[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www planetfeeds.it.html philosophy/po/when-free...
|
From: |
GNUN |
|
Subject: |
www planetfeeds.it.html philosophy/po/when-free... |
|
Date: |
Sun, 05 Apr 2015 17:58:05 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: GNUN <gnun> 15/04/05 17:58:05
Modified files:
. : planetfeeds.it.html
philosophy/po :
when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.it.po
philosophy/proprietary/po: malware-apple.it.po
malware-kindle-swindle.it.po
po : planetfeeds.it.po
Added files:
philosophy :
when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.it.html
philosophy/po :
when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.it-en.html
philosophy/proprietary: malware-apple.it.html
philosophy/proprietary/po: malware-apple.it-en.html
Log message:
Automatic update by GNUnited Nations.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/planetfeeds.it.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.343&r2=1.344
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.it.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.it.po?cvsroot=www&r1=1.3&r2=1.4
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.it-en.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/proprietary/malware-apple.it.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/proprietary/po/malware-apple.it.po?cvsroot=www&r1=1.3&r2=1.4
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/proprietary/po/malware-kindle-swindle.it.po?cvsroot=www&r1=1.3&r2=1.4
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/proprietary/po/malware-apple.it-en.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/po/planetfeeds.it.po?cvsroot=www&r1=1.486&r2=1.487
Patches:
Index: planetfeeds.it.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/planetfeeds.it.html,v
retrieving revision 1.343
retrieving revision 1.344
diff -u -b -r1.343 -r1.344
--- planetfeeds.it.html 2 Apr 2015 04:57:10 -0000 1.343
+++ planetfeeds.it.html 5 Apr 2015 17:58:03 -0000 1.344
@@ -2,14 +2,11 @@
<!-- Autogenerated by planetrss.pl 1.10 -->
<p><a
href='http://www.fsf.org/blogs/directory/friday-free-software-directory-irc-meetup-april-3'>
-Friday Free Software Directory IRC meetup: April 3</a>: Join the FSF and
friends on Friday, April 3, from 2pm to 5pm EDT (18:00 to
-21:00 UTC) to help improve the Free Software Directory by adding...
+Aggiornamento settimanale dell'Elenco di Software Libero</a>
<a
href='http://www.fsf.org/blogs/directory/friday-free-software-directory-irc-meetup-april-3'> <em>leggi
tutto...</em></a></p>
<p><a href='http://savannah.gnu.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=8246'>
-GNU APL 1.5 Released</a>: Hi, I am happy to announce that GNU APL 1.5 has been
released. This
-release contains: * some progress on parallel (multi-core) APL (still
-experimental) * performance coun...
+GNU APL 1.5</a>
<a
href='http://savannah.gnu.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=8246'> <em>leggi
tutto...</em></a></p>
<p><a href='http://www.gnucash.org/#n-150330-2.6.6.news'>
-Announcement: GnuCash 2.6.6 Release</a></p>
+GnuCash 2.6.6</a></p>
Index: philosophy/po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.it.po
===================================================================
RCS file:
/web/www/www/philosophy/po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.it.po,v
retrieving revision 1.3
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -u -b -r1.3 -r1.4
--- philosophy/po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.it.po 5 Apr
2015 17:47:16 -0000 1.3
+++ philosophy/po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.it.po 5 Apr
2015 17:58:04 -0000 1.4
@@ -15,15 +15,9 @@
"MIME-Version: 1.0\n"
"Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8\n"
"Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit\n"
-"X-Outdated-Since: 2015-03-16 15:55+0000\n"
"X-Generator: Poedit 1.5.4\n"
-# | When Free Software Isn't (Practically) [-Better-] {+Superior+} - GNU
