[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www copyleft/copyleft.el.html copyleft/copyleft...
|
From: |
GNUN |
|
Subject: |
www copyleft/copyleft.el.html copyleft/copyleft... |
|
Date: |
Fri, 12 Apr 2013 08:02:49 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: GNUN <gnun> 13/04/12 08:02:49
Modified files:
copyleft : copyleft.el.html copyleft.zh-cn.html
gnu : why-gnu-linux.cs.html why-gnu-linux.el.html
why-gnu-linux.ko.html why-gnu-linux.nl.html
why-gnu-linux.pt-br.html
philosophy : open-source-misses-the-point.nl.html
open-source-misses-the-point.zh-cn.html
words-to-avoid.ar.html
Added files:
copyleft/po : copyleft.el-diff.html copyleft.zh-cn-diff.html
gnu/po : why-gnu-linux.cs-diff.html
why-gnu-linux.el-diff.html
why-gnu-linux.ko-diff.html
why-gnu-linux.nl-diff.html
why-gnu-linux.pt-br-diff.html
philosophy/po : open-source-misses-the-point.nl-diff.html
open-source-misses-the-point.zh-cn-diff.html
words-to-avoid.ar-diff.html
Log message:
Automatic update by GNUnited Nations.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/copyleft/copyleft.el.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.12&r2=1.13
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/copyleft/copyleft.zh-cn.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.9&r2=1.10
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/copyleft/po/copyleft.el-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/copyleft/po/copyleft.zh-cn-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/gnu/why-gnu-linux.cs.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.11&r2=1.12
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/gnu/why-gnu-linux.el.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.21&r2=1.22
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/gnu/why-gnu-linux.ko.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.17&r2=1.18
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/gnu/why-gnu-linux.nl.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.9&r2=1.10
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/gnu/why-gnu-linux.pt-br.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.14&r2=1.15
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.cs-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.el-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.ko-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.nl-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.pt-br-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.nl.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.11&r2=1.12
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.zh-cn.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.14&r2=1.15
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/words-to-avoid.ar.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.18&r2=1.19
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.nl-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.zh-cn-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/words-to-avoid.ar-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
Patches:
Index: copyleft/copyleft.el.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/copyleft/copyleft.el.html,v
retrieving revision 1.12
retrieving revision 1.13
diff -u -b -r1.12 -r1.13
--- copyleft/copyleft.el.html 9 Feb 2013 07:44:28 -0000 1.12
+++ copyleft/copyleft.el.html 12 Apr 2013 08:02:45 -0000 1.13
@@ -9,6 +9,13 @@
<meta http-equiv="Keywords" content="GNU, ÎÎÎ, ÎδÏÏ
μα
ÎλεÏθεÏοÏ
ÎογιÏμικοÏ, Linux, Copyleft" />
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.el.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/po/copyleft.el.po";>
+ http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/po/copyleft.el.po</a>' -->
+ <!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/copyleft/copyleft.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/copyleft/po/copyleft.el-diff.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2013-02-11" -->
+ <!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.el.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/copyleft/po/copyleft.translist" -->
<h2>Τι είναι Ïο copyleft;</h2>
@@ -209,7 +216,7 @@
<p><!-- timestamp start -->
ÎνημεÏÏθηκε:
-$Date: 2013/02/09 07:44:28 $
+$Date: 2013/04/12 08:02:45 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: copyleft/copyleft.zh-cn.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/copyleft/copyleft.zh-cn.html,v
retrieving revision 1.9
retrieving revision 1.10
diff -u -b -r1.9 -r1.10
--- copyleft/copyleft.zh-cn.html 9 Feb 2013 07:44:29 -0000 1.9
+++ copyleft/copyleft.zh-cn.html 12 Apr 2013 08:02:45 -0000 1.10
@@ -9,6 +9,13 @@
<meta http-equiv="Keywords" content="GNU, FSF, Free Software Foundation,
Linux, Copyleft, èªç±è½¯ä»¶åºéä¼" />
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.zh-cn.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/po/copyleft.zh-cn.po";>
+ http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/po/copyleft.zh-cn.po</a>' -->
+ <!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/copyleft/copyleft.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/copyleft/po/copyleft.zh-cn-diff.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2013-02-11" -->
+ <!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.zh-cn.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/copyleft/po/copyleft.translist" -->
<h2>ä»ä¹æ¯Copyleftï¼</h2>
@@ -139,7 +146,7 @@
<p><!-- timestamp start -->
æåæ´æ°ï¼
-$Date: 2013/02/09 07:44:29 $
+$Date: 2013/04/12 08:02:45 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: gnu/why-gnu-linux.cs.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/gnu/why-gnu-linux.cs.html,v
retrieving revision 1.11
retrieving revision 1.12
diff -u -b -r1.11 -r1.12
--- gnu/why-gnu-linux.cs.html 9 Feb 2013 07:45:12 -0000 1.11
+++ gnu/why-gnu-linux.cs.html 12 Apr 2013 08:02:47 -0000 1.12
@@ -8,6 +8,13 @@
<title>ProÄ GNU/Linux? â Projekt GNU â Nadace pro svobodný software
(FSF)</title>
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.cs.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="http://www.gnu.org/gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.cs.po";>
+ http://www.gnu.org/gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.cs.po</a>' -->
+ <!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.cs-diff.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2013-02-11" -->
+ <!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.cs.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.translist" -->
<h2>O co jde v názvu?</h2>
@@ -224,7 +231,7 @@
<p><!-- timestamp start -->
Aktualizováno:
-$Date: 2013/02/09 07:45:12 $
+$Date: 2013/04/12 08:02:47 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: gnu/why-gnu-linux.el.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/gnu/why-gnu-linux.el.html,v
retrieving revision 1.21
retrieving revision 1.22
diff -u -b -r1.21 -r1.22
--- gnu/why-gnu-linux.el.html 9 Feb 2013 07:45:13 -0000 1.21
+++ gnu/why-gnu-linux.el.html 12 Apr 2013 08:02:47 -0000 1.22
@@ -8,6 +8,13 @@
<title>ÎιαÏί GNU/Linux; - ÎÏγο GNU - ÎδÏÏ
μα ÎλεÏθεÏοÏ
ÎογιÏÎ¼Î¹ÎºÎ¿Ï (ÎÎÎ)</title>
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.el.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="http://www.gnu.org/gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.el.po";>
+ http://www.gnu.org/gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.el.po</a>' -->
+ <!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.el-diff.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2013-02-11" -->
+ <!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.el.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.translist" -->
<h2>Τι ÏεÏιÎÏεÏαι Ï' Îνα Ïνομα;</h2>
@@ -268,7 +275,7 @@
<p><!-- timestamp start -->
ÎνημεÏÏθηκε:
-$Date: 2013/02/09 07:45:13 $
+$Date: 2013/04/12 08:02:47 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: gnu/why-gnu-linux.ko.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/gnu/why-gnu-linux.ko.html,v
retrieving revision 1.17
retrieving revision 1.18
diff -u -b -r1.17 -r1.18
--- gnu/why-gnu-linux.ko.html 9 Feb 2013 07:45:14 -0000 1.17
+++ gnu/why-gnu-linux.ko.html 12 Apr 2013 08:02:47 -0000 1.18
@@ -8,6 +8,13 @@
<title>ì GNU/리ë
ì¤ë¼ ë¶ë¬ì¼ íëê°? - GNU íë¡ì í¸ - ìì
ìíí¸ì¨ì´ ì¬ë¨ (FSF)</title>
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.ko.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="http://www.gnu.org/gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.ko.po";>
+ http://www.gnu.org/gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.ko.po</a>' -->
+ <!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.ko-diff.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2013-02-11" -->
+ <!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.ko.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.translist" -->
<h2>ì GNU/리ë
ì¤ë¼ ë¶ë¬ì¼ íëê°?</h2>
@@ -177,7 +184,7 @@
<p><!-- timestamp start -->
ìµì¢
ìì ì¼:
-$Date: 2013/02/09 07:45:14 $
+$Date: 2013/04/12 08:02:47 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: gnu/why-gnu-linux.nl.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/gnu/why-gnu-linux.nl.html,v
retrieving revision 1.9
retrieving revision 1.10
diff -u -b -r1.9 -r1.10
--- gnu/why-gnu-linux.nl.html 9 Feb 2013 07:45:14 -0000 1.9
+++ gnu/why-gnu-linux.nl.html 12 Apr 2013 08:02:47 -0000 1.10
@@ -8,6 +8,13 @@
<title>Waarom GNU/Linux? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)</title>
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.nl.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="http://www.gnu.org/gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.nl.po";>
+ http://www.gnu.org/gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.nl.po</a>' -->
+ <!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.nl-diff.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2013-02-11" -->
+ <!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.nl.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.translist" -->
<h2>Als het beestje maar een naam heeft</h2>
@@ -247,7 +254,7 @@
<p><!-- timestamp start -->
Bijgewerkt:
-$Date: 2013/02/09 07:45:14 $
+$Date: 2013/04/12 08:02:47 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: gnu/why-gnu-linux.pt-br.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/gnu/why-gnu-linux.pt-br.html,v
retrieving revision 1.14
retrieving revision 1.15
diff -u -b -r1.14 -r1.15
--- gnu/why-gnu-linux.pt-br.html 9 Feb 2013 07:45:14 -0000 1.14
+++ gnu/why-gnu-linux.pt-br.html 12 Apr 2013 08:02:47 -0000 1.15
@@ -8,6 +8,13 @@
<title>Por que GNU/Linux? - Projeto GNU - Free Software Foundation
(FSF)</title>
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.pt-br.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="http://www.gnu.org/gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.pt-br.po";>
+ http://www.gnu.org/gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.pt-br.po</a>' -->
+ <!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.pt-br-diff.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2013-02-11" -->
+ <!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.pt-br.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.translist" -->
<h2>Que há num nome?</h2>
@@ -247,7 +254,7 @@
<p><!-- timestamp start -->
Ãltima atualização:
-$Date: 2013/02/09 07:45:14 $
+$Date: 2013/04/12 08:02:47 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.nl.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.nl.html,v
retrieving revision 1.11
retrieving revision 1.12
diff -u -b -r1.11 -r1.12
--- philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.nl.html 9 Feb 2013 07:48:43
-0000 1.11
+++ philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.nl.html 12 Apr 2013 08:02:48
-0000 1.12
@@ -10,6 +10,13 @@
- Free Software Foundation (FSF)</title>
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.nl.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a
href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.nl.po";>
+ http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.nl.po</a>' -->
+ <!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE"
value="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="DIFF_FILE"
value="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.nl-diff.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2013-02-11" -->
+ <!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.nl.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.translist"
-->
<h2>Waarom “Open Bron” de essentie van Vrije Software niet
begrijpt.</h2>
@@ -394,7 +401,7 @@
<p><!-- timestamp start -->
Bijgewerkt:
-$Date: 2013/02/09 07:48:43 $
+$Date: 2013/04/12 08:02:48 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.zh-cn.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.zh-cn.html,v
retrieving revision 1.14
retrieving revision 1.15
diff -u -b -r1.14 -r1.15
--- philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.zh-cn.html 9 Feb 2013 07:48:43
-0000 1.14
+++ philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.zh-cn.html 12 Apr 2013 08:02:48
-0000 1.15
@@ -9,6 +9,13 @@
<title>å¼æºç©¶ç«å·®åªäº - GNU å·¥ç¨ - èªç±è½¯ä»¶åºéä¼(FSF)</title>
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.zh-cn.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a
href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.zh-cn.po";>
+ http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.zh-cn.po</a>'
-->
+ <!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE"
value="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="DIFF_FILE"
value="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.zh-cn-diff.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2013-02-11" -->
+ <!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.zh-cn.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.translist"
-->
<h2>å¼æºç©¶ç«å·®åªäº</h2>
@@ -204,7 +211,7 @@
<p><!-- timestamp start -->
æåæ´æ°ï¼
-$Date: 2013/02/09 07:48:43 $
+$Date: 2013/04/12 08:02:48 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: philosophy/words-to-avoid.ar.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/words-to-avoid.ar.html,v
retrieving revision 1.18
retrieving revision 1.19
diff -u -b -r1.18 -r1.19
--- philosophy/words-to-avoid.ar.html 9 Feb 2013 07:49:11 -0000 1.18
+++ philosophy/words-to-avoid.ar.html 12 Apr 2013 08:02:48 -0000 1.19
@@ -10,6 +10,13 @@
اÙبرÙ
جÙات اÙØرة (إ٠إس Ø¥Ù)</title>
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.ar.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/words-to-avoid.ar.po";>
+ http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/words-to-avoid.ar.po</a>' -->
+ <!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html" -->
+ <!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/words-to-avoid.ar-diff.html"
-->
+ <!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2013-02-11" -->
+ <!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.ar.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/words-to-avoid.translist" -->
<h2>ÙÙÙ
ات تتØاشÙا (أ٠استخدÙ
Ùا بØذر) ÙØ£ÙÙا Ù
Ùخخة Ø£Ù Ù
ضÙÙØ©</h2>
@@ -683,7 +690,7 @@
<p><!-- timestamp start -->
ØÙدÙثت:
-$Date: 2013/02/09 07:49:11 $
+$Date: 2013/04/12 08:02:48 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: copyleft/po/copyleft.el-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: copyleft/po/copyleft.el-diff.html
diff -N copyleft/po/copyleft.el-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ copyleft/po/copyleft.el-diff.html 12 Apr 2013 08:02:46 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,241 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/copyleft/copyleft.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!-- Parent-Version: 1.75
--></em></ins></span>
+<title>What is Copyleft? - GNU Project - Free Software <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Foundation
(FSF)</title></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Foundation</title></em></ins></span>
+<meta http-equiv="Keywords" content="GNU, FSF, Free Software Foundation,
Linux, Copyleft" />
+
+<!--#include <span
class="removed"><del><strong>virtual="/server/banner.html"</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>virtual="/copyleft/po/copyleft.translist"</em></ins></span>
-->
+<!--#include <span
class="removed"><del><strong>virtual="/copyleft/po/copyleft.translist"</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>virtual="/server/banner.html"</em></ins></span> -->
+
+<h2>What is Copyleft?</h2>
+
+<p>
+Copyleft is a general method for making a program (or
+other work) free, and requiring all modified and extended versions of the
+program to be free as well.</p>
+
+<p>
+The simplest way to make a program free software is to put it in the
+<a href="/philosophy/categories.html#PublicDomainSoftware">public
+domain</a>, uncopyrighted. This allows people to
+share the program and their improvements, if they are so minded. But
+it also allows uncooperative people to convert the program into
+<a href="/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware">proprietary
+software</a>. They can make changes, many or few,
+and distribute the result as a proprietary product. People who
+receive the program in that modified form do not have the freedom that
+the original author gave them; the middleman has stripped it away.</p>
+
+<p>
+In the <a href="/gnu/thegnuproject.html">GNU project</a>, our aim
is
+to give <em>all</em> users the freedom to redistribute and change
GNU
+software. If middlemen could strip off the freedom, we might have
+many users, but those users would not have freedom. So instead of
+putting GNU software in the public domain, we “copyleft”
+it. Copyleft says that anyone who redistributes the software, with or
+without changes, must pass along the freedom to further copy and
+change it. Copyleft guarantees that every user has freedom.</p>
+
+<p>
+Copyleft also provides an
+<a href="/philosophy/pragmatic.html">incentive</a>
+for other programmers to add to free software.
