[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/philosophy free-sw.nl.html open-source-miss...
|
From: |
GNUN |
|
Subject: |
www/philosophy free-sw.nl.html open-source-miss... |
|
Date: |
Wed, 02 Jan 2013 11:27:12 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: GNUN <gnun> 13/01/02 11:27:11
Modified files:
philosophy : free-sw.nl.html
open-source-misses-the-point.fr.html
open-source-misses-the-point.it.html
open-source-misses-the-point.nl.html
open-source-misses-the-point.pl.html
philosophy/po : open-source-misses-the-point.fr-en.html
open-source-misses-the-point.it-en.html
open-source-misses-the-point.it.po
open-source-misses-the-point.nl-en.html
open-source-misses-the-point.nl.po
open-source-misses-the-point.pl-en.html
Added files:
philosophy/po : free-sw.nl-en.html
Log message:
Automatic update by GNUnited Nations.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/free-sw.nl.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.11&r2=1.12
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.fr.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.42&r2=1.43
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.it.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.20&r2=1.21
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.nl.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.8&r2=1.9
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.pl.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.16&r2=1.17
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.fr-en.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.18&r2=1.19
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.it-en.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.7&r2=1.8
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.it.po?cvsroot=www&r1=1.20&r2=1.21
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.nl-en.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.1&r2=1.2
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.nl.po?cvsroot=www&r1=1.8&r2=1.9
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.pl-en.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.6&r2=1.7
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/free-sw.nl-en.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
Patches:
Index: free-sw.nl.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/free-sw.nl.html,v
retrieving revision 1.11
retrieving revision 1.12
diff -u -b -r1.11 -r1.12
--- free-sw.nl.html 25 Dec 2012 06:27:35 -0000 1.11
+++ free-sw.nl.html 2 Jan 2013 11:27:10 -0000 1.12
@@ -1,395 +1,498 @@
+
+
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.nl.html" -->
+<!-- This file is automatically generated by GNUnited Nations! -->
+ <!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/free-sw.en.html" -->
+
<title>Wat is vrije software? - Het GNU project - Free Software Foundation
(FSF)</title>
-<meta http-equiv="Keywords" content="GNU, FSF, Free Software Foundation,
Linux, Emacs, GCC, Unix, Free Software, Operating System, GNU Kernel, HURD, GNU
HURD, Hurd" />
-<meta http-equiv="Description" content="Since 1983, developing the free Unix
style operating system GNU, so that computer users can have the freedom to
share and improve the software they use." />
+<meta http-equiv="Keywords" content="GNU, FSF, Free Software Foundation,
Linux, Emacs, GCC, Unix, Free Software,
+Operating System, GNU Kernel, HURD, GNU HURD, Hurd" />
+<meta http-equiv="Description" content="Ontwikkelen van een op Unix gebaseerd
vrij besturingssysteem sinds 1983
+zodat gebruikers de vrijheid krijgen om software die ze gebruiken te delen
+en te verbeteren." />
<link rel="alternate" title="What's New"
href="http://www.gnu.org/rss/whatsnew.rss"; type="application/rss+xml" />
<link rel="alternate" title="New Free Software"
href="http://www.gnu.org/rss/quagga.rss"; type="application/rss+xml" />
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.nl.html" -->
-<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
- value='<a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/free-sw.nl.po";>
- http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/free-sw.nl.po</a>' -->
- <!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/free-sw.html" -->
- <!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="" -->
- <!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2012-07-01" -->
- <!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.nl.html" -->
-
-<h2>De Definitie van Vrije Software</h2>
-
-<p>
-We houden deze definitie van vrije software bij om duidelijk te
-maken waaraan een programma moet voldoen om vrije software te
-kunnen zijn.
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/free-sw.translist" -->
+<h2>Wat is vrije software?</h2>
+
+<h3>De Definitie van Vrije Software</h3>
+
+<blockquote>
+<p>
+De definitie van vrije software bepaald criteria voor wanneer je een
+programma aan kunt merken als vrij. Zo nu en dan schaven we die definitie
+bij om iets te verduidelijken of subtiele problemen uit te sluiten. Zie het
+<a href="#History">Historisch overzicht</a> hieronder met veranderingen die
+reeds zijn doorgevoerd.
+</p>
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>
+“Vrije software” staat voor software die de vrijheid van
+gebruikers en gemeenschap respecteert. Samengevat, <b>de gebruikers hebben
+de vrijheid om programma's te gebruiken, kopiëren, uitlenen, weggeven,
+bestuderen, veranderen of verbeteren</b>. Hiermee bepalen gebruikers zelf
+wat het programma voor hen -kan- doen.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Wanneer gebruikers niet kunnen bepalen wat een programma voor hen doet,
+bepaalt het programma wat de gebruikers doen. De ontwikkelaar bepaald dan
+wat het programma doet en daarmee indirect de gebruikers. Dit restrictieve
+of “private” programma is daarmee een instrument voor
+machtsmisbruik.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+“Vrije software” gaat over vrijheid, niet over prijs. (nvdv: het
+Engelse “free” kan zowel <em>vrij</em> als <em>gratis</em>
+betekenen, vandaar de nadruk in deze en andere artikelen op de betekenis van
+de term <q> vrij</q>. Dit wordt nog verder bemoeilijkt doordat vrije
+software meestal ook vrijelijk te verkrijgen is, (bijna-) gratis dus. Maar
+vrije software slaat dus vooral op vrijheid, niet op gratis).
</p>
<p>
-<q>Vrije software</q> gaat over vrijheid, niet over prijs. (nvdv: het Engelse
“free” kan zowel <em>vrij</em> als <em>gratis</em> betekenen,
vandaar de nadruk
-in deze en andere artikelen op de betekenis van de term <q> vrij</q>. Dit
wordt
-nog verder bemoeilijkt doordat vrije software meestal ook vrijelijk te
verkrijgen
-is, (bijna-) gratis dus. Maar vrije software slaat dus vooral op vrijheid,
niet op
-gratis).
-</p><p>
-<q>Vrije software</q> gaat over het recht van de gebruiker om software
vrijelijk
-te kunnen gebruiken, kopiëren, verspreiden, bestuderen, veranderen en
-verbeteren. De vier vrijheden voor computergebruikers zijn:
+Een programma is vrije software wanneer het de gebruikers vier
+essentiële vrijheden verschaft:
</p>
<ul>
<li>De vrijheid om het programma te gebruiken voor elk doel. (vrijheid
0)</li>
<li>De vrijheid om de manier waarop het programma werkt te bestuderen, en om
het
-aan te passen aan je behoeften. (vrijheid 1) Beschikbaarheid van de broncode
is
-hiervoor noodzakelijk</li>
- <li>De vrijheid om het programma te verspreiden, zodat je je naasten kan
helpen. (vrijheid 2)</li>
+aan te passen aan je behoeften. (vrijheid 1) Beschikbaarheid van de broncode
+is hiervoor noodzakelijk
+ </li>
+ <li>De vrijheid om het programma te verspreiden, zodat je je naasten kan
+helpen. (vrijheid 2)
+ </li>
<li>De vrijheid om het programma te verbeteren en te verspreiden, zodat de
hele
-gemeenschap hier voordeel van heeft. (vrijheid 3) Beschikbaarheid van de
broncode
-is ook hiervoor noodzakelijk.</li>
+gemeenschap hier voordeel van heeft. (vrijheid 3) Beschikbaarheid van de
+broncode is ook hiervoor noodzakelijk.
+ </li>
</ul>
<p>
-Een programma valt onder de noemer vrije software wanneer de gebruikers al
deze
-vrijheden hebben. Dus je zou het moeten kunnen kopiëren, met of zonder
-veranderingen, en aan <a href="#exportcontrol">iedereen, overal</a> kunnen
geven,
-gratis, of tegen betaling.
-Het betekent ook dat je niet om toestemming hoeft te vragen als je dit wilt
doen.
-
-</p><p>
-Je zou ook de vrijheid moeten hebben om veranderingen aan te brengen
-voor eigen gebruik, zonder zelfs maar te hoeven vertellen dat je ze
-gemaakt hebt. Als je de veranderingen vrijgeeft, ben je niet
-verplicht om dat aan iemand te melden.
-
-</p><p>
-De vrijheid een programma te gebruiken houdt ook in dat iedereen, ook
bedrijven,
-het kunnen gebruiken op wat voor computersysteem dan ook met wat voor doel dan
-ook, zonder dat hij hiervoor in overleg moet treden met de ontwikkelaar of een
-andere organisatie. Het gaat binnen deze vrijheid om de doelen van de
<em>gebruiker
-</em>, niet die van de <em>ontwikkelaar</em>; jij als gebruiker bent vrij in
het
-gebruik ervan en wanneer je het doorgeeft naar iemand anders dan mag die het
ook
-voor eigen doeleinden gebruiken. Jij mag daarbij als distributeur geen
beperkingen
-opleggen.
+Een programma valt onder de noemer vrije software wanneer de gebruikers al
+deze vrijheden hebben. Dus je zou het moeten kunnen kopiëren, met of
+zonder veranderingen, en aan <a href="#exportcontrol">iedereen, overal</a>
+kunnen geven, gratis, of tegen betaling. Het betekent ook dat je niet om
+toestemming hoeft te vragen als je dit wilt doen.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Je zou ook de vrijheid moeten hebben om veranderingen aan te brengen voor
+eigen gebruik, zonder zelfs maar te hoeven vertellen dat je ze gemaakt
+hebt. Als je de veranderingen vrijgeeft, ben je niet verplicht om dat aan
+iemand te melden.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+De vrijheid een programma te gebruiken houdt ook in dat iedereen, ook
+bedrijven, het kunnen gebruiken op wat voor computersysteem dan ook met wat
+voor doel dan ook, zonder dat hij hiervoor in overleg moet treden met de
+ontwikkelaar of een andere organisatie. Het gaat binnen deze vrijheid om de
+doelen van de <em>gebruiker </em>, niet die van de <em>ontwikkelaar</em>;
+jij als gebruiker bent vrij in het gebruik ervan en wanneer je het doorgeeft
+naar iemand anders dan mag die het ook voor eigen doeleinden gebruiken. Jij
+mag daarbij als distributeur geen beperkingen opleggen.
</p>
<p>
Deze vrijheid om te kopiëren mag niet beperkt worden tot alleen de
-uitvoerbare versie van het programma maar moet ook voor de broncode gelden,
voor
-zowel exacte kopieën als ook veranderde versies. (Het uitbrengen van
-programmatuur in uitvoerbare versies is handig voor installeerbare
-besturingssystemen.) Het is prima wanneer er van een programma geen
executeerbare
-versie kan worden gemaakt (sommige programmeertalen ondersteunen zoiets niet),
-maar je moet wel de vrijheid hebben om iets dergelijks te kunnen distribueren
-wanneer je een methode ontwikkeld of vindt om dit toch te doen.
+uitvoerbare versie van het programma maar moet ook voor de broncode gelden,
+voor zowel exacte kopieën als ook veranderde versies. (Het uitbrengen
+van programmatuur in uitvoerbare versies is handig voor installeerbare
+besturingssystemen.) Het is prima wanneer er van een programma geen
+executeerbare versie kan worden gemaakt (sommige programmeertalen
+ondersteunen zoiets niet), maar je moet wel de vrijheid hebben om iets
+dergelijks te kunnen distribueren wanneer je een methode ontwikkeld of vindt
+om dit toch te doen.
</p>
<p>
-Opdat de vrijheid om veranderingen te maken, en om deze te publiceren
-nut heeft, dient de gebruiker toegang tot de broncode van het programma
-te hebben. Ofwel, vrije toegang tot de broncode is een vereiste van
-vrije software.
+Om de vrijheid om veranderingen te maken en publiceren (vrijheden 1 en 3)
+toe te kunnen passen, moet de gebruiker toegang tot de broncode van het
+programma hebben. Ofwel, vrije toegang tot broncode is een vereiste van
+vrije software. Versleutelde “broncode” is geen echte broncode
+en telt hierin dus niet mee.
+</p>
-</p><p>
+<p>
+Vrijheid nummer 1 houdt ook in het recht om je eigen veranderingen aan het
+programma te gebruiken. Wanneer het programma in een produkt zit wat
+toestaat dat het veranderingen van derden draait maar niet die van
+jouw—ook wel bekand als “tivoization”,
+“lockdown” of (in een fabrikant zijn suggestieve bewoordingen)
+als “secure boot” — wordt deze vrijheid een lachertje. Er
+is onvoldoende vrijheid zonder dit recht. Oftewel, deze programma's zijn
+geen vrije software, ook al is de broncode waarvan dit gemaakt is dat wel.
+</p>
+
+<p>
Wanneer je een programma veranderd door er vrije code en routines aan toe te
-voegen maar de licentie van het programma bepaald dat dat alleen mag wanneer
je,
-bijvoorbeeld, de auteursrechten van die code bezit, dan is die licentie
té
-beperkend en is het resultaat dus niet vrij.
+voegen maar de licentie van het programma bepaald dat dat alleen mag wanneer
+je, bijvoorbeeld, de auteursrechten van die code bezit, dan is die licentie
+té beperkend en is het resultaat dus niet vrij.
</p>
<p>
-Om het echte vrijheden te laten zijn moeten ze dus ook onherroepelijk zijn
zolang
-je niets fouts doet; wanneer de ontwikkelaar van de software de macht heeft om
de
-licentie in te trekken zonder dat je daarvoor aanleiding geeft dan is die
software
-niet vrij.
+Vrijheid nummer 3 bevat ook het recht om programma's die je veranderd hebt
+weer uit te brengen als vrije software. Een vrije licentie staat ook andere
+vormen van distributie toe; oftewel, het hoeft geen <a
+href="/copyleft/copyleft.html">auteursplichtige</a> licentie te
+zijn. Echter, een licentie die niet toestaat dat veranderde versies niet
+vrij zijn is geen vrije licentie.
</p>
<p>
-Bepaalde beperkingen van de manier waarop vrije software wordt gedistribueerd
zijn
-acceptabel wanneer ze de basisvrijheden niet beperken. Zo is er bijvoorbeeld
de
-beperking van <q>auteursplicht</q> (simpel gezegd) die bepaald dat je geen
-beperkingen mag opleggen aan distributies die in strijd zijn met de
basisvrijheden.
-Deze regel beperkt de vrijheden niet, het beschermt ze juist.
+Om het echte vrijheden te laten zijn moeten ze dus ook onherroepelijk zijn
+zolang je niets fouts doet; wanneer de ontwikkelaar van de software de macht
+heeft om de licentie in te trekken zonder dat je daarvoor aanleiding geeft
+dan is die software niet vrij.
</p>
<p>
-Of je nu betaald hebt voor GNU software, of dat je het gratis ontvangen
-hebt, je hebt altijd het recht om deze software te kopiëren en te
-veranderen zelfs om het te <a href="/philosophy/selling.nl.html">verkopen</a>.
+Bepaalde beperkingen van de manier waarop vrije software wordt
+gedistribueerd zijn acceptabel wanneer ze de basisvrijheden niet
+beperken. Zo is er bijvoorbeeld de beperking van <q>auteursplicht</q>
+(simpel gezegd) die bepaald dat je geen beperkingen mag opleggen aan
+distributies die in strijd zijn met de basisvrijheden. Deze regel beperkt
+de vrijheden niet, het beschermt ze juist.
</p>
<p>
-<q>Vrije software</q> betekent niet <q>niet-commercieel</q>. Een vrij
-programma moet ook beschikbaar zijn voor commercieel gebruik, ontwikkeling en
-distributie. Commerciële ontwikkeling van vrije software is niet zeldzaam
-meer; dergelijke vrije commerciële programma's zijn heel belangrijk.
+“Vrije software” betekent niet
+“non-commerciëel”. Een vrij programma is ook beschikbaar
+voor commercieel gebruik, ontwikkeling en verspreiding. Ontwikkeling van
+vrije software op commerciële basis is gemeengoed geworden en heel
+belangrijk. Of je nu betaald hebt voor GNU software, of dat je het gratis
+ontvangen hebt, je hebt altijd het recht om deze software te kopiëren
+en te veranderen zelfs om het te <a
+href="/philosophy/selling.nl.html">verkopen</a>.
</p>
<p>
-Acceptabel zijn ook regels die betrekking hebben op de manier
-waarop aangepaste versies verspreid moeten worden, als ze niet
-je vrijheid om aanpassingen te verspreiden blokkeren.
-Regels die van de gebruiker eisen dat als zij een aangepaste
-versie op de ene manier verspreiden, ze het ook op de andere manier
-moeten doen zijn ook acceptabel, mits ze eveneens de vrijheid
-om aanpassingen te verspreiden geen strobreed in de weg leggen (merk hierbij
op
-dat je nog steeds de keuze hebt om je veranderingen te publiceren of niet).
-Bepalingen die het vrijgeven van de broncode vereisen zijn ook acceptabel. De
-licentie kan ook de bepaling hebben dat je een kopie aan de ontwikkelaar
levert
-van je veranderde versie of dat je aangeeft wat jij veranderd hebt in de code.
+Of een verandering ook een verbetering is, is subjectief. Wanneer de
+veranderingen beperkt zijn tot alleen wat anderen als verbetering
+beschouwen, is dat geen vrijheid.
</p>
<p>
-Bij het GNU project gebruiken we <a href="/copyleft/copyleft.html">
-auteursplicht</a> om deze vrijheden voor iedereen op juridische
-wijze vast te leggen. Maar
-<a href="/philosophy/categories.nl.html#Non-CopyleftedFreeSoftware">
-Vrije software zonder auteursplicht</a> bestaat ook. Wij hebben goede redenen
<a
-href="/philosophy/pragmatic.nl.html">om auteursplicht te gebruiken</a>, maar
als
-jouw programma vrij is, maar geen auteursplicht heeft, kunnen we het nog
steeds
-gebruiken.
+Beperkingen en richtlijnen over hoe je een veranderde versie weer uitbrengt
+zijn acceptabel, vooropgesteld dat ze het recht om die versies uit te
+brengen, of te gebruiken niet al teveel beperken. Het is dus acceptabel
+wanneer een licentie bepaald dat je de gewijzigde versie een andere naam
+moet geven , een merk moet verwijderen of je eigen wijzigingen moet
+benoemen. Zolang ze het uitbrengen van de wijzigingen maar niet in de weg
+staan zij ze acceptabel; je bent toch al aan het wijzigen dus nog wat meer
+wijzigen kan er nog wel bij.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Een uitzondering hierop is wanneer de licentie vereist dat je de naam moet
+wijzigen waarmee andere programma's jouw programma kunnen
+aktiveren. Hierdoor kun je het origineel niet vervangen. Dit is alleen
+acceptabel wanneer er een configuratiesysteem is wat dit mogelijk maakt.</p>
+
+<p>
+Bepalingen van het type “wanneer je een versie zus uitbrengt moet je
+hem ook zo uitbrengen” is ook acceptabel bij eenzelfde soort
+voorwaarde. Een voorbeeld daarvan is de bepaling dat wanneer je een
+veranderde kopie uitbrengt en de vorige ontwikkelaar een kopie daarvan
+vraagt, moet je hem ook die kopie geven. (Merk daarbij op dat je nog steeds
+de keus hebt om die versie ueberhaupt uit te brengen.) Bepalingen waarbij je
+broncode aan je gebruikers moet vrijgeven van versies die je uitbrengt zijn
+ook accceptabel.
</p>
<p>
-Zie <a href="/philosophy/categories.nl.html">Indeling van Vrije en Niet-Vrije
-Software</a> voor een beschrijving van de onderlinge relaties tussen <q>vrije
-software</q>, <q>auteursplichtige software</q> en andere software.
+Bij het GNU project gebruiken we <a href="/copyleft/copyleft.html">
+auteursplicht</a> om deze vrijheden voor iedereen op juridische wijze vast
+te leggen. Maar <a
+href="/philosophy/categories.html#Non-CopyleftedFreeSoftware"> Vrije
+software zonder auteursplicht</a> bestaat ook. Wij hebben goede redenen <a
+href="/philosophy/pragmatic.nl.html">om auteursplicht te gebruiken</a>, maar
+als jouw programma vrij is, maar geen auteursplicht heeft, kunnen we het nog
+steeds gebruiken. (Zie <a href="/philosophy/categories.html">Vrije Software
+Categoriën</a> voor een beschrijving hoe de diverse soorten software
+zich tot elkaar verhouden.)