-# | Project - Free Software Foundation
#. type: Content of: <title>
-#| msgid ""
-#| "When Free Software Isn't (Practically) Better - GNU Project - Free "
-#| "Software Foundation"
msgid ""
"When Free Software Isn't (Practically) Superior - GNU Project - Free "
"Software Foundation"
@@ -31,9 +25,7 @@
"A volte il software libero non è (nei fatti) superiore - Progetto GNU - Free
"
"Software Foundation"
-# | When Free Software Isn't (Practically) [-Better-] {+Superior+}
#. type: Content of: <h2>
-#| msgid "When Free Software Isn't (Practically) Better"
msgid "When Free Software Isn't (Practically) Superior"
msgstr "A volte il software libero non è (nei fatti) superiore"
Index: philosophy/proprietary/po/malware-apple.it.po
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/proprietary/po/malware-apple.it.po,v
retrieving revision 1.3
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -u -b -r1.3 -r1.4
--- philosophy/proprietary/po/malware-apple.it.po 5 Apr 2015 17:47:17
-0000 1.3
+++ philosophy/proprietary/po/malware-apple.it.po 5 Apr 2015 17:58:05
-0000 1.4
@@ -15,7 +15,6 @@
"MIME-Version: 1.0\n"
"Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8\n"
"Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit\n"
-"X-Outdated-Since: 2015-02-24 13:25+0000\n"
"X-Generator: Poedit 1.5.4\n"
#. type: Content of: <title>
@@ -30,13 +29,7 @@
msgid "Apple's Operating Systems Are Malware"
msgstr "I sistemi operativi di Apple sono malware"
-# | <a [-href=\"/philosophy/proprietary.html\">Other-]
-# | {+href=\"/philosophy/proprietary/\">Other+} examples of proprietary
-# | malware</a>
#. type: Content of: <p>
-#| msgid ""
-#| "<a href=\"/philosophy/proprietary.html\">Other examples of proprietary "
-#| "malware</a>"
msgid ""
"<a href=\"/philosophy/proprietary/\">Other examples of proprietary malware</"
"a>"
@@ -324,21 +317,7 @@
"new-guidelines-outline-what-iphone-data-apple-can-give-to-police/\">estrarre "
"dati dagli iPhone a distanza per il governo</a>."
-# | This may have improved with <a
-# |
[-href=\"http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/apple-will-no-longer-unlock-most-iphones-ipads-for-police-even-with-search-
-# | warrants/2014/09/17/2612af58-3ed2-11e4-b03f-de718edeb92f_story.html\">-]
-# |
{+href=\"http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/2014/09/17/2612af58-3ed2-11e4-b03f-de718edeb92f_story.html\";>+}
-# | iOS 8 security improvements</a>; but <a
-# | href=\"https://firstlook.org/theintercept/?p=5199\";> not as much as Apple
-# | claims</a>.
-#. type: Content of: <ul><li><p>
-#| msgid ""
-#| "This may have improved with <a href=\"http://www.washingtonpost.com/";
-#| "business/technology/apple-will-no-longer-unlock-most-iphones-ipads-for-"
-#| "police-even-with-search- warrants/2014/09/17/2612af58-3ed2-11e4-b03f-"
-#| "de718edeb92f_story.html\"> iOS 8 security improvements</a>; but <a href="
-#| "\"https://firstlook.org/theintercept/?p=5199\";> not as much as Apple "
-#| "claims</a>."
+#. type: Content of: <ul><li><p>
msgid ""
"This may have improved with <a href=\"http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/";
"technology/2014/09/17/2612af58-3ed2-11e4-b03f-de718edeb92f_story.html\"> iOS "
Index: philosophy/proprietary/po/malware-kindle-swindle.it.po
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/proprietary/po/malware-kindle-swindle.it.po,v
retrieving revision 1.3
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -u -b -r1.3 -r1.4
--- philosophy/proprietary/po/malware-kindle-swindle.it.po 5 Apr 2015
17:47:17 -0000 1.3
+++ philosophy/proprietary/po/malware-kindle-swindle.it.po 5 Apr 2015
17:58:05 -0000 1.4
@@ -15,7 +15,6 @@
"MIME-Version: 1.0\n"
"Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8\n"
"Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit\n"
-"X-Outdated-Since: 2015-03-27 13:55+0000\n"
"X-Generator: Poedit 1.5.4\n"
#. type: Content of: <title>
@@ -173,9 +172,7 @@
"<a href=\"/server/standards/README.translations.html\">Guida alle "
"traduzioni</a>."
