solamente. Plantea que el software que no es libre no es una solución
-óptima. Para el movimiento del software libre, sin embargo, el software que
-no es libre es un problema social, y usar en su lugar software libre es la
-solución.</p>
-
-<p>Software libre. Código abierto. Si es el mismo software, ¿importa acaso
qué
-nombre se utiliza?. SÃ, porque las diferentes palabras expresan ideas
-diferentes. Mientras que un programa libre, con cualquier otro nombre, le
-dará la misma libertad; establecer la libertad de una manera perdurable
-depende sobre todo de enseñar a las personas a valorar la libertad. Si desea
-ayudar a hacer esto, es esencial que hable de «software libre».</p>
-
-<p>Nosotros, en el movimiento del software libre, no vemos el ámbito del
código
-abierto como al enemigo; el enemigo es el software privativo, el que no es
-libre. Pero queremos que la gente sepa que defendemos la libertad, asà que
-no aceptamos que se nos identifique como partidarios del código abierto. </p>
-
-<h3>Malinterpretaciones comunes entre «software libre» y «código
abierto»</h3>
-
-<p>El término «software libre» tiene un problema de interpretación, un
-significado no intencional. «Software que puedes obtener a coste cero» calza
-tan bien con el término como el significado intencionado: «software que da
-al usuario ciertas libertades» <sup><a href="#TransNote2"
-id="TransNote2Home">[2]</a></sup>. Tratamos este problema publicando la
-definición de software libre y diciendo «piense en libertad de expresión, no
-en barra libre». Ãsta no es una solución perfecta, no puede eliminar
-completamente el problema. Un término correcto e inequÃvoco serÃa mejor, si
-no tuviese otros problemas.</p>
+<p>These freedoms are vitally important. They are essential, not just for the
+individual users' sake, but for society as a whole because they promote
+social solidarity—that is, sharing and cooperation. They become even
+more important as our culture and life activities are increasingly
+digitized. In a world of digital sounds, images, and words, free software
+becomes increasingly essential for freedom in general.</p>
+
+<p>Tens of millions of people around the world now use free software; the
+schools of regions of India and Spain now teach all students to use the free
+<a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux operating system</a>. Most of
+these users, however, have never heard of the ethical reasons for which we
+developed this system and built the free software community, because
+nowadays this system and community are more often spoken of as “open
+source,”, attributing them to a different philosophy in which these
+freedoms are hardly mentioned.</p>
+
+<p>The free software movement has campaigned for computer users' freedom since
+1983. In 1984 we launched the development of the free operating system GNU,
+so that we could avoid the nonfree operating systems that deny freedom to
+their users. During the 1980s, we developed most of the essential
+components of the system and designed the <a href="/licenses/gpl.html">GNU
+General Public License</a> (GNU GPL) to release them under—a license
+designed specifically to protect freedom for all users of a program.</p>
+
+<p>Not all of the users and developers of free software agreed with the goals
+of the free software movement. In 1998, a part of the free software
+community splintered off and began campaigning in the name of “open
+source.” The term was originally proposed to avoid a possible
+misunderstanding of the term “free software,” but it soon became
+associated with philosophical views quite different from those of the free
+software movement.</p>
+
+<p>Some of the supporters of open source considered the term a “marketing
+campaign for free software,” which would appeal to business executives
+by highlighting the software's practical benefits, while not raising issues
+of right and wrong that they might not like to hear. Other supporters
+flatly rejected the free software movement's ethical and social values.
+Whichever their views, when campaigning for open source, they neither cited
+nor advocated those values. The term “open source” quickly
+became associated with ideas and arguments based only on practical values,
+such as making or having powerful, reliable software. Most of the
+supporters of open source have come to it since then, and they make the same
+association.</p>
+
+<p>Nearly all open source software is free software. The two terms describe
+almost the same category of software, but they stand for views based on
+fundamentally different values. Open source is a development methodology;
+free software is a social movement. For the free software movement, free
+software is an ethical imperative, because only free software respects the
+users' freedom. By contrast, the philosophy of open source considers issues
+in terms of how to make software “better”—in a practical
+sense only. It says that nonfree software is an inferior solution to the
+practical problem at hand. For the free software movement, however, nonfree
+software is a social problem, and the solution is to stop using it and move
+to free software.</p>
+
+<p>“Free software.” “Open source.” If it's the same
+software, does it matter which name you use? Yes, because different words
+convey different ideas. While a free program by any other name would give
+you the same freedom today, establishing freedom in a lasting way depends
+above all on teaching people to value freedom. If you want to help do this,
+it is essential to speak of “free software.”</p>
+
+<p>We in the free software movement don't think of the open source camp as an
+enemy; the enemy is proprietary (nonfree) software. But we want people to
+know we stand for freedom, so we do not accept being mislabeled as open
+source supporters.</p>
+
+<h3>Common Misunderstandings of “Free Software” and “Open
+Source”</h3>
+
+<p>The term “free software” is prone to misinterpretation: an
+unintended meaning, “software you can get for zero price,” fits
+the term just as well as the intended meaning, “software which gives
+the user certain freedoms.” We address this problem by publishing the
+definition of free software, and by saying “Think of ‘free
+speech,’ not ‘free beer.’” This is not a perfect
+solution; it cannot completely eliminate the problem. An unambiguous and
+correct term would be better, if it didn't present other problems.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, all the alternatives in English have problems of their own.