</p>
<p>
-Soms kunnen <a name="exportcontrol">exportregels</a> en handelsboycotten
-van de overheid de vrijheid om op internationaal niveau software te verspreiden
+Soms kunnen <a name="exportcontrol">exportregels</a> en handelsboycotten van
+de overheid de vrijheid om op internationaal niveau software te verspreiden
in de weg staan. Softwareontwikkelaars hebben niet de bevoegdheid om deze
-restricties op te heffen of te negeren, maar wat ze wel kunnen doen
-is weigeren zich te laten leiden door deze regels, en ze niet op te
-nemen in de gebruiksvoorwaarden van het programma, zodat mensen die
-niet te maken hebben met deze regels niet worden gehinderd in het gebruik
-van de software.
+restricties op te heffen of te negeren, maar wat ze wel kunnen doen is
+weigeren zich te laten leiden door deze regels, en ze niet op te nemen in de
+gebruiksvoorwaarden van het programma, zodat mensen die niet te maken hebben
+met deze regels niet worden gehinderd in het gebruik van de software. Vrije
+software licenties moeten dus geen exportrestricties in zich hebben.
</p>
<p>
-De meeste vrije software licenties zijn gebaseerd op het auteursrecht en er
zijn
-grenzen aan wat je binnen het auteursrecht kan bepalen. Wanneer een dergelijke
-licentie de vrijheid van de gebruiker als hierboven beschreven maar
respecteert
-zullen we niet vlug tegen een onverwacht probleem oplopen (hoewel het soms wel
-gebeurt). Sommige vrije software licenties echter zijn gebaseerd op
contracten, en
-met contracten kun je veel meer beperkingen opleggen, wat betekent dat de kans
-groter is dat er onacceptabele beperkingen in zitten waardoor de software niet
-vrij is.
+De meeste vrije software licenties zijn gebaseerd op het auteursrecht en er
+zijn grenzen aan wat je binnen het auteursrecht kan bepalen. Wanneer een
+dergelijke licentie de vrijheid van de gebruiker als hierboven beschreven
+maar respecteert zullen we niet vlug tegen een onverwacht probleem oplopen
+(hoewel het soms wel gebeurt). Sommige vrije software licenties echter zijn
+gebaseerd op contracten, en met contracten kun je veel meer beperkingen
+opleggen, wat betekent dat de kans groter is dat er onacceptabele
+beperkingen in zitten waardoor de software niet vrij is.
</p>
<p>
-We kunnen hier geen opsomming geven van alle mogelijke manieren waarop dit zou
-kunnen gebeuren. Wanneer een licentie op basis van een contract de gebruiker
op
-ongebruikelijke manier beperkt, en die manier is hier niet genoemd als
acceptabel,
-dan zullen we hierover na moeten denken maar de conclusie zal
hoogstwaarschijnlijk
-zijn dat het niet vrij is.
+We kunnen hier geen opsomming geven van alle mogelijke manieren waarop dit
+zou kunnen gebeuren. Wanneer een licentie op basis van een contract de
+gebruiker op ongebruikelijke manier beperkt, en die manier is hier niet
+genoemd als acceptabel, dan zullen we hierover na moeten denken maar de
+conclusie zal hoogstwaarschijnlijk zijn dat het niet vrij is.
</p>
<p>
-Wanneer gesproken wordt over vrije software is het raadzaam termen
-als “gratis” te vermijden, omdat deze de suggestie wekken dat
-vrije software altijd kosteloos is; dit is niet het geval.
-Om termen als “softwarepiraterij” kan ook het best met een
-grote boog heen worden gezeild. Zie <a href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html">
-Termen die verwarring zaaien en beter vermeden kunnen worden</a>.
-We hebben ook een lijst van <a
href="/philosophy/fs-translations.html">Vertalingen
-van de term <q>vrije software</q></a>
+Wanneer gesproken wordt over vrije software is het raadzaam termen als
+“gratis” te vermijden, omdat deze de suggestie wekken dat vrije
+software altijd kosteloos is; dit is niet het geval. Om termen als
+“softwarepiraterij” kan ook het best met een grote boog heen
+worden gezeild. Zie <a href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html"> Termen die
+verwarring zaaien en beter vermeden kunnen worden</a>. We hebben ook een
+lijst van <a href="/philosophy/fs-translations.html">Vertalingen van de term
+“vrije software”</a>
</p>
<p>
-Merk tenslotte op dat je goed moet nadenken over de criteria die hier aan
vrije
-software worden gesteld. Om te beslissen of een licentie aan die criteria
voldoet
-laten we ons leiden door de geest van die criteria en niet alleen door exacte
-bewoordingen. Wanneer een licentie onredelijke beperkingen bevat, zullen we
het
-afwijzen, ook al is die beperking niet voorzien in onze criteria. Soms moeten
we
-zelfs de hulp van een advocaat inroepen om te bekijken of een bepaling
acceptabel
-is of niet. Wanneer we er uit zijn zullen we vaak die criteria aanpassen om zo
in
-de toekomst makkelijker te kunnen bepalen of een licentie goed is of niet.
+Merk tenslotte op dat je goed moet nadenken over de criteria die hier aan
+vrije software worden gesteld. Om te beslissen of een licentie aan die
+criteria voldoet laten we ons leiden door de geest van die criteria en niet
+alleen door exacte bewoordingen. Wanneer een licentie onredelijke
+beperkingen bevat, zullen we het afwijzen, ook al is die beperking niet
+voorzien in onze criteria. Soms moeten we zelfs de hulp van een advocaat
+inroepen om te bekijken of een bepaling acceptabel is of niet. Wanneer we er
+uit zijn zullen we vaak die criteria aanpassen om zo in de toekomst
+makkelijker te kunnen bepalen of een licentie goed is of niet.
</p>
<p>
-Wanneer je wilt weten of een bepaalde licentie een vrije software licentie is
of
-niet, kijk dan op onze <a href="/licenses/license-list.html">lijst met
licenties
-</a>. Wanneer de licentie niet op de lijst voor komt, vraag het ons dan via <a
href
+Wanneer je wilt weten of een bepaalde licentie een vrije software licentie
+is of niet, kijk dan op onze <a href="/licenses/license-list.html">lijst met
+licenties </a>. Wanneer de licentie niet op de lijst voor komt, vraag het
+ons dan via <a href
="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>.
</p>
<p>
-Wanneer je erover denkt zelf een licentie op te stellen, schrijf de FSF dan
naar
-dat adres. Een wildgroei aan vrije software licenties betekent meer werk voor
de
-gebruiker; we kunnen je wellicht helpen een passende bestaande vrije software
-licentie te vinden.
+Wanneer je erover denkt zelf een licentie op te stellen, schrijf de Free
+Software Foundation dan naar dat adres. Een wildgroei aan vrije software
+licenties betekent meer werk voor de gebruiker; we kunnen je wellicht helpen
+een passende bestaande vrije software licentie te vinden.
</p>
<p>
-Wanneer dat niet mogelijk is en je echt een een nieuwe licentie nodig hebt,
kunnen
-wij je helpen ervoor te zorgen dat het echt vrije software blijft en diverse
-praktische problemen te vermijden.
+Wanneer dat niet mogelijk is en je echt een een nieuwe licentie nodig hebt,
+kunnen wij je helpen ervoor te zorgen dat het echt vrije software blijft en
+diverse praktische problemen te vermijden.
</p>
-<h2 id="beyond-software">Software en verder</h2>
+<h3 id="beyond-software">Software en verder</h3>
<p>
-<a href="/philosophy/free-doc.nl.html">Software handleidingen moeten vrij
zijn</a> om
-dezelfde redenen dat software vrij moet zijn. Ook omdat handleidingen
feitelijk
-onderdeel zijn van het pakket.
+<a href="/philosophy/free-doc.html">Software handleidingen moeten vrij
+zijn</a> om dezelfde redenen dat software vrij moet zijn. Ook omdat
+handleidingen feitelijk onderdeel zijn van het pakket.
</p>
<p>
Hetzelfde gaat eigenlijk op voor allerlei soorten werken met een praktische
toepassing — oftewel werken die nuttige kennis in zich bergen zoals
-lesmateriaal en naslagwerken. <a href="http://wikipedia.org";>Wikipedia</a> is
-daarvan het beste voorbeeld.
+lesmateriaal en naslagwerken. <a href="http://wikipedia.org";>Wikipedia</a>
+is daarvan het beste voorbeeld.
</p>
<p>
-Ieder werk <em>kan</em> vrij zijn en de definitie van vrije software is dan
ook
-uitgebreid naar een definitie voor <a href="http://freedomdefined.org/";>vrije
-cultuur</a>, die van toepassing kan zijn op allerlei dingen.
+Ieder werk <em>kan</em> vrij zijn en de definitie van vrije software is dan
+ook uitgebreid naar een definitie voor <a
+href="http://freedomdefined.org/";>vrije cultuur</a>, die van toepassing kan
+zijn op allerlei dingen.
</p>
-<h2 id="open-source">Open Bron?</h2>
+<h3 id="open-source">Open Bron?</h3>
+
<p>
-Een andere groep is begonnen de term <q>open bron</q> (<em>open source</em>)
te
-gebruiken als iets wat wel lijkt op <q>vrije software</q> maar het niet is.
Wij
-gebruiken liever de term <q>vrije software</q> omdat die onmiddellijk in
verband
-wordt gebracht met vrijheid. Dat heb je niet met de term <a href=
-"open-source-misses-the-point.nl.html">Open Bron</a>.
+Een andere groep is begonnen de term “open bron” (<em>open
+source</em>) te gebruiken als iets wat wel lijkt op “vrije
+software” maar het niet is. Wij gebruiken liever de term “vrije
+software” omdat die onmiddellijk in verband wordt gebracht met
+vrijheid. Dat heb je niet met de term <a href=
+"/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.nl.html">Open Bron</a>.
</p>
-</div>
+<h3 id="History">Geschiedenis</h3>
+<p>Af en toe herzien we deze definitie van vrije software. Hier een lijst van
+wijzigingen met daarbij verwijzingen naar wat er precies is veranderd.</p>
+
+<ul>
+
+<li><a
+href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.110&r2=1.111";>Version
+1.111</a>: Clarify 1.77 by saying that only retroactive
+<em>restrictions</em> are unacceptable. The copyright holders can always
+grant additional <em>permission</em> for use of the work by releasing the
+work in another way in parallel.</li>
+
+<li><a
+href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.104&r2=1.105";>Version
+1.105</a>: Reflect, in the brief statement of freedom 1, the point (already
+stated in version 1.80) that it includes really using your modified version
+for your computing.</li>
+
+<li><a
+href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.91&r2=1.92";>Version
+1.92</a>: Clarify that obfuscated code does not qualify as source code.</li>
+
+<li><a
+href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.89&r2=1.90";>Version
+1.90</a>: Clarify that freedom 3 means the right to distribute copies of
+your own modified or improved version, not a right to participate in someone
+else's development project.</li>
+
+<li><a
+href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.88&r2=1.89";>Version
+1.89</a>: Freedom 3 includes the right to release modified versions as free
+software.</li>
+
+<li><a
+href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.79&r2=1.80";>Version
+1.80</a>: Freedom 1 must be practical, not just theoretical; i.e., no
+tivoization.</li>
+
+<li><a
+href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.76&r2=1.77";>Version
+1.77</a>: Clarify that all retroactive changes to the license are
+unacceptable, even if it's not described as a complete replacement.</li>
+
+<li><a
+href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.73&r2=1.74";>Version
+1.74</a>: Four clarifications of points not explicit enough, or stated in
+some places but not reflected everywhere:
+<ul>
+<li>"Verbeteringen" betekenen niet dat de licentie beperkingen op kan leggen
aan
+de veranderde versies die men uitbrengt. Vrijheid 3 gaat ook over het
+uitbrengen van veranderde versies, niet alleen wijzigingen.</li>
+<li>Het recht om samen te voegen met bestaande modules gaat over modules met de
+juiste licentie.</li>
+<li>Vermeld duidelijk de exportbeperkingen.</li>
+<li>Een wijziging in de licentie doorvoeren betekent ook het vervallen van de
+oude licentie.</li>
+</ul>
+</li>
+
+<li><a
+href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.56&r2=1.57";>Version
+1.57</a>: Add "Beyond Software" section.</li>
+
+<li><a
+href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.45&r2=1.46";>Version
+1.46</a>: Clarify whose purpose is significant in the freedom to run the
+program for any purpose.</li>
+
+<li><a
+href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.40&r2=1.41";>Version
+1.41</a>: Clarify wording about contract-based licenses.</li>
+
+<li><a
+href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.39&r2=1.40";>Version
+1.40</a>: Explain that a free license must allow to you use other available
+free software to create your modifications.</li>
+
+<li><a
+href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.38&r2=1.39";>Version
+1.39</a>: Note that it is acceptable for a license to require you to provide
+source for versions of the software you put into public use.</li>
+
+<li><a
+href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.30&r2=1.31";>Version
+1.31</a>: Note that it is acceptable for a license to require you to
+identify yourself as the author of modifications. Other minor
+clarifications throughout the text.</li>
+
+<li><a
+href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.22&r2=1.23";>Version
+1.23</a>: Address potential problems related to contract-based licenses.</li>
+
+<li><a
+href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.15&r2=1.16";>Version
+1.16</a>: Explain why distribution of binaries is important.</li>
+
+<li><a
+href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.10&r2=1.11";>Version
+1.11</a>: Note that a free license may require you to send a copy of
+versions you distribute to the author.</li>
+
+</ul>
+
+<p>Er zijn gaten in de versienummering hierboven omdat er andere wijzigingen
+zijn geweest die niet de definitie wijzigden. Deze zitten in andere delen
+van de pagina. De complete lijst van wijzigingen kun je zien via de <a
+href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&view=log";>cvsweb
+interface</a>.</p>
-<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.nl.html" -->
+<div style="font-size: small;">
+
+<!--TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't have notes.-->
+ </div>
+</div>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.nl.html" -->
<div id="footer">
<p>
-Vragen over de FSF & GNU naar
-<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
-Andere <a href="http://www.fsf.org/about/contact.html";>manieren</a> om contact
-op te nemen met de FSF.
+Gelieve vragen over FSF & GNU te sturen naar <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>. Er zijn ook nog <a
+href="/contact/">andere manieren om in contact te komen</a> met de FSF.
<br />
-Gelieve verkeerde links en andere verbeteringen (of suggesties) op te sturen
aan
-<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
+Gelieve meldingen van verkeerde links en andere verbeteringen (of
+suggesties) te sturen aan: <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>.
</p>
<p>
Zie <a href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
-README</a> voor nadere informatie over het eventueel vertalen van dit artikel.
+README</a> voor nadere informatie over het eventueel vertalen van dit
+artikel.
</p>
<p>
-Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004,
-2005, 2006, 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.,
+Copyright © 1996-2002, 2004-2007, 2009, 2010, 2012 Free Software
+Foundation, Inc.
</p>
-<address>51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA</address>
-<p>
-Het letterlijk overnemen en kopiëren van dit artikel is toegestaan op
-willekeurig welk medium op voorwaarde dat deze mededeling ook wordt meegenomen.
+<p>Deze pagina valt onder de <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/";>Creative Commons
+Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States Licentie</a>.
