[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/philosophy when_free_software_isnt_practica...
|
From: |
Pavel Kharitonov |
|
Subject: |
www/philosophy when_free_software_isnt_practica... |
|
Date: |
Tue, 02 Oct 2012 03:56:31 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: Pavel Kharitonov <ineiev> 12/10/02 03:56:31
Modified files:
philosophy : when_free_software_isnt_practically_better.html
Log message:
Use “, ”, —; s/bug-baz/webmasters/.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/when_free_software_isnt_practically_better.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.2&r2=1.3
Patches:
Index: when_free_software_isnt_practically_better.html
===================================================================
RCS file:
/web/www/www/philosophy/when_free_software_isnt_practically_better.html,v
retrieving revision 1.2
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -b -r1.2 -r1.3
--- when_free_software_isnt_practically_better.html 1 Oct 2012 17:51:33
-0000 1.2
+++ when_free_software_isnt_practically_better.html 2 Oct 2012 03:56:30
-0000 1.3
@@ -7,44 +7,44 @@
<!--#include virtual="/server/gnun/initial-translations-list.html" -->
<h2> When Free Software Isn't (Practically) Better</h2>
-<p>The Open Source Initiative's mission statement reads, "Open source
+<p>The Open Source Initiative's mission statement reads, “Open source
is a development method for software that harnesses the power of
distributed peer review and transparency of process. The promise of
open source is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility,
-lower cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in."</p>
+lower cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in.”</p>
<p>For more than a decade now, the Free Software Foundation has argued
-against this "open source" characterization of the free software
+against this “open source” characterization of the free software
movement. Free software advocates have primarily argued against this
-framing because "open source" is an explicit effort to deemphasize
+framing because “open source” is an explicit effort to deemphasize
our core message of freedom and obscure our movement's role in the
-success of the software we have built. We have argued that "open
-source" is bad, fundamentally, because it attempts to keep people from
+success of the software we have built. We have argued that “open
+source” is bad, fundamentally, because it attempts to keep people from
talking about software freedom. But there is another reason we should
be wary of the open source framing. The fundamental open source
argument, as quoted in the mission statement above, is often
incorrect.</p>
-<p>Although the Open Source Initiative suggests "the promise of open
-source is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility," this
+<p>Although the Open Source Initiative suggests “the promise of open
+source is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility,” this
promise is not always realized. Although we do not often advertise the
fact, any user of an early-stage free software project can explain
that free software is not always as convenient, in purely practical
terms, as its proprietary competitors. Free software is sometimes low
quality. It is sometimes unreliable. It is sometimes inflexible. If
people take the arguments in favor of open source seriously, they must
-explain why open source has not lived up to its "promise" and conclude
+explain why open source has not lived up to its “promise” and
conclude
that proprietary tools would be a better choice. There is no reason we
should have to do either.</p>
<p>Richard Stallman speaks to this in his article on <a
href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">Why
-Open Source Misses the Point</a> when he explains, "The idea of open
+Open Source Misses the Point</a> when he explains, “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."</p>
+reliable, even though it does not respect the users' freedom.”</p>
<p>For open source, poor-quality software is a problem to be explained
away or a reason to eschew the software altogether. For free software,
@@ -69,7 +69,7 @@
distributed, peer-review development process at the heart of the
definition of open source bears little resemblance to the practice of
software development in the vast majority of projects under free (or
-"open source") licenses.</p>
+“open source”) licenses.</p>
<p>Several academic studies of free software hosting sites <a
href="http://sf.net";>SourceForge</a> and <a
@@ -80,12 +80,12 @@
free software project on SourceForge? One. A lone
developer. SourceForge projects at the ninety-fifth percentile by
participant size have only five contributors. More than half of these
-free software projects--and even most projects that have made several
+free software projects—and even most projects that have made several
successful releases and been downloaded frequently, are the work of a
single developer with little outside help.</p>
-<p>By emphasizing the power of collaborative development and "distributed
-peer review," open source approaches seem to have very little to say
+<p>By emphasizing the power of collaborative development and “distributed
+peer review,” open source approaches seem to have very little to say
about why one should use, or contribute to, the vast majority of free
software projects. Because the purported benefits of collaboration
cannot be realized when there is no collaboration, the vast majority
@@ -96,7 +96,7 @@
important successes. Because every piece of free software respects its
users' freedom, advocates of software freedom argue that each piece of
free software begins with an inherent ethical advantage over
-proprietary competitors -- even a more featureful one. By emphasizing
+proprietary competitors—even a more featureful one. By emphasizing
freedom over practical advantages, free software's advocacy is rooted
in a technical reality in a way that open source is often not. When
free software is better, we can celebrate this fact. When it is not,
@@ -106,8 +106,8 @@
<p>Open source advocates must defend their thesis that freely developed
software should, or will with time, be better than proprietary
-software. Free software supporters can instead ask, "How can we make
-free software better?" In a free software framing, high quality software
+software. Free software supporters can instead ask, “How can we make
+free software better?” In a free software framing, high quality software
exists as a means to an end rather than an end itself. Free software
developers should strive to create functional, flexible software that
serves its users well. But doing so is not the only way to make steps
@@ -132,7 +132,7 @@
<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>.
There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
-to <a href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>.</p>
+to <a href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>.</p>
<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
replace it with the translation of these two:
@@ -160,7 +160,7 @@
<p>Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2012/10/01 17:51:33 $
+$Date: 2012/10/02 03:56:30 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>