-We've looked at many alternatives that people have suggested, but none is so
-clearly “right” that switching to it would be a good idea. (For
-instance, in some contexts the French/Spanish word "libre" can be used, but
-people in India do not recognize the word at all.) Every proposed
+We've looked at many that people have suggested, but none is so clearly
+“right” that switching to it would be a good idea. (For
+instance, in some contexts the French and Spanish word “libre”
+works well, but people in India do not recognize it at all.) Every proposed
replacement for “free software” has some kind of semantic
problem—and this includes “open source software.”</p>
-<p>La <a href="http://opensource.org/docs/osd">definición oficial de
«software
-de código abierto»</a>, publicada por la Open Source Initiative y muy larga
-de citar aquÃ, se derivó indirectamente de nuestro criterio para el software
-libre. No es la misma, es un poco más imprecisa en algunos aspectos, asà que
-sus partidarios han aceptado algunas licencias que nosotros consideramos
-inaceptablemente restrictivas contra los usuarios. Sin embargo, está
-bastante cerca de nuestra definición en la práctica.</p>
-
-<p>Sin embargo, el significado obvio para la expresión «software de código
-abierto» es «puede mirar el código fuente», y muchas personas parecen
pensar
-que eso es lo que significa. Ese es un criterio mucho más débil que software
-libre, y es mucho más débil que la definición oficial de código
-abierto. Incluye muchos programas que no son ni libres ni de código
abierto.</p>
-
-<p>Como ese significado obvio de «código abierto» no es el significado que
sus
-promotores desean, el resultado es que la mayorÃa de personas malentienden
-el término. Asà es cómo el escritor Neal Stephenson definió «código
-abierto»:</p>
-
- <blockquote><p>Linux es software de «código abierto», lo que significa
que cualquiera
-puede obtener copias de sus archivos de código fuente.</p></blockquote>
-
-<p>No pienso que deliberadamente buscara rechazar o disputar la definición
-«oficial». Creo que simplemente aplicó las convenciones de la lengua inglesa
-para llegar a un significado para el término. El estado de Kansas (Estados
-Unidos de América) publicó una definición similar:</p>
-
-<!-- It was from http://da.state.ks.us/itec/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf,
-but that page is no longer available. -->
-<blockquote><p>Utilice software de código abierto. El software de código
abierto es
-software para el cual el código fuente está disponible gratuitamente y
-públicamente, aunque los acuerdos de licencia especÃficos varÃan en cuanto a
-lo que está permitido de hacer con ese código.</p></blockquote>
+<p>The <a href="http://opensource.org/docs/osd">official definition of
+“open source software”</a> (which is published by the Open
+Source Initiative and is too long to include here) was derived indirectly
+from our criteria for free software. It is not the same; it is a little
+looser in some respects, so open source supporters have accepted a few
+licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive of the users.