</p>
-<p>
-Updated:
+
+<div class="translators-credits">
+
+<!--TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't want credits.-->
+ </div>
+
+
+ <p>
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2012/12/25 06:27:35 $
+Bijgewerkt:
+
+$Date: 2013/01/02 11:27:10 $
+
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
-<div id="translations">
-<h4>Vertalingen van dit artikel:</h4>
-
-<!-- Please keep this list alphabetical, and in the original -->
-<!-- language if possible, otherwise default to English -->
-<!-- If you do not have it English, please comment what the -->
-<!-- English is. If you add a new language here, please -->
-<!-- advise address@hidden and add it to -->
-<!-- - in /home/www/bin/nightly-vars either TAGSLANG or WEBLANG -->
-<!-- - in /home/www/html/server/standards/README.translations.html -->
-<!-- one of the lists under the section "Translations Underway" -->
-<!-- - if there is a translation team, you also have to add an alias -->
-<!-- to mail.gnu.org:/com/mailer/aliases -->
-<!-- Please also check you have the 2 letter language code right versus -->
-<!-- http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/ert/iso639.htm -->
-<ul class="translations-list">
-<!-- Afrikaans -->
-<li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.af.html">Afrikaans</a> [af]</li>
-<!-- Arabic -->
-<li><a
href="/philosophy/free-sw.ar.html">العربية</a> [ar]</li>
-<!-- Azerbaijani -->
-<li><a
href="/philosophy/free-sw.az.html">Azərbaycanca</a> [az]</li>
-<!-- Bulgarian -->
-<li><a
href="/philosophy/free-sw.bg.html">български</a> [bg]</li>
-<!-- Bengali -->
-<li><a
href="/philosophy/free-sw.bn.html">বাংলা</a> [bn]</li>
-<!-- Bosnian -->
-<li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.bs.html">Bosanski</a> [bs]</li>
-<!-- Catalan -->
-<li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.ca.html">Català</a> [ca]</li>
-<!-- Czech -->
-<li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.cs.html">Česky</a> [cs]</li>
-<!-- Danish -->
-<li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.da.html">Dansk</a> [da]</li>
-<!-- German -->
-<li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.de.html">Deutsch</a> [de]</li>
-<!-- Greek -->
-<li><a
href="/philosophy/free-sw.el.html">Ελληνικά</a> [el]</li>
-<!-- English -->
-<li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.en.html">English</a> [en]</li>
-<!-- Esperanto -->
-<li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.eo.html">Esperanto</a> [eo]</li>
-<!-- Spanish -->
-<li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.es.html">Español</a> [es]</li>
-<!-- Farsi (Persian) -->
-<li><a
href="/philosophy/free-sw.fa.html">فارسی</a> [fa]</li>
-<!-- French -->
-<li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.fr.html">Français</a> [fr]</li>
-<!-- Galician -->
-<li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.gl.html">Galego</a> [gl]</li>
-<!-- Hebrew -->
-<li><a
href="/philosophy/free-sw.he.html">עברית</a> [he]</li>
-<!-- Croatian -->
-<li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.hr.html">Hrvatski</a> [hr]</li>
-<!-- Hungarian -->
-<li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.hu.html">Magyar</a> [hu]</li>
-<!-- Indonesian -->
-<li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.id.html">Bahasa Indonesia</a> [id]</li>
-<!-- Italian -->
-<li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.it.html">Italiano</a> [it]</li>
-<!-- Japanese -->
-<li><a
href="/philosophy/free-sw.ja.html">日本語</a> [ja]</li>
-<!-- Korean -->
-<li><a
href="/philosophy/free-sw.ko.html">한국어</a> [ko]</li>
-<!-- Norwegian Bokmål -->
-<li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.nb.html">Norsk
(Bokmål)</a> [nb]</li>
-<!-- Dutch -->
-<li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.nl.html">Nederlands</a> [nl]</li>
-<!-- Polish -->
-<li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.pl.html">polski</a> [pl]</li>
-<!-- Brazilian Portuguese -->
-<li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.pt-br.html">português do
Brasil</a> [pt-br]</li>
-<!-- Romanian -->
-<li><a
href="/philosophy/free-sw.ro.html">Română</a> [ro]</li>
-<!-- Russian -->
-<li><a
href="/philosophy/free-sw.ru.html">Русский</a> [ru]</li>
-<!--- Slovenian -->
-<li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.sl.html">Slovinsko</a> [sl]</li>
-<!-- Serbian -->
-<li><a
href="/philosophy/free-sw.sr.html">Српски</a> [sr]</li>
-<!-- Swedish -->
-<li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.sv.html">Svenska</a> [sv]</li>
-<!-- Tamil -->
-<li><a
href="/philosophy/free-sw.ta.html">தமிழ்</a> [ta]</li>
-<!-- Tagalog -->
-<li><a href="/philosophy/free-sw.tl.html">Tagalog</a> [tl]</li>
-<!-- Turkish -->
-<li><a
href="/philosophy/free-sw.tr.html">Türkçe</a> [tr]</li>
-<!-- Chinese (Simplified) -->
-<li><a
href="/philosophy/free-sw.zh-cn.html">简体中文</a> [zh-cn]</li>
-<!-- Chinese (Traditional) -->
-<li><a
href="/philosophy/free-sw.zh-tw.html">繁體中文</a> [zh-tw]</li>
-</ul>
-</div>
</div>
Index: open-source-misses-the-point.fr.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.fr.html,v
retrieving revision 1.42
retrieving revision 1.43
diff -u -b -r1.42 -r1.43
--- open-source-misses-the-point.fr.html 30 Dec 2012 12:58:49 -0000
1.42
+++ open-source-misses-the-point.fr.html 2 Jan 2013 11:27:10 -0000
1.43
@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.fr.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.70 -->
<!-- This file is automatically generated by GNUnited Nations! -->
<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE"
value="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html" -->
@@ -25,12 +26,12 @@
href="#TransNote1"><sup>1</sup></a></p>
<p>Ces libertés sont d'une importance vitale. Elles sont essentielles, pas
-juste pour les enjeux individuels des utilisateurs, mais parce qu'elles
+uniquement pour les enjeux individuels des utilisateurs, mais parce qu'elles
promeuvent la solidarité sociale, que sont le partage et la
-coopération. Elles deviennent encore plus importantes à mesure que, de plus
-en plus, notre culture et nos activités quotidiennes sont numérisés. Dans un
-monde de sons, d'images et de mots numériques, le logiciel libre devient de
-plus en plus nécessaire pour la liberté en général.</p>
+coopération. Elles prennent encore plus d'importance à mesure que notre
+culture et nos activités quotidiennes se numérisent. Dans un monde de sons,
+d'images et de mots numériques, le logiciel libre devient de plus en plus
+nécessaire pour la liberté en général.</p>
<p>Des dizaines de millions de personnes à travers le monde utilisent
maintenant le logiciel libre ; les écoles publiques de quelques régions
@@ -75,29 +76,11 @@
l'open source se sont ralliés à ces idées depuis, et ils font la même
association.</p>
-<p>En pratique, l'open source défend des critères un peu plus faibles que
ceux
-du logiciel libre. Autant que nous le sachions, tous les logiciels libres
-existants répondent aux critères de l'open source. Presque tous les
-logiciels open source sont des logiciels libres, mais il y a des
-exceptions. D'abord, certaines licences open source sont trop restrictives,
-donc se disqualifient en tant que licences libres. Heureusement ces licences
-ne sont pas utilisées dans beaucoup de programmes. Plus important encore, de
-nombreux ordinateurs (y compris beaucoup d'appareils sous Android)
-contiennent des programmes exécutables qui correspondent à du code source
-libre, mais ne permettent pas à l'utilisateur d'installer des versions
-modifiées de ces exécutables, tandis qu'une société particulière en a le
-pouvoir. Nous donnons à ces appareils le nom de « tyrans » et cette
pratique
-est appelée « tivoïsation » d'après le produit dans lequel nous l'avons
-observée pour la première fois. Ces exécutables ne sont pas du logiciel
-libre même si leur code source est libre. Les partisans de l'open source ne
-se préoccupent pas de cette question ; leur attention se limite à la licence
-du code source.</p>
-
<p>Les deux termes décrivent à peu près la même catégorie de logiciel,
mais ils
représentent des points de vue basés sur des valeurs fondamentalement
différentes. L'open source est une méthodologie de développement ; le
logiciel libre est un mouvement social. Pour le mouvement du logiciel libre,
-le logiciel libre repose sur un impératif éthique, l'indispensable respect
+le logiciel libre représente un impératif éthique, l'indispensable respect
de la liberté de l'utilisateur. En revanche, la philosophie de l'open source
considère uniquement les questions pratiques, en termes de performance. Elle
dit que les logiciels non libres sont des solutions sous-optimales aux
@@ -120,6 +103,28 @@
n'acceptons pas d'être incorrectement assimilés aux supporters de l'open
source.</p>
+<h3>Différences pratiques entre le logiciel libre et l'open source</h3>
+
+<p>En pratique, l'open source défend des critères un peu plus faibles que
ceux
+du logiciel libre. Ã notre connaissance, tous les logiciels libres existants
+répondent aux critères de l'open source. Presque tous les logiciels open
+source sont des logiciels libres, mais il y a des exceptions. D'abord,
+certaines licences open source sont trop restrictives, donc se disqualifient
+en tant que licences libres. Heureusement, les programmes utilisant ces
+licences sont rares.</p>
+
+<p>Plus important encore, beaucoup de produits embarquant des ordinateurs (y
+compris nombre d'appareils sous Android) sont fournis avec des programmes
+exécutables qui correspondent à du code source libre, mais ces appareils ne
+permettent pas à l'utilisateur d'installer des versions modifiées des
+exécutables. Seule une société particulière a le pouvoir de les
+modifier. Nous donnons à ces appareils le nom de « tyrans » et la pratique
+en question s'appelle « tivoïsation » d'après le produit dans lequel nous
+l'avons observée pour la première fois. Ces exécutables ne sont pas des
+logiciels libres bien que leur code source soit libre. Les critères de
+l'open source ne tiennent pas compte de ce problème ; ils ne s'intéressent
+qu'Ã la licence du code source.</p>
+
<h3>Malentendus courants sur le « logiciel libre » et l'« open sourceÂ
»</h3>
<p>Le terme de <cite>free software</cite> souffre d'un problème de mauvaise
@@ -144,15 +149,9 @@
<p>La <a href="http://opensource.org/docs/osd";>définition officielle d'un
« logiciel open source »</a> (publiée par l'<cite>Open Source
Initiative</cite>, et trop longue pour être citée ici) dérive indirectement
-de nos critères pour le logiciel libre. Ce n'est pas la même : elle est un
-peu plus laxiste à certains égards, en conséquence de quoi les défenseurs
de
-l'open source ont accepté quelques licences que nous considérons comme
-inadmissibles par les restrictions qu'elles imposent. D'autre part,
-l'<acronym title="Open Source Initiative">OSI</acronym> n'analyse que la
-licence du code source, alors que notre critère repose aussi sur le fait
-qu'un périphérique vous permette ou non d'<em>exécuter</em> votre version
-modifiée du programme. Néanmoins, leur définition est en accord avec la
-nôtre dans la plupart des cas.</p>
+de nos critères pour le logiciel libre. Ce n'est pas la même ; elle est un
+peu plus laxiste à certains égards. Néanmoins, cette définition est en
+accord avec la nôtre dans la plupart des cas.</p>
<p>Cependant, la signification évidente de « logiciel open source » est
« vous
pouvez regardez le code source » et la plupart des gens semblent penser que
@@ -168,8 +167,8 @@
gens comprennent mal ce terme. Selon Neal Stephenson, « 'Linux est un
logiciel open source' signifie, simplement, que n'importe qui peut obtenir
des copies de son code source ». Je ne pense pas qu'il ait délibérément
-cherché à rejeter ou à remettre en cause la définition « officielle ».
Je
-pense qu'il a simplement appliqué les conventions de la langue anglaise pour
+cherché à rejeter ou à remettre en cause la définition officielle. Je pense
+qu'il a simplement appliqué les conventions de la langue anglaise pour
donner une signification à ce terme. L'état du Kansas a publié une
définition similaire : « Utiliser des logiciels open source (OSS). Les
logiciels open source sont des logiciels pour lesquels le code est librement
@@ -194,11 +193,13 @@
aucune manière succincte d'expliquer et de justifier sa définition
officielle. Cela rend encore pire la confusion.</p>
-<p>Un autre malentendu de l'open source est l'idée que cela signifie « ne
pas
-utiliser la GNU GPL ». Cela tend à accompagner le malentendu de « logiciel
-libre » égale « logiciel couvert par la GPL ». Ce sont deux erreurs,
puisque
-la GNU GPL répond aux critères de l'open source, et que la plupart des
-licences open source répondent aux critères du logiciel libre.</p>
+<p>Autre malentendu de l'open source : l'idée que cela signifie « ne pas
+utiliser la GNU GPL » ; cette idée va souvent de pair avec la confusion
+entre « logiciel libre » et « logiciel sous GPL ». Ce sont deux
erreurs,
+puisque la GNU GPL répond aux critères de l'open source et que la plupart
+des licences open source répondent aux critères du logiciel libre. Il y a <a
+href="/licenses/license-list.html">de nombreuses licences de logiciel
+libre</a>, Ã part la GNU GPL.</p>
<p>Le terme « open source » a été étendu à d'autres champs
d'activités, tels
que l'administration publique, l'éducation et la science, où la notion de
@@ -373,13 +374,13 @@
perspective sur cette question.</p>
<p>
-L'<a
-href="http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/lakhaniwolf.pdf";>article
-sur la motivation des développeurs de logiciel libre</a> de Lakhani et Wolf
-dit qu'une fraction considérable d'entre eux est motivée par la notion que
-le logiciel doit être libre. Cela malgré le fait qu'ils ont fait leur
-enquête parmi les développeurs de SourceForge, un site qui ne soutient pas
-le point de vue selon lequel il s'agit d'une question d'éthique.</p>
+L'article de Lakhani et Wolf sur <a
+href="http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/lakhaniwolf.pdf";>la
+motivation des développeurs de logiciel libre</a> dit qu'une fraction
+considérable d'entre eux est motivée par la notion que le logiciel doit être
+libre. Ceci malgré que l'enquête ait été faite parmi les développeurs de
+SourceForge, un site qui ne soutient pas le point de vue selon lequel il
+s'agit d'une question d'éthique.</p>
<div style="font-size: small;">
@@ -403,25 +404,47 @@
et faites des licences ». <a
href="#TransNote4-rev">↑</a></li></ol></div>
</div>
+<!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.fr.html" -->
<div id="footer">
-<p>
-Veuillez envoyer les requêtes concernant la FSF et GNU à <a
+
+<p>Veuillez envoyer les requêtes concernant la FSF et GNU à <a
href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>. Il existe aussi <a
-href="/contact/">d'autres moyens de contacter</a> la FSF.
-<br />
-Veuillez indiquer (en anglais) les liens orphelins et autres corrections ou
-suggestions à <a
-href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>.
-</p>
+href="/contact/">d'autres moyens de contacter</a> la FSF. Les liens
+orphelins et autres corrections ou suggestions peuvent être signalés à <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>.</p>
-<p>Copyright © 2007, 2010 Richard Stallman
-<br />
-Cette page peut être utilisée suivant les conditions de la licence <a
+<p>
+
+<!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:address@hidden";>
+
+ <address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. -->
+Nous faisons le maximum pour proposer des traductions fidèles et de bonne
+qualité, mais nous ne sommes pas parfaits. Merci d'adresser vos commentaires
+sur cette page, ainsi que vos suggestions d'ordre général sur les
+traductions, Ã <a href="mailto:address@hidden";>
+<address@hidden></a>.</p>
+<p>Pour tout renseignement sur la coordination et la soumission des
+traductions de nos pages web, reportez-vous au <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">guide de traduction</a>.</p>
+
+<p>Copyright © 2007, 2010, 2012 Richard Stallman</p>
+
+<p>Cette page peut être utilisée suivant les conditions de la licence <a
rel="license"
href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/";>Creative Commons
-Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States</a>.
-</p>
+Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States</a>.</p>
<div class="translators-credits">
@@ -431,21 +454,14 @@
href="mailto:trad-gnu@april.org";>trad-gnu@april.org</a></div>
- <p>
-<!-- timestamp start -->
+ <p><!-- timestamp start -->
Dernière mise à jour :
-$Date: 2012/12/30 12:58:49 $
+$Date: 2013/01/02 11:27:10 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
-
-<!-- All pages on the GNU web server should have the section about -->
-<!-- verbatim copying. Please do NOT remove this without talking -->
-<!-- with the webmasters first. -->
-<!-- Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the document -->
-<!-- and that it is like this "2001, 2002" not this "2001-2002." -->
</div>
</body>
</html>
Index: open-source-misses-the-point.it.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.it.html,v
retrieving revision 1.20
retrieving revision 1.21
diff -u -b -r1.20 -r1.21
--- open-source-misses-the-point.it.html 30 Dec 2012 22:59:10 -0000
1.20
+++ open-source-misses-the-point.it.html 2 Jan 2013 11:27:10 -0000
1.21
@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.it.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.70 -->
<!-- This file is automatically generated by GNUnited Nations! -->
<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE"
value="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html" -->
@@ -391,25 +392,45 @@
</div>
</div>
+<!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.it.html" -->
<div id="footer">
+
+<p>Per informazioni su FSF e GNU rivolgetevi, possibilmente in inglese, a <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>. Ci sono anche <a
+href="/contact/">altri modi di contattare</a> la FSF. Inviate segnalazioni
+di link non funzionanti e altri suggerimenti relativi alle pagine web a <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
<p>
-Per informazioni su FSF e GNU rivolgetevi, possibilmente in inglese, a <a
-href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>. Ci sono anche <a
-href="/contact/">altri modi di contattare</a> la FSF.
-<br />
-Inviate segnalazioni di link non funzionanti e altri suggerimenti relativi
-alle pagine web a <a
-href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
-</p>
-<p>Copyright © 2007, 2010 Richard Stallman
-<br />
-Questa pagina è distribuita secondo i termini della licenza <a rel="license"
+<!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:address@hidden";>
+
+ <address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. -->
+Per informazioni su come tradurre questa pagina consultate la <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Guida alle
+traduzioni</a>. Per segnalare errori di traduzione o collaborare alla
+traduzione italiana delle pagine di questo sito contattate il <a
+href="http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/www-it/";>gruppo dei traduttori
+italiani</a>.</p>
+
+<p>Copyright © 2007, 2010, 2012 Richard Stallman</p>
+
+<p>Questa pagina è distribuita secondo i termini della licenza <a
rel="license"
href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/deed.it";>Creative
Commons Attribuzione - Non opere derivate 3.0 Stati Uniti</a> (CC BY-ND
-3.0).
-</p>
+3.0).</p>
<div class="translators-credits">
@@ -419,21 +440,14 @@
Pescetti.</div>
- <p>
-<!-- timestamp start -->
+ <p><!-- timestamp start -->
Ultimo aggiornamento:
-$Date: 2012/12/30 22:59:10 $
+$Date: 2013/01/02 11:27:10 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
-
-<!-- All pages on the GNU web server should have the section about -->
-<!-- verbatim copying. Please do NOT remove this without talking -->
-<!-- with the webmasters first. -->
-<!-- Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the document -->
-<!-- and that it is like this "2001, 2002" not this "2001-2002." -->
</div>
</body>
</html>
Index: open-source-misses-the-point.nl.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.nl.html,v
retrieving revision 1.8
retrieving revision 1.9
diff -u -b -r1.8 -r1.9
--- open-source-misses-the-point.nl.html 25 Dec 2012 13:46:25 -0000
1.8
+++ open-source-misses-the-point.nl.html 2 Jan 2013 11:27:10 -0000
1.9
@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.nl.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.70 -->
<!-- This file is automatically generated by GNUnited Nations! -->
<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE"
value="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html" -->
@@ -67,16 +68,15 @@
software. De meeste medestanders van “open bron” stammen uit die
tijd en hebben dus de huidige mores overgenomen.</p>
-<p>Bijna alle open bron software is ook vrije software; de benamingen duiden
-bijna dezelfde categorie. Ze zijn echter gebaseerd op verschillende
-ideeën. Open bron is een manier van ontwikkelen; vrije software is een
-sociaal gebeuren. Voor de vrije software beweging is vrije software
-essentieel omdat alleen dit de vrijheid van gebruikers waarborgt. Open bron
-daarentegen gaat het alleen om hoe software “beter” te maken
-— alleen vanuit een praktisch oogpunt. Het beweert dat niet-vrije
-software een niet-optimale oplossing is. Voor de vrije software beweging
-echter is niet-vrije software een sociaal probleem en de overgang naar vrije
-software de oplossing.</p>
+<p>De benamingen duiden bijna dezelfde categorie. Ze zijn echter gebaseerd op
+verschillende ideeën. Open bron is een manier van ontwikkelen; vrije
+software is een sociaal gebeuren. Voor de vrije software beweging is vrije
+software essentieel omdat alleen dit de vrijheid van gebruikers
+waarborgt. Open bron daarentegen gaat het alleen om hoe software
+“beter” te maken — alleen vanuit een praktisch oogpunt.
+Het beweert dat niet-vrije software een niet-optimale oplossing is. Voor de
+vrije software beweging echter is niet-vrije software een sociaal probleem
+en de overgang naar vrije software de oplossing.</p>
<p>“Vrije software”. “Open bron”. Het is dezelfde
software, maakt het uit welke benaming je gebruikt? Jazeker, want ze
@@ -90,6 +90,28 @@
vrijheid staan en dus willen we niet worden verward met voorstanders van
open bron.</p>
+<h3>Praktische verschillen tussen Vrije Software en Open Source</h3>
+
+<p>Praktisch gesproken hanteert “open source” (nvdv: open broncode)
+minder strikte criteria dan vrije software. Voor zover wij weten voldoet
+alle vrije software ook aan de criteria van open source. Bijna alle open
+source software is vrije software maar er zijn uitzonderingen. Allereerst
+zijn er open source licenties die teveel beperkingen bevatten waardoor ze
+geen vrije software licenties zijn. Gelukkig zijn er slechts weinig
+programma's die een dergelijke licentie gebruiken.</p>
+
+<p>Ten tweede, en veel belangrijker, bevatten veel apparaten met computers erin
+(ook veel Android apparaten) uitvoerbare programma's afkomstig uit vrije
+software broncode waarbij deze apparaten het niet toelaten dat de gebruiker
+zelf gewijzigde versies van die programma's gaan installeren; alleen
+één speicaal bedrijf kan dit doen. We noemen die apparaten
+“tirannen” en in de praktijk noemen we dit
+“tivoization”, genoemd naar het apparaat waar we het voor het
+eerst constateerden. Deze uitvoerbare programma's zijn geen vrije software,
+ook al is de broncode waar het van afstamt wel. De voorwaarden voor open
+source onderkennen dit probleem niet; men maakt zich alleen druk om de
+licenties van de broncode.</p>
+
<h3>Misverstanden over “vrije software” en “open
bron”</h3>
<p>De uitdrukking “vrije software” heeft het probleem dat het
@@ -157,7 +179,8 @@
misverstand dat “vrije software” “software met een GPL
licentie” betekent. Beiden zijn fout want de GNU GPL is een open bron
licentie en de meeste open bron licenties voldoen ook aan de criteria voor
-vrije software.</p>
+vrije software. Er zijn <a href="/licenses/license-list.html"> vele vrije
+software licenties</a> naast de GNU GPL.</p>
<p>Het begrip “open bron” is verder opgerekt door toepassingen op
ander terreinen zoals overheid, onderwijs en wetenschap, waar men gene
@@ -323,24 +346,41 @@
</div>
</div>
+<!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.nl.html" -->
<div id="footer">
-<p>
-Gelieve vragen over FSF & GNU te sturen naar <a
+
+<p>Gelieve algemene vragen over FSF & GNU te sturen naar <a
href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>. Er zijn ook nog <a
-href="/contact/">andere manieren om in contact te komen</a> met de FSF.
-<br />
-Gelieve meldingen van verkeerde links en andere verbeteringen (of
-suggesties) te sturen aan: <a
-href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>.
-</p>
+href="/contact/">andere manieren om in contact te komen</a> met de
+FSF. Foute links en andere correcties graag sturen aan <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:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:address@hidden";>
+
+ <address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. -->
+Zie <a href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> voor nadere informatie over het eventueel vertalen van dit
+artikel.</p>
-<p>Copyright © 2007, 2010 Richard Stallman
-<br />
-Deze pagina valt onder de <a rel="license"
+<p>Copyright © 2007, 2010, 2012 Richard Stallman</p>
+
+<p>Deze pagina valt onder de <a rel="license"
href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/";>Creative Commons
-Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States Licentie</a>.
