[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/philosophy free-sw.hr.html po/free-sw.hr-en...
From: |
GNUN |
Subject: |
www/philosophy free-sw.hr.html po/free-sw.hr-en... |
Date: |
Tue, 09 Apr 2013 03:58:55 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: GNUN <gnun> 13/04/09 03:58:55
Modified files:
philosophy : free-sw.hr.html
philosophy/po : free-sw.hr-en.html free-sw.hr.po
open-source-misses-the-point.hr.po
open-source-misses-the-point.translist
Added files:
philosophy : open-source-misses-the-point.hr.html
philosophy/po : open-source-misses-the-point.hr-en.html
Log message:
Automatic update by GNUnited Nations.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/free-sw.hr.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.11&r2=1.12
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.hr.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/free-sw.hr-en.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.1&r2=1.2
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/free-sw.hr.po?cvsroot=www&r1=1.3&r2=1.4
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.hr.po?cvsroot=www&r1=1.1&r2=1.2
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.translist?cvsroot=www&r1=1.12&r2=1.13
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.hr-en.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
Patches:
Index: free-sw.hr.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/free-sw.hr.html,v
retrieving revision 1.11
retrieving revision 1.12
diff -u -b -r1.11 -r1.12
--- free-sw.hr.html 8 Apr 2013 14:59:36 -0000 1.11
+++ free-sw.hr.html 9 Apr 2013 03:58:54 -0000 1.12
@@ -290,7 +290,7 @@
Ako ste zainteresirani o tome da li se odreÄena licenca kvalificira kao
licenca slobodnog softvera, pogledajte naš <a
href="/licenses/license-list.html">popis licenci</a>. Ako je licenca kojom
-ste bavite nije ukljuÄena u popis, možete nas pitati o toj licenci slanjem
+se bavite nije ukljuÄena u popis, možete nas pitati o toj licenci slanjem
elektroniÄke poÅ¡te na <a
href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.
</p>
@@ -504,7 +504,7 @@
<p><!-- timestamp start -->
Zadnji put promijenjeno:
-$Date: 2013/04/08 14:59:36 $
+$Date: 2013/04/09 03:58:54 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: po/free-sw.hr-en.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/free-sw.hr-en.html,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -b -r1.1 -r1.2
--- po/free-sw.hr-en.html 8 Apr 2013 14:59:37 -0000 1.1
+++ po/free-sw.hr-en.html 9 Apr 2013 03:58:55 -0000 1.2
@@ -466,7 +466,7 @@
<p>Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2013/04/08 14:59:37 $
+$Date: 2013/04/09 03:58:55 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
Index: po/free-sw.hr.po
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/free-sw.hr.po,v
retrieving revision 1.3
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -u -b -r1.3 -r1.4
Index: po/open-source-misses-the-point.hr.po
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.hr.po,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -b -r1.1 -r1.2
--- po/open-source-misses-the-point.hr.po 9 Apr 2013 03:52:05 -0000
1.1
+++ po/open-source-misses-the-point.hr.po 9 Apr 2013 03:58:55 -0000
1.2
@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
"PO-Revision-Date: 2013-04-08 20:55+0100\n"
"Last-Translator: Marin Rameša <address@hidden>\n"
"Language-Team: hrvatski <>\n"
+"Language: \n"
"MIME-Version: 1.0\n"
"Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8\n"
"Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit\n"
@@ -95,8 +96,8 @@
"designed specifically to protect freedom for all users of a program."
msgstr ""
"Pokret slobodnog softvera je vodio kampanju za slobodu raÄunalnih korisnika "
-"još od 1983. U 1984. smo pokrenuli razvoj slobodnog operativnoga sustava "
-"po imenu GNU, tako da bi mogli izbjeÄi neslobodne operativne sustave koji "
+"još od 1983. U 1984. smo pokrenuli razvoj slobodnog operativnoga sustava po "
+"imenu GNU, tako da bi mogli izbjeÄi neslobodne operativne sustave koji "
"osporavaju slobodu vlastitim korisnicima. Tokom 1980-ih, razvili smo veÄinu "
"osnovnih komponenata sustava i dizajnirali <a href=\"/licenses/gpl.html"
"\">GNU opÄu javnu licencu (<i>GNU General Public License</i>)</a> (GNU GPL) "
Index: po/open-source-misses-the-point.translist
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.translist,v
retrieving revision 1.12
retrieving revision 1.13
diff -u -b -r1.12 -r1.13
--- po/open-source-misses-the-point.translist 31 Mar 2013 17:31:21 -0000
1.12
+++ po/open-source-misses-the-point.translist 9 Apr 2013 03:58:55 -0000
1.13
@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
<span dir="ltr"><a lang="es" hreflang="es"
href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.es.html">español</a> [es]</span>
<span dir="ltr"><a lang="fa" hreflang="fa"
href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.fa.html">ÙارسÛ</a> [fa]</span>
<span dir="ltr"><a lang="fr" hreflang="fr"
href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.fr.html">français</a> [fr]</span>
+<span dir="ltr"><a lang="hr" hreflang="hr"
href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.hr.html">hrvatski</a> [hr]</span>
<span dir="ltr"><a lang="it" hreflang="it"
href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.it.html">italiano</a> [it]</span>