-# || No change detected. The change might only be in amounts of spaces.
#. type: Content of: <div><p>
-#| msgid "Copyright © 2014, 2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc."
msgid "Copyright © 2014, 2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc."
msgstr "Copyright © 2014, 2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc."
Index: po/planetfeeds.it.po
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/po/planetfeeds.it.po,v
retrieving revision 1.486
retrieving revision 1.487
diff -u -b -r1.486 -r1.487
--- po/planetfeeds.it.po 5 Apr 2015 17:47:17 -0000 1.486
+++ po/planetfeeds.it.po 5 Apr 2015 17:58:05 -0000 1.487
@@ -15,7 +15,6 @@
"MIME-Version: 1.0\n"
"Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8\n"
"Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit\n"
-"X-Outdated-Since: 2015-04-02 04:56+0000\n"
"X-Generator: Poedit 1.5.4\n"
#. type: Content of: <p><a>
@@ -60,10 +59,7 @@
"experimental) * performance coun..."
msgstr " "
-# | <a [-href='http://www.fsf.org/events/rms-20150402-yangon'>-]
-# | {+href='http://www.gnucash.org/#n-150330-2.6.6.news'>+}
#. type: Content of: <p><a>
-#| msgid "<a href='http://www.fsf.org/events/rms-20150402-yangon'>"
msgid "<a href='http://www.gnucash.org/#n-150330-2.6.6.news'>"
msgstr "<a href='http://www.gnucash.org/#n-150330-2.6.6.news'>"
Index: philosophy/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.it.html
===================================================================
RCS file: philosophy/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.it.html
diff -N philosophy/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.it.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ philosophy/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.it.html 5 Apr
2015 17:58:03 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,223 @@
+<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE"
value="/philosophy/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.en.html" -->
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.it.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+
+<!-- This file is automatically generated by GNUnited Nations! -->
+<title> A volte il software libero non è (nei fatti) superiore - Progetto GNU
- Free
+Software Foundation</title>
+
+<!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.translist"
-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.it.html" -->
+<h2> A volte il software libero non è (nei fatti) superiore</h2>
+
+<p>La missione aziendale dell'Open Source Initiative (l'organizzazione dietro
+il movimento open source) afferma: “l'open source è un metodo di
+sviluppo del software che sfrutta le potenzialità di un sistema di revisione
+paritaria distribuito con processi di sviluppo trasparenti. L'open source si
+prefigge come obiettivo quello di offrire migliore qualità , maggiore
+affidabilità , più elevata flessibilità , minor costo e minor dipendenza dai
+singoli fornitori”.</p>
+
+<p>La Free Software Foundation si oppone da oltre un decennio a questa
+caratterizzazione “open source” del software libero. I
+sostenitori del software libero affermano che questa definizione
+dell'“open source” sia un tentativo esplicito di sottovalutare
+il messaggio fondamentale di libertà e di oscurare il ruolo del movimento
+evidenziando il successo e le qualità del software sviluppato. A nostro
+avviso l'“open source” può risultare negativo in quanto
+allontana le persone dalla questione principale: la libertà del
+software. Un'altra ragione per la quale dovremmo mostrarci cauti di fronte
+al modo in cui l'open source viene inquadrato è rappresentata proprio dal
+fatto che la sua definizione non sempre è corretta.</p>
+
+<p>Nonostante l'OSI dichiari che “l'open source promette migliore
+qualità , maggiore affidabilità e più elevata flessibilità ”, non
sempre
+questa promessa viene mantenuta. Noi spesso non ce ne accorgiamo, ma
+qualsiasi utente di un progetto di software libero in fase di avvio potrebbe
+provare come in realtà quest'ultimo, in termini pratici, non sia di facile
+utilizzo come i suoi concorrenti proprietari. A volte, infatti, risulta
+inaffidabile. Altre volte poco flessibile. Se si volessero prendere sul
+serio gli argomenti dichiarati a favore dell'open source, bisognerebbe anche
+spiegare come mai quest'ultimo non sia all'altezza delle
+“promesse” fatte, ammettendo quindi che gli strumenti