-</p>
+Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States Licentie</a>.</p>
<div class="translators-credits">
@@ -349,21 +389,14 @@
</div>
- <p>
-<!-- timestamp start -->
+ <p><!-- timestamp start -->
Bijgewerkt:
-$Date: 2012/12/25 13:46:25 $
+$Date: 2013/01/02 11:27:10 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
-
-<!-- All pages on the GNU web server should have the section about -->
-<!-- verbatim copying. Please do NOT remove this without talking -->
-<!-- with the webmasters first. -->
-<!-- Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the document -->
-<!-- and that it is like this "2001, 2002" not this "2001-2002." -->
</div>
</body>
</html>
Index: open-source-misses-the-point.pl.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.pl.html,v
retrieving revision 1.16
retrieving revision 1.17
diff -u -b -r1.16 -r1.17
--- open-source-misses-the-point.pl.html 27 Sep 2012 16:54:07 -0000
1.16
+++ open-source-misses-the-point.pl.html 2 Jan 2013 11:27:10 -0000
1.17
@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.pl.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.70 -->
<!-- This file is automatically generated by GNUnited Nations! -->
<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE"
value="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html" -->
@@ -76,8 +77,7 @@
siÄ do tego Årodowiska od tamtego czasu i myÅlÄ
tylko o tych
praktycznych wartoÅciach.</p>
-<p>Prawie caÅe otwarte oprogramowanie jest wolnym oprogramowaniem. Te dwa
-okreÅlenia opisujÄ
niemalże te same kategorie oprogramowania,
+<p>Te dwa okreÅlenia opisujÄ
niemalże te same kategorie oprogramowania,
lecz opierajÄ
siÄ na zasadniczo różnych wartoÅciach. Otwarte
oprogramowanie jest metodologiÄ
rozwoju, wolne oprogramowanie jest ruchem
spoÅecznym. Dla ruchu wolnego oprogramowania, wolne oprogramowanie jest
@@ -106,6 +106,33 @@
w której jesteÅmy bÅÄdnie okreÅlani jako popierajÄ
cy otwarte
oprogramowanie.</p>
+<h3>Praktyczne różnice pomiÄdzy wolnym oprogramowaniem a otwartym
+oprogramowaniem</h3>
+
+<p>W praktyce, otwarte oprogramowanie opowiada siÄ za kryteriami
+nieco sÅabszymi od wolnego oprogramowania. Z tego, co wiemy,
+wszystkie programy udostÄpnione jako wolne oprogramowanie kwalifikowaÅyby
+siÄ także jako otwarte oprogramowanie. [Również] prawie wszystkie programy
+bÄdÄ
ce otwartym oprogramowaniem sÄ
wolnym oprogramowaniem, ale istnieje
+kilka wyjÄ
tków. Po pierwsze, niektóre licencje otwartego oprogramowania
+sÄ
zbyt restrykcyjne, by móc kwalifikowaÄ siÄ jako licencje wolnego
+oprogramowania. Na szczÄÅcie niewiele programów wykorzystuje takie
+licencje.</p>
+
+<p>Po drugie, i co ważniejsze, wiele produktów bÄdÄ
cych swego
rodzaju
+komputerami (w tym wiele urzÄ
dzeÅ opartych o system Android) zawiera
+w sobie programy wykonywalne oparte na kodzie źródÅowym
+udostÄpnionym jako wolne oprogramowanie, ale urzÄ
dzenia te nie
+pozwalajÄ
użytkownikowi na instalacjÄ zmodyfikanych wersji tych
+programów; wyÅÄ
cznie jedna okreÅlona firma ma prawo ich
+modyfikacji. Nazywamy takie urzÄ
dzenia “tyranami”, a taka
+praktyka okreÅlana jest mianem “tiwoizacji” zgodnie z nazwÄ
+produktu, w którym zostaÅa pierwszy raz zauważona. Takie programy
+wykonywalne nie sÄ
wolnym oprogramowaniem, mimo iż ich kod źródÅowy jest
+udostÄpniony na wolnej licencji. Kryteria otwartego oprogramowania
+zdajÄ
siÄ nie zauważaÄ tego problemu i zwracajÄ
uwagÄ tylko
+na licencjÄ kodu źródÅowego.</p>
+
<h3>Powszechne pomyÅki w rozumieniu pojÄÄ „Wolne
Oprogramowanie” i „Otwarte Oprogramowanie” </h3>
@@ -136,11 +163,9 @@
„oprogramowanie o otwartym źródle”</a> (która jest publikowana
przez Open Source Initiative i jest zbyt dÅuga, by jÄ
tu przytoczyÄ)
byÅa wyprowadzona niebezpoÅrednio z naszych kryteriów odnoÅnie wolnego
-oprogramowania. Nie jest taka sama i w pewnym sensie jest mniej
-restrykcyjna, tak wiÄc ludzie zwiÄ
zani z otwartym oprogramowaniem
-zaakceptowali niektóre umowy licencyjne, które my uważamy
-za niedopuszczalne. Jednakże ich definicja zgadza siÄ
w wiÄkszoÅci
-z naszÄ
.</p>
+oprogramowania. Nie jest taka sama, a w pewnych aspektach jest mniej
+restrykcyjna. Jednakże ich definicja pokrywa siÄ z naszÄ
+w wiÄkszoÅci przypadków.</p>
<p>Jednakże oczywistym znaczeniem wyrażenia „oprogramowanie o otwartym
źródle” oraz znaczeniem, które dla wiÄkszoÅÄ ludzi zdaje siÄ
byÄ
@@ -152,19 +177,20 @@
<p><!-- It was from http://da.state.ks.us/itec/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf, but
that page is no longer available. -->
-Oczywiste znaczenie terminu „otwarte oprogramowanie” przestaÅo
-byÄ tym, które mieli na myÅli jego twórcy i doszÅo do tego,
-że wiÄkszoÅc ludzi zaczÄÅo je źle pojmowaÄ. PowoÅujÄ
c siÄ
-na pisarza Neala Stephensona: „Linux jest ‚oprogramowaniem
-o otwartym kodzie’ czyli każdy może zdobyÄ kopiÄ jego plików
-źródÅowych”. Nie sÄ
dzÄ, by Åwiadomie poszukiwaÅ on argumentów
-na odrzucenie lub zakwestionowanie „oficjalnej”
-definicji. MyÅlÄ, że zwyczajnie zastosowaÅ reguÅÄ jÄzyka
angielskiego,
-by zaproponowaÄ znaczenie tego terminu. AmerykaÅski stan Kansas opublikowaÅ
-podobnÄ
definicjÄ: „Używajcie oprogramowania o otwartym kodzie
-(OSS). OSS jest oprogramowaniem, którego kod źródÅowy jest ogólnie
dostÄpny,
-jednakże różne umowy licencyjne mogÄ
okreÅlaÄ, co można robiÄ
z danym
-kodem źródÅowym.”</p>
+Od kiedy oczywiste znaczenie terminu „otwarte
+oprogramowanie” przestaÅo byÄ tym, które mieli na myÅli jego
+twórcy, doszÅo do tego, że wiÄkszoÅc ludzi zaczÄÅo je źle
+pojmowaÄ. PowoÅujÄ
c siÄ na pisarza Neala Stephensona: „Linux
jest
+‚oprogramowaniem o otwartym kodzie’ czyli każdy może zdobyÄ
+kopiÄ jego plików źródÅowych”. Nie sÄ
dzÄ, by Åwiadomie
poszukiwaÅ on
+argumentów na odrzucenie lub zakwestionowanie
+„oficjalnej” definicji. MyÅlÄ, że zwyczajnie zastosowaÅ
+reguÅÄ jÄzyka angielskiego, by zaproponowaÄ znaczenie tego
+terminu. AmerykaÅski stan Kansas opublikowaÅ podobnÄ
definicjÄ:
+„Używajcie oprogramowania o otwartym kodzie (OSS). OSS jest
+oprogramowaniem, którego kod źródÅowy jest ogólnie dostÄpny, jednakże
różne
+umowy licencyjne mogÄ
okreÅlaÄ, co można robiÄ z danym kodem
+źródÅowym.”</p>
<p><i>New York Times</i> opublikowaÅ <a
href="http://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-design-37415.html";>artykuÅ
@@ -191,7 +217,9 @@
oznacza oprogramowanie objÄte licencjÄ
GPL. Te dwa twierdzenia sÄ
bÅÄdne,
ponieważ licencja GNU GPL uważana jest za licencjÄ otwartego
oprogramowania, a wiÄkszoÅÄ licencji otwartego oprogramowania uważana
-jest za licencje wolnego oprogramowania.</p>
+jest za licencje wolnego oprogramowania. Oprócz licencji GNU GPL
+istnieje <a href="/licenses/license-list.html">wiele innych licencji wolnego
+oprogramowania</a>.</p>
<p>Termin „otwarte oprogramowanie” byÅ dalej rozszerzany
poprzez zastosowanie go w innych dziedzinach, takich jak
@@ -391,49 +419,63 @@
</div>
</div>
+<!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.pl.html" -->
<div id="footer">
-<p>
-Pytania dotyczÄ
ce GNU i FSF prosimy kierowaÄ na adres <a
+
+<p>Pytania dotyczÄ
ce GNU i FSF prosimy kierowaÄ na adres <a
href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>. IstniejÄ
także <a
-href="/contact/contact.html">inne sposoby skontaktowania siÄ</a> z FSF.
-<br />
-Informacje o niedziaÅajÄ
cych odnoÅnikach oraz inne poprawki (lub
-propozycje) prosimy wysyÅaÄ na adres <a
-href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>.
-</p>
+href="/contact/contact.html">inne sposoby skontaktowania siÄ</a>
+z FSF. <br /> Informacje o niedziaÅajÄ
cych odnoÅnikach oraz inne
+poprawki (lub propozycje) prosimy wysyÅaÄ na adres <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:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:address@hidden";>
+
+ <address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. -->
+Aby zapoznaÄ siÄ z informacjami dotyczÄ
cymi tÅumaczenia
+i koordynowania tÅumaczeÅ artykuÅów, proszÄ odwiedziÄ stronÄ <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">tÅumaczeÅ</a>. <br />
+Komentarze odnoÅnie tÅumaczenia polskiego oraz zgÅoszenia dotyczÄ
ce
+chÄci wspóÅpracy w tÅumaczeniu prosimy kierowaÄ na adres <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden";>address@hidden</a></p>
-<p>Copyright © 2007, 2010 Richard Stallman
-<br />
-Ten utwór jest dostÄpny na <a rel="license"
+<p>Copyright © 2007, 2010, 2012 Richard Stallman</p>
+
+<p>Ten utwór jest dostÄpny na <a rel="license"
href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/deed.pl";>licencji
Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa-Bez utworów zależnych 3.0 Stany
-Zjednoczone</a>.
-</p>
+Zjednoczone</a>.</p>
<div class="translators-credits">
<!--TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't want credits.-->
TÅumaczenie: Marek Sadowski 2010; poprawki Jan Owoc 2010, 2011, Tomasz
-W. KozÅowski 2010.</div>
+W. KozÅowski 2010, 2012.</div>
- <p>
-<!-- timestamp start -->
+ <p><!-- timestamp start -->
Aktualizowane:
-$Date: 2012/09/27 16:54:07 $
+$Date: 2013/01/02 11:27:10 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
-
-<!-- All pages on the GNU web server should have the section about -->
-<!-- verbatim copying. Please do NOT remove this without talking -->
-<!-- with the webmasters first. -->
-<!-- Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the document -->
-<!-- and that it is like this "2001, 2002" not this "2001-2002." -->
</div>
</body>
</html>
Index: po/open-source-misses-the-point.fr-en.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.fr-en.html,v
retrieving revision 1.18
retrieving revision 1.19
diff -u -b -r1.18 -r1.19
--- po/open-source-misses-the-point.fr-en.html 30 Dec 2012 12:58:50 -0000
1.18
+++ po/open-source-misses-the-point.fr-en.html 2 Jan 2013 11:27:11 -0000
1.19
@@ -1,9 +1,11 @@
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.70 -->
-<title>Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software - GNU Project - 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.html" -->
-<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.translist"
-->
+ <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.translist"
-->
<h2>Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software</h2>
@@ -17,28 +19,29 @@
beer.”</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>
+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 public schools of some 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>
+the public schools of some 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
+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>
+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
@@ -61,23 +64,6 @@
of open source have come to it since then, and they make the same
association.</p>
-<p>In practice, open source stands for criteria a little weaker than
-those of free software. As far as we know, all existing free software
-would qualify as open source. Nearly all open source software is free
-software, but there are exceptions. First, some open source licenses
-are too restrictive, so they do not qualify as free licenses.
-Fortunately those licenses are not used on many programs. Second, and
-more importantly, many computers (including many Android devices)
-contain executable programs that correspond to free software source
-code, but the devices do not allow the user to install modified
-versions of those executables, but one special company has the power
-to do so. We call these devices “tyrants”,
-and the practice is called “tivoization” after the
-product where we first saw the practice. These executables are not
-free software even though their source code is free software. The
-open source supporters do not concern themselves with this issue;
-their concern is limited to the license of the source code.</p>
-
<p>The two terms
describe almost the same category of software, but they stand for
views based on fundamentally different values. Open source is a
@@ -91,19 +77,39 @@
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 (or nearly so), 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>“Free software.” “Open source.” If it's the same
+software (or nearly so), 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>Practical Differences between Free Software and Open Source</h3>
+
+<p>In practice, open source stands for criteria a little weaker than
+those of free software. As far as we know, all existing free software
+would qualify as open source. Nearly all open source software is free
+software, but there are exceptions. First, some open source licenses
+are too restrictive, so they do not qualify as free licenses.
+Fortunately, few programs use those licenses.</p>
+
+<p>Second, and more important, many products containing computers
+(including many Android devices) come with executable programs that
+correspond to free software source code, but the devices do not allow
+the user to install modified versions of those executables; only one
+special company has the power to modify them. We call these devices
+“tyrants”, and the practice is called
+“tivoization” after the product where we first saw it.
+These executables are not free software even though their source code
+is free software. The criteria for open source do not recognize this
+issue; they are concerned solely with the licensing of the source code.</p>
+
<h3>Common Misunderstandings of “Free Software” and
“Open Source”</h3>
@@ -112,30 +118,25 @@
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>
+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 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>
+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>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 the open source people have
-accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive.
-Also, they judge solely by the license of the source code, whereas our
-criterion also considers whether a device will let you <em>run</em>
-your modified version of the program. Nonetheless, their definition
+it is a little looser in some respects. Nonetheless, their definition
agrees with our definition in most cases.</p>
<p>However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source
@@ -145,13 +146,13 @@
weaker also than the official definition of open source. It includes
many programs that are neither free nor open source.</p>
-<p>Since that obvious meaning for “open source” is not the
+<p>Since the 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
+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:
<!-- It was from http://da.state.ks.us/itec/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf, but
@@ -161,7 +162,8 @@
as to what one is allowed to do with that code.”</p>
<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";>
+has <a
+href="http://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-design-37415.html";>
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
@@ -175,14 +177,17 @@
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>
+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 both mistaken,
-since the GNU GPL qualifies as an open source license and most of
-the open source licenses qualify as free software licenses.</p>
+since the GNU GPL qualifies as an open source license and most of the
+open source licenses qualify as free software licenses. There
+are <a href="/licenses/license-list.html"> many free software
+licenses</a> aside from the GNU GPL.</p>
<p>The term “open source” has been further stretched by
its application to other activities, such as government, education,
@@ -262,8 +267,8 @@
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>
+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
@@ -276,7 +281,8 @@
<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
+“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
@@ -303,20 +309,19 @@
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
+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>
+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
@@ -344,47 +349,57 @@
let license,”</a> gives his perspective on this issue.</p>
<p>
-Lakhani and Wolf's
-<a
href="http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/lakhaniwolf.pdf";>paper
on the
-motivation of free software developers</a> says that a considerable
-fraction are motivated by the view that software should be free. This
-is despite the fact that they surveyed the developers on SourceForge,
-a site that does not support the view that this is an ethical issue.</p>
+Lakhani and Wolf's <a
+href="http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/lakhaniwolf.pdf";>
+paper on the motivation of free software developers</a> says that a
+considerable fraction are motivated by the view that software should be
+free. This is despite the fact that they surveyed the developers on
+SourceForge, a site that does not support the view that this is an ethical
+issue.</p>
-</div>
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
<div id="footer">
-<p>
-Please send FSF & GNU inquiries to
+
+<p>Please send general 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>
+the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to <a href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>.</p>
-<p>Copyright © 2007, 2010 Richard Stallman
-<br />
-This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:address@hidden";>
+ <address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. -->
+
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.</p>
+
+<p>Copyright © 2007, 2010, 2012 Richard Stallman</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/";>Creative
-Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>.
-</p>
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>.</p>
-<p>
-Updated:
+<p>Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2012/12/30 12:58:50 $
+$Date: 2013/01/02 11:27:11 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
-<!-- All pages on the GNU web server should have the section about -->
-<!-- verbatim copying. Please do NOT remove this without talking -->
-<!-- with the webmasters first. -->
-<!-- Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the document -->
-<!-- and that it is like this "2001, 2002" not this "2001-2002." -->
</div>
</body>
</html>
Index: po/open-source-misses-the-point.it-en.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.it-en.html,v
retrieving revision 1.7
retrieving revision 1.8
diff -u -b -r1.7 -r1.8
--- po/open-source-misses-the-point.it-en.html 30 Dec 2012 22:59:10 -0000
1.7
+++ po/open-source-misses-the-point.it-en.html 2 Jan 2013 11:27:11 -0000
1.8
@@ -1,9 +1,11 @@
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.70 -->
-<title>Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software - GNU Project - 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.html" -->
-<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.translist"
-->
+ <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.translist"
-->
<h2>Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software</h2>
@@ -17,28 +19,29 @@
beer.”</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>
+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 public schools of some 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>
+the public schools of some 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
+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>
+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
@@ -74,13 +77,13 @@
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 (or nearly so), 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>“Free software.” “Open source.” If it's the same
+software (or nearly so), 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
@@ -115,20 +118,19 @@
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>
+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 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>
+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>The <a href="http://opensource.org/docs/osd";>official definition of
“open source software”</a> (which is published by the Open
@@ -160,7 +162,8 @@
as to what one is allowed to do with that code.”</p>
<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";>
+has <a
+href="http://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-design-37415.html";>
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
@@ -174,7 +177,8 @@
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>
+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
@@ -263,8 +267,8 @@
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>
+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
@@ -277,7 +281,8 @@
<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
+“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
@@ -304,20 +309,19 @@
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
+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>
+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
@@ -345,47 +349,57 @@
let license,”</a> gives his perspective on this issue.</p>
<p>
-Lakhani and Wolf's
-<a
href="http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/lakhaniwolf.pdf";>paper
on the
-motivation of free software developers</a> says that a considerable
-fraction are motivated by the view that software should be free. This
-is despite the fact that they surveyed the developers on SourceForge,
-a site that does not support the view that this is an ethical issue.</p>
+Lakhani and Wolf's <a
+href="http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/lakhaniwolf.pdf";>
+paper on the motivation of free software developers</a> says that a
+considerable fraction are motivated by the view that software should be
+free. This is despite the fact that they surveyed the developers on
+SourceForge, a site that does not support the view that this is an ethical
+issue.</p>
-</div>
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
<div id="footer">
-<p>
-Please send FSF & GNU inquiries to
+
+<p>Please send general 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>
+the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+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:
-<p>Copyright © 2007, 2010 Richard Stallman
-<br />
-This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:address@hidden";>
+ <address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. -->
+
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.</p>
+
+<p>Copyright © 2007, 2010, 2012 Richard Stallman</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/";>Creative
-Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>.
-</p>
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>.</p>
-<p>
-Updated:
+<p>Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2012/12/30 22:59:10 $
+$Date: 2013/01/02 11:27:11 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
-<!-- All pages on the GNU web server should have the section about -->
-<!-- verbatim copying. Please do NOT remove this without talking -->
-<!-- with the webmasters first. -->
-<!-- Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the document -->
-<!-- and that it is like this "2001, 2002" not this "2001-2002." -->
</div>
</body>
</html>
Index: po/open-source-misses-the-point.it.po
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.it.po,v
retrieving revision 1.20
retrieving revision 1.21
diff -u -b -r1.20 -r1.21
--- po/open-source-misses-the-point.it.po 1 Jan 2013 22:14:53 -0000
1.20
+++ po/open-source-misses-the-point.it.po 2 Jan 2013 11:27:11 -0000
1.21
@@ -15,7 +15,6 @@
"MIME-Version: 1.0\n"
"Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8\n"
"Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit\n"
-"Outdated-Since: 2013-01-01 06:57-0500\n"
#. type: Content of: <title>
msgid ""
@@ -49,15 +48,7 @@
"parolaâ e non alla âbirra gratisâ [NdT: il termine free in inglese
significa "
"sia gratuito che libero, in italiano il problema non esiste]."
-# || No change detected. The change might only be in amounts of spaces.
#. type: Content of: <p>
-#| msgid ""
-#| "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."
msgid ""
"These freedoms are vitally important. They are essential, not just for the "
"individual users' sake, but for society as a whole because they promote "
@@ -96,17 +87,7 @@
"cose vengono riferite a una diversa filosofia, in cui, di solito, non si fa "
"neppure riferimento a queste libertà ."
-# || No change detected. The change might only be in amounts of spaces.
#. type: Content of: <p>
-#| msgid ""
-#| "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."
msgid ""
"The free software movement has campaigned for computer users' freedom since "
"1983. In 1984 we launched the development of the free operating system GNU, "
@@ -278,18 +259,7 @@
"Errori comuni nell'attribuire il significato dei termini âsoftware
liberoâ e "
"âopen sourceâ"
-# || No change detected. The change might only be in amounts of spaces.
#. type: Content of: <p>
-#| msgid ""
-#| "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."
msgid ""
"The term “free software” is prone to misinterpretation: an "
"unintended meaning, “software you can get for zero price,” fits "
@@ -815,22 +785,7 @@
"AppDev/350/LWD010523vcontrol4/\">Live and let license</a> in cui ha scritto "
"la sua visione su questo tema. "
-# | Lakhani and Wolf's <a
-# |
href=\"http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/lakhaniwolf.pdf\";>{+
-# | +}paper on the motivation of free software developers</a> says that a
-# | considerable fraction are motivated by the view that software should be
-# | free. This is despite the fact that they surveyed the developers on
-# | SourceForge, a site that does not support the view that this is an ethical
-# | issue.