+Important free programs such as the GNU C++ compiler exist
+only because of this.</p>
+
+<p>
+Copyleft also helps programmers who want to contribute
+<a href="/prep/tasks.html">improvements</a> to
+<a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">free software</a> get
permission to
+do so. These programmers often work for companies or universities
+that would do almost anything to get more money. A programmer may
+want to contribute her changes to the community, but her employer may
+want to turn the changes into a proprietary software product.</p>
+
+<p>
+When we explain to the employer that it is illegal to distribute the
+improved version except as free software, the employer usually decides
+to release it as free software rather than throw it away.</p>
+
+<p>
+To copyleft a program, we first state that it is copyrighted; then we
+add distribution terms, which are a legal instrument that gives
+everyone the rights to use, modify, and redistribute the program's
+code, <em>or any program derived from it</em>, but only if the
+distribution terms are unchanged. Thus, the code and the freedoms
+become legally inseparable.</p>
+
+<p>
+Proprietary software developers use copyright to take away the users'
+freedom; we use copyright to guarantee their freedom. That's why we
+reverse the name, changing “copyright” into
+“copyleft.”</p>
+
+<p>
+Copyleft is a way of using of the copyright on the program. It
+doesn't mean abandoning the copyright; in fact, doing so would make
+copyleft impossible. The “left” in
+“copyleft” is not a reference to the verb “to
+leave”—only to the direction which is the inverse of
+“right”.</p>
+
+<p>
+Copyleft is a general concept, and you can't use a general concept
+directly; you can only use a specific implementation of the concept.
+In the GNU Project, the specific distribution terms that we use for
+most software are contained in the
+<a href="/copyleft/gpl.html">GNU General Public License (available in
+HTML</a>, <a href="/copyleft/gpl.txt">text</a>, and
+<a href="/copyleft/gpl.texi">Texinfo</a> format). The GNU General
+Public License is often called the GNU GPL for short. There is also a
+<a href="/copyleft/gpl-faq.html">Frequently Asked Questions</a>
page
+about the GNU GPL. You can also read about
+<a href="/copyleft/why-assign.html">why the FSF gets copyright
+assignments from contributors</a>.</p>
+
+<p>
+An alternate form of copyleft, the <a href="/licenses/lgpl.html">GNU
+Lesser General Public License (LGPL) (available in HTML</a>, <a
+href="/licenses/lgpl.txt">text</a>, and <a
+href="/licenses/lgpl.texi">Texinfo</a> format), applies to a few (but
not
+all) GNU libraries. To learn more about properly using the LGPL, please
+read the article <a href="/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html"><cite>Why
you
+shouldn't use the Lesser GPL for your next
library</cite></a>.</p>
+
+<p>
+The <a href="/copyleft/fdl.html">GNU Free Documentation License (FDL)
+(available in HTML</a>, <a href="/copyleft/fdl.txt">text</a>
and
+<a href="/copyleft/fdl.texi">Texinfo)</a> is a form of copyleft
intended
+for use on a manual, textbook or other document to assure everyone the
+effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without
+modifications, either commercially or noncommercially.</p>
+
+<p>
+The appropriate license is included in many manuals and in each GNU
+source code distribution.</p>
+
+<p>
+All these licenses are designed so that you can easily apply them to
+your own works, assuming you are the copyright holder. You don't have
+to modify the license to do this, just include a copy of the license
+in the work, and add notices in the source files that refer properly
+to the license.</p>
+
+<p>
+Using the same distribution terms for many different programs makes it
+easy to copy code between various different programs. When they all
+have the same distribution terms, there is no problem. The Lesser
+GPL, version 2, includes a provision that lets you alter the
+distribution terms to the ordinary GPL, so that you can copy code into
+another program covered by the GPL. Version 3 of the Lesser GPL is
+built as an exception added to GPL version 3, making the compatibility
+automatic.</p>
+
+<p>
+If you would like to copyleft your program with the GNU GPL or the GNU
+LGPL, please see the <a href="/copyleft/gpl-howto.html">license
+instructions page</a> for advice. Please note that you must use the
entire
+text of the license you choose. Each is an integral whole, and
+partial copies are not permitted.</p>
+
+<p>
+If you would like to copyleft your manual with the GNU FDL, please
+see the instructions at the
+<a href="/copyleft/fdl.html#SEC4">end</a> of the FDL text, and
+the <a href="/copyleft/fdl-howto.html">GFDL instructions page</a>.
Again,
+partial copies are not permitted.</p>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong></div></strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div><!-- for id="content", starts
in the include above --></em></ins></span>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>
+Please</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p>Please</em></ins></span> send <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>general</em></ins></span> FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="mailto:address@hidden"><em>address@hidden</em></a>.</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.</em></ins></span>
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
+the FSF.
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><br />
+Please send broken</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Broken</em></ins></span> links and other corrections
or suggestions <span class="inserted"><ins><em>can be sent</em></ins></span>
+to <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="mailto:address@hidden"><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
+</p>
+
+<p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>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>. --></em></ins></span>
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this <span class="removed"><del><strong>article.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Copyright</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>article.</p>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+ be under CC BY-ND 3.0 US. Please do NOT change or remove this
+ without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+ Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+ document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+ document was modified, or published.
+
+ If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+ Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+ years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+ year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+ being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+
+ There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+ Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
+
+<p>Copyright</em></ins></span> © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000,
2001, 2002, 2003, 2004,
+2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 Free Software Foundation, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Inc.,</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Inc.</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>License</a>.
+</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>License</a>.</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p>Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2013/04/12 08:02:46 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><!-- 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."
--></strong></del></span>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: copyleft/po/copyleft.zh-cn-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: copyleft/po/copyleft.zh-cn-diff.html
diff -N copyleft/po/copyleft.zh-cn-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ copyleft/po/copyleft.zh-cn-diff.html 12 Apr 2013 08:02:46 -0000
1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,241 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/copyleft/copyleft.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!-- Parent-Version: 1.75
--></em></ins></span>
+<title>What is Copyleft? - GNU Project - Free Software <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Foundation
(FSF)</title></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Foundation</title></em></ins></span>
+<meta http-equiv="Keywords" content="GNU, FSF, Free Software Foundation,
Linux, Copyleft" />
+
+<!--#include <span
class="removed"><del><strong>virtual="/server/banner.html"</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>virtual="/copyleft/po/copyleft.translist"</em></ins></span>
-->
+<!--#include <span
class="removed"><del><strong>virtual="/copyleft/po/copyleft.translist"</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>virtual="/server/banner.html"</em></ins></span> -->
+
+<h2>What is Copyleft?</h2>
+
+<p>
+Copyleft is a general method for making a program (or
+other work) free, and requiring all modified and extended versions of the
+program to be free as well.</p>
+
+<p>
+The simplest way to make a program free software is to put it in the
+<a href="/philosophy/categories.html#PublicDomainSoftware">public
+domain</a>, uncopyrighted. This allows people to
+share the program and their improvements, if they are so minded. But
+it also allows uncooperative people to convert the program into
+<a href="/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware">proprietary
+software</a>. They can make changes, many or few,
+and distribute the result as a proprietary product. People who
+receive the program in that modified form do not have the freedom that
+the original author gave them; the middleman has stripped it away.</p>
+
+<p>
+In the <a href="/gnu/thegnuproject.html">GNU project</a>, our aim
is
+to give <em>all</em> users the freedom to redistribute and change
GNU
+software. If middlemen could strip off the freedom, we might have
+many users, but those users would not have freedom. So instead of
+putting GNU software in the public domain, we “copyleft”
+it. Copyleft says that anyone who redistributes the software, with or
+without changes, must pass along the freedom to further copy and
+change it. Copyleft guarantees that every user has freedom.</p>
+
+<p>
+Copyleft also provides an
+<a href="/philosophy/pragmatic.html">incentive</a>
+for other programmers to add to free software.
+Important free programs such as the GNU C++ compiler exist
+only because of this.</p>
+
+<p>
+Copyleft also helps programmers who want to contribute
+<a href="/prep/tasks.html">improvements</a> to
+<a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">free software</a> get
permission to
+do so. These programmers often work for companies or universities
+that would do almost anything to get more money. A programmer may
+want to contribute her changes to the community, but her employer may
+want to turn the changes into a proprietary software product.</p>
+
+<p>
+When we explain to the employer that it is illegal to distribute the
+improved version except as free software, the employer usually decides
+to release it as free software rather than throw it away.</p>
+
+<p>
+To copyleft a program, we first state that it is copyrighted; then we
+add distribution terms, which are a legal instrument that gives
+everyone the rights to use, modify, and redistribute the program's
+code, <em>or any program derived from it</em>, but only if the
+distribution terms are unchanged. Thus, the code and the freedoms
+become legally inseparable.</p>
+
+<p>
+Proprietary software developers use copyright to take away the users'
+freedom; we use copyright to guarantee their freedom. That's why we
+reverse the name, changing “copyright” into
+“copyleft.”</p>
+
+<p>
+Copyleft is a way of using of the copyright on the program. It
+doesn't mean abandoning the copyright; in fact, doing so would make
+copyleft impossible. The “left” in
+“copyleft” is not a reference to the verb “to
+leave”—only to the direction which is the inverse of
+“right”.</p>
+
+<p>
+Copyleft is a general concept, and you can't use a general concept
+directly; you can only use a specific implementation of the concept.
+In the GNU Project, the specific distribution terms that we use for
+most software are contained in the
+<a href="/copyleft/gpl.html">GNU General Public License (available in
+HTML</a>, <a href="/copyleft/gpl.txt">text</a>, and
+<a href="/copyleft/gpl.texi">Texinfo</a> format). The GNU General
+Public License is often called the GNU GPL for short. There is also a
+<a href="/copyleft/gpl-faq.html">Frequently Asked Questions</a>
page
+about the GNU GPL. You can also read about
+<a href="/copyleft/why-assign.html">why the FSF gets copyright
+assignments from contributors</a>.</p>
+
+<p>
+An alternate form of copyleft, the <a href="/licenses/lgpl.html">GNU
+Lesser General Public License (LGPL) (available in HTML</a>, <a
+href="/licenses/lgpl.txt">text</a>, and <a
+href="/licenses/lgpl.texi">Texinfo</a> format), applies to a few (but
not
+all) GNU libraries. To learn more about properly using the LGPL, please
+read the article <a href="/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html"><cite>Why
you
+shouldn't use the Lesser GPL for your next
library</cite></a>.</p>
+
+<p>
+The <a href="/copyleft/fdl.html">GNU Free Documentation License (FDL)
+(available in HTML</a>, <a href="/copyleft/fdl.txt">text</a>
and
+<a href="/copyleft/fdl.texi">Texinfo)</a> is a form of copyleft
intended
+for use on a manual, textbook or other document to assure everyone the
+effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without
+modifications, either commercially or noncommercially.</p>
+
+<p>
+The appropriate license is included in many manuals and in each GNU
+source code distribution.</p>
+
+<p>
+All these licenses are designed so that you can easily apply them to
+your own works, assuming you are the copyright holder. You don't have
+to modify the license to do this, just include a copy of the license
+in the work, and add notices in the source files that refer properly
+to the license.</p>
+
+<p>
+Using the same distribution terms for many different programs makes it
+easy to copy code between various different programs. When they all
+have the same distribution terms, there is no problem. The Lesser
+GPL, version 2, includes a provision that lets you alter the
+distribution terms to the ordinary GPL, so that you can copy code into
+another program covered by the GPL. Version 3 of the Lesser GPL is
+built as an exception added to GPL version 3, making the compatibility
+automatic.</p>
+
+<p>
+If you would like to copyleft your program with the GNU GPL or the GNU
+LGPL, please see the <a href="/copyleft/gpl-howto.html">license
+instructions page</a> for advice. Please note that you must use the
entire
+text of the license you choose. Each is an integral whole, and
+partial copies are not permitted.</p>
+
+<p>
+If you would like to copyleft your manual with the GNU FDL, please
+see the instructions at the
+<a href="/copyleft/fdl.html#SEC4">end</a> of the FDL text, and
+the <a href="/copyleft/fdl-howto.html">GFDL instructions page</a>.