+proprietari rappresentano invece una scelta migliore. Non esiste ragione per
+la quale dovremmo fare l'una o l'altra cosa.</p>
+
+<p>Richard Stallman si esprime a riguardo nel suo articolo <a
+href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.it.html">Perché l'"Open
+Source" manca l'obiettivo del Software Libero</a> dove afferma che
+“L'idea dell'open source è quella che permettere agli utenti di
+apportare modifiche al software e di ridistribuirlo renderà il software più
+potente e più affidabile. Ma questo non è garantito. Gli sviluppatori del
+software proprietario non sono necessariamente degli incompetenti e a volte
+producono dei programmi che sono potenti ed affidabili, anche se non
+rispettano le libertà degli utenti”.</p>
+
+<p>Per l'open source, la bassa qualità del software è un problema
+giustificabile, ma anche una ragione per tenersene lontani. Per il software
+libero, invece, è un problema su cui lavorare. Per i sostenitori del
+software libero, i bug e le opzioni mancanti non rappresentano mai un motivo
+di vergogna. Ogni software libero che rispetti la libertà degli utenti
+guadagna un vantaggio sul competitore proprietario che non rispetta tale
+diritto. Pur presentando dei problemi, al software libero rimane sempre la
+libertà .</p>
+
+<p>Per realizzare un software, da un punto si deve pur iniziare. Per questo
+motivo un nuovo programma, ad esempio, avrà poche probabilità di possedere
+tante funzionalità quante ne possiede la più nota controparte
+proprietaria. I progetti vengono avviati spesso con molti bug, ma migliorati
+col tempo. Mentre i sostenitori dell'open source potrebbero dissentire a tal
+proposito affermando che un progetto è fatto per accrescere la propria
+utilità grazie al tempo e a un po' di fortuna, i progetti di software libero
+rappresentano invece dei contribuiti importanti alla causa del software
+libero. Ogni software che permette ai propri utenti il controllo tecnologico
+rappresenta inequivocabilmente un passo in avanti. La qualità resa nel
+tempo, in questo caso, è il tocco finale.</p>
+
+<p>E' da ritenersi anche scandaloso che il processo di sviluppo di revisione
+paritaria distribuito e collaborativo, al centro della definizione dell'open
+source, non sia rispecchiato dalla realtà dello sviluppo software nella
+maggior parte dei progetti che operano sotto licenze libere (o “open
+source”).</p>
+
+<p>Molti studi accademici sui siti che ospitano software libero <a
+href="http://sf.net";>SourceForge</a> e <a
+href="http://sv.gnu.org";>Savannah</a> hanno dimostrato ciò che gli
+sviluppatori che hanno messo a disposizione online il proprio codice
+sorgente già conoscono. La maggior parte dei progetti di software libero non
+sono particolarmente collaborativi. Sapete qual è il numero medio di
+collaboratori a un progetto di software libero su SourceForge? Uno. Un solo
+e unico sviluppatore. I progetti SourceForge al 95esimo percentile per
+dimensioni partecipante contano solo cinque collaboratori. Più della metà di
+questi progetti di software libero—e persino molti progetti che
+vantano numerosi rilasci di successo e contano moltissimi download, sono
+frutto del lavoro di un solo sviluppatore e di un minimo aiuto esterno.</p>
+
+<p>Enfatizzando i vantaggi dello sviluppo collaborativo e della
+“revisione paritaria distribuita”, l'open source non argomenta
+sufficientemente perché si dovrebbe usare software libero o contribuire ad
+esso. I vantaggi dichiarati dalla collaborazione non possono essere
+realizzati laddove non esiste collaborazione e la stragrande maggioranza dei
+progetti di sviluppo libero non offrono un vantaggio tecnico rispetto al
+concorrente proprietario.</p>
+
+<p>Per i sostenitori del software libero, questi stessi progetti sono visti
+come traguardi importanti. Ogni programma libero rispetta la libertà dei
+propri utenti, ed i sostenitori della libertà del software credono
+fermamente che questa caratteristica rappresenti un vantaggio etico rispetto
+ai concorrenti proprietari— anche dal punto di vista
+funzionale. Enfatizzando i vantaggi in termini di libertà rispetto a quelli
+pratici, la causa a sostegno del software libero è radicata in una realtÃ
+tecnica che spesso non interessa invece l'open source. Quando il software
+libero risulta migliore, dobbiamo esultare, ma quando ciò non accade la
+critica non andrebbe interpretata come un attacco alla causa del software
+libero o addirittura un motivo convincente per evitare l'uso del software in