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-#| msgid ""
-#| "Lakhani and Wolf's <a href=\"http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-";
-#| "management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/"
-#| "readings/lakhaniwolf.pdf\">paper on the motivation of free software "
-#| "developers</a> says that a considerable fraction are motivated by the "
-#| "view that software should be free. This is despite the fact that they "
-#| "surveyed the developers on SourceForge, a site that does not support the "
-#| "view that this is an ethical issue."
+#. type: Content of: <p>
msgid ""
"Lakhani and Wolf's <a href=\"http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-";
"management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/"
@@ -853,14 +808,7 @@
msgid "*GNUN-SLOT: TRANSLATOR'S NOTES*"
msgstr " "
-# || No change detected. The change might only be in amounts of spaces.
#. type: Content of: <div><p>
-#| msgid ""
-#| "Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to <a
href=\"mailto:address@hidden";
-#| "org\"><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>."
msgid ""
"Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to <a
href=\"mailto:address@hidden";
"\"><address@hidden></a>. There are also <a href=\"/contact/\">other
ways "
@@ -874,7 +822,6 @@
"link non funzionanti e altri suggerimenti relativi alle pagine web a <a href="
"\"mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>."
-# || No change detected. The change might only be in amounts of spaces.
#. TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
#. replace it with the translation of these two:
#. We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
@@ -887,10 +834,6 @@
#. href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
#. README</a>.
#. type: Content of: <div><p>
-#| msgid ""
-#| "Please see the <a href=\"/server/standards/README.translations.html"
-#| "\">Translations README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting "
-#| "translations of this article."
msgid ""
"Please see the <a href=\"/server/standards/README.translations.html"
"\">Translations README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting "
@@ -902,9 +845,7 @@
"pagine di questo sito contattate il <a href=\"http://savannah.gnu.org/";
"projects/www-it/\">gruppo dei traduttori italiani</a>."
-# | Copyright © 2007, [-2010-] {+2010, 2012+} Richard Stallman
#. type: Content of: <div><p>
-#| msgid "Copyright © 2007, 2010 Richard Stallman"
msgid "Copyright © 2007, 2010, 2012 Richard Stallman"
msgstr "Copyright © 2007, 2010, 2012 Richard Stallman"
Index: po/open-source-misses-the-point.nl-en.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.nl-en.html,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -b -r1.1 -r1.2
--- po/open-source-misses-the-point.nl-en.html 25 Dec 2012 13:46:28 -0000
1.1
+++ po/open-source-misses-the-point.nl-en.html 2 Jan 2013 11:27:11 -0000
1.2
@@ -1,9 +1,11 @@
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.70 -->
-<title>Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software - GNU Project - 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.html" -->
-<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.translist"
-->
+ <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.translist"
-->
<h2>Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software</h2>
@@ -17,28 +19,29 @@
beer.”</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>
+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 public schools of some 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>
+the public schools of some 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
+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>
+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
@@ -50,21 +53,23 @@
<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>
+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
+<p>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,
+essential respect for 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
@@ -72,19 +77,39 @@
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>“Free software.” “Open source.” If it's the same
+software (or nearly so), 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>Practical Differences between Free Software and Open Source</h3>
+
+<p>In practice, open source stands for criteria a little weaker than
+those of free software. As far as we know, all existing free software
+would qualify as open source. Nearly all open source software is free
+software, but there are exceptions. First, some open source licenses
+are too restrictive, so they do not qualify as free licenses.
+Fortunately, few programs use those licenses.</p>
+
+<p>Second, and more important, many products containing computers
+(including many Android devices) come with executable programs that
+correspond to free software source code, but the devices do not allow
+the user to install modified versions of those executables; only one
+special company has the power to modify them. We call these devices
+“tyrants”, and the practice is called
+“tivoization” after the product where we first saw it.
+These executables are not free software even though their source code
+is free software. The criteria for open source do not recognize this
+issue; they are concerned solely with the licensing of the source code.</p>
+
<h3>Common Misunderstandings of “Free Software” and
“Open Source”</h3>
@@ -93,30 +118,25 @@
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>
+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 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>
+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>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 the open source people have
-accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive.
-Also, they judge solely by the license of the source code, whereas our
-criterion also considers whether a device will let you <em>run</em>
-your modified version of the program. Nonetheless, their definition
+it is a little looser in some respects. Nonetheless, their definition
agrees with our definition in most cases.</p>
<p>However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source
@@ -126,13 +146,13 @@
weaker also than the official definition of open source. It includes
many programs that are neither free nor open source.</p>
-<p>Since that obvious meaning for “open source” is not the
+<p>Since the 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
+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:
<!-- It was from http://da.state.ks.us/itec/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf, but
@@ -142,7 +162,8 @@
as to what one is allowed to do with that code.”</p>
<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";>
+has <a
+href="http://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-design-37415.html";>
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
@@ -156,14 +177,17 @@
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>
+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 both mistaken,
-since the GNU GPL qualifies as an open source license and most of
-the open source licenses qualify as free software licenses.</p>
+since the GNU GPL qualifies as an open source license and most of the
+open source licenses qualify as free software licenses. There
+are <a href="/licenses/license-list.html"> many free software
+licenses</a> aside from the GNU GPL.</p>
<p>The term “open source” has been further stretched by
its application to other activities, such as government, education,
@@ -243,8 +267,8 @@
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>
+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
@@ -257,7 +281,8 @@
<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
+“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
@@ -284,20 +309,19 @@
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
+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>
+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
@@ -325,47 +349,57 @@
let license,”</a> gives his perspective on this issue.</p>
<p>
-Lakhani and Wolf's
-<a
href="http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/lakhaniwolf.pdf";>paper
on the
-motivation of free software developers</a> says that a considerable
-fraction are motivated by the view that software should be free. This
-is despite the fact that they surveyed the developers on SourceForge,
-a site that does not support the view that this is an ethical issue.</p>
+Lakhani and Wolf's <a
+href="http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/lakhaniwolf.pdf";>
+paper on the motivation of free software developers</a> says that a
+considerable fraction are motivated by the view that software should be
+free. This is despite the fact that they surveyed the developers on
+SourceForge, a site that does not support the view that this is an ethical
+issue.</p>
-</div>
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
<div id="footer">
-<p>
-Please send FSF & GNU inquiries to
+
+<p>Please send general 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>
+the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to <a href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>.</p>
-<p>Copyright © 2007, 2010 Richard Stallman
-<br />
-This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:address@hidden";>
+ <address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. -->
+
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.</p>
+
+<p>Copyright © 2007, 2010, 2012 Richard Stallman</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/";>Creative
-Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>.
-</p>
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>.</p>
-<p>
-Updated:
+<p>Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2012/12/25 13:46:28 $
+$Date: 2013/01/02 11:27:11 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
-<!-- All pages on the GNU web server should have the section about -->
-<!-- verbatim copying. Please do NOT remove this without talking -->
-<!-- with the webmasters first. -->
-<!-- Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the document -->
-<!-- and that it is like this "2001, 2002" not this "2001-2002." -->
</div>
</body>
</html>
Index: po/open-source-misses-the-point.nl.po
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.nl.po,v
retrieving revision 1.8
retrieving revision 1.9
diff -u -b -r1.8 -r1.9
--- po/open-source-misses-the-point.nl.po 1 Jan 2013 14:37:53 -0000
1.8
+++ po/open-source-misses-the-point.nl.po 2 Jan 2013 11:27:11 -0000
1.9
@@ -14,352 +14,749 @@
"MIME-Version: 1.0\n"
"Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1\n"
"Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit\n"
-"Outdated-Since: 2012-12-29 18:25-0500\n"
#. type: Content of: <title>
-msgid "Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software - GNU Project - Free
Software Foundation (FSF)"
-msgstr "Waarom Open Bron de essentie van Vrije Software niet begrijpt - GNU
Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)"
+msgid ""
+"Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software - GNU Project - Free "
+"Software Foundation (FSF)"
+msgstr ""
+"Waarom Open Bron de essentie van Vrije Software niet begrijpt - GNU Project "
+"- Free Software Foundation (FSF)"
#. type: Content of: <h2>
msgid "Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software"
-msgstr "Waarom “Open Bron” de essentie van Vrije Software niet
begrijpt."
+msgstr ""
+"Waarom “Open Bron” de essentie van Vrije Software niet begrijpt."
#. type: Content of: <p>
msgid "by <strong>Richard Stallman</strong>"
msgstr "door <strong>Richard Stallman</strong>"
#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "When we call software “free,” we mean that it respects the
<a href=\"/philosophy/free-sw.html\">users' essential freedoms</a>: the freedom
to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute copies with or without
changes. This is a matter of freedom, not price, so think of “free
speech,” not “free beer.”"
-msgstr "Als we software “vrij” noemen bedoelen we daarmee dat het
de <a href=\"/philosophy/free-sw.html\">basisvrijheden van gebruikers</a>
respecteert: de vrijheid om programma's uit te voeren of naar believen te
kopiëren, met of zonder veranderingen. Het gaat hierbij om vrijheid, niet
om geld, denk dus aan “vrijheid van meningsuiting”, niet aan
“vrij van kosten” (Noot van de vertaler: dit artikel is een
vertaling uit het engels. Daarin kan het woord <em>free</em> meerdere
betekenissen hebben: “vrijheid” of “gratis”. Vandaar de
omstandige uitleg hierboven.)"
-
-# || No change detected. The change might only be in amounts of spaces.
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-#| msgid ""
-#| "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."
-msgid "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."
-msgstr "Deze vrijheden zijn van essentieel belang. Niet alleen voor de
individuele gebruiker maar ook omdat ze betrokkenheid kweekt — te weten
via delen en samenwerken. Dit wordt belangrijker naarmate we digitaler gaan
leven en werken. In een wereld van digitale muziek, plaatjes en tekst wordt
vrije software steeds meer de vertegenwoordiger van vrijheid in het algemeen."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "Tens of millions of people around the world now use free software; the
public schools of some 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."
-msgstr "Miljoenen mensen over de hele wereld gebruiken nu vrije software;
scholen in regionen in India en Spanje geven leerlingen onderwijs met het vrije
<a href=\"/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html\">besturingssysteem GNU/Linux</a>. Maar de
meeste van deze gebruikers hebben nog nooit gehoord van de ethische achtergrond
om dit te ontwikkelen en een gemeenschap van vrije software te stichten omdat
de systemen tegenwoordig worden aangeduid met “open bron” en er een
andere filosofie aan wordt gehangen die weinig met verworven vrijheden van doen
heeft."
-
-# || No change detected. The change might only be in amounts of spaces.
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-#| msgid ""
-#| "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."
-msgid "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."
-msgstr "De vrije software beweging strijdt al voor vrijheid in
software-gebruik sinds 1983. In 1984 begonnen we met de ontwikkeling van het
vrije besturingssysteem GNU, zodat we geen gebruik hoefden te maken van de
niet-vrije besturingssystemen die de gebruikers hun vrijheid ontzeggen. In de
tachtiger jaren ontwikkelden we de meeste essentiële componenten hiervan,
alsook de <a href=\"/licenses/gpl.html\">GNU General Public License</a>, een
licentie die met name de vrijheid van gebruikers beschermd."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "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."
-msgstr "Echter, niet alle gebruikers en ontwikkelaars waren het eens met de
filosofie van de vrije software beweging. In 1998 was er een afscheiding van de
vrije software die het idee van “open bron” verkondigden. Van
origine werdt deze uitdrukking voorgesteld om mogelijke verwarring met
“vrije software” te voorkomen, maar al snel werdt het geassocieerd
met filosofische overtuigingen die niets met vrije software van doen hadden."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "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."
-msgstr "Bepaalde voorstanders van “open bron” beschouwden het als
een “marketing campagne voor vrije software” die zakelijke
gebruikers zou aanspreken door praktische voordelen te benoemen en
tegelijkertijd principes over vrijheid overboord te gooien omdat ondernemers
dit wellicht minder zou aanspreken. Andere voorstanders waren gewoon tegen de
normen en waarden van de vrije software beweging. Hoe dan ook, in de campagne
voor “open bron” werden daardoor deze normen en waarden niet
genoemd. De uitdrukking “open bron” werdt daardoor al snel
geassocieerd met praktische waarden als het maken van krachtige, betrouwbare
software. De meeste medestanders van “open bron” stammen uit die
tijd en hebben dus de huidige mores overgenomen."
-
-# | [-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-] {+essential respect for+} 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.
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-#| msgid ""
-#| "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."
-msgid "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, essential respect
for 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."
-msgstr "De benamingen duiden bijna dezelfde categorie. Ze zijn echter
gebaseerd op verschillende ideeën. Open bron is een manier van
ontwikkelen; vrije software is een sociaal gebeuren. Voor de vrije software
beweging is vrije software essentieel omdat alleen dit de vrijheid van
gebruikers waarborgt. Open bron daarentegen gaat het alleen om hoe software
“beter” te maken — alleen vanuit een praktisch oogpunt. Het
beweert dat niet-vrije software een niet-optimale oplossing is. Voor de vrije
software beweging echter is niet-vrije software een sociaal probleem en de
overgang naar vrije software de oplossing."
-
-# | “Free software.” “Open source.” If it's the same
-# | [-software,-] {+software (or nearly so),+} 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.”
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-#| msgid ""
-#| "“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.”"
-msgid "“Free software.” “Open source.” If it's the
same software (or nearly so), 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.”"
-msgstr "“Vrije software”. “Open bron”. Het is dezelfde
software, maakt het uit welke benaming je gebruikt? Jazeker, want ze
vertegenwoordigen verschillende principes. Want hoewel ieder vrij programma je
die vrijheid nu geeft, zal het niet blijvend zijn wanneer je mensen dat
vrijheidsgevoel niet bijbrengt. Als je dat belangrijk vindt kun je maar beter
spreken over “vrije software”."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "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."
-msgstr "Wij van de vrije software beweging beschouwen open bron niet als
vijandig; de vijand is private software. We willen echter wel laten weten dat
we voor vrijheid staan en dus willen we niet worden verward met voorstanders
van open bron."
+msgid ""
+"When we call software “free,” we mean that it respects the <a "
+"href=\"/philosophy/free-sw.html\">users' essential freedoms</a>: the freedom "
+"to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute copies with or "
+"without changes. This is a matter of freedom, not price, so think of “"
+"free speech,” not “free beer.”"
+msgstr ""
+"Als we software “vrij” noemen bedoelen we daarmee dat het de <a "
+"href=\"/philosophy/free-sw.html\">basisvrijheden van gebruikers</a> "
+"respecteert: de vrijheid om programma's uit te voeren of naar believen te "
+"kopiëren, met of zonder veranderingen. Het gaat hierbij om vrijheid, "
+"niet om geld, denk dus aan “vrijheid van meningsuiting”, niet "
+"aan “vrij van kosten” (Noot van de vertaler: dit artikel is een "
+"vertaling uit het engels. Daarin kan het woord <em>free</em> meerdere "
+"betekenissen hebben: “vrijheid” of “gratis”. Vandaar "
+"de omstandige uitleg hierboven.)"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"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."
+msgstr ""
+"Deze vrijheden zijn van essentieel belang. Niet alleen voor de individuele "
+"gebruiker maar ook omdat ze betrokkenheid kweekt — te weten via delen "
+"en samenwerken. Dit wordt belangrijker naarmate we digitaler gaan leven en "
+"werken. In een wereld van digitale muziek, plaatjes en tekst wordt vrije "
+"software steeds meer de vertegenwoordiger van vrijheid in het algemeen."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Tens of millions of people around the world now use free software; the "
+"public schools of some 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."
+msgstr ""
+"Miljoenen mensen over de hele wereld gebruiken nu vrije software; scholen in "
+"regionen in India en Spanje geven leerlingen onderwijs met het vrije <a href="
+"\"/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html\">besturingssysteem GNU/Linux</a>. Maar de meeste "
+"van deze gebruikers hebben nog nooit gehoord van de ethische achtergrond om "
+"dit te ontwikkelen en een gemeenschap van vrije software te stichten omdat "
+"de systemen tegenwoordig worden aangeduid met “open bron” en er "
+"een andere filosofie aan wordt gehangen die weinig met verworven vrijheden "
+"van doen heeft."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"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."
+msgstr ""
+"De vrije software beweging strijdt al voor vrijheid in software-gebruik "
+"sinds 1983. In 1984 begonnen we met de ontwikkeling van het vrije "
+"besturingssysteem GNU, zodat we geen gebruik hoefden te maken van de niet-"
+"vrije besturingssystemen die de gebruikers hun vrijheid ontzeggen. In de "
+"tachtiger jaren ontwikkelden we de meeste essentiële componenten "
+"hiervan, alsook de <a href=\"/licenses/gpl.html\">GNU General Public "
+"License</a>, een licentie die met name de vrijheid van gebruikers beschermd."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"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."
+msgstr ""
+"Echter, niet alle gebruikers en ontwikkelaars waren het eens met de "
+"filosofie van de vrije software beweging. In 1998 was er een afscheiding van "
+"de vrije software die het idee van “open bron” verkondigden. Van "
+"origine werdt deze uitdrukking voorgesteld om mogelijke verwarring met "
+"“vrije software” te voorkomen, maar al snel werdt het "
+"geassocieerd met filosofische overtuigingen die niets met vrije software van "
+"doen hadden."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"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."
+msgstr ""
+"Bepaalde voorstanders van “open bron” beschouwden het als een "
+"“marketing campagne voor vrije software” die zakelijke "
+"gebruikers zou aanspreken door praktische voordelen te benoemen en "
+"tegelijkertijd principes over vrijheid overboord te gooien omdat ondernemers "
+"dit wellicht minder zou aanspreken. Andere voorstanders waren gewoon tegen "
+"de normen en waarden van de vrije software beweging. Hoe dan ook, in de "
+"campagne voor “open bron” werden daardoor deze normen en waarden "
+"niet genoemd. De uitdrukking “open bron” werdt daardoor al snel "
+"geassocieerd met praktische waarden als het maken van krachtige, betrouwbare "
+"software. De meeste medestanders van “open bron” stammen uit die "
+"tijd en hebben dus de huidige mores overgenomen."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"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, essential respect "
+"for 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."
+msgstr ""
+"De benamingen duiden bijna dezelfde categorie. Ze zijn echter gebaseerd op "
+"verschillende ideeën. Open bron is een manier van ontwikkelen; vrije "
+"software is een sociaal gebeuren. Voor de vrije software beweging is vrije "
+"software essentieel omdat alleen dit de vrijheid van gebruikers waarborgt. "
+"Open bron daarentegen gaat het alleen om hoe software “beter” te "
+"maken — alleen vanuit een praktisch oogpunt. Het beweert dat niet-"
+"vrije software een niet-optimale oplossing is. Voor de vrije software "
+"beweging echter is niet-vrije software een sociaal probleem en de overgang "
+"naar vrije software de oplossing."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"“Free software.” “Open source.” If it's the same "
+"software (or nearly so), 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."
+"”"
+msgstr ""
+"“Vrije software”. “Open bron”. Het is dezelfde "
+"software, maakt het uit welke benaming je gebruikt? Jazeker, want ze "
+"vertegenwoordigen verschillende principes. Want hoewel ieder vrij programma "
+"je die vrijheid nu geeft, zal het niet blijvend zijn wanneer je mensen dat "
+"vrijheidsgevoel niet bijbrengt. Als je dat belangrijk vindt kun je maar "
+"beter spreken over “vrije software”."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"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."
+msgstr ""
+"Wij van de vrije software beweging beschouwen open bron niet als vijandig; "
+"de vijand is private software. We willen echter wel laten weten dat we voor "
+"vrijheid staan en dus willen we niet worden verward met voorstanders van "
+"open bron."
#. type: Content of: <h3>
msgid "Practical Differences between Free Software and Open Source"
msgstr "Praktische verschillen tussen Vrije Software en Open Source"
#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "In practice, open source stands for criteria a little weaker than those
of free software. As far as we know, all existing free software would qualify
as open source. Nearly all open source software is free software, but there
are exceptions. First, some open source licenses are too restrictive, so they
do not qualify as free licenses. Fortunately, few programs use those licenses."