<span dir="ltr"><a lang="ja" hreflang="ja"
href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.ja.html">æ¥æ¬èª</a> [ja]</span>
<span dir="ltr"><a lang="ml" hreflang="ml"
href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.ml.html">മലയാളà´</a> [ml]</span>
Index: open-source-misses-the-point.hr.html
===================================================================
RCS file: open-source-misses-the-point.hr.html
diff -N open-source-misses-the-point.hr.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ open-source-misses-the-point.hr.html 9 Apr 2013 03:58:54 -0000
1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,421 @@
+
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.hr.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.75 -->
+
+<!-- This file is automatically generated by GNUnited Nations! -->
+ <!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE"
value="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html" -->
+
+<title>Zašto otvoreni izvorni kod promašuje bit slobodnog softvera - GNU
projekt -
+Zaklada za slobodan softver</title>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.translist"
-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.hr.html" -->
+<h2>Zašto otvoreni izvorni kod promašuje bit slobodnog softvera</h2>
+
+<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong></p>
+
+<p>Kada softver zovemo “slobodnim,” podrazumijevamo poÅ¡tovanje
+prema <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">osnovnim pravima korisnika</a>:
+sloboda da se softver pokrene, da se prouÄi i izmijeni, i da se kopije
+ponovno distribuiraju, sa ili bez promjena. To je stvar slobode, ne cijene,
+dakle mislite na “sloboda govora,” u kontrastu sa
+“slobodnim (besplatnim) pivom.”</p>
+
+<p>Spomenute slobode su od životne važnosti. One su osnovne, ne samo zbog
+koristi koje individualnih korisnici imaju od njih, nego i zbog društva kao
+cjeline, jer promoviraju druÅ¡tvenu solidarnost— to jest, razmjenu i
+suradnju. Postaju još i više važnije kako naša kultura i životne
aktivnosti
+postaju sve više digitalizirane. U svijetu digitalnih zvukova, slika i
+rijeÄi, slobodan softver postaje sve viÅ¡e temeljan za slobodu opÄenito. </p>
+
+<p>Deseci milijuna ljudi Å¡irom svijeta koriste slobodan softver; javne Å¡kole
+nekih regija Indije i Å panjolske poduÄavaju sve studente da koriste slobodni
+<a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux operativni sustav</a>. VeÄina
+tih korisnika, meÄutim, nisu nikada Äuli etiÄke razloge zbog kojih smo
+razvili ovaj sustav i izgradili zajednicu slobodnog softvera, jer danas se o
+ovome sustavu i zajednici sve ÄeÅ¡Äe govori kao o “otvorenom izvornom
+kodu” (<i>open source</i>), pripisujuÄi ih drugaÄijoj filozofiji u
+kojoj su te slobode jedva spomenute. </p>
+
+<p>Pokret slobodnog softvera je vodio kampanju za slobodu raÄunalnih korisnika
+još od 1983. U 1984. smo pokrenuli razvoj slobodnog operativnoga sustava po
+imenu GNU, tako da bi mogli izbjeÄi neslobodne operativne sustave koji
+osporavaju slobodu vlastitim korisnicima. Tokom 1980-ih, razvili smo veÄinu
+osnovnih komponenata sustava i dizajnirali <a href="/licenses/gpl.html">GNU
+opÄu javnu licencu (<i>GNU General Public License</i>)</a> (GNU GPL) pod
+kojom smo ih objavili—licenca dizajnirana specifiÄno za obranu slobode
+za sve korisnike programa.</p>
+
+<p>Nisu se svi korisnici i developeri slobodnog softvera složili sa ciljevima
+pokreta slobodnog softvera. U 1998., dio zajednice slobodnog softvera se
+odlomio i pokrenuo kampanju u ime “otvorenog izvornog koda.”
+Termin je originalno predložen da bi se izbjeglo moguÄe pogreÅ¡no shvaÄanje
+termina “slobodan softver,” ali je ubrzo postao udružen sa
+filozofskim glediÅ¡tima bitno razliÄitim od onih pokreta slobodnog softvera.
</p>
+
+<p>Neki od pobornika otvorenog izvornog koda smatrali su termin
+“marketinÅ¡kom kampanjom za slobodan softver,” koja bi se
+obratila poslovnim rukovoditeljima osvjetljavajuÄi praktiÄne prednosti
+softvera, bez podizanja pitanja ispravnog i pogrešnog, koje možda ne bi
+htjeli Äuti. Drugi pobornici izriÄito su odbili etiÄke i druÅ¡tvene
+vrijednosti pokreta slobodnog softvera. Koja god bila njihova gledišta, kada
+su radili kampanju za otvoreni izvorni kod, nisu niti citirali, niti
+zagovarali te vrijednosti. Termin “otvoreni izvorni kod” je
+ubrzo postao udružen sa idejama i argumentima temeljenima samo na praktiÄnim
+vrijednostima, kao Å¡to su izrada i posjed moÄnog, pouzdanog softvera. Od
+tada, veÄina pobornika otvorenog izvornog koda su poprimili takvo glediÅ¡te,
+i rade istu asocijaciju. </p>
+
+<p>Ta dva termina opisuju skoro istu kategoriju softvera, ali drže gledišta
+osnovana na temeljno razliÄitim vrijednostima. Otvoreni izvorni kod je
+metodologija razvoja; slobodni softver je društveni pokret. Za pokret
+slobodnog softvera, slobodan softver je etiÄki imperativ, osnovno poÅ¡tivanje
+slobode korisnika. U kontrastu, filozofija otvorenog izvornog koda razmatra
+pitanja u terminima naÄina kako napraviti softver
+“boljim”—samo u praktiÄnom smislu. Tvrdi da je neslobodni
+softver inferiorno rijeÅ¡enje praktiÄnog priruÄnog problema. Za pokret
+slobodnog softvera, meÄutim, neslobodni softver je druÅ¡tveni problem, i
+riješenje je prestanak njegovog korištenja i prijelaz na slobodni softver.