+questione.</p>
+
+<p>I sostenitori dell'open source devono difendere la propria tesi, secondo la
+quale, i software sviluppati liberamente dovrebbero o saranno, col tempo,
+migliori di quelli proprietari. Tuttavia, dovrebbero chiedersi anche
+“Come si può migliorare il software libero?”. Nel contesto del
+software libero, l'alta qualità è il mezzo per raggiungere un fine, non il
+fine in sé. Gli sviluppatori di software libero dovrebbero prodigarsi
+affinché i programmi siano funzionali, flessibili e utili agli
+utenti. Tuttavia, questo non è l'unico modo per avvicinarsi alla soluzione
+di un problema più facile ma anche più importante: quello di rispettare e
+proteggere la libertà degli utenti.</p>
+
+<p>Ovviamente non c'è bisogno di rigettare le tesi secondo le quali la
+collaborazione giochi un ruolo importante nella creazione di software di
+alta qualità . Per molti dei più riusciti progetti di software libero, è
+stata indubbiamente questa la chiave del successo. I vantaggi apportati
+dalla collaborazione diventano qualcosa da comprendere, appoggiare, e
+raggiungere e non qualcosa da dare per scontato rifiutando dati di fatto
+solo perché non si conformano all'ideologia.</p>
+
+<div class="translators-notes">
+
+<!--TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't have notes.-->
+ </div>
+</div>
+
+<!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.it.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Per informazioni su FSF e GNU rivolgetevi, possibilmente in inglese, a <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>. Esistono anche <a
+href="/contact/">altri modi per contattare</a> la FSF. Per le segnalazioni
+di link non funzionanti e altri suggerimenti relativi alle pagine web,
+scrivete a <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>. -->
+Le traduzioni italiane sono effettuate ponendo la massima attenzione ai
+dettagli e alla qualità , ma a volte potrebbero contenere imperfezioni. Se ne
+riscontrate, inviate i vostri commenti e suggerimenti riguardo le traduzioni
+a <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>
+oppure contattate direttamente il <a
+href="http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/www-it/";>gruppo dei traduttori
+italiani</a>.<br/>Per informazioni su come gestire e inviare traduzioni
+delle nostre pagine web consultate la <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Guida alle
traduzioni</a>.</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- 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 © 1999-2011 Benjamin Mako Hill</p>
+
+<p>Questa pagina è distribuita secondo i termini della licenza <a
rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/deed.it";>Creative
+Commons Attribuzione - Non opere derivate 3.0 Stati Uniti</a> (CC BY-ND
+3.0).</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.it.html" -->
+<div class="translators-credits">
+
+<!--TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't want credits.-->
+Traduzione originale di Renata Morgantini. Revisioni di Fabio Pesari, Andrea
+Pescetti.</div>
+
+<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
+Ultimo aggiornamento:
+
+$Date: 2015/04/05 17:58:03 $
+
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+
Index: philosophy/po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.it-en.html
===================================================================
RCS file: philosophy/po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.it-en.html
diff -N philosophy/po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.it-en.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ philosophy/po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.it-en.html
5 Apr 2015 17:58:04 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,187 @@
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+<title> When Free Software Isn't (Practically) Superior - GNU Project - Free
Software Foundation</title>
+ <!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/po/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.translist"
-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2> When Free Software Isn't (Practically) Superior</h2>
+
+<p>The Open Source Initiative's mission statement reads, “Open source
+is a development method for software that harnesses the power of
+distributed peer review and transparency of process. The promise of