Again,
+partial copies are not permitted.</p>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong></div></strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div><!-- for id="content", starts
in the include above --></em></ins></span>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>
+Please</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p>Please</em></ins></span> send <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>general</em></ins></span> FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="mailto:address@hidden"><em>address@hidden</em></a>.</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.</em></ins></span>
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
+the FSF.
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><br />
+Please send broken</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Broken</em></ins></span> links and other corrections
or suggestions <span class="inserted"><ins><em>can be sent</em></ins></span>
+to <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="mailto:address@hidden"><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
+</p>
+
+<p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>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>. --></em></ins></span>
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this <span class="removed"><del><strong>article.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Copyright</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>article.</p>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+ be under CC BY-ND 3.0 US. Please do NOT change or remove this
+ without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+ Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+ document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+ document was modified, or published.
+
+ If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+ Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+ years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+ year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+ being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+
+ There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+ Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
+
+<p>Copyright</em></ins></span> © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000,
2001, 2002, 2003, 2004,
+2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 Free Software Foundation, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Inc.,</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Inc.</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>License</a>.
+</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>License</a>.</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p>Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2013/04/12 08:02:46 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><!-- 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."
--></strong></del></span>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.cs-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.cs-diff.html
diff -N gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.cs-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.cs-diff.html 12 Apr 2013 08:02:47 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,293 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!-- Parent-Version: 1.75
--></em></ins></span>
+<title>Why GNU/Linux?
+- GNU Project - Free Software <span class="removed"><del><strong>Foundation
(FSF)</title></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Foundation</title></em></ins></span>
+<!--#include <span
class="removed"><del><strong>virtual="/server/banner.html"</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>virtual="/gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.translist"</em></ins></span>
-->
+<!--#include <span
class="removed"><del><strong>virtual="/gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.translist"</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>virtual="/server/banner.html"</em></ins></span> -->
+<h2>What's in a Name?</h2>
+
+<p><strong>by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/">Richard
Stallman</a></strong></p>
+
+<div class="announcement">
+ <blockquote><p>To learn more about this issue, you can read
+our <a href="/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html">GNU/Linux FAQ</a>, our page
on
+<a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">Linux and the GNU Project</a>,
which gives a history of the GNU/Linux system as it relates to this issue of
naming,
+and our page on <a href="/gnu/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.html">GNU
+Users Who Have Never Heard of GNU</a>.
+
+</p></blockquote>
+</div>
+
+<p>
+Names convey meanings; our choice of names determines the meaning of
+what we say. An inappropriate name gives people the wrong idea. A
+rose by any other name would smell as sweet—but if you call it a pen,
+people will be rather disappointed when they try to write with it.
+And if you call pens “roses”, people may not realize what
+they are good for. If you call our operating system
+Linux, that conveys a mistaken idea of the system's
+origin, history, and purpose. If you call
+it <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a>, that conveys
+(though not in detail) an accurate idea.</p>
+<p>
+Does this really matter for our community? Is it important whether people
+know the system's origin, history, and purpose? Yes—because people
+who forget history are often condemned to repeat it. The Free World
+that has developed around <a
href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a>
+is not guaranteed to survive; the problems that
+led us to develop GNU are not completely eradicated, and they threaten
+to come back.</p>
+
+<p>
+When I explain why it's appropriate to call the operating system
+GNU/Linux rather than Linux, people
+sometimes respond this way:</p>
+
+<blockquote><p>
+<em>
+ Granted that the GNU Project deserves credit for this work, is
+ it really worth a fuss when people don't give credit? Isn't the
+ important thing that the job was done, not who did it? You
+ ought to relax, take pride in the job well done, and not worry
+ about the credit.
+</em>
+</p></blockquote>
+<p>
+This would be wise advice, if only the situation were like that—if
+the job were done and it were time to relax. If only that were true!
+But challenges abound, and this is no time to take the future for
+granted. Our community's strength rests on commitment to freedom and
+cooperation. Using the name <a
href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a>
+is a way for people to remind
+themselves and inform others of these goals.</p>
+
+<p>
+It is possible to write good free software without thinking of GNU;
+much good work has been done in the name of Linux also. But the term
+“Linux” has been associated ever since it was first coined
+with a philosophy that does not make a commitment to the freedom to
+cooperate. As the name is increasingly used by business, we will
+have even more trouble making it connect with community spirit.</p>
+
+<p>
+A great challenge to the future of free software comes from the
+tendency of the “Linux” distribution companies to add
+nonfree software to <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a>
+in the name of convenience and power. All the major commercial
+distribution developers do this; none limits itself to free software.
+Most of them do not clearly identify the nonfree
+packages in their distributions. Many even develop nonfree software
+and add it to the system. Some outrageously advertise
+“Linux” systems that are “licensed per seat”,
+which give the user as much freedom as Microsoft Windows.</p>
+
+<p>
+People try to justify adding nonfree software in the name of the
+“popularity of Linux”—in effect, valuing popularity above
+freedom. Sometimes this is openly admitted. For instance, Wired
+Magazine said that Robert McMillan, editor of Linux Magazine, “feels
+that the move toward open source software should be fueled by
+technical, rather than political, decisions.” And Caldera's
+<acronym title="Chief Executive Officer">CEO</acronym> openly urged
+users to drop the goal of freedom and work instead for the
+“popularity of Linux”.
+
+<a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://web.archive.org/web/20000920053929/http://www.zdnet.com/filters/printerfriendly/
+0,6061,2552025-2,00.html">
+(http://web.archive.org/web/20000920053929/http://www.zdnet.com/filters/printerfriendly/
+0,6061,2552025-2,00.html)</a></strong></del></span>
+<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="http://web.archive.org/web/20000920053929/http://www.zdnet.com/filters/printerfriendly/0,6061,2552025-2,00.html">
+(http://web.archive.org/web/20000920053929/http://www.zdnet.com/filters/printerfriendly/0,6061,2552025-2,00.html)
+</a></em></ins></span>
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Adding nonfree software to the <a
+href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a> system may increase the
+popularity, if by popularity we mean the number of people using some
+of <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a> in combination
with
+nonfree software. But at the same time, it implicitly encourages the
+community to accept nonfree software as a good thing, and forget the
+goal of freedom. It is not good to drive faster if you can't stay on the
+road.</p>
+
+<p>
+When the nonfree “add-on” is a library or programming
+tool, it can become a trap for free software developers. When they
+write free software that depends on the nonfree package, their
+software cannot be part of a completely free system. Motif and Qt
+trapped large amounts of free software in this way in the past,
+creating problems whose solutions took years. Motif remained somewhat
+of a problem until it became obsolete and was no longer used. Later,
+Sun's nonfree Java implementation had a similar effect:
+the <a href="/philosophy/java-trap.html">Java Trap</a>,
fortunately now
+mostly corrected.</p>
+
+<p>
+If our community keeps moving in this direction, it could redirect the
+future of <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a> into a
mosaic of free and nonfree components.
+Five years from now, we will surely still have plenty of free
+software; but if we are not careful, it will hardly be usable without
+the nonfree software that users expect to find with it. If this
+happens, our campaign for freedom will have failed.</p>
+
+<p>
+If releasing free alternatives were simply a matter of programming,
+solving future problems might become easier as our community's
+development resources increase. But we face obstacles that threaten
+to make this harder: laws that prohibit free software. As software
+patents mount up, and as laws like the
+<acronym title="Digital Millennium Copyright Act">DMCA</acronym>
are
+used to prohibit the development of free software for important jobs
+such as viewing a DVD or listening to a RealAudio stream, we will find
+ourselves with no clear way to fight the patented and secret data
+formats except to <strong>reject the nonfree programs that use
+them</strong>.</p>
+
+<p>
+Meeting these challenges will require many different kinds of effort.
+But what we need above all, to confront any kind of challenge, is to
+remember the goal of freedom to cooperate. We can't expect a mere
+desire for powerful, reliable software to motivate people to make
+great efforts. We need the kind of determination that people have
+when they fight for their freedom and their community—determination
+to keep on for years and not give up.</p>
+
+<p>
+In our community, this goal and this determination emanate mainly from
+the GNU Project. We're the ones who talk about freedom and community
+as something to stand firm for; the organizations that speak of
+“Linux” normally don't say this. The magazines about
+“Linux” are typically full of ads for nonfree software;
+the companies that package “Linux” add nonfree software
+to the system; other companies “support Linux” by
+developing nonfree applications to run on GNU/Linux; the user groups
+for “Linux” typically invite salesman to present those
+applications. The main place people in our community are likely to
+come across the idea of freedom and determination is in the GNU
+Project.</p>
+
+<p>
+But when people come across it, will they feel it relates to them?</p>
+
+<p>
+People who know they are using a system that came out of the GNU
+Project can see a direct relationship between themselves and GNU.
+They won't automatically agree with our philosophy, but at least they
+will see a reason to think seriously about it. In contrast, people
+who consider themselves “Linux users”, and believe that
+the GNU Project “developed tools which proved to be useful in
+Linux”, typically perceive only an indirect relationship between
+GNU and themselves. They may just ignore the GNU philosophy when they
+come across it.</p>
+
+<p>
+The GNU Project is idealistic, and anyone encouraging idealism today
+faces a great obstacle: the prevailing ideology encourages people to
+dismiss idealism as “impractical”. Our idealism has been
+extremely practical: it is the reason we have a
+free <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a> operating
system.
+People who love this system ought to know that it is our idealism made
+real.</p>
+
+<p>
+If “the job” really were done, if there were nothing at
+stake except credit, perhaps it would be wiser to let the matter drop.
+But we are not in that position. To inspire people to do the work
+that needs to be done, we need to be recognized for what we have
+already done. Please help us, by calling the operating
+system <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a>.</p>
+
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong></div></strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div><!-- for id="content", starts
in the include above --></em></ins></span>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>
+Please</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p>Please</em></ins></span> send <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>general</em></ins></span> 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.
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><br />
+Please send broken</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Broken</em></ins></span> links and other corrections
or suggestions <span class="inserted"><ins><em>can be sent</em></ins></span>
+to <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.
+</p>
+
+<p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>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>. --></em></ins></span>
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this <span class="removed"><del><strong>article.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Copyright</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>article.</p>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+ be under CC BY-ND 3.0 US. Please do NOT change or remove this
+ without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+ Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+ document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+ document was modified, or published.
+
+ If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+ Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+ years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+ year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+ being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+
+ There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+ Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
+
+<p>Copyright</em></ins></span> © 2000, 2006, 2007 Richard <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Stallman
+<br />
+This</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>Stallman</p>
+
+<p>This</em></ins></span> 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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>License</a>.
+</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>License</a>.</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p>Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2013/04/12 08:02:47 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.el-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.el-diff.html
diff -N gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.el-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.el-diff.html 12 Apr 2013 08:02:47 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,293 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!-- Parent-Version: 1.75
--></em></ins></span>
+<title>Why GNU/Linux?
+- GNU Project - Free Software <span class="removed"><del><strong>Foundation
(FSF)</title></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Foundation</title></em></ins></span>
+<!--#include <span
class="removed"><del><strong>virtual="/server/banner.html"</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>virtual="/gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.translist"</em></ins></span>
-->
+<!--#include <span
class="removed"><del><strong>virtual="/gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.translist"</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>virtual="/server/banner.html"</em></ins></span> -->
+<h2>What's in a Name?</h2>
+
+<p><strong>by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/">Richard
Stallman</a></strong></p>
+
+<div class="announcement">
+ <blockquote><p>To learn more about this issue, you can read
+our <a href="/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html">GNU/Linux FAQ</a>, our page
on
+<a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">Linux and the GNU Project</a>,
which gives a history of the GNU/Linux system as it relates to this issue of
naming,
+and our page on <a href="/gnu/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.html">GNU
+Users Who Have Never Heard of GNU</a>.
+
+</p></blockquote>
+</div>
+
+<p>
+Names convey meanings; our choice of names determines the meaning of
+what we say. An inappropriate name gives people the wrong idea. A
+rose by any other name would smell as sweet—but if you call it a pen,
+people will be rather disappointed when they try to write with it.