</p>
+
+<p>“Slobodan softver.” “Otvoreni izvorni kod.” Ako je
+to isti softver (ili barem približno), da li je važno koje ime koristite?
+Da, zato jer razliÄite rijeÄi prenose razliÄite ideje. Dok bi vam danas
+slobodni program pod bilo kojim drugim imenom dao istu slobodu,
+uspostavljanje slobode na trajan naÄin ovisi iznad svega o poduci ljudi da
+cijene slobodu. Ako želite pomoÄi napraviti to, nužno je govoriti o
+“slobodnom softveru.”</p>
+
+<p>Mi, u pokretu slobodnog softvera, ne smatramo tabor otvorenog izvornog koda
+neprijateljima; neprijatelj je posjedniÄki (neslobodni) softver. Ali želimo
+da ljudi znaju da predstavljamo slobodu, dakle ne prihvaÄamo pogreÅ¡nu oznaku
+pobornika otvorenog izvornog koda. </p>
+
+<h3>PraktiÄne razlike izmeÄu slobodnog softvera i otvorenog izvornog
koda</h3>
+
+<p>U praksi, otvoreni izvorni kod se zalaže za malo slabije kriterije od onih
+slobodnog softvera. Koliko znamo, sav postojeÄi slobodan softver bi se
+kvalificirao kao otvoreni izvorni kod. Gotovo sav softver otvorenog izvornog
+koda je slobodan softver, ali postoje iznimke. Prvo, neke licence otvorenog
+izvornog koda su previše restriktivne, prema tome se ne kvalificiraju kao
+slobodne licence. SreÄom, samo nekoliko programa koristi te licence.</p>
+
+<p>Drugo, važnije, mnogi proizvodi koji sadrže raÄunala (ukljuÄujuÄi mnoge
+Android ureÄaje) dolaze sa izvrÅ¡nim programima koji odgovaraju izvornom kodu
+slobodnog softvera, ali ti ureÄaji ne dozvoljavaju korisniku da instalira
+izmijenjene verzije tih izvršnih datoteka; samo jedna posebna kompanija ima
+moÄ da ih izmjeni. Zovemo te ureÄaje “tirani”, i ta praksa se
+naziva “tivoizacija” prema proizvodu kod kojeg smo to prvo
+vidjeli. Te izvršne datoteke nisu slobodan softver iako je njihov izvorni
+kod slobodan softver. Kriteriji za otvoreni izvorni kod ne prepoznaju ovaj
+problem; oni su zabrinuti samo sa licenciranjima izvornog koda.</p>
+
+<h3>Äesta pogreÅ¡na shvaÄanja “slobodnog softvera” i
“otvorenog
+izvornog koda”</h3>
+
+<p>Termin “slobodan softver” je sklon pogreÅ¡noj interpretaciji:
+nehotiÄno znaÄenje: “softver koji možete dobiti besplatno,” se
+uklapa isto dobro kao i namijenjeno znaÄenje: “softver koji daje
+korisniku odreÄene slobode.” Adresiramo taj problem objavljivanjem
+definicije slobodnog softvera, govoreÄi: “Mislite na ‘slobodu
+govora,’ ne na ‘slobodno (besplatno) pivo.’” To nije
+savršeno riješenje; ne može u potpunosti odstraniti problem. Nedvosmisleni i
+toÄan termin bi bio bolji, kada ne bi proizveo druge probleme.</p>
+
+<p>Nažalost, sve alternative u engleskom jeziku imaju svoje osobite
+probleme. Razmatrali smo mnoge koje su ljudi predložili, ali niti jedan nije
+toliko “ispravan” da bi prebacivanje na njega bila dobra
+ideja. (Na primjer, u nekim kontekstima francuska i Å¡panjolska rijeÄ
+“libre” funkcionira, ali ljudi u Indiji uopÄe ne prepoznaju tu
+rijeÄ.) Svaka predložena zamjena za “slobodan softver” ima neku
+vrstu semantiÄkoga problema—i to ukljuÄuje i “softver otvorenog
+izvornog koda.”</p>
+
+<p><a href="http://opensource.org/docs/osd">Službena definicija
“softvera
+otvorenog izvornog koda”</a> (koja je objavljena od strane Open Source
+Initiative i preduga je da bi se ukljuÄila ovdje) je indirektno derivirana
+iz našeg kriterija za slobodan softver. Nije jednaka; malo je blaža u nekim
+pogledima. Pored toga, njihova definicija se, u veÄini sluÄajeva, slaže sa
+našom definicijom. </p>
+
+<p>MeÄutim, oÄito znaÄenje izraza “softver otvorenog izvornog
+koda”—ono koje veÄina ljudi, Äini se, misle da znaÄi—jest
+“Možete gledati izvorni kod.” Taj kriterij je mnogo slabiji od
+definicije slobodnog softvera, mnogo slabiji isto i od službene definicije
+otvorenog izvornog koda. UkljuÄuje mnoge programe koji nisu niti slobodni,
+niti otvoreni izvorni kod.</p>