+open source is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility,
+lower cost, and an end to predatory vendor lock-in.”</p>
+
+<p>For more than a decade now, the Free Software Foundation has argued
+against this “open source” characterization of the free software
+movement. Free software advocates have primarily argued against this
+framing because “open source” is an explicit effort to deemphasize
+our core message of freedom and obscure our movement's role in the
+success of the software we have built. We have argued that “open
+source” is bad, fundamentally, because it attempts to keep people from
+talking about software freedom. But there is another reason we should
+be wary of the open source framing. The fundamental open source
+argument, as quoted in the mission statement above, is often
+incorrect.</p>
+
+<p>Although the Open Source Initiative suggests “the promise of open
+source is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility,” this
+promise is not always realized. Although we do not often advertise the
+fact, any user of an early-stage free software project can explain
+that free software is not always as convenient, in purely practical
+terms, as its proprietary competitors. Free software is sometimes low
+quality. It is sometimes unreliable. It is sometimes inflexible. If
+people take the arguments in favor of open source seriously, they must
+explain why open source has not lived up to its “promise” and
conclude
+that proprietary tools would be a better choice. There is no reason we
+should have to do either.</p>
+
+<p>Richard Stallman speaks to this in his article on <a
+href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">Why
+Open Source Misses the Point</a> when he explains, “The idea of open
+source is that allowing users to change and redistribute the software
+will make it more powerful and reliable. But this is not
+guaranteed. Developers of proprietary software are not necessarily
+incompetent. Sometimes they produce a program that is powerful and
+reliable, even though it does not respect the users' freedom.”</p>
+
+<p>For open source, poor-quality software is a problem to be explained
+away or a reason to eschew the software altogether. For free software,
+it is a problem to be worked through. For free software advocates,
+glitches and missing features are never a source of shame.
+Any piece of free software that respects users' freedom has a strong
+inherent advantage over a proprietary competitor that does not. Even
+if it has other issues, free software always has freedom.</p>
+
+<p>Of course, every piece of free software must start somewhere. A brand-new
+piece of software, for example, is unlikely to be more featureful
+than an established proprietary tool. Projects
+begin with many bugs and improve over time. While open
+source advocates might argue that a project will grow into usefulness
+over time and with luck, free software projects represent important
+contributions on day one to a free software advocate. Every piece of
+software that gives users control over their technology is a step
+forward. Improved quality as a project matures is the icing on the
+cake.</p>
+
+<p>A second, perhaps even more damning, fact is that the collaborative,
+distributed, peer-review development process at the heart of the
+definition of open source bears little resemblance to the practice of
+software development in the vast majority of projects under free (or
+“open source”) licenses.</p>
+
+<p>Several academic studies of free software hosting sites <a
+href="http://sf.net";>SourceForge</a> and <a
+href="http://sv.gnu.org";>Savannah</a> have shown what many free
+software developers who have put a codebase online already know
+first-hand. The vast majority of free software projects are not
+particularly collaborative. The median number of contributors to a
+free software project on SourceForge? One. A lone
+developer. SourceForge projects at the ninety-fifth percentile by
+participant size have only five contributors. More than half of these
+free software projects—and even most projects that have made several
+successful releases and been downloaded frequently, are the work of a
+single developer with little outside help.</p>
+
+<p>By emphasizing the power of collaborative development and “distributed
+peer review,” open source approaches seem to have very little to say
+about why one should use, or contribute to, the vast majority of free