+Nonetheless, it is fairly close to our definition in practice.</p>
+
+<p>However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source
+software”—and the one most people seem to think it
+means—is “You can look at the source code.” That criterion
+is much weaker than the free software definition, much weaker also than the
+official definition of open source. It includes many programs that are
+neither free nor open source.</p>
+
+<p><!-- It was from http://da.state.ks.us/itec/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf, but
+that page is no longer available. -->
+Since that obvious meaning for “open source” is not the meaning
+that its advocates intend, the result is that most people misunderstand the
+term. According to writer Neal Stephenson, “Linux is ‘open
+source’ software meaning, simply, that anyone can get copies of its
+source code files.” I don't think he deliberately sought to reject or
+dispute the “official” definition. I think he simply applied
+the conventions of the English language to come up with a meaning for the
+term. The state of Kansas published a similar definition: “Make use
+of open-source software (OSS). OSS is software for which the source code is
+freely and publicly available, though the specific licensing agreements vary
+as to what one is allowed to do with that code.”</p>
-<p>The New York Times has <a
+<p>The <i>New York Times</i> has <a
href="http://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-design-37415.html">
-stretched the term</a> to refer to user beta testing — letting a few
-users try an early version and give confidential feedback — which
-proprietary software developers have practiced for decades.</p>
-
-<p>La gente del código abierto intenta lidiar con este problema refiriéndose
a
-su definición oficial, pero ese enfoque correctivo es menos efectivo para
-ellos que para nosotros. El término «software libre» tiene dos significados
-naturales, uno de los cuales es el que es deseado; de manera que una persona
-que ha comprendido la idea de «libertad de expresión, no barra libre» no se
-equivocará de nuevo. Sin embargo, el «código abierto» solamente tiene un
-significado natural, el cual es diferente del que sus partidarios
-desean. Asà que no hay una manera breve de explicar y justificar la
-definición oficial de «código abierto». Eso causa mayor confusión.</p>
-
-<p>Otro malentendido de «código abierto» es la idea que significa «no usar
la
-GPL de GNU». Lo suele acompañar el malentendido de «software libre» es
igual
-al «software bajo la GPL de GNU». Ambos son malentendidos, ya que la GPL de
-GNU es considerada una licencia de código abierto; y la mayorÃa de las
-licencias de código abierto también se consideran licencias de software
-libre.</p>
-
-<h3>Valores diferentes pueden llevar a conclusiones similares, pero no
siempre</h3>
-
-<p>Los grupos radicales en los 1960 tenÃan reputación de tener facciones:
-algunas organizaciones se dividÃan por desacuerdos respecto a detalles de
-estrategia; y los dos grupos resultantes se trataban entre ellos como
-enemigos, aunque tenÃan metas y valores básicos similares. La derecha se
-aprovechó de esto y lo utilizó para criticar a la izquierda en general.</p>
+run an article that stretches the meaning of the term</a> to refer to user
+beta testing—letting a few users try an early version and give
+confidential feedback—which proprietary software developers have
+practiced for decades.</p>
+
+<p>Open source supporters try to deal with this by pointing to their official
+definition, but that corrective approach is less effective for them than it
+is for us. The term “free software” has two natural meanings,
+one of which is the intended meaning, so a person who has grasped the idea
+of “free speech, not free beer” will not get it wrong again.
+But the term “open source” has only one natural meaning, which
+is different from the meaning its supporters intend. So there is no
+succinct way to explain and justify its official definition. That makes for
+worse confusion.</p>
+
+<p>Another misunderstanding of “open source” is the idea that it
+means “not using the GNU GPL.” This tends to accompany another
+misunderstanding that “free software” means “GPL-covered
+software.” These are equally mistaken, since the GNU GPL is accepted
+as an open source license and most of the open source licenses qualify as
+free software licenses.</p>
+
+<h3>Different Values Can Lead to Similar Conclusions…but Not Always</h3>
+
+<p>Radical groups in the 1960s had a reputation for factionalism: some
+organizations split because of disagreements on details of strategy, and the
+two daughter groups treated each other as enemies despite having similar
+basic goals and values. The right wing made much of this and used it to
+criticize the entire left.</p>
<p>Algunos intentan desacreditar al movimiento de software libre comparando
nuestro desacuerdo con el código abierto con los desacuerdos de esos grupos
@@ -181,19 +174,19 @@
llevan en muchos casos al mismo comportamiento práctico, como programar
software libre.</p>
-<p>Como resultado, gente del movimiento del software libre y del ámbito del
-código abierto trabajan, con frecuencia, juntos en proyectos prácticos como
-el desarrollo de software. Es remarcable que puntos de vista filosóficos tan
-diferentes puedan tan a menudo motivar a diferentes personas a participar en