+
+<p><!-- It was from http://da.state.ks.us/itec/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf, but
+that page is no longer available. -->
+PoÅ¡to oÄito znaÄenje “otvorenog izvornog koda” nije znaÄenje
+koje su njegovi pobornici naumili, rezultat je taj da veÄina ljudi pogreÅ¡no
+shvaÄa termin. Prema piscu Nealu Stephensonu: “Linux je softver
+‘otvorenog izvornog koda’ Å¡to znaÄi, jednostavno, da svatko može
+preuzeti kopije njegovih datoteka izvornog koda.” Ne mislim da je
+namjerno nastojao odbaciti ili osporiti službenu definiciju. Mislim da je
+jednostavno primijenio konvencije engleskog jezika da bi doÅ¡ao do znaÄenja
+termina. Država Kansas objavila je sliÄnu definiciju: “Koristite
+softver otvorenog izvornog koda (OSS). OSS je softver za koji je izvorni kod
+slobodno i javno dostupan, iako se specifiÄni sporazumi oko licenciranja
+razlikuju i o tome ovisi Å¡to netko može napraviti s tim kodom.” </p>
+
+<p><i>New York Times</i> je <a
+href="http://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-design-37415.html">
+objavio Älanak koji razvlaÄi znaÄenje termina</a> da bi referirao na
+korisniÄko beta testiranje—dopuÅ¡tenje da nekoliko korisnika isprobaju
+ranu verziju i daju povjerljive povratne informacije—Å¡to developeri
+posjedniÄkog softvera prakticiraju veÄ desetljeÄima.</p>
+
+<p>Pobornici otvorenog izvornog koda se pokušavaju nositi s tim pokazivanjem
na
+njihovu službenu definiciju, ali takav korektivni pristup je manje efektivan
+za njih nego je za nas. Termin “slobodan softver” ima dva
+prirodna znaÄenja, jedno od kojih je namijenjeno znaÄenje, tako osoba koja
+je shvatila ideju “sloboda govora, ne slobodno (besplatno) pivo”
+neÄe viÅ¡e pogreÅ¡no shvatiti. Ali termin “otvoren izvorni kod”
+ima samo jedno prirodno znaÄenje, koje je razliÄito od znaÄenja koje su
+njegovi pobornici naumili. Dakle, ne postoji sažet naÄin da se objasni i
+opravda njegova službena definicija. Zbog toga se konfuzija poveÄava. </p>
+
+<p>Drugo pogreÅ¡no shvaÄanje “otvorenog izvornog koda” je ideja da
+znaÄi “nekoriÅ¡tenje GNU GPL-a.” To obiÄno ide uz joÅ¡ jedno
+pogreÅ¡no shvaÄanje da “slobodan softver” znaÄi “softver
+pokriven GPL-om.” Ova shvaÄanja su oba pogreÅ¡na, poÅ¡to se GNU GPL
+kvalificira kao licenca otvorenog izvornog koda i veÄina licenci otvorenog
+izvornog koda se kvalificiraju kao licence slobodnog softvera. Postoje <a
+href="/licenses/license-list.html"> mnoge licence slobodnog softvera</a> uz
+GNU GPL.</p>
+
+<p>Termin “otvoren izvorni kod” je dalje protegnuti svojom
+aplikacijom na druge aktivnosti, kao Å¡to su vlada, obrazovanje i znanost,
+gdje ne postoji nešto kao izvorni kod i gdje kriteriji za licenciranje
+softvera jednostavno nisu primjereni. Jedina zajedniÄka stvar tih aktivnosti
+je da one nekako pozivaju ljude da sudjeluju. Oni protežu termin toliko
+daleko da samo znaÄi “participatorno” ili
+“transparentno”, ili manje od toga. U najgorem sluÄaju, <a
+href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/opinion/sunday/morozov-open-and-closed.html">
+postane prazna poštapalica (<i>buzzword</i>)</a>.</p>
+
+<h3>RazliÄite vrijednosti mogu voditi prema sliÄnim zakljuÄcima…ali
ne
+uvijek</h3>
+
+<p>Radikalne grupe su u 1960-ima imale ugled frakcionalizma: neke organizacije
+su se rascijepile zbog neslaganja o detaljima strategije, i dvije grupe
+kÄeri su se odnosili kao neprijatelji usprkos sliÄnim baziÄnim ciljevima i
+vrijednostima. Desnica je od toga napravila veliku stvar i iskoristila je to
+da kritizira cijelu ljevicu.</p>
+
+<p>Neki pokuÅ¡avaju poniziti pokret slobodnog softvera usporeÄujuÄi naÅ¡e
+neslaganje sa otvorenim izvornim kodom sa neslaganjem te dvije radikalne
+grupe. Oni su to shvatili naopako. Ne slažemo se sa taborom otvorenog