+software projects. Because the purported benefits of collaboration
+cannot be realized when there is no collaboration, the vast majority
+of free development projects are at no technical advantage with respect to a
+proprietary competitor.</p>
+
+<p>For free software advocates, these same projects are each seen as
+important successes. Because every piece of free software respects its
+users' freedom, advocates of software freedom argue that each piece of
+free software begins with an inherent ethical advantage over
+proprietary competitors—even a more featureful one. By emphasizing
+freedom over practical advantages, free software's advocacy is rooted
+in a technical reality in a way that open source is often not. When
+free software is better, we can celebrate this fact. When it is not,
+we need not treat it as a damning critique of free software advocacy
+or even as a compelling argument against the use of the software in
+question.</p>
+
+<p>Open source advocates must defend their thesis that freely developed
+software should, or will with time, be better than proprietary
+software. Free software supporters can instead ask, “How can we make
+free software better?” In a free software framing, high quality software
+exists as a means to an end rather than an end itself. Free software
+developers should strive to create functional, flexible software that
+serves its users well. But doing so is not the only way to make steps
+toward solving what is both an easier and a much more profoundly
+important goal: respecting and protecting their freedom.</p>
+
+<p>Of course, we do not need to reject arguments that collaboration can
+play an important role in creating high-quality software. In many of
+the most successful free software projects, it clearly has done
+exactly that. The benefits of collaboration become something to
+understand, support, and work towards, rather than something to take
+for granted in the face of evidence that refuses to conform to
+ideology.</p>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<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>
+</div>
+
+<!-- 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 © 1999-2011 Benjamin Mako Hill</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/";>Creative
+Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2015/04/05 17:58:04 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+
Index: philosophy/proprietary/malware-apple.it.html
===================================================================
RCS file: philosophy/proprietary/malware-apple.it.html
diff -N philosophy/proprietary/malware-apple.it.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ philosophy/proprietary/malware-apple.it.html 5 Apr 2015 17:58:04
-0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,270 @@
+<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE"
value="/philosophy/proprietary/malware-apple.en.html" -->
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.it.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+
+<!-- This file is automatically generated by GNUnited Nations! -->
+<title>I sistemi operativi di Apple sono malware - Progetto GNU - Free Software
+Foundation</title>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/proprietary/po/malware-apple.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.it.html" -->
+<h2>I sistemi operativi di Apple sono malware</h2>
+
+<p><a href="/philosophy/proprietary/">Altri esempi di malware
proprietario</a></p>
+
+<div class="highlight-para">
+<p>
+<em>Malware</em> significa software progettato per funzionare in modi che
+maltrattano o danneggiano l'utente. (Questo non include errori accidentali.)
+Questa pagina spiega come il software nei prodotti informatici di Apple sia
+malware.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Malware e software non libero sono due problemi separati. La differenza tra
+<a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">software libero</a> e software non libero
+sta nell'<a href="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html">avere
+controllo del programma o viceversa</a>. Non è una questione che riguarda
+direttamente ciò che il programma <em>fa</em> in esecuzione. Comunque, nella
+pratica, il software non libero è spesso malware, perché gli sviluppatori,
+consapevoli dell'impossibilità da parte degli utenti di riparare eventuali
+funzionalità malevole, sono tentati ad imporne.