-los mismos proyectos. Sin embargo, estos puntos de vista son muy diferentes
-y existen situaciones en las cuales llevan a acciones totalmente
diferentes.</p>
-
-<p>La idea del código abierto es que el permitir a los usuarios modificar y
-redistribuir el software lo hará más potente y confiable, pero no hay
-garantÃa. Los programadores de software privativo no son necesariamente
-incompetentes. Algunas veces producen un programa potente y confiable,
-aunque no respete la libertad del usuario. ¿Cómo reaccionarÃan a ello los
-activistas de software libre y los entusiastas del código abierto?</p>
+<p>As a result, people from the free software movement and the open source camp
+often work together on practical projects such as software development. It
+is remarkable that such different philosophical views can so often motivate
+different people to participate in the same projects. Nonetheless, there
+are situations where these fundamentally different views lead to very
+different actions.</p>
+
+<p>The idea of open source is that allowing users to change and redistribute
+the software will make it more powerful and reliable. But this is not
+guaranteed. Developers of proprietary software are not necessarily
+incompetent. Sometimes they produce a program that is powerful and
+reliable, even though it does not respect the users' freedom. Free software
+activists and open source enthusiasts will react very differently to that.</p>
<p>Un entusiasta puro del código abierto, uno que no esté influenciado para
nada por los ideales del software libre, dirÃa: «Estoy sorprendido que haya
@@ -202,68 +195,63 @@
premiarÃa a los esquemas que nos quitan la libertad, llevándonos a su
pérdida.</p>
-<p>El activista de software libre dirÃa: «Su programa es muy atractivo pero
no
-cederé mi libertad por él. Asà que tengo que arreglármelas sin él. En vez
de
-eso, apoyaré a un proyecto para que desarrolle un reemplazo libre.». Si
-valoramos nuestra libertad, podemos mantenerla y defenderla.</p>
+<p>The free software activist will say, “Your program is very attractive,
+but I value my freedom more. So I reject your program. Instead I will
+support a project to develop a free replacement.” If we value our
+freedom, we can act to maintain and defend it.</p>
-<h3>El software potente y confiable puede ser malo.</h3>
+<h3>Powerful, Reliable Software Can Be Bad</h3>
<p>La idea de que queremos que el software sea potente y confiable viene de la
suposición de que el software está diseñado para servir a sus usuarios. Si
es potente y confiable, eso significa que los sirve mejor.</p>
-<p>Pero sólo se puede decir que el software sirve a sus usuarios si respeta su
-libertad. ¿Qué tal si el software es diseñado para encadenar a sus
-usuarios?. Entonces, la potencia únicamente significa que las cadenas son
-más restrictivas, y la confiabilidad significa que son más difÃciles de
-quitar. Las funcionalidades maliciosas, como el espiar a los usuarios,
-restringir a los usuarios, las puertas traseras y las actualizaciones
-impuestas son comunes en el software privativo, y algunos defensores del
-código abierto quieren hacerlo de esa misma manera.</p>
-
-<p>Bajo la presión de las compañÃas discográficas y cinematográficas, el
-software que la gente puede utilizar está diseñado cada vez más
-especÃficamente para restringirlos. Esta funcionalidad maliciosa se conoce
-como <acronym lang="en" title="Digital Restrictions
-Management">DRM</acronym> o «Gestión de Restricciones Digitales» (vea <a
-href="http://defectivebydesign.org/">DefectiveByDesign.org</a>) y es la
-antÃtesis, en espÃritu, a la libertad que el software libre busca
-proveer. El <acronym lang="en" title="Digital Restrictions
-Management">DRM</acronym> no sólo atenta contra el espÃritu del software
-libre, sino que además está diseñado expresamente para pisotear su
-libertad. Los programadores de DRM intentan dificultar e ilegalizar la
-modificación de los programas que implementan el DRM.</p>
-
-<p>Con todo, algunos partidarios del código abierto han propuesto software
«DRM
-de código abierto». Su idea es que al publicar el código fuente de los
-programas diseñados para restringir su acceso a contenido cifrado, y
-permitir a otros que lo cambien, producirá software más potente y confiable
-para restringir a usuarios como usted. Entonces, se le entregará en
-dispositivos que no le permitirán modificarlo.</p>
-
-<p>Este software puede ser «código abierto» y puede utilizar el modelo de
-desarrollo del código abierto; pero no será software libre, ya que no
-respetará la libertad de los usuarios que en la práctica lo ejecutan. Si el
-modelo de desarrollo del código abierto tiene éxito en hacer de este
-software más poderoso y confiable para restringirle, eso lo hará aún
peor.</p>
-
-<h3>Miedo de la libertad</h3>
-
-<p>La principal motivación inicial para el término «software de código
abierto»
-es que la ideas éticas del «software libre» hacen a la gente sentirse
-incómoda. Eso es cierto: hablar acerca la libertad, asuntos éticos y
-responsabilidades tanto como de la conveniencia, es pedir a la gente que
-piense sobre cosas que podrÃan preferir ignorar; tales como si su conducta
-es ética. Esto puede provocar incomodidad, y algunas personas pueden
-simplemente cerrar sus mentes al respecto. No es motivo para que debamos
-dejar de hablar sobre estas cosas.</p>
-
-<p>Sin embargo, eso es lo que los lÃderes del «código abierto» decidieron