-msgstr "Praktisch gesproken hanteert “open source” (nvdv: open
broncode) minder strikte criteria dan vrije software. Voor zover wij weten
voldoet alle vrije software ook aan de criteria van open source. Bijna alle
open source software is vrije software maar er zijn uitzonderingen. Allereerst
zijn er open source licenties die teveel beperkingen bevatten waardoor ze geen
vrije software licenties zijn. Gelukkig zijn er slechts weinig programma's die
een dergelijke licentie gebruiken."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "Second, and more important, many products containing computers
(including many Android devices) come with executable programs that correspond
to free software source code, but the devices do not allow the user to install
modified versions of those executables; only one special company has the power
to modify them. We call these devices “tyrants”, and the practice
is called “tivoization” after the product where we first saw it.
These executables are not free software even though their source code is free
software. The criteria for open source do not recognize this issue; they are
concerned solely with the licensing of the source code."
-msgstr "Ten tweede, en veel belangrijker, bevatten veel apparaten met
computers erin (ook veel Android apparaten) uitvoerbare programma's afkomstig
uit vrije software broncode waarbij deze apparaten het niet toelaten dat de
gebruiker zelf gewijzigde versies van die programma's gaan installeren; alleen
één speicaal bedrijf kan dit doen. We noemen die apparaten
“tirannen” en in de praktijk noemen we dit
“tivoization”, genoemd naar het apparaat waar we het voor het eerst
constateerden. Deze uitvoerbare programma's zijn geen vrije software, ook al is
de broncode waar het van afstamt wel. De voorwaarden voor open source
onderkennen dit probleem niet; men maakt zich alleen druk om de licenties van
de broncode."
+msgid ""
+"In practice, open source stands for criteria a little weaker than those of "
+"free software. As far as we know, all existing free software would qualify "
+"as open source. Nearly all open source software is free software, but there "
+"are exceptions. First, some open source licenses are too restrictive, so "
+"they do not qualify as free licenses. Fortunately, few programs use those "
+"licenses."
+msgstr ""
+"Praktisch gesproken hanteert “open source” (nvdv: open broncode) "
+"minder strikte criteria dan vrije software. Voor zover wij weten voldoet "
+"alle vrije software ook aan de criteria van open source. Bijna alle open "
+"source software is vrije software maar er zijn uitzonderingen. Allereerst "
+"zijn er open source licenties die teveel beperkingen bevatten waardoor ze "
+"geen vrije software licenties zijn. Gelukkig zijn er slechts weinig "
+"programma's die een dergelijke licentie gebruiken."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Second, and more important, many products containing computers (including "
+"many Android devices) come with executable programs that correspond to free "
+"software source code, but the devices do not allow the user to install "
+"modified versions of those executables; only one special company has the "
+"power to modify them. We call these devices “tyrants”, and the "
+"practice is called “tivoization” after the product where we "
+"first saw it. These executables are not free software even though their "
+"source code is free software. The criteria for open source do not recognize "
+"this issue; they are concerned solely with the licensing of the source code."
+msgstr ""
+"Ten tweede, en veel belangrijker, bevatten veel apparaten met computers erin "
+"(ook veel Android apparaten) uitvoerbare programma's afkomstig uit vrije "
+"software broncode waarbij deze apparaten het niet toelaten dat de gebruiker "
+"zelf gewijzigde versies van die programma's gaan installeren; alleen é"
+"én speicaal bedrijf kan dit doen. We noemen die apparaten “"
+"tirannen” en in de praktijk noemen we dit “tivoization”, "
+"genoemd naar het apparaat waar we het voor het eerst constateerden. Deze "
+"uitvoerbare programma's zijn geen vrije software, ook al is de broncode waar "
+"het van afstamt wel. De voorwaarden voor open source onderkennen dit "
+"probleem niet; men maakt zich alleen druk om de licenties van de broncode."
#. type: Content of: <h3>
-msgid "Common Misunderstandings of “Free Software” and “Open
Source”"
-msgstr "Misverstanden over “vrije software” en “open
bron”"
+msgid ""
+"Common Misunderstandings of “Free Software” and “Open "
+"Source”"
+msgstr ""
+"Misverstanden over “vrije software” en “open bron”"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"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."
+msgstr ""
+"De uitdrukking “vrije software” heeft het probleem dat het "
+"verkeerd kan worden opgevat (in het engels): de onbedoelde uitleg, “"
+"software die je gratis kunt krijgen” en diegene die we bedoelen, "
+"“software die de gebruikers vrijheid geeft”. We pakken dit "
+"probleem aan door de definitie te publiceren en te zeggen “Denk aan "
+"vrijheid van meningsuiting, niet aan vrij van kosten”. Het is geen "
+"perfecte oplossing en een andere eenduidige uitdrukking zou beter zijn maar "
+"die is er niet."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Unfortunately, all the alternatives in English have problems of their own. "
+"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.”"
+msgstr ""
+"Helaas hebben alle engelse alternatieven hun eigen problemen. We hebben een "
+"heleboel suggesties onderzocht maar geen daarvan drukt zo duidelijk uit dat "
+"een overstap hiernaartoe een “goede” is. Ieder alternatief voor "
+"“vrije software” heeft wel een semantisch probleem — en "
+"dus ook “open bron software”."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"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. Nonetheless, their definition agrees with our definition in "
+"most cases."
+msgstr ""
+"De <a href=\"http://opensource.org/docs/osd\";>officiële definitie van "
+"“open bron software”</a> (die wordt gegeven door de Open Source "
+"Initiative en te uitgebreid om hier te herhalen) is indirect afgeleid van "
+"onze doelstellingen voor vrije software. Maar het is niet hetzelfde; in "
+"sommige opzichten is het wat losser, waardoor de open bron beweging een "
+"aantal licenties hebben geaccepteerd die wij te beperkend voor de gebruiker "
+"vinden. In de praktijk lijkt de definitie echter veel op die van ons."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"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."
+msgstr ""
+"Echter, de overduidelijke bedoeling van “open bron software” is "
+"“je kunt de broncode bekijken” en de meeste mensen denken dat "
+"dit het is. Dit is echter een veel zwakker criterium dan vrije software, of "
+"zelfs dan de officiële definitie van open bron. Het slaat ook op een "
+"hoop programma's die noch vrij, noch open bron zijn."
-# || No change detected. The change might only be in amounts of spaces.
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-#| msgid ""
-#| "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."
-msgid "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."
-msgstr "De uitdrukking “vrije software” heeft het probleem dat het
verkeerd kan worden opgevat (in het engels): de onbedoelde uitleg,
“software die je gratis kunt krijgen” en diegene die we bedoelen,
“software die de gebruikers vrijheid geeft”. We pakken dit probleem
aan door de definitie te publiceren en te zeggen “Denk aan vrijheid van
meningsuiting, niet aan vrij van kosten”. Het is geen perfecte oplossing
en een andere eenduidige uitdrukking zou beter zijn maar die is er niet."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "Unfortunately, all the alternatives in English have problems of their
own. 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.”"
-msgstr "Helaas hebben alle engelse alternatieven hun eigen problemen. We
hebben een heleboel suggesties onderzocht maar geen daarvan drukt zo duidelijk
uit dat een overstap hiernaartoe een “goede” is. Ieder alternatief
voor “vrije software” heeft wel een semantisch probleem — en
dus ook “open bron software”."
-
-# | 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 the open source people have accepted a few
-# | licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive. Also, they judge
-# | solely by the license of the source code, whereas our criterion also
-# | considers whether a device will let you <em>run</em> your modified version
-# | of the program.-] {+respects.+} Nonetheless, their definition agrees with
-# | our definition in most cases.
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-#| msgid ""
-#| "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 the open source people have accepted a few "
-#| "licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive. Also, they judge "
-#| "solely by the license of the source code, whereas our criterion also "
-#| "considers whether a device will let you <em>run</em> your modified "
-#| "version of the program. Nonetheless, their definition agrees with our "
-#| "definition in most cases."
-msgid "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. Nonetheless, their definition agrees with our definition in most
cases."
-msgstr "De <a href=\"http://opensource.org/docs/osd\";>officiële definitie
van “open bron software”</a> (die wordt gegeven door de Open Source
Initiative en te uitgebreid om hier te herhalen) is indirect afgeleid van onze
doelstellingen voor vrije software. Maar het is niet hetzelfde; in sommige
opzichten is het wat losser, waardoor de open bron beweging een aantal
licenties hebben geaccepteerd die wij te beperkend voor de gebruiker vinden. In
de praktijk lijkt de definitie echter veel op die van ons."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "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."
-msgstr "Echter, de overduidelijke bedoeling van “open bron
software” is “je kunt de broncode bekijken” en de meeste
mensen denken dat dit het is. Dit is echter een veel zwakker criterium dan
vrije software, of zelfs dan de officiële definitie van open bron. Het
slaat ook op een hoop programma's die noch vrij, noch open bron zijn."
-
-# | Since [-that-] {+the+} 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”-] {+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.”
#. It was from http://da.state.ks.us/itec/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf, but
#. that page is no longer available.
#. type: Content of: <p>
-#| msgid ""
-#| "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.”"
-msgid "Since the 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.”"
-msgstr "Omdat de normale betekenis van “open bron” niet degene is
die de voorstanders gebruiken, is het directe gevolg dat de meeste mensen hem
verkeerd begrijpen. Volgens schrijver Neal Stephenson is
“Linux‘open bron’ software, wat betekent dat iedereen
kopiën kan krijgen van de broncode.” Ik denk niet dat hij erop uit
was de officiële definitie aan te vechten maar dat hij gewoon de gebruiken
binnen de engelse taal overnam om tot een definitie te komen. Kansas
publiceerde een gelijkaardige definitie: “Gebruik open bron softtware.
Dit is software waarvan de broncode vrijelijk beschikbaar is hoewel de
specifieke licenties kunnen variëren met betrekking tot wat je doen kunt
met de code."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "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\";>
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."
-msgstr "De <i>New York Times</i> heeft <a
href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-design-37415.html\";>
een artikel die de betekenis oprekt</a> voor gebruikers die beta
testen—een paar gebruikers een vroege versie uit laten proberen om
daarover vertrouwelijk te rapporteren—wat private ontwikkelaars al
decennia toepassen."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "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."
-msgstr "De mensen van open bron proberen hiermee om te gaan door te verwijzen
naar hun officiële definitie maar die is minder effectief dan die van ons.
“Vrije software” is slechts voor tweeërlei uitleg vatbaar,
één daarvan is de goeie. Iemand die de boodschap “vrij als
in vrijheid van meningsuiting en niet als in vrij van kosten” begrepen
heeft zal niet snel dezelfde fout maken. “open bron” heeft echter
slechts één uitleg, die verschilt van wat is bedoeld. Er is
echter geen korte en bondige manier om dit uit te leggen, wat de verwarring
alleen maar groter maakt."
-
-# | 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 both mistaken, since the GNU GPL qualifies as
-# | an open source license and most of the open source licenses qualify as
-# | free software licenses. {+There are <a
-# | href=\"/licenses/license-list.html\"> many free software licenses</a>
-# | aside from the GNU GPL.+}
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-#| msgid ""
-#| "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 both mistaken, since the GNU GPL "
-#| "qualifies as an open source license and most of the open source licenses "
-#| "qualify as free software licenses."
-msgid "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 both mistaken, since the GNU GPL qualifies as an
open source license and most of the open source licenses qualify as free
software licenses. There are <a href=\"/licenses/license-list.html\"> many
free software licenses</a> aside from the GNU GPL."
-msgstr "Een ander misverstand over “open bron” is het idee dat het
betekent “niet de GNU GPL gebruien.” Vaakvergezeld van een ander
misverstand dat “vrije software” “software met een GPL
licentie” betekent. Beiden zijn fout want de GNU GPL is een open bron
licentie en de meeste open bron licenties voldoen ook aan de criteria voor
vrije software. Er zijn <a href=\"/licenses/license-list.html\"> vele vrije
software licenties</a> naast de GNU GPL."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "The term “open source” has been further stretched by its
application to other activities, such as government, education, and science,
where there is no such thing as source code, and where criteria for software
licensing are simply not pertinent. The only thing these activities have in
common is that they somehow invite people to participate. They stretch the
term so far that it only means “participatory”."
-msgstr "Het begrip “open bron” is verder opgerekt door
toepassingen op ander terreinen zoals overheid, onderwijs en wetenschap, waar
men gene broncode kent en de criteria voor software licenties niet gelden. Het
enige wat ze gemeen hebben is dat ze mensen uitnodigen deel te nemen. De
betekenis wordt zo opgerekt dat het alleen nog “meedoen” betekent."
+msgid ""
+"Since the 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.”"
+msgstr ""
+"Omdat de normale betekenis van “open bron” niet degene is die de "
+"voorstanders gebruiken, is het directe gevolg dat de meeste mensen hem "
+"verkeerd begrijpen. Volgens schrijver Neal Stephenson is “Linux‘"
+"open bron’ software, wat betekent dat iedereen kopiën kan krijgen "
+"van de broncode.” Ik denk niet dat hij erop uit was de officiële "
+"definitie aan te vechten maar dat hij gewoon de gebruiken binnen de engelse "
+"taal overnam om tot een definitie te komen. Kansas publiceerde een "
+"gelijkaardige definitie: “Gebruik open bron softtware. Dit is software "
+"waarvan de broncode vrijelijk beschikbaar is hoewel de specifieke licenties "
+"kunnen variëren met betrekking tot wat je doen kunt met de code."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"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\"> 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."
+msgstr ""
+"De <i>New York Times</i> heeft <a href=\"http://www.nytimes.com/external/";
+"gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-"
+"design-37415.html\"> een artikel die de betekenis oprekt</a> voor gebruikers "
+"die beta testen—een paar gebruikers een vroege versie uit laten "
+"proberen om daarover vertrouwelijk te rapporteren—wat private "
+"ontwikkelaars al decennia toepassen."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"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."
+msgstr ""
+"De mensen van open bron proberen hiermee om te gaan door te verwijzen naar "
+"hun officiële definitie maar die is minder effectief dan die van ons. "
+"“Vrije software” is slechts voor tweeërlei uitleg vatbaar, "
+"één daarvan is de goeie. Iemand die de boodschap “vrij "
+"als in vrijheid van meningsuiting en niet als in vrij van kosten” "
+"begrepen heeft zal niet snel dezelfde fout maken. “open bron” "
+"heeft echter slechts één uitleg, die verschilt van wat is "
+"bedoeld. Er is echter geen korte en bondige manier om dit uit te leggen, wat "
+"de verwarring alleen maar groter maakt."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"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 both mistaken, since the GNU GPL qualifies as an "
+"open source license and most of the open source licenses qualify as free "
+"software licenses. There are <a href=\"/licenses/license-list.html\"> many "
+"free software licenses</a> aside from the GNU GPL."
+msgstr ""
+"Een ander misverstand over “open bron” is het idee dat het "
+"betekent “niet de GNU GPL gebruien.” Vaakvergezeld van een ander "
+"misverstand dat “vrije software” “software met een GPL "
+"licentie” betekent. Beiden zijn fout want de GNU GPL is een open bron "
+"licentie en de meeste open bron licenties voldoen ook aan de criteria voor "
+"vrije software. Er zijn <a href=\"/licenses/license-list.html\"> vele vrije "
+"software licenties</a> naast de GNU GPL."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"The term “open source” has been further stretched by its "
+"application to other activities, such as government, education, and science, "
+"where there is no such thing as source code, and where criteria for software "
+"licensing are simply not pertinent. The only thing these activities have in "
+"common is that they somehow invite people to participate. They stretch the "
+"term so far that it only means “participatory”."
+msgstr ""
+"Het begrip “open bron” is verder opgerekt door toepassingen op "
+"ander terreinen zoals overheid, onderwijs en wetenschap, waar men gene "
+"broncode kent en de criteria voor software licenties niet gelden. Het enige "
+"wat ze gemeen hebben is dat ze mensen uitnodigen deel te nemen. De betekenis "
+"wordt zo opgerekt dat het alleen nog “meedoen” betekent."
#. type: Content of: <h3>
msgid "Different Values Can Lead to Similar Conclusions…but Not Always"
-msgstr "Verschillende uitgangspunten kunnen tot dezelfde conclusies
leiden…maar niet altijd"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "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."
-msgstr "Radicale groepen in de jaren zestig hadden de reputatie van
splintergroepen: sommigen vielen uiteen over verschillen van inzicht in de
strategie en de resulterende splintergroeperingen behandelden elkaar als
vijanden, ook al hadden ze dezelfde uitgangspunten gemeen. Rechts buitte dit
uit en gebruikte het om links te bekritiseren."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "Some try to disparage the free software movement by comparing our
disagreement with open source to the disagreements of those radical groups.
They have it backwards. We disagree with the open source camp on the basic
goals and values, but their views and ours lead in many cases to the same
practical behavior—such as developing free software."
-msgstr "Sommigen proberen de vrije software beweging in diskrediet te brengen
door een vergelijk te trekken tussen het meningsverschil met open bron en de
meningsverschillen tussen de radicale groeperingen uit de jaren zestig. Het
tegenovergestelde is het geval. We zijn het niet eens over de doelstellingen,
maar de verschillende zienswijzen leiden wel tot hetzelfde gedrag — het
ontwikkelen van vrije software."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "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."
-msgstr "Het resultaat is dat mensen van de vrije software beweging en de open
bron beweging vaak samenwerken op projecten zoals software ontwikkeling. Het is
opvallend om te zien hoe die verschillende uitgangspunten toch leiden tot
zoveel samenwerking in projecten. De uitgangspunten zijn echter nog altijd
verschillend en kunnen dus aanleiding geven tot verschillende gedragingen."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "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."
-msgstr "De grondgedachte achter open bron is dat wanneer gebruikers de
broncode kunnen wijzigen en kopiëren, dit automatisch leidt tot krachtiger
en betrouwbaarder software. Dit is echter niet gegarandeerd. Ontwikkelaars van
private software zijn niet per definitie onbekwaam. Soms produceren ze een
betrouwbaar en krachtig programma, ook al treedt het de vrijheid van gebruikers
met voeten. Hoe zullen voorstanders van vrije software en open bron daarop
reageren?"
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "A pure open source enthusiast, one that is not at all influenced by the
ideals of free software, will say, “I am surprised you were able to make
the program work so well without using our development model, but you did. How
can I get a copy?” This attitude will reward schemes that take away our
freedom, leading to its loss."
-msgstr "Een echte voorstander van open bron zal reageren met, “het
verbaast me dat je een dergelijk goedwerkend programma hebt kunnen maken zonder
ons model te gebruiken, waar kan ik een kopie krijgen?” Een dergelijke
opstelling beloont modellen die ons van onze vrijheid beroven."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "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."
-msgstr "De voorstander van vrije software zal zeggen, “Dat is een mooi
programma maar kost me wel mijn vrijheid. Ik zal het dus niet gebruiken. Ik zal
daarentegen wel een project steunen dat een vrije vervanging van dit programma
maakt”. Als we onze vrijheid liefhebben, moeten we daarnaar handelen."
+msgstr ""
+"Verschillende uitgangspunten kunnen tot dezelfde conclusies leiden…"
+"maar niet altijd"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"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."
+msgstr ""
+"Radicale groepen in de jaren zestig hadden de reputatie van splintergroepen: "
+"sommigen vielen uiteen over verschillen van inzicht in de strategie en de "
+"resulterende splintergroeperingen behandelden elkaar als vijanden, ook al "
+"hadden ze dezelfde uitgangspunten gemeen. Rechts buitte dit uit en gebruikte "
+"het om links te bekritiseren."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Some try to disparage the free software movement by comparing our "
+"disagreement with open source to the disagreements of those radical groups. "
+"They have it backwards. We disagree with the open source camp on the basic "
+"goals and values, but their views and ours lead in many cases to the same "
+"practical behavior—such as developing free software."
+msgstr ""
+"Sommigen proberen de vrije software beweging in diskrediet te brengen door "
+"een vergelijk te trekken tussen het meningsverschil met open bron en de "
+"meningsverschillen tussen de radicale groeperingen uit de jaren zestig. Het "
+"tegenovergestelde is het geval. We zijn het niet eens over de "
+"doelstellingen, maar de verschillende zienswijzen leiden wel tot hetzelfde "
+"gedrag — het ontwikkelen van vrije software."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"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."
+msgstr ""
+"Het resultaat is dat mensen van de vrije software beweging en de open bron "
+"beweging vaak samenwerken op projecten zoals software ontwikkeling. Het is "
+"opvallend om te zien hoe die verschillende uitgangspunten toch leiden tot "
+"zoveel samenwerking in projecten. De uitgangspunten zijn echter nog altijd "
+"verschillend en kunnen dus aanleiding geven tot verschillende gedragingen."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"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."