+And if you call pens “roses”, people may not realize what
+they are good for. If you call our operating system
+Linux, that conveys a mistaken idea of the system's
+origin, history, and purpose. If you call
+it <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a>, that conveys
+(though not in detail) an accurate idea.</p>
+<p>
+Does this really matter for our community? Is it important whether people
+know the system's origin, history, and purpose? Yes—because people
+who forget history are often condemned to repeat it. The Free World
+that has developed around <a
href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a>
+is not guaranteed to survive; the problems that
+led us to develop GNU are not completely eradicated, and they threaten
+to come back.</p>
+
+<p>
+When I explain why it's appropriate to call the operating system
+GNU/Linux rather than Linux, people
+sometimes respond this way:</p>
+
+<blockquote><p>
+<em>
+ Granted that the GNU Project deserves credit for this work, is
+ it really worth a fuss when people don't give credit? Isn't the
+ important thing that the job was done, not who did it? You
+ ought to relax, take pride in the job well done, and not worry
+ about the credit.
+</em>
+</p></blockquote>
+<p>
+This would be wise advice, if only the situation were like that—if
+the job were done and it were time to relax. If only that were true!
+But challenges abound, and this is no time to take the future for
+granted. Our community's strength rests on commitment to freedom and
+cooperation. Using the name <a
href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a>
+is a way for people to remind
+themselves and inform others of these goals.</p>
+
+<p>
+It is possible to write good free software without thinking of GNU;
+much good work has been done in the name of Linux also. But the term
+“Linux” has been associated ever since it was first coined
+with a philosophy that does not make a commitment to the freedom to
+cooperate. As the name is increasingly used by business, we will
+have even more trouble making it connect with community spirit.</p>
+
+<p>
+A great challenge to the future of free software comes from the
+tendency of the “Linux” distribution companies to add
+nonfree software to <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a>
+in the name of convenience and power. All the major commercial
+distribution developers do this; none limits itself to free software.
+Most of them do not clearly identify the nonfree
+packages in their distributions. Many even develop nonfree software
+and add it to the system. Some outrageously advertise
+“Linux” systems that are “licensed per seat”,
+which give the user as much freedom as Microsoft Windows.</p>
+
+<p>
+People try to justify adding nonfree software in the name of the
+“popularity of Linux”—in effect, valuing popularity above
+freedom. Sometimes this is openly admitted. For instance, Wired
+Magazine said that Robert McMillan, editor of Linux Magazine, “feels
+that the move toward open source software should be fueled by
+technical, rather than political, decisions.” And Caldera's
+<acronym title="Chief Executive Officer">CEO</acronym> openly urged
+users to drop the goal of freedom and work instead for the
+“popularity of Linux”.
+
+<a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://web.archive.org/web/20000920053929/http://www.zdnet.com/filters/printerfriendly/
+0,6061,2552025-2,00.html">
+(http://web.archive.org/web/20000920053929/http://www.zdnet.com/filters/printerfriendly/
+0,6061,2552025-2,00.html)</a></strong></del></span>
+<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="http://web.archive.org/web/20000920053929/http://www.zdnet.com/filters/printerfriendly/0,6061,2552025-2,00.html">
+(http://web.archive.org/web/20000920053929/http://www.zdnet.com/filters/printerfriendly/0,6061,2552025-2,00.html)
+</a></em></ins></span>
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Adding nonfree software to the <a
+href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a> system may increase the
+popularity, if by popularity we mean the number of people using some
+of <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a> in combination
with
+nonfree software. But at the same time, it implicitly encourages the
+community to accept nonfree software as a good thing, and forget the
+goal of freedom. It is not good to drive faster if you can't stay on the
+road.</p>
+
+<p>
+When the nonfree “add-on” is a library or programming
+tool, it can become a trap for free software developers. When they
+write free software that depends on the nonfree package, their
+software cannot be part of a completely free system. Motif and Qt
+trapped large amounts of free software in this way in the past,
+creating problems whose solutions took years. Motif remained somewhat
+of a problem until it became obsolete and was no longer used. Later,
+Sun's nonfree Java implementation had a similar effect:
+the <a href="/philosophy/java-trap.html">Java Trap</a>,
fortunately now
+mostly corrected.</p>
+
+<p>
+If our community keeps moving in this direction, it could redirect the
+future of <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a> into a
mosaic of free and nonfree components.
+Five years from now, we will surely still have plenty of free
+software; but if we are not careful, it will hardly be usable without
+the nonfree software that users expect to find with it. If this
+happens, our campaign for freedom will have failed.</p>
+
+<p>
+If releasing free alternatives were simply a matter of programming,
+solving future problems might become easier as our community's
+development resources increase. But we face obstacles that threaten
+to make this harder: laws that prohibit free software. As software
+patents mount up, and as laws like the
+<acronym title="Digital Millennium Copyright Act">DMCA</acronym>
are
+used to prohibit the development of free software for important jobs
+such as viewing a DVD or listening to a RealAudio stream, we will find
+ourselves with no clear way to fight the patented and secret data
+formats except to <strong>reject the nonfree programs that use
+them</strong>.</p>
+
+<p>
+Meeting these challenges will require many different kinds of effort.
+But what we need above all, to confront any kind of challenge, is to
+remember the goal of freedom to cooperate. We can't expect a mere
+desire for powerful, reliable software to motivate people to make
+great efforts. We need the kind of determination that people have
+when they fight for their freedom and their community—determination
+to keep on for years and not give up.</p>
+
+<p>
+In our community, this goal and this determination emanate mainly from
+the GNU Project. We're the ones who talk about freedom and community
+as something to stand firm for; the organizations that speak of
+“Linux” normally don't say this. The magazines about
+“Linux” are typically full of ads for nonfree software;
+the companies that package “Linux” add nonfree software
+to the system; other companies “support Linux” by
+developing nonfree applications to run on GNU/Linux; the user groups
+for “Linux” typically invite salesman to present those
+applications. The main place people in our community are likely to
+come across the idea of freedom and determination is in the GNU
+Project.</p>
+
+<p>
+But when people come across it, will they feel it relates to them?</p>
+
+<p>
+People who know they are using a system that came out of the GNU
+Project can see a direct relationship between themselves and GNU.
+They won't automatically agree with our philosophy, but at least they
+will see a reason to think seriously about it. In contrast, people
+who consider themselves “Linux users”, and believe that
+the GNU Project “developed tools which proved to be useful in
+Linux”, typically perceive only an indirect relationship between
+GNU and themselves. They may just ignore the GNU philosophy when they
+come across it.</p>
+
+<p>
+The GNU Project is idealistic, and anyone encouraging idealism today
+faces a great obstacle: the prevailing ideology encourages people to
+dismiss idealism as “impractical”. Our idealism has been
+extremely practical: it is the reason we have a
+free <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a> operating
system.
+People who love this system ought to know that it is our idealism made
+real.</p>
+
+<p>
+If “the job” really were done, if there were nothing at
+stake except credit, perhaps it would be wiser to let the matter drop.
+But we are not in that position. To inspire people to do the work
+that needs to be done, we need to be recognized for what we have
+already done. Please help us, by calling the operating
+system <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a>.</p>
+
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong></div></strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div><!-- for id="content", starts
in the include above --></em></ins></span>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>
+Please</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p>Please</em></ins></span> send <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>general</em></ins></span> 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.
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><br />
+Please send broken</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Broken</em></ins></span> links and other corrections
or suggestions <span class="inserted"><ins><em>can be sent</em></ins></span>
+to <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.
+</p>
+
+<p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>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>. --></em></ins></span>
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this <span class="removed"><del><strong>article.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Copyright</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>article.</p>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+ be under CC BY-ND 3.0 US. Please do NOT change or remove this
+ without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+ Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+ document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+ document was modified, or published.
+
+ If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+ Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+ years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+ year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+ being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+
+ There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+ Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
+
+<p>Copyright</em></ins></span> © 2000, 2006, 2007 Richard <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Stallman
+<br />
+This</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>Stallman</p>
+
+<p>This</em></ins></span> 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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>License</a>.
+</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>License</a>.</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p>Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2013/04/12 08:02:47 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.ko-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.ko-diff.html
diff -N gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.ko-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.ko-diff.html 12 Apr 2013 08:02:47 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,293 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!-- Parent-Version: 1.75
--></em></ins></span>
+<title>Why GNU/Linux?
+- GNU Project - Free Software <span class="removed"><del><strong>Foundation
(FSF)</title></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Foundation</title></em></ins></span>
+<!--#include <span
class="removed"><del><strong>virtual="/server/banner.html"</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>virtual="/gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.translist"</em></ins></span>
-->
+<!--#include <span
class="removed"><del><strong>virtual="/gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.translist"</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>virtual="/server/banner.html"</em></ins></span> -->
+<h2>What's in a Name?</h2>
+
+<p><strong>by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/">Richard
Stallman</a></strong></p>
+
+<div class="announcement">
+ <blockquote><p>To learn more about this issue, you can read
+our <a href="/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html">GNU/Linux FAQ</a>, our page
on
+<a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">Linux and the GNU Project</a>,
which gives a history of the GNU/Linux system as it relates to this issue of
naming,
+and our page on <a href="/gnu/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.html">GNU
+Users Who Have Never Heard of GNU</a>.
+
+</p></blockquote>
+</div>
+
+<p>
+Names convey meanings; our choice of names determines the meaning of
+what we say. An inappropriate name gives people the wrong idea. A
+rose by any other name would smell as sweet—but if you call it a pen,
+people will be rather disappointed when they try to write with it.
+And if you call pens “roses”, people may not realize what
+they are good for. If you call our operating system
+Linux, that conveys a mistaken idea of the system's
+origin, history, and purpose. If you call
+it <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a>, that conveys
+(though not in detail) an accurate idea.</p>
+<p>
+Does this really matter for our community? Is it important whether people
+know the system's origin, history, and purpose? Yes—because people
+who forget history are often condemned to repeat it. The Free World
+that has developed around <a
href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a>
+is not guaranteed to survive; the problems that
+led us to develop GNU are not completely eradicated, and they threaten
+to come back.</p>
+
+<p>
+When I explain why it's appropriate to call the operating system
+GNU/Linux rather than Linux, people
+sometimes respond this way:</p>
+
+<blockquote><p>
+<em>
+ Granted that the GNU Project deserves credit for this work, is
+ it really worth a fuss when people don't give credit? Isn't the
+ important thing that the job was done, not who did it? You
+ ought to relax, take pride in the job well done, and not worry
+ about the credit.
+</em>
+</p></blockquote>
+<p>
+This would be wise advice, if only the situation were like that—if
+the job were done and it were time to relax. If only that were true!
+But challenges abound, and this is no time to take the future for
+granted. Our community's strength rests on commitment to freedom and
+cooperation. Using the name <a
href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a>
+is a way for people to remind
+themselves and inform others of these goals.</p>
+
+<p>
+It is possible to write good free software without thinking of GNU;
+much good work has been done in the name of Linux also. But the term
+“Linux” has been associated ever since it was first coined
+with a philosophy that does not make a commitment to the freedom to
+cooperate. As the name is increasingly used by business, we will
+have even more trouble making it connect with community spirit.</p>
+
+<p>
+A great challenge to the future of free software comes from the
+tendency of the “Linux” distribution companies to add
+nonfree software to <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a>
+in the name of convenience and power. All the major commercial
+distribution developers do this; none limits itself to free software.
+Most of them do not clearly identify the nonfree
+packages in their distributions. Many even develop nonfree software
+and add it to the system. Some outrageously advertise
+“Linux” systems that are “licensed per seat”,
+which give the user as much freedom as Microsoft Windows.</p>
+
+<p>
+People try to justify adding nonfree software in the name of the
+“popularity of Linux”—in effect, valuing popularity above
+freedom. Sometimes this is openly admitted. For instance, Wired
+Magazine said that Robert McMillan, editor of Linux Magazine, “feels
+that the move toward open source software should be fueled by
+technical, rather than political, decisions.” And Caldera's
+<acronym title="Chief Executive Officer">CEO</acronym> openly urged
+users to drop the goal of freedom and work instead for the
+“popularity of Linux”.
+
+<a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://web.archive.org/web/20000920053929/http://www.zdnet.com/filters/printerfriendly/
+0,6061,2552025-2,00.html">
+(http://web.archive.org/web/20000920053929/http://www.zdnet.com/filters/printerfriendly/
+0,6061,2552025-2,00.html)</a></strong></del></span>
+<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="http://web.archive.org/web/20000920053929/http://www.zdnet.com/filters/printerfriendly/0,6061,2552025-2,00.html">
+(http://web.archive.org/web/20000920053929/http://www.zdnet.com/filters/printerfriendly/0,6061,2552025-2,00.html)
+</a></em></ins></span>
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Adding nonfree software to the <a
+href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a> system may increase the
+popularity, if by popularity we mean the number of people using some
+of <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a> in combination
with
+nonfree software. But at the same time, it implicitly encourages the
+community to accept nonfree software as a good thing, and forget the
+goal of freedom. It is not good to drive faster if you can't stay on the
+road.</p>
+
+<p>
+When the nonfree “add-on” is a library or programming
+tool, it can become a trap for free software developers. When they
+write free software that depends on the nonfree package, their
+software cannot be part of a completely free system. Motif and Qt
+trapped large amounts of free software in this way in the past,
+creating problems whose solutions took years. Motif remained somewhat
+of a problem until it became obsolete and was no longer used. Later,
+Sun's nonfree Java implementation had a similar effect:
+the <a href="/philosophy/java-trap.html">Java Trap</a>,
fortunately now
+mostly corrected.</p>
+
+<p>
+If our community keeps moving in this direction, it could redirect the
+future of <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a> into a
mosaic of free and nonfree components.