-hacer. Pensaron que al mantenerse callados sobre la ética y la libertad; y
-hablando solamente sobre los beneficios prácticos inmediatos de cierto
-software libre, podrÃan ser capaces de «vender» el software más
-efectivamente a ciertos usuarios, especialmente empresas.</p>
+<p>But software can be said to serve its users only if it respects their
+freedom. What if the software is designed to put chains on its users? Then
+powerfulness means the chains are more constricting, and reliability that
+they are harder to remove. Malicious features, such as spying on the users,
+restricting the users, back doors, and imposed upgrades are common in
+proprietary software, and some open source supporters want to implement them
+in open source programs.</p>
+
+<p>Under pressure from the movie and record companies, software for individuals
+to use is increasingly designed specifically to restrict them. This
+malicious feature is known as Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) (see <a
+href="http://defectivebydesign.org/">DefectiveByDesign.org</a> and is the
+antithesis in spirit of the freedom that free software aims to provide. And
+not just in spirit: since the goal of DRM is to trample your freedom, DRM
+developers try to make it hard, impossible, or even illegal for you to
+change the software that implements the DRM.</p>
+
+<p>Yet some open source supporters have proposed “open source DRM”
+software. Their idea is that, by publishing the source code of programs
+designed to restrict your access to encrypted media and by allowing others
+to change it, they will produce more powerful and reliable software for
+restricting users like you. The software would then be delivered to you in
+devices that do not allow you to change it.</p>
+
+<p>This software might be open source and use the open source development
+model, but it won't be free software since it won't respect the freedom of
+the users that actually run it. If the open source development model
+succeeds in making this software more powerful and reliable for restricting
+you, that will make it even worse.</p>
+
+<h3>Fear of Freedom</h3>
+
+<p>The main initial motivation of those who split off the open source camp from
+the free software movement was that the ethical ideas of “free
+software” made some people uneasy. That's true: raising ethical
+issues such as freedom, talking about responsibilities as well as
+convenience, is asking people to think about things they might prefer to
+ignore, such as whether their conduct is ethical. This can trigger
+discomfort, and some people may simply close their minds to it. It does not
+follow that we ought to stop talking about these issues.</p>
+
+<p>That is, however, what the leaders of open source decided to do. They
+figured that by keeping quiet about ethics and freedom, and talking only
+about the immediate practical benefits of certain free software, they might
+be able to “sell” the software more effectively to certain
+users, especially business.</p>
<p>Este enfoque se ha probado efectivo, en sus propios términos. La retórica
del código abierto ha convencido muchas empresas y particulares a usar, e
@@ -276,50 +264,47 @@
libre los lleva sólo hasta una parte del camino que hay que recorrer para
ser defensores de su propia libertad.</p>
-<p>Tarde o temprano estos usuarios serán invitados a volver al software
-privativo por alguna ventaja práctica. Incontables compañÃas buscan ofrecer
-esa tentación; algunas ofreciendo copias gratuitas. ¿Qué motivarÃa a los
-usuarios a declinarlas? Sólo si han aprendido a valorar la libertad que el
-software libre les da, a valorar la libertad como tal, en vez de la
-conveniencia técnica y práctica de algún software libre en particular. Para
-diseminar esta idea, tenemos que hablar acerca de la libertad. Cierta dosis
-de aproximamiento «silencioso» hacia las empresas puede ser útil para la
-comunidad, pero es peligroso si se vuelve tan común que el amor a la
-libertad llegara a verse como una excentricidad.</p>
-
-<p>Esta peligrosa situación es exactamente la que tenemos. Mucha gente
-relacionada con el software libre habla poco acerca de la libertad,
-normalmente porque buscan ser «más atractivos para las empresas». Los
-distribuidores de software son, especialmente, los que muestran este patrón
-de conducta. Casi todas las distribuciones del sistema operativo GNU/Linux
-agregan paquetes privativos al sistema base libre; y con ello invitan a los
-usuarios a considerar ésto una ventaja, en lugar de un paso hacia atrás en
-su libertad.</p>
-
-<p>Extensiones de software privativas y distribuciones de GNU/Linux que no son
-parcialmente libres encuentran terrenos abonados, porque gran parte de
-nuestra comunidad no insiste en la libertad de su software. Ãsto no es una
-coincidencia. La mayor parte de usuarios de GNU/Linux llegaron al sistema
-por el discurso del «código abierto», el cual no menciona a la libertad como
-una meta. Las prácticas que no sostienen a la libertad y las palabras que no
-hablan de libertad van de la mano, promoviéndose entre sÃ. Para superar ésta
-tendencia necesitamos hablar más de libertad, no menos.</p>
+<p>Sooner or later these users will be invited to switch back to proprietary
+software for some practical advantage. Countless companies seek to offer
+such temptation, some even offering copies gratis. Why would users decline?