+izvornog koda u baziÄnim ciljevima i vrijednostima, ali njihova glediÅ¡ta i
+naÅ¡a vode, u mnogo sluÄajeva, u isto praktiÄno ponaÅ¡anje—kao Å¡to je
+razvitak slobodnog softvera.</p>
+
+<p>Kao rezultat, ljudi iz pokreta slobodnog softvera i tabor otvorenog izvornog
+koda Äesto zajedno rade na praktiÄnim projektima kao Å¡to je razvijanje
+softvera. Izvanredno je da takva razliÄita filozofska glediÅ¡ta mogu tako
+Äesto motivirati razliÄite ljude da sudjeluju u istim projektima. Pored
+toga, postoje situacije gdje ta fundamentalno razliÄita glediÅ¡ta vode u vrlo
+razliÄite akcije.</p>
+
+<p>Ideja otvorenog izvornog koda je da Äe dopuÅ¡tenje korisnicima da
mijenjaju i
+ponovno distribuiraju softver napraviti isti taj softver moÄnijim i
+pouzdanijim. Ali to nije garantirano. Developeri posjedniÄkog softvera nisu
+nužno nesposobni. Ponekad izrade program koji je moÄan i pouzdan, iako ne
+poÅ¡tuje korisniÄku slobodu. Aktivisti slobodnog softvera i entuzijasti
+otvorenog izvornog koda Äe reagirati vrlo razliÄito na to.</p>
+
+<p>Äisti entuzijast otvorenog izvornog koda, netko tko uopÄe nije pod
utjecajem
+ideala slobodnog softvera, Äe reÄi: “IznenaÄen sam da ste uspjeli
+natjerati program da radi tako dobro bez korištenja našeg razvojnog modela,
+ali uspjeli ste. Kako mogu dobiti kopiju?” Takav stav Äe nagraditi
+sheme koje oduzimaju naÅ¡u slobodu, vodeÄi prema njenom gubitku. </p>
+
+<p>Aktivist slobodnog softvera Äe reÄi: “VaÅ¡ program je vrlo
privlaÄan,
+ali ja cijenim više svoju slobodu. Dakle, odbijam vaš program. Umjesto toga,
+podržavati Äu projekt razvitka slobodne zamjene.” Ako cijenimo naÅ¡u
+slobodu, možemo djelovati da je održavamo i branimo.</p>
+
+<h3>MoÄan, pouzdan softver može biti loÅ¡</h3>
+
+<p>Ideja da želimo softver da bude moÄan i pouzdan dolazi iz pretpostavke da
je
+softver dizajnirani da služi svojim korisnicima. Ako je moÄan i pouzdan, to
+znaÄi da im bolje služi. </p>
+
+<p>Ali može se reÄi da softver služi svojim korisnicima jedino ako poÅ¡tuje
+njihovu slobodu. Å to ako je softver dizajnirani da stavlja lance na svoje
+korisnike? Tada njegova moÄ znaÄi da su lanci viÅ¡e stegnuti, i pouzdanost
+znaÄi da su lanci teži za ukloniti. Zlonamjerne znaÄajke, kao Å¡to su
+Å¡pijuniranje korisnika, ograniÄenje korisnika, stražnja vrata i nametnuta
+poboljÅ¡anja su uÄestali kod posjedniÄkog softvera, i neki pobornici
+otvorenog izvornog koda ih žele implementirati u programima otvorenog
+izvornog koda. </p>
+
+<p>Pod pritiskom filmskih i glazbenih kompanija, softver za korištenje od
+strane individualnih korisnika je sve viÅ¡e dizajnirani specifiÄno da ih
+ograniÄuje. Ta zlonamjerna znaÄajka je znana kao Digitalno Upravljanje
+Restrikcijama (<i>Digital Restrictions Management</i>) (DRM) (pogledajte <a
+href="http://defectivebydesign.org/">DefectiveByDesign.org</a>) i to je
+antiteza duha slobode koji slobodni softver cilja da pruži. I ne samo u
+duhu: pošto je cilj DRM-a gaženje vaše slobode, DRM developeri pokušavaju
+napraviti teÅ¡kim, nemoguÄim ili Äak nezakonitim vaÅ¡e mijenjanje softvera
+koji implementira DRM. </p>
+
+<p>No, neki pobornici otvorenog izvornog koda su predložili “DRM softver
+otvorenog izvornog koda”. Njihova ideja je da Äe, objavljivanjem
+izvornog koda programa dizajniranih da ograniÄe vaÅ¡ pristup kodiranom mediju
+i dopuÅ¡tenjem drugih da ga izmjene, oni izraditi moÄniji i pouzdan softver
+da ograniÄi korisnike poput vas. Softver bi tada bio isporuÄen vama u
+ureÄajima koji ne dopuÅ¡taju izmjenu softvera.</p>
+
+<p>Taj softver bi mogao biti otvoreni izvorni kod i mogao bi koristiti model
+razvoja otvorenog izvornog koda, ali neÄe biti slobodan softver poÅ¡to neÄe
+poÅ¡tovati slobodu korisnika koji ga zapravo pokreÄu. Ako razvojni model
+otvorenog izvornog koda uspije izraditi taj softver moÄnijim i pouzdanijim u