+Five years from now, we will surely still have plenty of free
+software; but if we are not careful, it will hardly be usable without
+the nonfree software that users expect to find with it. If this
+happens, our campaign for freedom will have failed.</p>
+
+<p>
+If releasing free alternatives were simply a matter of programming,
+solving future problems might become easier as our community's
+development resources increase. But we face obstacles that threaten
+to make this harder: laws that prohibit free software. As software
+patents mount up, and as laws like the
+<acronym title="Digital Millennium Copyright Act">DMCA</acronym>
are
+used to prohibit the development of free software for important jobs
+such as viewing a DVD or listening to a RealAudio stream, we will find
+ourselves with no clear way to fight the patented and secret data
+formats except to <strong>reject the nonfree programs that use
+them</strong>.</p>
+
+<p>
+Meeting these challenges will require many different kinds of effort.
+But what we need above all, to confront any kind of challenge, is to
+remember the goal of freedom to cooperate. We can't expect a mere
+desire for powerful, reliable software to motivate people to make
+great efforts. We need the kind of determination that people have
+when they fight for their freedom and their community—determination
+to keep on for years and not give up.</p>
+
+<p>
+In our community, this goal and this determination emanate mainly from
+the GNU Project. We're the ones who talk about freedom and community
+as something to stand firm for; the organizations that speak of
+“Linux” normally don't say this. The magazines about
+“Linux” are typically full of ads for nonfree software;
+the companies that package “Linux” add nonfree software
+to the system; other companies “support Linux” by
+developing nonfree applications to run on GNU/Linux; the user groups
+for “Linux” typically invite salesman to present those
+applications. The main place people in our community are likely to
+come across the idea of freedom and determination is in the GNU
+Project.</p>
+
+<p>
+But when people come across it, will they feel it relates to them?</p>
+
+<p>
+People who know they are using a system that came out of the GNU
+Project can see a direct relationship between themselves and GNU.
+They won't automatically agree with our philosophy, but at least they
+will see a reason to think seriously about it. In contrast, people
+who consider themselves “Linux users”, and believe that
+the GNU Project “developed tools which proved to be useful in
+Linux”, typically perceive only an indirect relationship between
+GNU and themselves. They may just ignore the GNU philosophy when they
+come across it.</p>
+
+<p>
+The GNU Project is idealistic, and anyone encouraging idealism today
+faces a great obstacle: the prevailing ideology encourages people to
+dismiss idealism as “impractical”. Our idealism has been
+extremely practical: it is the reason we have a
+free <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a> operating
system.
+People who love this system ought to know that it is our idealism made
+real.</p>
+
+<p>
+If “the job” really were done, if there were nothing at
+stake except credit, perhaps it would be wiser to let the matter drop.
+But we are not in that position. To inspire people to do the work
+that needs to be done, we need to be recognized for what we have
+already done. Please help us, by calling the operating
+system <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a>.</p>
+
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong></div></strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div><!-- for id="content", starts
in the include above --></em></ins></span>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>
+Please</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p>Please</em></ins></span> send <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>general</em></ins></span> 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.
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><br />
+Please send broken</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Broken</em></ins></span> links and other corrections
or suggestions <span class="inserted"><ins><em>can be sent</em></ins></span>
+to <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.
+</p>
+
+<p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>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>. --></em></ins></span>
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this <span class="removed"><del><strong>article.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Copyright</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>article.</p>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+ be under CC BY-ND 3.0 US. Please do NOT change or remove this
+ without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+ Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+ document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+ document was modified, or published.
+
+ If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+ Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+ years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+ year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+ being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+
+ There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+ Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
+
+<p>Copyright</em></ins></span> © 2000, 2006, 2007 Richard <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Stallman
+<br />
+This</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>Stallman</p>
+
+<p>This</em></ins></span> 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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>License</a>.
+</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>License</a>.</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p>Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2013/04/12 08:02:47 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.nl-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.nl-diff.html
diff -N gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.nl-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.nl-diff.html 12 Apr 2013 08:02:47 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,293 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!-- Parent-Version: 1.75
--></em></ins></span>
+<title>Why GNU/Linux?
+- GNU Project - Free Software <span class="removed"><del><strong>Foundation
(FSF)</title></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Foundation</title></em></ins></span>
+<!--#include <span
class="removed"><del><strong>virtual="/server/banner.html"</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>virtual="/gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.translist"</em></ins></span>
-->
+<!--#include <span
class="removed"><del><strong>virtual="/gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.translist"</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>virtual="/server/banner.html"</em></ins></span> -->
+<h2>What's in a Name?</h2>
+
+<p><strong>by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/">Richard
Stallman</a></strong></p>
+
+<div class="announcement">
+ <blockquote><p>To learn more about this issue, you can read
+our <a href="/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html">GNU/Linux FAQ</a>, our page
on
+<a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">Linux and the GNU Project</a>,
which gives a history of the GNU/Linux system as it relates to this issue of
naming,
+and our page on <a href="/gnu/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.html">GNU
+Users Who Have Never Heard of GNU</a>.
+
+</p></blockquote>
+</div>
+
+<p>
+Names convey meanings; our choice of names determines the meaning of
+what we say. An inappropriate name gives people the wrong idea. A
+rose by any other name would smell as sweet—but if you call it a pen,
+people will be rather disappointed when they try to write with it.
+And if you call pens “roses”, people may not realize what
+they are good for. If you call our operating system
+Linux, that conveys a mistaken idea of the system's
+origin, history, and purpose. If you call
+it <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a>, that conveys
+(though not in detail) an accurate idea.</p>
+<p>
+Does this really matter for our community? Is it important whether people
+know the system's origin, history, and purpose? Yes—because people
+who forget history are often condemned to repeat it. The Free World
+that has developed around <a
href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a>
+is not guaranteed to survive; the problems that
+led us to develop GNU are not completely eradicated, and they threaten
+to come back.</p>
+
+<p>
+When I explain why it's appropriate to call the operating system
+GNU/Linux rather than Linux, people
+sometimes respond this way:</p>
+
+<blockquote><p>
+<em>
+ Granted that the GNU Project deserves credit for this work, is
+ it really worth a fuss when people don't give credit? Isn't the
+ important thing that the job was done, not who did it? You
+ ought to relax, take pride in the job well done, and not worry
+ about the credit.
+</em>
+</p></blockquote>
+<p>
+This would be wise advice, if only the situation were like that—if
+the job were done and it were time to relax. If only that were true!
+But challenges abound, and this is no time to take the future for
+granted. Our community's strength rests on commitment to freedom and
+cooperation. Using the name <a
href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a>
+is a way for people to remind
+themselves and inform others of these goals.</p>
+
+<p>
+It is possible to write good free software without thinking of GNU;
+much good work has been done in the name of Linux also. But the term
+“Linux” has been associated ever since it was first coined
+with a philosophy that does not make a commitment to the freedom to
+cooperate. As the name is increasingly used by business, we will
+have even more trouble making it connect with community spirit.</p>
+
+<p>
+A great challenge to the future of free software comes from the
+tendency of the “Linux” distribution companies to add
+nonfree software to <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a>
+in the name of convenience and power. All the major commercial
+distribution developers do this; none limits itself to free software.
+Most of them do not clearly identify the nonfree
+packages in their distributions. Many even develop nonfree software
+and add it to the system. Some outrageously advertise
+“Linux” systems that are “licensed per seat”,
+which give the user as much freedom as Microsoft Windows.</p>
+
+<p>
+People try to justify adding nonfree software in the name of the
+“popularity of Linux”—in effect, valuing popularity above
+freedom. Sometimes this is openly admitted. For instance, Wired
+Magazine said that Robert McMillan, editor of Linux Magazine, “feels
+that the move toward open source software should be fueled by
+technical, rather than political, decisions.” And Caldera's
+<acronym title="Chief Executive Officer">CEO</acronym> openly urged
+users to drop the goal of freedom and work instead for the
+“popularity of Linux”.
+
+<a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://web.archive.org/web/20000920053929/http://www.zdnet.com/filters/printerfriendly/
+0,6061,2552025-2,00.html">
+(http://web.archive.org/web/20000920053929/http://www.zdnet.com/filters/printerfriendly/
+0,6061,2552025-2,00.html)</a></strong></del></span>
+<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="http://web.archive.org/web/20000920053929/http://www.zdnet.com/filters/printerfriendly/0,6061,2552025-2,00.html">
+(http://web.archive.org/web/20000920053929/http://www.zdnet.com/filters/printerfriendly/0,6061,2552025-2,00.html)
+</a></em></ins></span>
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Adding nonfree software to the <a
+href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a> system may increase the
+popularity, if by popularity we mean the number of people using some
+of <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a> in combination
with
+nonfree software. But at the same time, it implicitly encourages the
+community to accept nonfree software as a good thing, and forget the
+goal of freedom. It is not good to drive faster if you can't stay on the
+road.</p>
+
+<p>
+When the nonfree “add-on” is a library or programming
+tool, it can become a trap for free software developers. When they
+write free software that depends on the nonfree package, their
+software cannot be part of a completely free system. Motif and Qt
+trapped large amounts of free software in this way in the past,
+creating problems whose solutions took years. Motif remained somewhat
+of a problem until it became obsolete and was no longer used. Later,
+Sun's nonfree Java implementation had a similar effect:
+the <a href="/philosophy/java-trap.html">Java Trap</a>,
fortunately now
+mostly corrected.</p>
+
+<p>
+If our community keeps moving in this direction, it could redirect the
+future of <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a> into a
mosaic of free and nonfree components.
+Five years from now, we will surely still have plenty of free
+software; but if we are not careful, it will hardly be usable without
+the nonfree software that users expect to find with it. If this
+happens, our campaign for freedom will have failed.</p>
+
+<p>
+If releasing free alternatives were simply a matter of programming,
+solving future problems might become easier as our community's
+development resources increase. But we face obstacles that threaten
+to make this harder: laws that prohibit free software. As software
+patents mount up, and as laws like the
+<acronym title="Digital Millennium Copyright Act">DMCA</acronym>
are
+used to prohibit the development of free software for important jobs
+such as viewing a DVD or listening to a RealAudio stream, we will find
+ourselves with no clear way to fight the patented and secret data
+formats except to <strong>reject the nonfree programs that use
+them</strong>.</p>
+
+<p>
+Meeting these challenges will require many different kinds of effort.
+But what we need above all, to confront any kind of challenge, is to
+remember the goal of freedom to cooperate. We can't expect a mere
+desire for powerful, reliable software to motivate people to make
+great efforts. We need the kind of determination that people have
+when they fight for their freedom and their community—determination
+to keep on for years and not give up.</p>
+
+<p>
+In our community, this goal and this determination emanate mainly from
+the GNU Project. We're the ones who talk about freedom and community
+as something to stand firm for; the organizations that speak of
+“Linux” normally don't say this. The magazines about
+“Linux” are typically full of ads for nonfree software;
+the companies that package “Linux” add nonfree software
+to the system; other companies “support Linux” by
+developing nonfree applications to run on GNU/Linux; the user groups
+for “Linux” typically invite salesman to present those
+applications. The main place people in our community are likely to
+come across the idea of freedom and determination is in the GNU
+Project.</p>
+
+<p>
+But when people come across it, will they feel it relates to them?</p>
+
+<p>
+People who know they are using a system that came out of the GNU
+Project can see a direct relationship between themselves and GNU.
+They won't automatically agree with our philosophy, but at least they
+will see a reason to think seriously about it. In contrast, people
+who consider themselves “Linux users”, and believe that
+the GNU Project “developed tools which proved to be useful in
+Linux”, typically perceive only an indirect relationship between
+GNU and themselves. They may just ignore the GNU philosophy when they
+come across it.</p>
+
+<p>
+The GNU Project is idealistic, and anyone encouraging idealism today
+faces a great obstacle: the prevailing ideology encourages people to
+dismiss idealism as “impractical”. Our idealism has been
+extremely practical: it is the reason we have a
+free <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a> operating
system.
+People who love this system ought to know that it is our idealism made
+real.</p>
+
+<p>
+If “the job” really were done, if there were nothing at
+stake except credit, perhaps it would be wiser to let the matter drop.
+But we are not in that position. To inspire people to do the work
+that needs to be done, we need to be recognized for what we have
+already done. Please help us, by calling the operating
+system <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a>.</p>
+
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong></div></strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div><!-- for id="content", starts
in the include above --></em></ins></span>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>
+Please</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p>Please</em></ins></span> send <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>general</em></ins></span> 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.
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><br />
+Please send broken</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Broken</em></ins></span> links and other corrections
or suggestions <span class="inserted"><ins><em>can be sent</em></ins></span>
+to <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.
+</p>
+
+<p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>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>. --></em></ins></span>
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this <span class="removed"><del><strong>article.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Copyright</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>article.</p>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+ be under CC BY-ND 3.0 US. Please do NOT change or remove this
+ without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+ Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+ document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+ document was modified, or published.
+
+ If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+ Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+ years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+ year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+ being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+
+ There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+ Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
+
+<p>Copyright</em></ins></span> © 2000, 2006, 2007 Richard <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Stallman
+<br />
+This</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>Stallman</p>
+
+<p>This</em></ins></span> 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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>License</a>.