+msgstr ""
+"De grondgedachte achter open bron is dat wanneer gebruikers de broncode "
+"kunnen wijzigen en kopiëren, dit automatisch leidt tot krachtiger en "
+"betrouwbaarder software. Dit is echter niet gegarandeerd. Ontwikkelaars van "
+"private software zijn niet per definitie onbekwaam. Soms produceren ze een "
+"betrouwbaar en krachtig programma, ook al treedt het de vrijheid van "
+"gebruikers met voeten. Hoe zullen voorstanders van vrije software en open "
+"bron daarop reageren?"
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"A pure open source enthusiast, one that is not at all influenced by the "
+"ideals of free software, will say, “I am surprised you were able to "
+"make the program work so well without using our development model, but you "
+"did. How can I get a copy?” This attitude will reward schemes that "
+"take away our freedom, leading to its loss."
+msgstr ""
+"Een echte voorstander van open bron zal reageren met, “het verbaast me "
+"dat je een dergelijk goedwerkend programma hebt kunnen maken zonder ons "
+"model te gebruiken, waar kan ik een kopie krijgen?” Een dergelijke "
+"opstelling beloont modellen die ons van onze vrijheid beroven."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"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."
+msgstr ""
+"De voorstander van vrije software zal zeggen, “Dat is een mooi "
+"programma maar kost me wel mijn vrijheid. Ik zal het dus niet gebruiken. Ik "
+"zal daarentegen wel een project steunen dat een vrije vervanging van dit "
+"programma maakt”. Als we onze vrijheid liefhebben, moeten we daarnaar "
+"handelen."
#. type: Content of: <h3>
msgid "Powerful, Reliable Software Can Be Bad"
msgstr "Krachtige, betrouwbare software hoeft nog niet goed te zijn."
#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "The idea that we want software to be powerful and reliable comes from
the supposition that the software is designed to serve its users. If it is
powerful and reliable, that means it serves them better."
-msgstr "Het idee dat software krachtig en betrouwbaar moet zijn komt af van de
aanname dat software er is voor de gebruiker. Wanneer het krachtig en
betrouwbaar is, is het hun beter tot nut."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "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."
-msgstr "Software kan echter alleen nuttig zijn voor gebruikers wanneer het hun
vrijheden repecteert. Wat als het de gebruikers vastketent? Dan betekent
krachtig de mate van stevigheid van de ketting en betrouwbaarheid hoe moeilijk
deze te verwijderen is. Foute functionaliteit als gebruikers bespioneren, ze
beperken, achterdeurtjes en verplichte upgrades zijn gemeengoed in private
software en sommige open bron supporters willen deze in open bron programma's
aanbrengen."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "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."
-msgstr "Met steun van de film- en muziek-industrie wordt meer en meer software
gemaakt die juist ontworpen is om gebruikers te beperken. Deze kwade opzet
noemt men ook wel DRM of Digital Rights Management (Digitaal Rechten Beheer)
(zie <a href=\"http://defectivebydesign.org/\";>DefectiveByDesign.org</a>), en
is de tegenpool van de vrijheid die vrije software wil bewerkstelligen. En niet
beperkt tot het gedachtengoed: het doel van DRM is immers het inperken van je
vrijheid en DRM ontwikkelaars proberen het moeilijk of zelfs illegaal te maken
om software te wijzigen die DRM implementeert."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "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."
-msgstr "Sommige voorstanders hebben zelfs voorgesteld “open bron
DRM” te ontwikkelen. Het idee daarbij is dat, met het publiceren van de
broncode en de rechten om het te veranderen, er betere en meer betrouwbare
software komt om jou als gebruiker te kunnen beperken. Om vervolgens te worden
gebruikt in apparaten die je verhinderen dit te veranderen."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "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."
-msgstr "De software mag dan “open bron” zijn en het model
gebruiken; het zal nooit vrije software zijn omdat het de vrijheden van de
gebruiker niet respecteert. Als het open bron model erin slaagt software te
maken die je krachtiger en betrouwbaarder beperkt, dan zijn we alleen maar
slechter af."
+msgid ""
+"The idea that we want software to be powerful and reliable comes from the "
+"supposition that the software is designed to serve its users. If it is "
+"powerful and reliable, that means it serves them better."
+msgstr ""
+"Het idee dat software krachtig en betrouwbaar moet zijn komt af van de "
+"aanname dat software er is voor de gebruiker. Wanneer het krachtig en "
+"betrouwbaar is, is het hun beter tot nut."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"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."
+msgstr ""
+"Software kan echter alleen nuttig zijn voor gebruikers wanneer het hun "
+"vrijheden repecteert. Wat als het de gebruikers vastketent? Dan betekent "
+"krachtig de mate van stevigheid van de ketting en betrouwbaarheid hoe "
+"moeilijk deze te verwijderen is. Foute functionaliteit als gebruikers "
+"bespioneren, ze beperken, achterdeurtjes en verplichte upgrades zijn "
+"gemeengoed in private software en sommige open bron supporters willen deze "
+"in open bron programma's aanbrengen."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"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."
+msgstr ""
+"Met steun van de film- en muziek-industrie wordt meer en meer software "
+"gemaakt die juist ontworpen is om gebruikers te beperken. Deze kwade opzet "
+"noemt men ook wel DRM of Digital Rights Management (Digitaal Rechten "
+"Beheer) (zie <a href=\"http://defectivebydesign.org/\";>DefectiveByDesign."
+"org</a>), en is de tegenpool van de vrijheid die vrije software wil "
+"bewerkstelligen. En niet beperkt tot het gedachtengoed: het doel van DRM is "
+"immers het inperken van je vrijheid en DRM ontwikkelaars proberen het "
+"moeilijk of zelfs illegaal te maken om software te wijzigen die DRM "
+"implementeert."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"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."
+msgstr ""
+"Sommige voorstanders hebben zelfs voorgesteld “open bron DRM” te "
+"ontwikkelen. Het idee daarbij is dat, met het publiceren van de broncode en "
+"de rechten om het te veranderen, er betere en meer betrouwbare software komt "
+"om jou als gebruiker te kunnen beperken. Om vervolgens te worden gebruikt in "
+"apparaten die je verhinderen dit te veranderen."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"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."
+msgstr ""
+"De software mag dan “open bron” zijn en het model gebruiken; het "
+"zal nooit vrije software zijn omdat het de vrijheden van de gebruiker niet "
+"respecteert. Als het open bron model erin slaagt software te maken die je "
+"krachtiger en betrouwbaarder beperkt, dan zijn we alleen maar slechter af."
#. type: Content of: <h3>
msgid "Fear of Freedom"
msgstr "Bang voor vrijheid"
#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "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."
-msgstr "De belangrijkste reden voor de introductie van de term “open
bron software” is het feit dat de uitdrukking “vrije
software” sommige mensen ongemakkelijk maakt. En dat klopt: praten over
vrijheid, over ethische bezwaren, over verantwoordelijkheden en gemak, is
mensen vragen om na te denken over aspecten die ze wellicht liever willen
negeren, zoals of ze zich wel ethisch gedragen. Dit kan ongemakkelijk zijn en
sommigen hebben dan ook de neiging dit te negeren. Dat betekent nog niet dat we
er niet over moeten praten."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "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."
-msgstr "Dat is echter wat de leiders van de open bron beweging gedaan hebben.
Ze dachten de software beter te kunnen verkopen door nadruk te leggen op
bepaalde praktische voordelen voor met name zakelijke gebruikers door ethische
vraagstukken en vrijheden te verzwijgen."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "This approach has proved effective, in its own terms. The rhetoric of
open source has convinced many businesses and individuals to use, and even
develop, free software, which has extended our community—but only at the
superficial, practical level. The philosophy of open source, with its purely
practical values, impedes understanding of the deeper ideas of free software;
it brings many people into our community, but does not teach them to defend it.
That is good, as far as it goes, but it is not enough to make freedom secure.
Attracting users to free software takes them just part of the way to becoming
defenders of their own freedom."
-msgstr "Dat is effectief gebleken, op een bepaalde manier. De retoriek van
open bron heeft menig bedrijf en persoon overgehaald om vrije software te
gebruiken of zelfs te ontwikkelen, wat onze gemeenschap zeker ten goede kwam
— maar alleen op praktisch gebied. De filosofie en toepassing van open
bron staat een dieper begrip van vrije software in de weg; het geeft een aanwas
van veel aanhangers maar leert ze niet de filosofie te verdedigen. Dat is prima
voor zolang het duurt maar is niet genoeg om vrijheid te waarborgen. Het
binnenhalen van gebruikers van vrije software is slechts de halve inspanning,
ze zijn daarmee nog geen voorvechters van hun eigen vrijheid."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "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."
-msgstr "Vroeg of laat zullen deze gebruikers worden verleid om over te stappen
op private software vanwege één of ander praktisch voordeel.
Ontelbare bedrijven bieden deze verleiding, sommigen via gratis kopieën.
Waarom zouden gebruikers hier nee tegen zeggen? Alleen als ze geleerd hebben om
vrijheid boven praktische bruikbaarheid te stellen. Om dit idee verder post te
laten vatten moeten we het over vrijheid hebben. Wellicht dat een zekere
“zachtjes zachtjes” aanpak richting bedrijven de gemeenschap kan
helpen maar het wordt gevaarlijk zodra het belijden van vrijheid wordt gezien
als een excentriciteit."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "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."
-msgstr "Die gevaarlijke situatie hebbben we op dit moment. De meeste mensen
die zich bezighouden met vrije software zeggen niets over vrijheid —
omdat ze meestal meer “bedrijfsvriendelijk” willen overkomen. Dit
geldt vooral voor software distributeurs. Bijna alle GNU/Linux distributies
voegen additionele private software toe aan de vrije distributies en verkopen
de gebruikers dit als voordeel in plaats van een stap terug."
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "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."
-msgstr "Private aanvullende software en gedeeltelijk niet-vrije GNU/Linux
distributies vinden gretig aftrek omdat de meesten binnen de gemeenschap niet
geven om vrijheid binnen de software. Dat is geen toeval. De meeste gebruikers
maakten kennis met het systeem via open bron, die vrijheid niet tot doel heeft.
Gedrag wat niets met vrijheid te maken heeft en woorden die niet over vrijheid
reppen. Om deze neiging te onderdrukken moeten we het méér over
vrijheid hebben, niet minder."
+msgid ""
+"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."
+msgstr ""
+"De belangrijkste reden voor de introductie van de term “open bron "
+"software” is het feit dat de uitdrukking “vrije software” "
+"sommige mensen ongemakkelijk maakt. En dat klopt: praten over vrijheid, over "
+"ethische bezwaren, over verantwoordelijkheden en gemak, is mensen vragen om "
+"na te denken over aspecten die ze wellicht liever willen negeren, zoals of "
+"ze zich wel ethisch gedragen. Dit kan ongemakkelijk zijn en sommigen hebben "
+"dan ook de neiging dit te negeren. Dat betekent nog niet dat we er niet over "
+"moeten praten."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"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."
+msgstr ""
+"Dat is echter wat de leiders van de open bron beweging gedaan hebben. Ze "
+"dachten de software beter te kunnen verkopen door nadruk te leggen op "
+"bepaalde praktische voordelen voor met name zakelijke gebruikers door "
+"ethische vraagstukken en vrijheden te verzwijgen."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"This approach has proved effective, in its own terms. The rhetoric of open "
+"source has convinced many businesses and individuals to use, and even "
+"develop, free software, which has extended our community—but only at "
+"the superficial, practical level. The philosophy of open source, with its "
+"purely practical values, impedes understanding of the deeper ideas of free "
+"software; it brings many people into our community, but does not teach them "
+"to defend it. That is good, as far as it goes, but it is not enough to make "
+"freedom secure. Attracting users to free software takes them just part of "
+"the way to becoming defenders of their own freedom."
+msgstr ""
+"Dat is effectief gebleken, op een bepaalde manier. De retoriek van open bron "
+"heeft menig bedrijf en persoon overgehaald om vrije software te gebruiken of "
+"zelfs te ontwikkelen, wat onze gemeenschap zeker ten goede kwam — maar "
+"alleen op praktisch gebied. De filosofie en toepassing van open bron staat "
+"een dieper begrip van vrije software in de weg; het geeft een aanwas van "
+"veel aanhangers maar leert ze niet de filosofie te verdedigen. Dat is prima "
+"voor zolang het duurt maar is niet genoeg om vrijheid te waarborgen. Het "
+"binnenhalen van gebruikers van vrije software is slechts de halve "
+"inspanning, ze zijn daarmee nog geen voorvechters van hun eigen vrijheid."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"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."
+msgstr ""
+"Vroeg of laat zullen deze gebruikers worden verleid om over te stappen op "
+"private software vanwege één of ander praktisch voordeel. "
+"Ontelbare bedrijven bieden deze verleiding, sommigen via gratis kopieë"
+"n. Waarom zouden gebruikers hier nee tegen zeggen? Alleen als ze geleerd "
+"hebben om vrijheid boven praktische bruikbaarheid te stellen. Om dit idee "
+"verder post te laten vatten moeten we het over vrijheid hebben. Wellicht dat "
+"een zekere “zachtjes zachtjes” aanpak richting bedrijven de "
+"gemeenschap kan helpen maar het wordt gevaarlijk zodra het belijden van "
+"vrijheid wordt gezien als een excentriciteit."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"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."
+msgstr ""
+"Die gevaarlijke situatie hebbben we op dit moment. De meeste mensen die zich "
+"bezighouden met vrije software zeggen niets over vrijheid — omdat ze "
+"meestal meer “bedrijfsvriendelijk” willen overkomen. Dit geldt "
+"vooral voor software distributeurs. Bijna alle GNU/Linux distributies voegen "
+"additionele private software toe aan de vrije distributies en verkopen de "
+"gebruikers dit als voordeel in plaats van een stap terug."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"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."
+msgstr ""
+"Private aanvullende software en gedeeltelijk niet-vrije GNU/Linux "
+"distributies vinden gretig aftrek omdat de meesten binnen de gemeenschap "
+"niet geven om vrijheid binnen de software. Dat is geen toeval. De meeste "
+"gebruikers maakten kennis met het systeem via open bron, die vrijheid niet "
+"tot doel heeft. Gedrag wat niets met vrijheid te maken heeft en woorden die "
+"niet over vrijheid reppen. Om deze neiging te onderdrukken moeten we het "
+"méér over vrijheid hebben, niet minder."
#. type: Content of: <h3>
msgid "Conclusion"
msgstr "Conclusie"
#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "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."
-msgstr "Terwijl voorstanders van open bron meer gebruikers onze gemeenschap in
trekken, moeten wij als activisten van vrije software steeds harder werken om
hen op het aspect vrijheid te attenderen. We moeten uitroepen, “het is
vrije software en geeft je vrijheid!” — steeds vaker en harder.
Iedere keer dat je refereert aan “vrije software” in plaats van
“open bron” help je onze zaak."
+msgid ""
+"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."
+msgstr ""
+"Terwijl voorstanders van open bron meer gebruikers onze gemeenschap in "
+"trekken, moeten wij als activisten van vrije software steeds harder werken "
+"om hen op het aspect vrijheid te attenderen. We moeten uitroepen, “het "
+"is vrije software en geeft je vrijheid!” — steeds vaker en "
+"harder. Iedere keer dat je refereert aan “vrije software” in "
+"plaats van “open bron” help je onze zaak."
#. type: Content of: <h4>
msgid "Notes"
msgstr "Notities"
#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "Joe Barr's article, <a
href=\"http://www.itworld.com/LWD010523vcontrol4\";>“Live and let
license,”</a> gives his perspective on this issue."
-msgstr "Joe Barr schreef een artikel, getiteld <a
href=\"http://www.itworld.com/LWD010523vcontrol4\";>Live and let license</a> die
zijn kijk op de zaak geeft."
-
-# | Lakhani and Wolf's <a
-# |
href=\"http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/lakhaniwolf.pdf\";>{+
-# | +}paper on the motivation of free software developers</a> says that a
-# | considerable fraction are motivated by the view that software should be
-# | free. This is despite the fact that they surveyed the developers on
-# | SourceForge, a site that does not support the view that this is an ethical
-# | issue.
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-#| msgid ""
-#| "Lakhani and Wolf's <a href=\"http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-";
-#| "management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/"
-#| "readings/lakhaniwolf.pdf\">paper on the motivation of free software "
-#| "developers</a> says that a considerable fraction are motivated by the "
-#| "view that software should be free. This is despite the fact that they "
-#| "surveyed the developers on SourceForge, a site that does not support the "
-#| "view that this is an ethical issue."
-msgid "Lakhani and Wolf's <a
href=\"http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/lakhaniwolf.pdf\";>
paper on the motivation of free software developers</a> says that a
considerable fraction are motivated by the view that software should be free.
This is despite the fact that they surveyed the developers on SourceForge, a
site that does not support the view that this is an ethical issue."
-msgstr "Lakhani and Wolf's <a
href=\"http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/lakhaniwolf.pdf\";>scriptie
over de motivatie van ontwikkelaars van vrije software</a> beweert dat een
aanzienlijk deel van de ontwikkelaars zijn motivatie haalt uit de overtuiging
dat software vrij zou moeten zijn. Dit ondanks het feit dat de enquete onder
ontwikkelaars van Sourceforge werdt gedaan, een website die geen ethische
bezwaren tegen niet-vrije software heeft."
+msgid ""
+"Joe Barr's article, <a href=\"http://www.itworld.com/";
+"LWD010523vcontrol4\">“Live and let license,”</a> gives his "
+"perspective on this issue."
+msgstr ""
+"Joe Barr schreef een artikel, getiteld <a href=\"http://www.itworld.com/";
+"LWD010523vcontrol4\">Live and let license</a> die zijn kijk op de zaak geeft."
+
+#. type: Content of: <p>
+msgid ""
+"Lakhani and Wolf's <a href=\"http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-";
+"management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/"
+"lakhaniwolf.pdf\"> paper on the motivation of free software developers</a> "
+"says that a considerable fraction are motivated by the view that software "
+"should be free. This is despite the fact that they surveyed the developers "
+"on SourceForge, a site that does not support the view that this is an "
+"ethical issue."
+msgstr ""
+"Lakhani and Wolf's <a href=\"http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-";
+"management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/"
+"lakhaniwolf.pdf\">scriptie over de motivatie van ontwikkelaars van vrije "
+"software</a> beweert dat een aanzienlijk deel van de ontwikkelaars zijn "
+"motivatie haalt uit de overtuiging dat software vrij zou moeten zijn. Dit "
+"ondanks het feit dat de enquete onder ontwikkelaars van Sourceforge werdt "
+"gedaan, een website die geen ethische bezwaren tegen niet-vrije software "
+"heeft."
#. TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't have notes.
#. type: Content of: <div>
@@ -367,21 +764,21 @@
msgstr " "
# type: Content of: <div><p>
-# | Please send {+general+} 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. {+Broken links and
-# | other corrections or suggestions can be sent to <a
-# | href=\"mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>.+}
#. type: Content of: <div><p>
-#| msgid ""
-#| "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."
-msgid "Please send general 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. Broken links and other
corrections or suggestions can be sent to <a
href=\"mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>."
-msgstr "Gelieve algemene vragen over FSF & GNU te sturen naar <a
href=\"mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>. Er zijn ook nog <a
href=\"/contact/\">andere manieren om in contact te komen</a> met de FSF. Foute
links en andere correcties graag sturen aan <a
href=\"mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>."
+msgid ""
+"Please send general 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. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions "
+"can be sent to <a href=\"mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden"
+"org></a>."
+msgstr ""
+"Gelieve algemene vragen over FSF & GNU te sturen naar <a href=\"mailto:";
+"address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>. Er zijn ook nog <a
href=\"/contact/"
+"\">andere manieren om in contact te komen</a> met de FSF. Foute links en "
+"andere correcties graag sturen aan <a href=\"mailto:address@hidden";><"
+"address@hidden></a>."
# type: Content of: <div><p>
-# || No change detected. The change might only be in amounts of spaces.
#. TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
#. replace it with the translation of these two:
#. We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
@@ -394,22 +791,28 @@
#. href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
#. README</a>.
#. type: Content of: <div><p>
-#| msgid ""
-#| "Please see the <a href=\"/server/standards/README.translations.html"
-#| "\">Translations README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting "
-#| "translations of this article."
-msgid "Please see the <a
href=\"/server/standards/README.translations.html\">Translations README</a> for
information on coordinating and submitting translations of this article."
-msgstr "Zie <a
href=\"/server/standards/README.translations.html\">Translations README</a>
voor nadere informatie over het eventueel vertalen van dit artikel."
+msgid ""
+"Please see the <a href=\"/server/standards/README.translations.html"
+"\">Translations README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting "
+"translations of this article."