+njegovom ograniÄavanju korisnika, to Äe ga uÄiniti joÅ¡ gorim.</p>
+
+<h3>Strah od slobode</h3>
+
+<p>Glavna prvobitna motivacija onih koji su razdvojili tabor otvorenog izvornog
+koda od pokreta slobodnog softvera je bila ta da etiÄke ideje
+“slobodnog softvera” stvaraju nelagodu u nekim ljudima. To je
+istina: podizanje etiÄkih pitanja kao Å¡to su sloboda, govor o odgovornosti
+kao i o pogodnosti, je traženje od ljudi da razmisle o stvarima koje bi
+možda radije ignorirali, kao što je pitanje o tome da li je njihovo
+ponaÅ¡anje etiÄno. To može izazvati nelagodnost i neki ljudi Äe možda na to
+jednostavno zatvoriti svoje umove. Iz toga ne slijedi da bi trebali prestati
+govoriti o tim pitanjima.</p>
+
+<p>To je, meÄutim, ono Å¡to su voÄe otvorenog izvornog koda odluÄili
+napraviti. Oni su shvatili da bi Å¡utnjom o etici i slobodi, i govorom samo o
+neposrednim praktiÄnim prednostima odreÄenog slobodnog softvera, mogli biti
+u moguÄnosti “prodavati” softver efektivnije odreÄenim
+korisnicima, posebno onim poslovnim.</p>
+
+<p>Taj pristup se pokazao efektivnim, u vlastitom mandatu. Retorika otvorenog
+izvornog koda je uvjerila mnoge tvrtke i individue da koriste, Äak i da
+razvijaju, slobodan softver, Å¡to je proÅ¡irilo naÅ¡u zajednicu—ali samo
+na povrÅ¡noj, praktiÄnoj razini. Filozofija otvorenog izvornog koda, sa
+svojim Äisto praktiÄnim vrijednostima, ometa razumijevanje dubljih ideja
+slobodnog softvera; donosi mnoge ljude u naÅ¡u zajednicu, ali ih ne poduÄava
+da je brane. To je dobro, utoliko koliko to prolazi, ali nije dovoljno da
+osigura slobodu. PrivlaÄenje korisnika prema slobodnom softveru vodi ih samo
+dio puta do toga da postanu branitelji vlastite slobode.</p>
+
+<p>Prije ili kasnije ti korisnici Äe biti pozvani da prijeÄu natrag na
+posjedniÄki softver zbog neke praktiÄne prednosti. Nebrojeno mnogo kompanija
+žele ponuditi takvo iskuÅ¡enje, neki Äak nude kopije besplatno. ZaÅ¡to bi
+korisnici odbili? Samo da su nauÄili cijeniti slobodu koju im daje slobodan
+softver, cijeniti slobodu zbog slobode same radije nego tehniÄke i praktiÄne
+pogodnosti odreÄenog slobodnog softvera. Da bi raÅ¡irili tu ideju, moramo
+govoriti o slobodi. OdreÄena koliÄina “Å¡utnje” kao poslovnog
+pristupa može biti korisna za zajednicu, ali je opasna ako postane toliko
+Äesta da se ljubav prema slobodi poÄinje Äiniti kao ekscentritet.</p>
+
+<p>Ta opasna situacija je toÄno ono Å¡to imamo. VeÄina ljudi povezanih sa
+slobodnim softverom, posebno njegovi distributeri, govore malo o
+slobodi—obiÄno zato jer žele biti “prihvatljiviji
+tvrtkama.” Skoro sve distribucije GNU/Linux operativnoga sustava
+dodaju posjedniÄke pakete osnovnom slobodnom sustavu, i pozivaju korisnike
+da smatraju to prednoÅ¡Äu radije nego manom.</p>
+
+<p>PosjedniÄki dodatni softver i djelomiÄno neslobodne GNU/Linux distribucije
+nalaze plodno tlo jer veÄina naÅ¡e zajednice ne insistira na slobodi kad je
+rijeÄ o njihovom softveru. To nije sluÄajnost. VeÄina GNU/Linux korisnika je
+uvedena u sustav kroz raspravu o “otvorenom izvornom kodu”, koja
+ne govori da je cilj sloboda. Prakse koje ne podržavaju slobodu i rijeÄi
+koje ne govore o slobodi idu ruku pod ruku, podržavajuÄi jedna drugu. Da se
+prebrodi ta tendencija, trebamo više, ne manje, govora o slobodi.</p>
+
+<h3>ZakljuÄak</h3>
+
+<p>Dok zagovornici otvorenog izvornog koda povlaÄe nove korisnike u zajednicu,
+mi, aktivisti slobodnog softvera moramo poduprijeti zadatak donošenja
+pitanja slobode u njihovu pažnju. Moramo reÄi: “To je slobodan softver
+i daje vam slobodu!”—viÅ¡e i glasnije nego ikad. Svaki put kada
+kažete “slobodan softver” radije nego “otvoreni izvorni
+kod,” vi pomažete naÅ¡u kampanju.</p>
+
+<h4>Bilješke</h4>
+
+<!-- The article is incomplete (#793776) as of 21st January 2013.