+</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>License</a>.</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p>Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2013/04/12 08:02:47 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.pt-br-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.pt-br-diff.html
diff -N gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.pt-br-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.pt-br-diff.html 12 Apr 2013 08:02:47 -0000
1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,293 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!-- Parent-Version: 1.75
--></em></ins></span>
+<title>Why GNU/Linux?
+- GNU Project - Free Software <span class="removed"><del><strong>Foundation
(FSF)</title></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Foundation</title></em></ins></span>
+<!--#include <span
class="removed"><del><strong>virtual="/server/banner.html"</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>virtual="/gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.translist"</em></ins></span>
-->
+<!--#include <span
class="removed"><del><strong>virtual="/gnu/po/why-gnu-linux.translist"</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>virtual="/server/banner.html"</em></ins></span> -->
+<h2>What's in a Name?</h2>
+
+<p><strong>by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/">Richard
Stallman</a></strong></p>
+
+<div class="announcement">
+ <blockquote><p>To learn more about this issue, you can read
+our <a href="/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html">GNU/Linux FAQ</a>, our page
on
+<a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">Linux and the GNU Project</a>,
which gives a history of the GNU/Linux system as it relates to this issue of
naming,
+and our page on <a href="/gnu/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.html">GNU
+Users Who Have Never Heard of GNU</a>.
+
+</p></blockquote>
+</div>
+
+<p>
+Names convey meanings; our choice of names determines the meaning of
+what we say. An inappropriate name gives people the wrong idea. A
+rose by any other name would smell as sweet—but if you call it a pen,
+people will be rather disappointed when they try to write with it.
+And if you call pens “roses”, people may not realize what
+they are good for. If you call our operating system
+Linux, that conveys a mistaken idea of the system's
+origin, history, and purpose. If you call
+it <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a>, that conveys
+(though not in detail) an accurate idea.</p>
+<p>
+Does this really matter for our community? Is it important whether people
+know the system's origin, history, and purpose? Yes—because people
+who forget history are often condemned to repeat it. The Free World
+that has developed around <a
href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a>
+is not guaranteed to survive; the problems that
+led us to develop GNU are not completely eradicated, and they threaten
+to come back.</p>
+
+<p>
+When I explain why it's appropriate to call the operating system
+GNU/Linux rather than Linux, people
+sometimes respond this way:</p>
+
+<blockquote><p>
+<em>
+ Granted that the GNU Project deserves credit for this work, is
+ it really worth a fuss when people don't give credit? Isn't the
+ important thing that the job was done, not who did it? You
+ ought to relax, take pride in the job well done, and not worry
+ about the credit.
+</em>
+</p></blockquote>
+<p>
+This would be wise advice, if only the situation were like that—if
+the job were done and it were time to relax. If only that were true!
+But challenges abound, and this is no time to take the future for
+granted. Our community's strength rests on commitment to freedom and
+cooperation. Using the name <a
href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a>
+is a way for people to remind
+themselves and inform others of these goals.</p>
+
+<p>
+It is possible to write good free software without thinking of GNU;
+much good work has been done in the name of Linux also. But the term
+“Linux” has been associated ever since it was first coined
+with a philosophy that does not make a commitment to the freedom to
+cooperate. As the name is increasingly used by business, we will
+have even more trouble making it connect with community spirit.</p>
+
+<p>
+A great challenge to the future of free software comes from the
+tendency of the “Linux” distribution companies to add
+nonfree software to <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a>
+in the name of convenience and power. All the major commercial
+distribution developers do this; none limits itself to free software.
+Most of them do not clearly identify the nonfree
+packages in their distributions. Many even develop nonfree software
+and add it to the system. Some outrageously advertise
+“Linux” systems that are “licensed per seat”,
+which give the user as much freedom as Microsoft Windows.</p>
+
+<p>
+People try to justify adding nonfree software in the name of the
+“popularity of Linux”—in effect, valuing popularity above
+freedom. Sometimes this is openly admitted. For instance, Wired
+Magazine said that Robert McMillan, editor of Linux Magazine, “feels
+that the move toward open source software should be fueled by
+technical, rather than political, decisions.” And Caldera's
+<acronym title="Chief Executive Officer">CEO</acronym> openly urged
+users to drop the goal of freedom and work instead for the
+“popularity of Linux”.
+
+<a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://web.archive.org/web/20000920053929/http://www.zdnet.com/filters/printerfriendly/
+0,6061,2552025-2,00.html">
+(http://web.archive.org/web/20000920053929/http://www.zdnet.com/filters/printerfriendly/
+0,6061,2552025-2,00.html)</a></strong></del></span>
+<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="http://web.archive.org/web/20000920053929/http://www.zdnet.com/filters/printerfriendly/0,6061,2552025-2,00.html">
+(http://web.archive.org/web/20000920053929/http://www.zdnet.com/filters/printerfriendly/0,6061,2552025-2,00.html)
+</a></em></ins></span>
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Adding nonfree software to the <a
+href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a> system may increase the
+popularity, if by popularity we mean the number of people using some
+of <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a> in combination
with
+nonfree software. But at the same time, it implicitly encourages the
+community to accept nonfree software as a good thing, and forget the
+goal of freedom. It is not good to drive faster if you can't stay on the
+road.</p>
+
+<p>
+When the nonfree “add-on” is a library or programming
+tool, it can become a trap for free software developers. When they
+write free software that depends on the nonfree package, their
+software cannot be part of a completely free system. Motif and Qt
+trapped large amounts of free software in this way in the past,
+creating problems whose solutions took years. Motif remained somewhat
+of a problem until it became obsolete and was no longer used. Later,
+Sun's nonfree Java implementation had a similar effect:
+the <a href="/philosophy/java-trap.html">Java Trap</a>,
fortunately now
+mostly corrected.</p>
+
+<p>
+If our community keeps moving in this direction, it could redirect the
+future of <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a> into a
mosaic of free and nonfree components.
+Five years from now, we will surely still have plenty of free
+software; but if we are not careful, it will hardly be usable without
+the nonfree software that users expect to find with it. If this
+happens, our campaign for freedom will have failed.</p>
+
+<p>
+If releasing free alternatives were simply a matter of programming,
+solving future problems might become easier as our community's
+development resources increase. But we face obstacles that threaten
+to make this harder: laws that prohibit free software. As software
+patents mount up, and as laws like the
+<acronym title="Digital Millennium Copyright Act">DMCA</acronym>
are
+used to prohibit the development of free software for important jobs
+such as viewing a DVD or listening to a RealAudio stream, we will find
+ourselves with no clear way to fight the patented and secret data
+formats except to <strong>reject the nonfree programs that use
+them</strong>.</p>
+
+<p>
+Meeting these challenges will require many different kinds of effort.
+But what we need above all, to confront any kind of challenge, is to
+remember the goal of freedom to cooperate. We can't expect a mere
+desire for powerful, reliable software to motivate people to make
+great efforts. We need the kind of determination that people have
+when they fight for their freedom and their community—determination
+to keep on for years and not give up.</p>
+
+<p>
+In our community, this goal and this determination emanate mainly from
+the GNU Project. We're the ones who talk about freedom and community
+as something to stand firm for; the organizations that speak of
+“Linux” normally don't say this. The magazines about
+“Linux” are typically full of ads for nonfree software;
+the companies that package “Linux” add nonfree software
+to the system; other companies “support Linux” by
+developing nonfree applications to run on GNU/Linux; the user groups
+for “Linux” typically invite salesman to present those
+applications. The main place people in our community are likely to
+come across the idea of freedom and determination is in the GNU
+Project.</p>
+
+<p>
+But when people come across it, will they feel it relates to them?</p>
+
+<p>
+People who know they are using a system that came out of the GNU
+Project can see a direct relationship between themselves and GNU.
+They won't automatically agree with our philosophy, but at least they
+will see a reason to think seriously about it. In contrast, people
+who consider themselves “Linux users”, and believe that
+the GNU Project “developed tools which proved to be useful in
+Linux”, typically perceive only an indirect relationship between
+GNU and themselves. They may just ignore the GNU philosophy when they
+come across it.</p>
+
+<p>
+The GNU Project is idealistic, and anyone encouraging idealism today
+faces a great obstacle: the prevailing ideology encourages people to
+dismiss idealism as “impractical”. Our idealism has been
+extremely practical: it is the reason we have a
+free <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a> operating
system.
+People who love this system ought to know that it is our idealism made
+real.</p>
+
+<p>
+If “the job” really were done, if there were nothing at
+stake except credit, perhaps it would be wiser to let the matter drop.
+But we are not in that position. To inspire people to do the work
+that needs to be done, we need to be recognized for what we have
+already done. Please help us, by calling the operating
+system <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux</a>.</p>
+
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong></div></strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div><!-- for id="content", starts
in the include above --></em></ins></span>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>
+Please</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p>Please</em></ins></span> send <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>general</em></ins></span> 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.
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><br />
+Please send broken</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Broken</em></ins></span> links and other corrections
or suggestions <span class="inserted"><ins><em>can be sent</em></ins></span>
+to <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.
+</p>
+
+<p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>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>. --></em></ins></span>
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this <span class="removed"><del><strong>article.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Copyright</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>article.</p>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+ be under CC BY-ND 3.0 US. Please do NOT change or remove this
+ without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+ Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+ document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+ document was modified, or published.
+
+ If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+ Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+ years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+ year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+ being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+
+ There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+ Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
+
+<p>Copyright</em></ins></span> © 2000, 2006, 2007 Richard <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Stallman
+<br />
+This</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>Stallman</p>
+
+<p>This</em></ins></span> 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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>License</a>.
+</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>License</a>.</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p>Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2013/04/12 08:02:47 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.nl-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.nl-diff.html
diff -N philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.nl-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.nl-diff.html 12 Apr 2013
08:02:48 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,422 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: <span
class="removed"><del><strong>1.70</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>1.75</em></ins></span> -->
+<title>Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software - GNU Project -
+Free Software <span class="removed"><del><strong>Foundation
(FSF)</title></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Foundation</title></em></ins></span>
+<!--#include <span
class="removed"><del><strong>virtual="/server/banner.html"</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>virtual="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.translist"</em></ins></span>
-->
+<!--#include <span
class="removed"><del><strong>virtual="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.translist"</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>virtual="/server/banner.html"</em></ins></span> -->
+<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
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong>“participatory”.</p></strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“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></em></ins></span>
+
+<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: 2013/04/12 08:02:48 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.zh-cn-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.zh-cn-diff.html
diff -N philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.zh-cn-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.zh-cn-diff.html 12 Apr 2013
08:02:48 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,422 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: <span
class="removed"><del><strong>1.70</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>1.75</em></ins></span> -->
+<title>Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software - GNU Project -
+Free Software <span class="removed"><del><strong>Foundation
(FSF)</title></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Foundation</title></em></ins></span>
+<!--#include <span
class="removed"><del><strong>virtual="/server/banner.html"</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>virtual="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.translist"</em></ins></span>
-->
+<!--#include <span
class="removed"><del><strong>virtual="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.translist"</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>virtual="/server/banner.html"</em></ins></span> -->
+<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
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong>“participatory”.</p></strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“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></em></ins></span>
+
+<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: 2013/04/12 08:02:48 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: philosophy/po/words-to-avoid.ar-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: philosophy/po/words-to-avoid.ar-diff.html
diff -N philosophy/po/words-to-avoid.ar-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ philosophy/po/words-to-avoid.ar-diff.html 12 Apr 2013 08:02:49 -0000
1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,836 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: <span
class="removed"><del><strong>1.70</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>1.75</em></ins></span> -->
+<title>Words to Avoid (or Use with Care) Because They Are Loaded or
Confusing
+- GNU Project - Free Software <span class="removed"><del><strong>Foundation
(FSF)</title></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Foundation</title></em></ins></span>
+<!--#include <span
class="removed"><del><strong>virtual="/server/banner.html"</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>virtual="/philosophy/po/words-to-avoid.translist"</em></ins></span>
-->
+<!--#include <span
class="removed"><del><strong>virtual="/philosophy/po/words-to-avoid.translist"</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>virtual="/server/banner.html"</em></ins></span> -->
+<h2>Words to Avoid (or Use with Care) Because They Are Loaded or
Confusing</h2>
+
+<p>
+There are a number of words and phrases that we recommend avoiding, or
+avoiding in certain contexts and usages. Some are ambiguous or
+misleading; others presuppose a viewpoint that we hope you
+disagree with.</p>
+
+<div class="announcement">
+Also note <a href="/philosophy/categories.html">Categories
+of Free Software</a>.</div>
+
+<p>
+ <a href="/philosophy/philosophy.html">Other Texts to Read</a>
+| “<a
+ href="#Alternative">Alternative</a>”
+| “<a
+ href="#BSD-style">BSD-style</a>”
+| “<a
+ href="#Closed">Closed</a>”
+| “<a
+ href="#CloudComputing">Cloud Computing</a>”
+| “<a
+ href="#Commercial">Commercial</a>”
+| “<a
+ href="#Compensation">Compensation</a>”
+| “<a
+ href="#Consume">Consume</a>”
+| “<a
+ href="#Consumer">Consumer</a>”
+| “<a
+ href="#Content">Content</a>”
+| “<a
+ href="#Creator">Creator</a>”
+| “<a
+ href="#DigitalGoods">Digital Goods</a>”
+| “<a
+ href="#DigitalLocks">Digital Locks</a>”
+| “<a
+ href="#DigitalRightsManagement">Digital Rights
Management</a>”
+| “<a
+ href="#Ecosystem">Ecosystem</a>”
+| “<a
+ href="#ForFree">For free</a>”
+| “<a
+ href="#FreelyAvailable">Freely available</a>”
+| “<a
+ href="#Freeware">Freeware</a>”
+| “<a
+ href="#GiveAwaySoftware">Give away software</a>”
+| “<a
+ href="#Hacker">Hacker</a>”
+| “<a
+ href="#IntellectualProperty">Intellectual property</a>”
+| “<a
+ href="#LAMP">LAMP system</a>”
+| “<a
+ href="#Linux">Linux system</a>”
+| “<a
+ href="#Market">Market</a>”
+| “<a
+ href="#Monetize">Monetize</a>”
+| “<a
+ href="#MP3Player">MP3 player</a>”
+| “<a
+ href="#Open">Open</a>”
+| “<a
+ href="#PC">PC</a>”
+| “<a
+ href="#Photoshop">Photoshop</a>”
+| “<a
+ href="#Piracy">Piracy</a>”
+| “<a
+ href="#PowerPoint">PowerPoint</a>”
+| “<a
+ href="#Protection">Protection</a>”
+| “<a
+ href="#RAND">RAND</a>”
+| “<a
+ href="#SellSoftware">Sell software</a>”
+| “<a
+ href="#SoftwareIndustry">Software Industry</a>”
+| “<a
+ href="#Theft">Theft</a>”
+| “<a
+ href="#TrustedComputing">Trusted Computing</a>”
+| “<a
+ href="#Vendor">Vendor</a>”
+</p>
+
+<h4 id="Alternative">“Alternative”</h4>
+<p>
+We don't present free software as an “alternative”, because it
+presents a goal of having free software alongside proprietary
+software. That presupposes that proprietary software is
+legitimate.</p>
+
+<p>
+We believe that the only ethical way to distribute software is as free
+software. Thus, we aim to make free software more than an
+alternative. Our goal is a world where all programs are free, so that
+all their users are free.