+msgstr ""
+"Zie <a href=\"/server/standards/README.translations.html\">Translations "
+"README</a> voor nadere informatie over het eventueel vertalen van dit "
+"artikel."
-# | Copyright © 2007, [-2010-] {+2010, 2012+} Richard Stallman
#. type: Content of: <div><p>
-#| msgid "Copyright © 2007, 2010 Richard Stallman"
msgid "Copyright © 2007, 2010, 2012 Richard Stallman"
msgstr "Copyright © 2007, 2010, 2012 Richard Stallman"
#. type: Content of: <div><p>
-msgid "This page is licensed under a <a rel=\"license\"
href=\"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/\";>Creative Commons
Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>."
-msgstr "Deze pagina valt onder de <a rel=\"license\"
href=\"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/\";>Creative Commons
Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States Licentie</a>."
+msgid ""
+"This page is licensed under a <a rel=\"license\" href=\"http://";
+"creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/\">Creative Commons Attribution-"
+"NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>."
+msgstr ""
+"Deze pagina valt onder de <a rel=\"license\" href=\"http://creativecommons.";
+"org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/\">Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 "
+"United States Licentie</a>."
#. TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't want credits.
#. type: Content of: <div><div>
@@ -421,4 +824,3 @@
#. type: Content of: <div><p>
msgid "Updated:"
msgstr "Bijgewerkt:"
-
Index: po/open-source-misses-the-point.pl-en.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.pl-en.html,v
retrieving revision 1.6
retrieving revision 1.7
diff -u -b -r1.6 -r1.7
--- po/open-source-misses-the-point.pl-en.html 27 Sep 2012 16:55:43 -0000
1.6
+++ po/open-source-misses-the-point.pl-en.html 2 Jan 2013 11:27:11 -0000
1.7
@@ -1,9 +1,11 @@
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.70 -->
-<title>Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software - GNU Project - 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.html" -->
-<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.translist"
-->
+ <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.translist"
-->
<h2>Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software</h2>
@@ -17,28 +19,29 @@
beer.”</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>
+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 public schools of some 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>
+the public schools of some 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
+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>
+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
@@ -50,21 +53,23 @@
<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>
+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
+<p>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,
+essential respect for 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
@@ -72,19 +77,39 @@
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>“Free software.” “Open source.” If it's the same
+software (or nearly so), 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>Practical Differences between Free Software and Open Source</h3>
+
+<p>In practice, open source stands for criteria a little weaker than
+those of free software. As far as we know, all existing free software
+would qualify as open source. Nearly all open source software is free
+software, but there are exceptions. First, some open source licenses
+are too restrictive, so they do not qualify as free licenses.
+Fortunately, few programs use those licenses.</p>
+
+<p>Second, and more important, many products containing computers
+(including many Android devices) come with executable programs that
+correspond to free software source code, but the devices do not allow
+the user to install modified versions of those executables; only one
+special company has the power to modify them. We call these devices
+“tyrants”, and the practice is called
+“tivoization” after the product where we first saw it.
+These executables are not free software even though their source code
+is free software. The criteria for open source do not recognize this
+issue; they are concerned solely with the licensing of the source code.</p>
+
<h3>Common Misunderstandings of “Free Software” and
“Open Source”</h3>
@@ -93,30 +118,25 @@
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>
+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 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>
+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>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 the open source people have
-accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive.
-Also, they judge solely by the license of the source code, whereas our
-criterion also considers whether a device will let you <em>run</em>
-your modified version of the program. Nonetheless, their definition
+it is a little looser in some respects. Nonetheless, their definition
agrees with our definition in most cases.</p>
<p>However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source
@@ -126,13 +146,13 @@
weaker also than the official definition of open source. It includes
many programs that are neither free nor open source.</p>
-<p>Since that obvious meaning for “open source” is not the
+<p>Since the 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
+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:
<!-- It was from http://da.state.ks.us/itec/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf, but
@@ -142,7 +162,8 @@
as to what one is allowed to do with that code.”</p>
<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";>
+has <a
+href="http://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-design-37415.html";>
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
@@ -156,14 +177,17 @@
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>
+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 both mistaken,
-since the GNU GPL qualifies as an open source license and most of
-the open source licenses qualify as free software licenses.</p>
+since the GNU GPL qualifies as an open source license and most of the
+open source licenses qualify as free software licenses. There
+are <a href="/licenses/license-list.html"> many free software
+licenses</a> aside from the GNU GPL.</p>
<p>The term “open source” has been further stretched by
its application to other activities, such as government, education,
@@ -243,8 +267,8 @@
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>
+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
@@ -257,7 +281,8 @@
<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
+“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
@@ -284,20 +309,19 @@
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
+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>
+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
@@ -325,47 +349,57 @@
let license,”</a> gives his perspective on this issue.</p>
<p>
-Lakhani and Wolf's
-<a
href="http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/lakhaniwolf.pdf";>paper
on the
-motivation of free software developers</a> says that a considerable
-fraction are motivated by the view that software should be free. This
-is despite the fact that they surveyed the developers on SourceForge,
-a site that does not support the view that this is an ethical issue.</p>
+Lakhani and Wolf's <a
+href="http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/lakhaniwolf.pdf";>
+paper on the motivation of free software developers</a> says that a
+considerable fraction are motivated by the view that software should be
+free. This is despite the fact that they surveyed the developers on
+SourceForge, a site that does not support the view that this is an ethical
+issue.</p>
-</div>
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
<div id="footer">
-<p>
-Please send FSF & GNU inquiries to
+
+<p>Please send general 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>
+the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to <a href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>.</p>
-<p>Copyright © 2007, 2010 Richard Stallman
-<br />
-This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:address@hidden";>
+ <address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. -->
+
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.</p>
+
+<p>Copyright © 2007, 2010, 2012 Richard Stallman</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/";>Creative
-Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>.
-</p>
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>.</p>
-<p>
-Updated:
+<p>Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2012/09/27 16:55:43 $
+$Date: 2013/01/02 11:27:11 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
-<!-- All pages on the GNU web server should have the section about -->
-<!-- verbatim copying. Please do NOT remove this without talking -->
-<!-- with the webmasters first. -->
-<!-- Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the document -->
-<!-- and that it is like this "2001, 2002" not this "2001-2002." -->
</div>
</body>
</html>
Index: po/free-sw.nl-en.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/free-sw.nl-en.html
diff -N po/free-sw.nl-en.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/free-sw.nl-en.html 2 Jan 2013 11:27:11 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,477 @@
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+
+<title>What is free software? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation
(FSF)</title>
+
+<meta http-equiv="Keywords" content="GNU, FSF, Free Software Foundation,
Linux, Emacs, GCC, Unix, Free Software, Operating System, GNU Kernel, HURD, GNU
HURD, Hurd" />
+<meta http-equiv="Description" content="Since 1983, developing the free Unix
style operating system GNU, so that computer users can have the freedom to
share and improve the software they use." />
+<link rel="alternate" title="What's New"
href="http://www.gnu.org/rss/whatsnew.rss"; type="application/rss+xml" />
+<link rel="alternate" title="New Free Software"
href="http://www.gnu.org/rss/quagga.rss"; type="application/rss+xml" />
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/free-sw.translist" -->
+
+<h2>What is free software?</h2>
+
+<h3>The Free Software Definition</h3>
+
+<blockquote>
+<p>
+The free software definition presents the criteria for whether a
+particular software program qualifies as free software. From time to
+time we revise this definition, to clarify it or to resolve questions
+about subtle issues. See the <a href="#History">History section</a>
+below for a list of changes that affect the definition of free
+software.
+</p>
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>
+“Free software” means software that respects users'
+freedom and community. Roughly, <b>the users have the freedom to run,
+copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software</b>. With these
+freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control the
+program and what it does for them.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+When users don't control the program, the program controls the users.
+The developer controls the program, and through it controls the users.
+This nonfree or “proprietary” program is therefore an
+instrument of unjust power.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Thus, “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price.
+To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as
+in “free speech,” not as in “free beer”.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+A program is free software if the program's users have the
+four essential freedoms:
+</p>
+
+<ul>
+ <li>The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).</li>
+ <li>The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it
+ does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source
+ code is a precondition for this.
+ </li>
+ <li>The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
+ (freedom 2).
+ </li>
+ <li>The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions
+ to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole
+ community a chance to benefit from your changes.
+ Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
+ </li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>
+A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus,
+you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without
+modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to
+<a href="#exportcontrol">anyone anywhere</a>. Being free to do these
+things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay
+for permission to do so.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them
+privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they
+exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to
+notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person
+or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of
+overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about it
+with the developer or any other specific entity. In this freedom, it is
+the <em>user's</em> purpose that matters, not the <em>developer's</em>
+purpose; you as a user are free to run the program for your purposes,
+and if you distribute it to someone else, she is then free to run it
+for her purposes, but you are not entitled to impose your purposes on her.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+The freedom to redistribute copies must include binary or executable
+forms of the program, as well as source code, for both modified and
+unmodified versions. (Distributing programs in runnable form is necessary
+for conveniently installable free operating systems.) It is OK if there
+is no way to produce a binary or executable form for a certain program
+(since some languages don't support that feature), but you must have the
+freedom to redistribute such forms should you find or develop a way to
+make them.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+In order for freedoms 1 and 3 (the freedom to make changes and the
+freedom to publish the changed versions) to be meaningful, you must have
+access to the source code of the program. Therefore, accessibility of
+source code is a necessary condition for free software. Obfuscated
+“source code” is not real source code and does not count
+as source code.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Freedom 1 includes the freedom to use your changed version in place of
+the original. If the program is delivered in a product designed to
+run someone else's modified versions but refuse to run yours — a
+practice known as “tivoization” or “lockdown”,
+or (in its practitioners' perverse terminology) as “secure
+boot” — freedom 1 becomes a theoretical fiction rather
+than a practical freedom. This is not sufficient. In other words,
+these binaries are not free software even if the source code they are
+compiled from is free.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+One important way to modify a program is by merging in available free
+subroutines and modules. If the program's license says that you
+cannot merge in a suitably licensed existing module — for instance, if it
+requires you to be the copyright holder of any code you add — then the
+license is too restrictive to qualify as free.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Freedom 3 includes the freedom to release your modified versions
+as free software. A free license may also permit other ways of
+releasing them; in other words, it does not have to be
+a <a href="/copyleft/copyleft.html">copyleft</a> license. However, a
+license that requires modified versions to be nonfree does not qualify
+as a free license.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be permanent and
+irrevocable as long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the
+software has the power to revoke the license, or retroactively add
+restrictions to its terms, without your doing anything wrong to give
+cause, the software is not free.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+However, certain kinds of rules about the manner of distributing free
+software are acceptable, when they don't conflict with the central
+freedoms. For example, copyleft (very simply stated) is the rule that
+when redistributing the program, you cannot add restrictions to deny
+other people the central freedoms. This rule does not conflict with
+the central freedoms; rather it protects them.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+“Free software” does not mean “noncommercial”. A free
+program must be available for commercial use, commercial development,
+and commercial distribution. Commercial development of free software
+is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important.
+You may have paid money to get copies of free software, or you may have
+obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got your copies,
+you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to
+<a href="/philosophy/selling.html">sell copies</a>.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Whether a change constitutes an improvement is a subjective matter.
+If your right to modify a program is limited, in substance, to changes that
+someone else considers an improvement, that program is not free.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+However, rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable,
+if they don't substantively limit your freedom to release modified
+versions, or your freedom to make and use modified versions privately.
+Thus, it is acceptable for the license to require that you change the
+name of the modified version, remove a logo, or identify your
+modifications as yours. As long as these requirements are not so
+burdensome that they effectively hamper you from releasing your
+changes, they are acceptable; you're already making other changes to
+the program, so you won't have trouble making a few more.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+A special issue arises when a license requires changing the name by
+which the program will be invoked from other programs. That
+effectively hampers you from releasing your changed version so that it
+can replace the original when invoked by those other programs. This
+sort of requirement is acceptable only if there's a suitable aliasing
+facility that allows you to specify the original program's name as an
+alias for the modified version.</p>
+
+<p>
+Rules that “if you make your version available in this way, you
+must make it available in that way also” can be acceptable too,
+on the same condition. An example of such an acceptable rule is one
+saying that if you have distributed a
+modified version and a previous developer asks for a copy of it, you
+must send one. (Note that such a rule still leaves you the choice of
+whether to distribute your version at all.) Rules that require release
+of source code to the users for versions that you put into public use
+are also acceptable.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+In the GNU project, we use
+<a href="/copyleft/copyleft.html">copyleft</a>
+to protect these freedoms legally for everyone. But
+<a href="/philosophy/categories.html#Non-CopyleftedFreeSoftware">noncopylefted
+free software</a> also exists. We believe there are important reasons why
+<a href="/philosophy/pragmatic.html">it is better to use copyleft</a>,
+but if your program is noncopylefted free software, it is still basically
+ethical. (See <a href="/philosophy/categories.html">Categories of Free
Software</a> for a description of how “free software,”
“copylefted software” and other categories of software relate to
each other.)
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Sometimes government <a id="exportcontrol">export control regulations</a>
+and trade sanctions can constrain your freedom to distribute copies of
+programs internationally. Software developers do not have the power to
+eliminate or override these restrictions, but what they can and must do
+is refuse to impose them as conditions of use of the program. In this
+way, the restrictions will not affect activities and people outside the
+jurisdictions of these governments. Thus, free software licenses
+must not require obedience to any export regulations as a condition of
+any of the essential freedoms.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Most free software licenses are based on copyright, and there are limits
+on what kinds of requirements can be imposed through copyright. If a
+copyright-based license respects freedom in the ways described above, it
+is unlikely to have some other sort of problem that we never anticipated
+(though this does happen occasionally). However, some free software
+licenses are based on contracts, and contracts can impose a much larger
+range of possible restrictions. That means there are many possible ways
+such a license could be unacceptably restrictive and nonfree.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+We can't possibly list all the ways that might happen. If a
+contract-based license restricts the user in an unusual way that
+copyright-based licenses cannot, and which isn't mentioned here as
+legitimate, we will have to think about it, and we will probably conclude
+it is nonfree.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+When talking about free software, it is best to avoid using terms
+like “give away” or “for free,” because those terms
imply that
+the issue is about price, not freedom. Some common terms such
+as “piracy” embody opinions we hope you won't endorse. See
+<a href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html">Confusing Words and Phrases that
+are Worth Avoiding</a> for a discussion of these terms. We also have
+a list of proper <a href="/philosophy/fs-translations.html">translations of
+“free software”</a> into various languages.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Finally, note that criteria such as those stated in this free software
+definition require careful thought for their interpretation. To decide
+whether a specific software license qualifies as a free software license,
+we judge it based on these criteria to determine whether it fits their
+spirit as well as the precise words. If a license includes unconscionable
+restrictions, we reject it, even if we did not anticipate the issue
+in these criteria. Sometimes a license requirement raises an issue
+that calls for extensive thought, including discussions with a lawyer,
+before we can decide if the requirement is acceptable. When we reach
+a conclusion about a new issue, we often update these criteria to make
+it easier to see why certain licenses do or don't qualify.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+If you are interested in whether a specific license qualifies as a free
+software license, see our <a href="/licenses/license-list.html">list
+of licenses</a>. If the license you are concerned with is not
+listed there, you can ask us about it by sending us email at
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+If you are contemplating writing a new license, please contact the
+Free Software Foundation first by writing to that address. The
+proliferation of different free software licenses means increased work
+for users in understanding the licenses; we may be able to help you
+find an existing free software license that meets your needs.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+If that isn't possible, if you really need a new license, with our
+help you can ensure that the license really is a free software license
+and avoid various practical problems.
+</p>
+
+<h3 id="beyond-software">Beyond Software</h3>
+
+<p>
+<a href="/philosophy/free-doc.html">Software manuals must be free</a>,
+for the same reasons that software must be free, and because the
+manuals are in effect part of the software.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+The same arguments also make sense for other kinds of works of
+practical use — that is to say, works that embody useful knowledge,
+such as educational works and reference
+works. <a href="http://wikipedia.org";>Wikipedia</a> is the best-known
+example.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Any kind of work <em>can</em> be free, and the definition of free software
+has been extended to a definition of <a href="http://freedomdefined.org/";>
+free cultural works</a> applicable to any kind of works.
+</p>
+
+<h3 id="open-source">Open Source?</h3>
+
+<p>
+Another group has started using the term “open source” to mean
+something close (but not identical) to “free software”. We
+prefer the term “free software” because, once you have heard that
+it refers to freedom rather than price, it calls to mind freedom. The
+word “open” <a
href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">
+never refers to freedom</a>.
+</p>
+
+<h3 id="History">History</h3>
+
+<p>From time to time we revise this Free Software Definition. Here is
+the list of changes, along with links to show exactly what was
+changed.</p>
+
+<ul>
+
+<li><a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.110&r2=1.111";>Version
+1.111</a>: Clarify 1.77 by saying that only
+retroactive <em>restrictions</em> are unacceptable. The copyright
+holders can always grant additional <em>permission</em> for use of the
+work by releasing the work in another way in parallel.</li>
+
+<li><a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.104&r2=1.105";>Version
+1.105</a>: Reflect, in the brief statement of freedom 1, the point
+(already stated in version 1.80) that it includes really using your modified
+version for your computing.</li>
+
+<li><a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.91&r2=1.92";>Version
+1.92</a>: Clarify that obfuscated code does not qualify as source code.</li>
+
+<li><a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.89&r2=1.90";>Version
+1.90</a>: Clarify that freedom 3 means the right to distribute copies
+of your own modified or improved version, not a right to participate
+in someone else's development project.</li>
+
+<li><a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.88&r2=1.89";>Version
+1.89</a>: Freedom 3 includes the right to release modified versions as
+free software.</li>
+
+<li><a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.79&r2=1.80";>Version
+1.80</a>: Freedom 1 must be practical, not just theoretical;
+i.e., no tivoization.</li>
+
+<li><a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.76&r2=1.77";>Version
+1.77</a>: Clarify that all retroactive changes to the license are
+unacceptable, even if it's not described as a complete
+replacement.</li>
+
+<li><a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.73&r2=1.74";>Version
+1.74</a>: Four clarifications of points not explicit enough, or stated
+in some places but not reflected everywhere:
+<ul>
+<li>"Improvements" does not mean the license can
+substantively limit what kinds of modified versions you can release.
+Freedom 3 includes distributing modified versions, not just changes.</li>
+<li>The right to merge in existing modules
+refers to those that are suitably licensed.</li>
+<li>Explicitly state the conclusion of the point about export controls.</li>
+<li>Imposing a license change constitutes revoking the old license.</li>
+</ul>
+</li>
+
+<li><a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.56&r2=1.57";>Version
+1.57</a>: Add "Beyond Software" section.</li>
+
+<li><a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.45&r2=1.46";>Version
+1.46</a>: Clarify whose purpose is significant in the freedom to run
+the program for any purpose.</li>
+
+<li><a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.40&r2=1.41";>Version
+1.41</a>: Clarify wording about contract-based licenses.</li>
+
+<li><a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.39&r2=1.40";>Version
+1.40</a>: Explain that a free license must allow to you use other
+available free software to create your modifications.</li>
+
+<li><a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.38&r2=1.39";>Version
+1.39</a>: Note that it is acceptable for a license to require you to
+provide source for versions of the software you put into public
+use.</li>
+
+<li><a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.30&r2=1.31";>Version
+1.31</a>: Note that it is acceptable for a license to require you to
+identify yourself as the author of modifications. Other minor
+clarifications throughout the text.</li>
+
+<li><a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.22&r2=1.23";>Version
+1.23</a>: Address potential problems related to contract-based
+licenses.</li>
+
+<li><a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.15&r2=1.16";>Version
+1.16</a>: Explain why distribution of binaries is important.</li>
+
+<li><a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.10&r2=1.11";>Version
+1.11</a>: Note that a free license may require you to send a copy of
+versions you distribute to the author.</li>
+
+</ul>
+
+<p>There are gaps in the version numbers shown above because there are
+other changes in this page that do not affect the definition as such.
+These changes are in other parts of the page. You can review the
+complete list of changes to the page through
+the <a
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&view=log";>cvsweb
+interface</a>.</p>
+
+</div>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+
+<div id="footer">
+
+<p>
+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>
+Please see the
+<a href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting
+translations of this article.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Copyright © 1996-2002, 2004-2007, 2009, 2010, 2012 Free Software
+Foundation, Inc.
+</p>
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/";>Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2013/01/02 11:27:11 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+
+
+</div>
+
+</body>
+</html>
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- www/philosophy free-sw.nl.html open-source-miss...,
GNUN <=