+<p>
+
+Joe Barr's article,
+<a href="http://www.itworld.com/LWD010523vcontrol4">“Live and
+let license,”</a> gives his perspective on this issue.</p>
+-->
+<p>
+Lakhanijev i Wolfov <a
+href="http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/lakhaniwolf.pdf">
+Älanak o motivaciji developera slobodnog softvera</a> kaže da je znatna
+frakcija motivirana glediÅ¡tem da softver treba biti slobodan. To je unatoÄ
+Äinjenici da su anketirali developere na SourceForge-u, portal koji ne
+podržava glediÅ¡te da je to etiÄno pitanje. </p>
+
+
+<div style="font-size: small;">
+
+<!--TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't have notes.-->
+ </div>
+</div>
+
+<!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.hr.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+
+<p>Molim vas Å¡aljite opÄenite FSF & GNU upite na <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>. Postoje isto i <a
+href="/contact/">drugi naÄini kontaktiranja</a> FSF-a. Prekinute poveznice i
+drugi ispravci ili prijedlozi mogu biti poslani na <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>. -->
+Radimo naporno i dajemo sve od sebe da bi pružili toÄne, visoko kvalitetne
+prijevode. MeÄutim, nismo osloboÄeni od nesavrÅ¡enosti. Molim vas Å¡aljite
+vaÅ¡e komentare i opÄenite prijedloge u tom smislu na <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.</p>
+<p>Za informacije o koordiniranju i slanju prijevoda naših mrežnih stranica,
+pogledajte <a href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">README za
+prijevode</a>.</p>
+
+<p>Copyright © 2007, 2010, 2012 Richard Stallman<br />Copyright ©
+2013 Marin Rameša (translation)</p>
+
+<p>Ovo djelo je dano na korištenje pod licencom <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/deed.hr"> Creative
+Commons Imenovanje-Bez prerada 3.0 SAD</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.hr.html" -->
+<div class="translators-credits">
+
+<!--TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't want credits.-->
+ </div>
+
+
+ <p><!-- timestamp start -->
+Zadnji put promijenjeno:
+
+$Date: 2013/04/09 03:58:54 $
+
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
Index: po/open-source-misses-the-point.hr-en.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/open-source-misses-the-point.hr-en.html
diff -N po/open-source-misses-the-point.hr-en.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/open-source-misses-the-point.hr-en.html 9 Apr 2013 03:58:55 -0000
1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,408 @@
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.75 -->
+<title>Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software - GNU Project -
+Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.translist"
-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software</h2>
+
+<p>by <strong>Richard Stallman</strong></p>
+
+<p>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.”</p>
+
+<p>These freedoms are vitally important. They are essential, not just
+for the individual users' sake, but for society as a whole because they
+promote social solidarity—that is, sharing and cooperation. They
+become even more important as our culture and life activities are
+increasingly digitized. In a world of digital sounds, images, and words,
+free software becomes increasingly essential for freedom in general.</p>
+
+<p>Tens of millions of people around the world now use free software;
+the 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
+of the essential components of the system and designed
+the <a href="/licenses/gpl.html">GNU General Public License</a> (GNU GPL)
+to release them under—a license designed specifically to protect
+freedom for all users of a program.</p>
+
+<p>Not all of the users and developers of free software
+agreed with the goals of the free software movement. In 1998, a part
+of the free software community splintered off and began campaigning in
+the name of “open source.” The term was originally
+proposed to avoid a possible misunderstanding of the term “free
+software,” but it soon became associated with philosophical
+views quite different from those of the free software movement.</p>
+
+<p>Some of the supporters of open source considered the term a
+“marketing campaign for free software,” which would appeal
+to business executives by highlighting the software's practical
+benefits, while not raising issues of right and wrong that they might
+not like to hear. Other supporters flatly rejected the free software
+movement's ethical and social values. Whichever their views, when
+campaigning for open source, they neither cited nor advocated those
+values. The term “open source” quickly became associated
+with ideas and arguments based only on practical values, such as
+making or having powerful, reliable software. Most of the supporters
+of open source have come to it since then, and they make the same
+association.</p>
+
+<p>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.</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>
+
+<p>The term “free software” is prone to misinterpretation:
+an unintended meaning, “software you can get
+for zero price,” fits the term just as well as the intended
+meaning, “software which gives the user certain freedoms.”
+We address this problem by publishing the definition of free software,
+and by saying “Think of ‘free speech,’ not ‘free
+beer.’” This is not a perfect solution; it cannot completely
+eliminate the problem. An unambiguous and correct term would be better, if
+it didn't present other problems.</p>
+
+<p>Unfortunately, all the alternatives in English have problems of
+their own. We've looked at many that people have
+suggested, but none is so clearly “right” that switching
+to it would be a good idea. (For instance, in some contexts the
+French and Spanish word “libre” works well, but people in India
+do not recognize it at all.) Every proposed replacement for
+“free software” has some kind of semantic problem—and
+this includes “open source software.”</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source
+software”—and the one most people seem to think it
+means—is “You can look at the source code.” That
+criterion is much weaker than the free software definition, much
+weaker also than the official definition of open source. It includes
+many programs that are neither free nor open source.</p>
+
+<p>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:
+<!-- It was from http://da.state.ks.us/itec/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf, but
+that page is no longer available. --> “Make use of open-source
+software (OSS). OSS is software for which the source code is freely
+and publicly available, though the specific licensing agreements vary
+as to what one is allowed to do with that code.”</p>
+
+<p>The <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.</p>
+
+<p>Open source supporters try to deal with this by pointing to their
+official definition, but that corrective approach is less effective
+for them than it is for us. The term “free software” has
+two natural meanings, one of which is the intended meaning, so a
+person who has grasped the idea of “free speech, not free
+beer” will not get it wrong again. But the term “open
+source” has only one natural meaning, which is different from
+the meaning its supporters intend. So there is no succinct way to
+explain and justify its official definition. That makes for worse
+confusion.</p>
+
+<p>Another misunderstanding of “open source” is the idea
+that it means “not using the GNU GPL.” This tends to
+accompany another misunderstanding that “free software”
+means “GPL-covered software.” These are 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.</p>
+
+<p>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” or “transparent”, or
+less than that. At worst, it
+has <a
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/opinion/sunday/morozov-open-and-closed.html">
+become a vacuous buzzword</a>.</p>
+
+<h3>Different Values Can Lead to Similar Conclusions…but Not Always</h3>
+
+<p>Radical groups in the 1960s had a reputation for factionalism: some
+organizations split because of disagreements on details of strategy,
+and the two daughter groups treated each other as enemies despite
+having similar basic goals and values. The right wing made much of
+this and used it to criticize the entire left.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>As a result, people from the free software movement and the open
+source camp often work together on practical projects such as software
+development. It is remarkable that such different philosophical views
+can so often motivate different people to participate in the same
+projects. Nonetheless, there are situations where these fundamentally
+different views lead to very different actions.</p>
+
+<p>The idea of open source is that allowing users to change and
+redistribute the software will make it more powerful and reliable.