+</p>
+
+<h4 id="BSD-style">“BSD-style”</h4>
+<p>
+The expression “BSD-style license” leads to confusion because it
+<a href="/philosophy/bsd.html">lumps together licenses that have
+important differences</a>. For instance, the original BSD license
+with the advertising clause is incompatible with the GNU General
+Public License, but the revised BSD license is compatible with the
+GPL.</p>
+<p>
+To avoid confusion, it is best to
+name <a href="/licenses/license-list.html"> the specific license in
+question</a> and avoid the vague term “BSD-style.”</p>
+
+
+<h4 id="Closed">“Closed”</h4>
+<p>
+Describing nonfree software as “closed” clearly refers to
+the term “open source”. In the free software movement,
+<a href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html"> we do not want
to
+be confused with the open source camp</a>, so we
+are careful to avoid saying things that would encourage people to lump us in
+with them. For instance, we avoid describing nonfree software as
+“closed”. We call it “nonfree” or
+<a href="/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware">
+“proprietary”</a>.</p>
+
+
+<h4 id="CloudComputing">“Cloud Computing”</h4>
+<p>
+The term “cloud computing” is a marketing buzzword with no
+clear meaning. It is used for a range of different activities whose
+only common characteristic is that they use the Internet for something beyond
+transmitting files. Thus, the term is a nexus of confusion. If you
+base your thinking on it, your thinking will be vague.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+When thinking about or responding to a statement someone else has made
+using this term, the first step is to clarify the topic. Which kind
+of activity is the statement really about, and what is a good, clear term for
+that activity? Once the topic is clear, the discussion can head for a
+useful conclusion.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Curiously, Larry Ellison, a proprietary software developer,
+also <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13953_3-10052188-80.html">
+noted the vacuity of the term “cloud computing.”</a> He
+decided to use the term anyway because, as a proprietary software
+developer, he isn't motivated by the same ideals as we are.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+One of the many meanings of “cloud computing” is storing your
+data in online services. That exposes you to
+<a
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/25/hackers-spooks-cloud-antiauthoritarian-dream">surveillance</a>.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Another meaning (which overlaps that but is not the same thing)
+is <a href="/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html">
+Software as a Service</a>, which denies you control over your computing.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Another meaning is renting a remote physical server, or virtual server.
+These can be ok under certain circumstances.
+</p>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p>
+The <a
href="http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistpubs/800-145/SP800-145.pdf">
+NIST definition of "cloud computing"</a> mentions three scenarios that
+raise different ethical issues: Software as a Service, Platform as a
+Service, and Infrastructure as a Service. However, that definition
+does not match the common use of the term, since it does not include
+storing data in online services.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+The best way to avoid this confusion is not to use the term.
+</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<h4 id="Commercial">“Commercial”</h4>
+<p>
+Please don't use “commercial” as a synonym for
+“nonfree.” That confuses two entirely different
+issues.</p>
+<p>
+A program is commercial if it is developed as a business activity. A
+commercial program can be free or nonfree, depending on its manner of
+distribution. Likewise, a program developed by a school or an
+individual can be free or nonfree, depending on its manner of
+distribution. The two questions—what sort of entity developed
+the program and what freedom its users have—are independent.</p>
+<p>
+In the first decade of the free software movement, free software
+packages were almost always noncommercial; the components of the
+GNU/Linux operating system were developed by individuals or by
+nonprofit organizations such as the FSF and universities. Later, in
+the 1990s, free commercial software started to appear.</p>
+<p>
+Free commercial software is a contribution to our community, so we
+should encourage it. But people who think that
+“commercial” means “nonfree” will tend to
+think that the “free commercial” combination is
+self-contradictory, and dismiss the possibility. Let's be careful not
+to use the word “commercial” in that way.</p>
+
+
+<h4 id="Compensation">“Compensation”</h4>
+<p>
+To speak of “compensation for authors” in connection with
+copyright carries the assumptions that (1) copyright exists for the
+sake of authors and (2) whenever we read something, we take on a debt
+to the author which we must then repay. The first assumption is
+simply
+<a href="/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html">false</a>, and
+the second is outrageous.
+</p>
+<p>
+“Compensating the rights-holders” adds a further swindle:
+you're supposed to imagine that means paying the authors, and
+occasionally it does, but most of the time it means a subsidy for the
+same publishing companies that are pushing unjust laws on us.
+</p>
+
+<h4 id="Consume">“Consume”</h4>
+<p>
+“Consume” refers to what we do with food: we ingest it, and use it
in
+a way that uses it up. By analogy, we employ the same word to describe
+using other things in a way that uses them up. However, it is
+erroneous to speak of “consuming” digital information, music,
+software, etc., since using them does not consume them. See also the
+following entry.</p>
+
+<h4 id="Consumer">“Consumer”</h4>
+<p>
+The term “consumer,” when used to refer to the users of computing,
+is loaded with assumptions we should reject. Playing a digital
+recording, or running a program, does not consume it.</p>
+<p>
+The terms “producer” and “consumer” come from
+economic theory, and bring with them its narrow perspective and
+misguided assumptions. These tend to warp your thinking.</p>
+<p>
+In addition, describing the users of software as “consumers”
+presumes a narrow role for them: it regards them as sheep that
+passively graze on what others make available to them.</p>
+<p>
+This kind of thinking leads to travesties such as the CBDTPA
+(“Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act”)
+which proposed to require copying restriction facilities in every digital
+device. If all the users do is “consume,” then why should
+they mind?</p>
+<p>
+The shallow economic conception of users as “consumers” tends
+to go hand in hand with the idea that published works are mere
+<a href="#Content">“content.”</a></p>
+<p>
+To describe people who are not limited to passive use of works, we
+suggest terms such as “individuals” and
+“citizens”.</p>
+
+
+<h4 id="Content">“Content”</h4>
+<p>
+If you want to describe a feeling of comfort and satisfaction, by all
+means say you are “content,” but using the word as a
+noun to describe written and other works of authorship adopts an
+attitude you might rather avoid. It regards these works as a
+commodity whose purpose is to fill a box and make money. In effect,
+it disparages the works themselves.</p>
+<p>
+Those who use this term are often the publishers that push for
+increased copyright power in the name of the authors
+(“creators,” as they say) of the works. The term
+“content” reveals their real attitude towards these works and
their authors.
+(See <a
href="http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/print.html">Courtney
+Love's open letter to Steve Case</a> and search for “content
+provider” in that page. Alas, Ms. Love is unaware that the term
+“intellectual property” is also <a
href="#IntellectualProperty">
+biased and confusing</a>.)</p>
+<p>
+However, as long as other people use the term “content
+provider”, political dissidents can well call themselves
+“malcontent providers”.</p>
+<p>
+The term “content management” takes the prize for vacuity.
+“Content” means “some sort of information,”
+and “management” in this context means “doing
+something with it.” So a “content management
+system” is a system for doing something to some sort of
+information. Nearly all programs fit that description.</p>
+
+<p>
+In most cases, that term really refers to a system for updating pages
+on a web site. For that, we recommend the term “web site revision
+system” (WRS).</p>
+
+
+<h4 id="Creator">“Creator”</h4>
+<p>
+The term “creator” as applied to authors implicitly
+compares them to a deity (“the creator”). The term is
+used by publishers to elevate authors' moral standing above that of
+ordinary people in order to justify giving them increased copyright
+power, which the publishers can then exercise in their name. We
+recommend saying “author” instead. However, in many cases
+“copyright holder” is what you really mean. These two
+terms are not equivalent: often the copyright holder is not the
+author.</p>
+
+
+<h4 id="DigitalGoods">“Digital Goods”</h4>
+<p>
+The term “digital goods,” as applied to copies of works of
+authorship, identifies them with physical goods—which cannot be
+copied, and which therefore have to be manufactured in quantity and
+sold. This metaphor encourages people to judge issues about software
+or other digital works based on their views and intuitions about
+physical goods. It also frames issues in terms of economics, whose
+shallow and limited values don't include freedom and community.</p>
+
+
+<h4 id="DigitalLocks">“Digital Locks”</h4>
+<p>
+“Digital locks” is used to refer to Digital Restrictions
+Management by some who criticize it. The problem with this term is
+that it fails to show what's wrong with the practice.</p>
+<p>
+Locks are not necessarily an injustice. You probably own several
+locks, and their keys or codes as well; you may find them useful or
+troublesome, but either way they don't oppress you, because you can
+open and close them.</p>
+<p>
+DRM is like a lock placed on you by someone else, who refuses to
+give you the key—in other words, like handcuffs. Therefore,
+we call them “digital handcuffs”, not “digital
+locks”.</p>
+<p>
+A number of opposition campaigns have chosen the unwise term
+“digital locks”; to get things back on the right track, we
+must firmly decline to follow them in using that term. We can support
+a campaign that opposes “digital locks” if we agree on the
+substance; however, when we state our support, we conspicuously
+replace the term with “digital handcuffs” and say why.</p>
+
+
+<h4 id="DigitalRightsManagement">“Digital Rights
Management”</h4>
+<p>
+“Digital Rights Management” refers to technical schemes
+designed to impose restrictions on computer users. The use of the
+word “rights” in this term is propaganda, designed to lead
+you unawares into seeing the issue from the viewpoint of the few that
+impose the restrictions, and ignoring that of the general public on
+whom these restrictions are imposed.</p>
+<p>
+Good alternatives include “Digital Restrictions
+Management,” and “digital handcuffs.”</p>
+
+
+<h4 id="Ecosystem">“Ecosystem”</h4>
+<p>
+It is inadvisable to describe the free software community, or any human
+community, as an “ecosystem,” because that word implies
+the absence of ethical judgment.</p>
+
+<p>
+The term “ecosystem” implicitly suggests an attitude of
+nonjudgmental observation: don't ask how what <em>should</em>
happen,
+just study and understand what <em>does</em> happen. In an
ecosystem,
+some organisms consume other organisms. In ecology, we do not ask
+whether it is right for an owl to eat a mouse or for a mouse to eat a
+seed, we only observe that they do so. Species' populations grow or
+shrink according to the conditions; this is neither right nor wrong,
+merely an ecological phenomenon, even if it goes so far as the
+extinction of a species.</p>
+
+<p>
+By contrast, beings that adopt an ethical stance towards their
+surroundings can decide to preserve things that, without their
+intervention, might vanish—such as civil society, democracy,
+human rights, peace, public health, a stable climate, clean air and
+water, endangered species, traditional arts…and computer users'
+freedom.
+</p>
+
+
+<h4 id="ForFree">“For free”</h4>
+<p>
+If you want to say that a program is free software, please don't say
+that it is available “for free.” That term specifically
+means “for zero price.” Free software is a matter of
+freedom, not price.</p>
+<p>
+Free software copies are often available for free—for example,
+by downloading via FTP. But free software copies are also available
+for a price on CD-ROMs; meanwhile, proprietary software copies are
+occasionally available for free in promotions, and some proprietary
+packages are normally available at no charge to certain users.</p>
+<p>
+To avoid confusion, you can say that the program is available
+“as free software.”</p>
+
+
+<h4 id="FreelyAvailable">“Freely available”</h4>
+<p>
+Don't use “freely available software” as a synonym for “free
+software.” The terms are not equivalent. Software is “freely
+available” if anyone can easily get a copy. “Free
+software” is defined in terms of the freedom of users that have
+a copy of it. These are answers to different questions.