+Only if they have learned to value the freedom free software gives them, to
+value freedom in and of itself rather than the technical and practical
+convenience of specific free software. To spread this idea, we have to talk
+about freedom. A certain amount of the “keep quiet” approach to
+business can be useful for the community, but it is dangerous if it becomes
+so common that the love of freedom comes to seem like an eccentricity.</p>
+
+<p>That dangerous situation is exactly what we have. Most people involved with
+free software, especially its distributors, say little about
+freedom—usually because they seek to be “more acceptable to
+business.” Nearly all GNU/Linux operating system distributions add
+proprietary packages to the basic free system, and they invite users to
+consider this an advantage rather than a flaw.</p>
+
+<p>Proprietary add-on software and partially nonfree GNU/Linux distributions
+find fertile ground because most of our community does not insist on freedom
+with its software. This is no coincidence. Most GNU/Linux users were
+introduced to the system through “open source” discussion, which
+doesn't say that freedom is a goal. The practices that don't uphold freedom
+and the words that don't talk about freedom go hand in hand, each promoting
+the other. To overcome this tendency, we need more, not less, talk about
+freedom.</p>
<h3>Conclusión</h3>
-<p>Mientras los promotores del código abierto traen nuevos usuarios a nuestra
-comunidad; nosotros, los activistas del software libre, tenemos que trabajar
-aún más para llevar el concepto de libertad a estos nuevos usuarios. Tenemos
-que decir «¡Es software libre y te da libertad!» más fuerte que nunca. Cada
-vez que dice «software libre» en lugar de «código abierto», ayuda a
nuestra
-campaña.</p>
+<p>As the advocates of open source draw new users into our community, we free
+software activists must shoulder the task of bringing the issue of freedom
+to their attention. We have to say, “It's free software and it gives
+you freedom!”—more and louder than ever. Every time you say
+“free software” rather than “open source,” you help
+our campaign.</p>
<h4>Notas al pie</h4>
<p>
-Joe Barr escribió un artÃculo en inglés de tÃtulo <a
-href="http://www.itworld.com/AppDev/350/LWD010523vcontrol4/">Vive y deja
-licenciar</a> que muestra su perspectiva respecto al tema.</p>
+Joe Barr's article, <a
+href="http://www.itworld.com/AppDev/350/LWD010523vcontrol4/">“Live and
+let license,”</a> gives his perspective on this issue.</p>
<p>
La documento en inglés de Lakhani y Wolf <a
@@ -344,11 +329,11 @@
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.es.html" -->
<div id="footer">
<p>
-Por favor, envÃe sus comentarios y preguntas sobre la FSF y el proyecto GNU
-a <a href="mailto:address@hidden"><em>address@hidden</em></a>. También puede
<a
-href="/contact/">contactar con la FSFpor otros medios</a><br />Por favor,
-envÃe enlaces rotos y otras correcciones o sugerencias a<a
-href="mailto:address@hidden"><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
+Please send FSF & GNU inquiries to <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>. There are also <a
+href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> the FSF. <br /> Please send
+broken links and other corrections or suggestions to <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.
</p>
<p>Copyright © 2007 Richard Stallman <br /> Verbatim copying and
@@ -369,7 +354,7 @@
<!-- timestamp start -->
Ãltima actualización:
-$Date: 2009/08/02 18:25:30 $
+$Date: 2009/11/15 19:25:15 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
@@ -385,7 +370,7 @@
<ul class="translations-list">
<!-- Arabic -->
-<li><a hreflang="ar"
href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.ar.html">العربية</a> [ar]</li>
+<li><a hreflang="ar"
href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.ar.html">العربية</a> [At]</li>
<!-- Bulgarian -->
<li><a hreflang="bg"
href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.bg.html">български</a> [bg]</li>
<!-- German -->
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- trans-coord/gnun/philosophy open-source-misses-...,
Yavor Doganov <=