+But this is not guaranteed. Developers of proprietary software are
+not necessarily incompetent. Sometimes they produce a program that
+is powerful and reliable, even though it does not respect the users'
+freedom. Free software activists and open source enthusiasts will
+react very differently to that.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>The free software activist will say, “Your program is very
+attractive, but I value my freedom more. So I reject your program.
+Instead I will support a project to develop a free
+replacement.” If we value our freedom, we can act to maintain and
+defend it.</p>
+
+<h3>Powerful, Reliable Software Can Be Bad</h3>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>But software can be said to serve its users only if it respects
+their freedom. What if the software is designed to put chains on its
+users? Then powerfulness means the chains are more constricting,
+and reliability that they are harder to remove. Malicious features,
+such as spying on the users, restricting the users, back doors, and
+imposed upgrades are common in proprietary software, and some open
+source supporters want to implement them in open source programs.</p>
+
+<p>Under pressure from the movie and record companies, software for
+individuals to use is increasingly designed specifically to restrict
+them. This malicious feature is known as Digital Restrictions
+Management (DRM) (see <a
+href="http://defectivebydesign.org/">DefectiveByDesign.org</a>) and is
+the antithesis in spirit of the freedom that free software aims
+to provide. And not just in spirit: since the goal of DRM is to
+trample your freedom, DRM developers try to make it hard, impossible,
+or even illegal for you to change the software that implements the DRM.</p>
+
+<p>Yet some open source supporters have proposed “open source
+DRM” software. Their idea is that, by publishing the source code
+of programs designed to restrict your access to encrypted media and by
+allowing others to change it, they will produce more powerful and
+reliable software for restricting users like you. The software would then
+be delivered to you in devices that do not allow you to change it.</p>
+
+<p>This software might be open source and use the open
+source development model, but it won't be free software since it
+won't respect the freedom of the users that actually run it. If the
+open source development model succeeds in making this software more
+powerful and reliable for restricting you, that will make it even
+worse.</p>
+
+<h3>Fear of Freedom</h3>
+
+<p>The main initial motivation of those who split off the open source
+camp from the free software movement was that the ethical ideas of
+“free software” made some people uneasy. That's true: raising
+ethical issues such as freedom, talking about responsibilities as well as
+convenience, is asking people to think about things they might prefer
+to ignore, such as whether their conduct is ethical. This can trigger
+discomfort, and some people may simply close their minds to it. It
+does not follow that we ought to stop talking about these issues.</p>
+
+<p>That is, however, what the leaders of open source
+decided to do. They figured that by keeping quiet about ethics and
+freedom, and talking only about the immediate practical benefits of
+certain free software, they might be able to “sell” the
+software more effectively to certain users, especially business.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>Sooner or later these users will be invited to switch back to
+proprietary software for some practical advantage. Countless
+companies seek to offer such temptation, some even offering copies
+gratis. Why would users decline? Only if they have learned to value
+the freedom free software gives them, to value freedom in and of itself
+rather than the technical and practical convenience of specific free
+software. To spread this idea, we have to talk about freedom. A
+certain amount of the “keep quiet” approach to business can be
+useful for the community, but it is dangerous if it becomes so common
+that the love of freedom comes to seem like an eccentricity.</p>
+
+<p>That dangerous situation is exactly what we have. Most people
+involved with free software, especially its distributors, say little about
+freedom—usually because they seek to be “more acceptable to
+business.” Nearly all GNU/Linux operating system distributions add
+proprietary packages to the basic free system, and they invite users to
+consider this an advantage rather than a flaw.</p>
+
+<p>Proprietary add-on software and partially nonfree GNU/Linux
+distributions find fertile ground because most of our community does
+not insist on freedom with its software. This is no coincidence.
+Most GNU/Linux users were introduced to the system through “open
+source” discussion, which doesn't say that freedom is a goal.
+The practices that don't uphold freedom and the words that don't talk
+about freedom go hand in hand, each promoting the other. To overcome
+this tendency, we need more, not less, talk about freedom.</p>
+
+<h3>Conclusion</h3>
+
+<p>As the advocates of open source draw new users into our community,
+we free software activists must shoulder the task of bringing the issue
+of freedom to their attention. We have to say, “It's
+free software and it gives you freedom!”—more and louder
+than ever. Every time you say “free software” rather than
+“open source,” you help our campaign.</p>
+
+<h4>Notes</h4>
+
+<!-- The article is incomplete (#793776) as of 21st January 2013.
+<p>
+Joe Barr's article,
+<a href="http://www.itworld.com/LWD010523vcontrol4">“Live and
+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>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+
+<div id="footer">
+
+<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>.</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>. -->
+
+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>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p>Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2013/04/09 03:58:55 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- www/philosophy free-sw.hr.html po/free-sw.hr-en...,
GNUN <=