+</p>
+
+
+<h4 id="Freeware">“Freeware”</h4>
+<p>
+Please don't use the term “freeware” as a synonym for
+“free software.” The term “freeware” was used
+often in the 1980s for programs released only as executables, with
+source code not available. Today it has no particular agreed-on
+definition.</p>
+<p>
+When using languages other than English, please avoid
+borrowing English terms such as “free software” or
+“freeware.” It is better to translate the term “free
+software” into
+<a href="/philosophy/fs-translations.html">your
language</a>.</p>
+
+<p>
+By using a word in <a href="/philosophy/fs-translations.html">your
+own language</a>, you show that you are really referring to freedom
+and not just parroting some mysterious foreign marketing concept.
+The reference to freedom may at first seem strange or disturbing
+to your compatriots, but once they see that it means exactly what
+it says, they will really understand what the issue is.
+</p>
+
+
+<h4 id="GiveAwaySoftware">“Give away software”</h4>
+<p>
+It's misleading to use the term “give away” to mean
+“distribute a program as free software.”
+This locution has the same
+problem as “for free”: it implies the issue is price, not
+freedom. One way to avoid the confusion is to say “release as
+free software.”</p>
+
+
+<h4 id="Hacker">“Hacker”</h4>
+<p>
+A hacker is someone
+who <a href="http://stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html"> enjoys
+playful cleverness</a>—not necessarily with computers. The
+programmers in the old
+<abbr title="Massachusetts Institute of Technology">MIT</abbr> free
+software community of the 60s and 70s referred to themselves as
+hackers. Around 1980, journalists who discovered the hacker community
+mistakenly took the term to mean “security breaker.”</p>
+
+<p>
+Please don't spread this mistake.
+People who break security are “crackers.”</p>
+
+
+<h4 id="IntellectualProperty">“Intellectual
property”</h4>
+<p>
+Publishers and lawyers like to describe copyright as
+“intellectual property”—a term also applied to
+patents, trademarks, and other more obscure areas of law. These laws
+have so little in common, and differ so much, that it is ill-advised
+to generalize about them. It is best to talk specifically about
+“copyright,” or about “patents,” or about
+“trademarks.”</p>
+<p>
+The term “intellectual property” carries a hidden
+assumption—that the way to think about all these disparate
+issues is based on an analogy with physical objects,
+and our conception of them as physical property.</p>
+<p>
+When it comes to copying, this analogy disregards the crucial
+difference between material objects and information: information can
+be copied and shared almost effortlessly, while material objects can't
+be.</p>
+<p>
+To avoid spreading unnecessary bias and confusion, it is best to adopt
+a firm policy <a href="/philosophy/not-ipr.html"> not to speak or even
+think in terms of “intellectual property”</a>.</p>
+<p>
+The hypocrisy of calling these powers “rights” is
+<a href="/philosophy/wipo-PublicAwarenessOfCopyright-2002.html">
+starting to make the World “Intellectual Property”
+Organization embarrassed</a>.</p>
+
+
+<h4 id="LAMP">“LAMP system”</h4>
+<p>
+“LAMP” stands for “Linux, Apache, MySQL and
+PHP”—a common combination of software to use on a web
+server, except that “Linux” in this context really refers
+to the GNU/Linux system. So instead of “LAMP” it should
+be “GLAMP”: “GNU, Linux, Apache, MySQL and
+PHP.”
+</p>
+
+
+<h4 id="Linux">“Linux system”</h4>
+<p>
+Linux is the name of the kernel that Linus Torvalds developed starting
+in 1991. The operating system in which Linux is used is basically GNU
+with Linux added. To call the whole system “Linux” is
+both unfair and confusing. Please call the complete
+system <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html"> GNU/Linux</a>, both to
give
+the GNU Project credit and to distinguish the whole system from the
+kernel alone.
+</p>
+
+
+<h4 id="Market">“Market”</h4>
+<p>
+It is misleading to describe the users of free software, or the
+software users in general, as a “market.”</p>
+<p>
+This is not to say there is no room for markets in the free software community.
+If you have a free software
+support business, then you have clients, and you trade with them in a
+market. As long as you respect their freedom, we wish you success in
+your market.</p>
+<p>
+But the free software movement is a social movement, not a business,
+and the success it aims for is not a market success. We are trying to
+serve the public by giving it freedom—not competing to draw business
+away from a rival. To equate this campaign for freedom to a business'
+efforts for mere success is to deny the importance of freedom
+and legitimize proprietary software.</p>
+
+
+<h4 id="Monetize">“Monetize”</h4>
+<p>
+The natural meaning of “monetize” is “convert into
+money”. If you make something and then convert it into money,
+that means there is nothing left except money, so nobody but you has
+gained anything, and you contribute nothing to the world.</p>
+<p>
+By contrast, a productive and ethical business does not convert all of
+its product into money. Part of it is a contribution to the rest of
+the world.</p>
+
+
+<h4 id="MP3Player">“MP3 Player”</h4>
+<p>
+In the late 1990s it became feasible to make portable, solid-state
+digital audio players. Most support the patented MP3 codec, but not
+all. Some support the patent-free audio codecs Ogg Vorbis and FLAC,
+and may not even support MP3-encoded files at all, precisely to avoid
+these patents. To call such players “MP3 players” is not
+only confusing, it also puts MP3 in an undeserved position of
+privilege which encourages people to continue using that vulnerable format.
+We suggest the terms “digital audio player,”
+or simply “audio player” if context permits.</p>
+
+
+<h4 id="Open">“Open”</h4>
+<p>
+Please avoid using the term “open” or “open
+source” as a substitute for “free software”. Those terms
+refer to a <a href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">
+different position</a> based on different values. Free software is
+a political movement; open source is a development model.
+
+When referring to the open source position, using its name is
+appropriate; but please do not use it to label us or our work—that
+leads people to think we share those views.</p>
+
+<h4 id="PC">“PC”</h4>
+<p>
+It's OK to use the abbreviation “PC” to refer to a certain
+kind of computer hardware, but please don't use it with the
+implication that the computer is running Microsoft Windows. If you
+install GNU/Linux on the same computer, it is still a PC.</p>
+
+<p>
+The term “WC” has been suggested for a computer running
+Windows.</p>
+
+<h4 id="Photoshop">“Photoshop”</h4>
+<p>
+Please avoid using the term “photoshop” as a verb, meaning
+any kind of photo manipulation or image editing in general. Photoshop
+is just the name of one particular image editing program, which should
+be avoided since it is proprietary. There are plenty of free programs
+for editing images, such as the <a
href="/software/gimp">GIMP</a>.</p>
+
+<h4 id="Piracy">“Piracy”</h4>
+<p>
+Publishers often refer to copying they don't approve of as
+“piracy.” In this way, they imply that it is ethically
+equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnapping and
+murdering the people on them. Based on such propaganda, they have
+procured laws in most of the world to forbid copying in most (or
+sometimes all) circumstances. (They are still pressuring to make
+these prohibitions more complete.)
+</p>
+<p>
+If you don't believe that copying not approved by the publisher is
+just like kidnapping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word
+“piracy” to describe it. Neutral terms such as
+“unauthorized copying” (or “prohibited
+copying” for the situation where it is illegal) are available
+for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term
+such as “sharing information with your neighbor.”</p>
+
+
+<h4 id="PowerPoint">“PowerPoint”</h4>
+<p>
+Please avoid using the term “PowerPoint” to mean any kind
+of slide presentation. “PowerPoint” is just the name of
+one particular proprietary program to make presentations, and there
+are plenty of free program for presentations, such as TeX's
<tt>beamer</tt>
+class and OpenOffice.org's Impress.</p>
+
+
+<h4 id="Protection">“Protection”</h4>
+<p>
+Publishers' lawyers love to use the term “protection” to
+describe copyright. This word carries the implication of preventing
+destruction or suffering; therefore, it encourages people to identify
+with the owner and publisher who benefit from copyright, rather than
+with the users who are restricted by it.</p>
+<p>
+It is easy to avoid “protection” and use neutral terms
+instead. For example, instead of saying, “Copyright protection lasts a
+very long time,” you can say, “Copyright lasts a very long
+time.”</p>
+<p>
+Likewise, instead of saying, “protected by copyright,” you
+can say, “covered by copyright” or just
+“copyrighted.”</p>
+<p>
+If you want to criticize copyright rather than be neutral, you can
+use the term “copyright restrictions.” Thus, you can say,
+“Copyright restrictions last a very long time.”</p>
+
+<p>
+The term “protection” is also used to describe malicious
+features. For instance, “copy protection” is a feature
+that interferes with copying. From the user's point of view, this is
+obstruction. So we could call that malicious feature “copy
+obstruction.” More often it is called Digital Restrictions
+Management (DRM)—see the
+<a href="http://DefectiveByDesign.org"> Defective by Design</a>
+campaign.</p>
+
+<h4 id="RAND">“RAND (Reasonable and
Non-Discriminatory)”</h4>
+<p>
+Standards bodies that promulgate patent-restricted standards that
+prohibit free software typically have a policy of obtaining patent
+licenses that require a fixed fee per copy of a conforming program.
+They often refer to such licenses by the term “RAND,”
+which stands for “reasonable and non-discriminatory.”</p>
+<p>
+That term whitewashes a class of patent licenses that are normally
+neither reasonable nor nondiscriminatory. It is true that these
+licenses do not discriminate against any specific person, but they do
+discriminate against the free software community, and that makes them
+unreasonable. Thus, half of the term “RAND” is deceptive
+and the other half is prejudiced.</p>
+<p>
+Standards bodies should recognize that these licenses are
+discriminatory, and drop the use of the term “reasonable and
+non-discriminatory” or “RAND” to describe them.
+Until they do so, writers who do not wish to join in the
+whitewashing would do well to reject that term. To accept and use it
+merely because patent-wielding companies have made it widespread is to
+let those companies dictate the views you express.</p>
+<p>
+We suggest the term “uniform fee only,” or
+“UFO” for short, as a replacement. It is accurate because
+the only condition in these licenses is a uniform royalty fee.</p>
+
+
+<h4 id="SellSoftware">“Sell software”</h4>
+<p>
+The term “sell software” is ambiguous. Strictly speaking,
+exchanging a copy of a free program for a sum of money is
+selling; but people usually associate the term
+“sell” with proprietary restrictions on the subsequent use
+of the software. You can be more precise, and prevent confusion, by
+saying either “distributing copies of a program for a fee”
+or “imposing proprietary restrictions on the use of a
+program,” depending on what you mean.</p>
+<p>
+See <a href="/philosophy/selling.html">Selling Free Software</a>
for
+further discussion of this issue.</p>
+
+
+<h4 id="SoftwareIndustry">“Software Industry”</h4>
+<p>
+The term “software industry” encourages people to imagine
+that software is always developed by a sort of factory and then
+delivered to “consumers.” The free software community
+shows this is not the case. Software businesses exist, and various
+businesses develop free and/or nonfree software, but those that
+develop free software are not run like factories.</p>
+<p>
+The term “industry” is being used as propaganda by
+advocates of software patents. They call software development
+“industry” and then try to argue that this means it should
+be subject to patent
+monopolies. <a href="http://swpat.ffii.org/papers/europarl0309/"> The
+European Parliament, rejecting software patents in 2003, voted to
+define “industry” as “automated production of
+material goods.”</a></p>
+
+
+<h4 id="Theft">“Theft”</h4>
+<p>
+Copyright apologists often use words like “stolen” and
+“theft” to refer to copyright infringement. This is spin,
+but they would like you to take it for objective truth.</p>
+<p>
+Under the US legal system, copyright infringement is not theft. Laws
+about theft are not applicable to copyright infringement. The
+copyright apologists are making an appeal to authority—and
+misrepresenting what authority says.</p>
+<p>
+Unauthorized copying is forbidden by copyright law in many
+circumstances (not all!), but being forbidden doesn't make it wrong.
+In general, laws don't define right and wrong. Laws, at their best,
+attempt to implement justice. If the laws (the implementation) don't
+fit our ideas of right and wrong (the spec), the laws are what should
+change.</p>
+
+<h4 id="TrustedComputing">“Trusted Computing”</h4>
+<p>
+<a href="/philosophy/can-you-trust.html">“Trusted
computing”</a> is
+the proponents' name for a scheme to redesign computers so that
+application developers can trust your computer to obey them instead of
+you. From their point of view, it is “trusted”; from your
+point of view, it is “treacherous.”
+</p>
+
+
+<h4 id="Vendor">“Vendor”</h4>
+<p>
+Please don't use the term “vendor” to refer generally to
+anyone that develops or packages software. Many programs
+are developed in order to sell copies, and their developers are
+therefore their vendors; this even includes some free software packages.
+However, many programs are developed by volunteers or organizations
+which do not intend to sell copies. These developers are not vendors.
+Likewise, only some of the packagers of GNU/Linux distributions are
+vendors. We recommend the general term “supplier” instead.
+</p>
+
+<div class="announcement">
+Also note <a href="/philosophy/categories.html">Categories
+of Free and Nonfree Software</a>.</div>
+
+<hr />
+<h4>This essay is published
+in <a
href="http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free
+Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard
+M. Stallman</cite></a>.</h4>
+
+</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 © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2007,
+2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>License</a>.
+</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>License</a>.</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p>Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2013/04/12 08:02:49 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- www copyleft/copyleft.el.html copyleft/copyleft...,
GNUN <=