+</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>Ecco alcune delle motivazioni per cui i sistemi di Apple sono malware.</p>
+
+<ul>
+
+ <li><p><a
+href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/10/30/how-one-mans-private-files-ended-up-on-apples-icloud-without-his-consent/";>MacOS
+invia in automatico ai server di Apple i documenti non salvati che si stanno
+editando</a>. Le <a
+href="https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/10/apple_copies_yo.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter/";>cose
+che non vengono salvate sono ancora più sensibili di quelle che si
+salvano</a>.</p>
+ </li>
+
+ <li><p>Apple ha fatto sì che diversi <a
+href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/04/apple-data-privacy-icloud";>programmi
+di MacOS inviino file ai server di Apple senza chiedere alcun
+permesso</a>. Questo espone i file al Grande Fratello e forse ad altri
+ficcanaso.</p>
+
+ <p>Dimostra anche come non ci si possa fidare del software proprietario, in
+quanto anche se la versione di oggi potrebbe non avere una funzionalitÃ
+malevola, quella di domani potrebbe aggiungerla. Lo sviluppatore non
+rimuoverà la funzionalità se non costretto dalle lamentele degli utenti, e
+gli utenti non possono rimuoverla da soli.</p>
+ </li>
+
+ <li><p>Varie operazioni nell'<a
+href="http://lifehacker.com/safari-and-spotlight-can-send-data-to-apple-heres-how-1648453540";>ultima
+versione di MacOS inviano dei resoconti ai server di Apple</a>.</p>
+ </li>
+
+ <li><p>Spyware in MacOS: <a
+href="http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/privacy-advocates-worry-over-new-apple-iphone-tracking-feature-161836223.html";>Spotlight</a>
+invia i termini di ricerca degli utenti ad Apple.</p>
+ </li>
+
+ <li><p>Apple ammette di <a
+href="http://www.intego.com/mac-security-blog/spotlight-suggestions-in-os-x-yosemite-and-ios-are-you-staying-private/";>spiare
+in un servizio di ricerca</a>, ma c'è molto altro <a
+href="https://github.com/fix-macosx/yosemite-phone-home";>spionaggio di cui
+Apple non ha mai parlato</a>.</p>
+ </li>
+
+ <li><p><a
+href="http://boingboing.net/2010/04/02/why-i-wont-buy-an-ipad-and-think-yo.html";>iOS,
+il sistema operativo dei vai iGadget di Apple, è una prigione per gli
+utenti</a>. Questo vuol dire che censura le applicazioni.</p>
+
+ <p>Apple ha usato questo potere per <a
+href="http://boingboing.net/2014/02/07/apple-yanks-last-remaining-bit.html";>censurare
+tutte le applicazioni di bitcoin</a> per i vari iGadget.</p>
+
+ <p>Apple, tramite i vari iGadget, ha introdotto la pratica del rendere i
+computer per uso generale delle prigioni, ed il termine "prigione" viene
+proprio dagli utenti degli iGadget, che hanno coniato il termine
+“jailbreaking” (evasione carceraria) per descrivere
+l'aggiramento della censura.</p>
+
+ <p>Ecco un articolo sulla <a
+href="http://weblog.rogueamoeba.com/2008/03/07/code-signing-and-you/";>firma
+digitale del codice</a> usata dagli iGadget per imprigionare l'utente.</p>
+ </li>
+
+ <li><p>Apple <a
+href="http://9to5mac.com/2014/12/01/ios-8-1-signing-window-closed/";>non
+permette agli utenti di installare versioni precedenti di iOS</a>.</p>
+ </li>
+
+ <li><p><a
+href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/23/iphone-backdoors-surveillance-forensic-services";>Molte
+“funzionalità ” di iOS sembrano esistere al solo possibile scopo
+di permettere la sorveglianza</a>. Ecco la <a
+href="http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/iOS_Backdoors_Attack_Points_Surveillance_Mechanisms.pdf";>presentazione
+tecnica</a>.</p>
+ </li>
+
+ <li><p>L'<a
+href="http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/privacy-advocates-worry-over-new-apple-iphone-tracking-feature-161836223.html";>iBeacon</a>
+permette ai negozi di determinare la posizione precisa di un iGadget e di
+ottenere altre informazioni.</p>
+ </li>
+
+ <li><p>Gli iGadget sono dispositivi tiranni: non permettono l'installazione
di
+sistemi operativi diversi o modificati. Esiste una versione di Android per
+gli iGadget, ma installarla richiede <a
+href="http://www.idroidproject.org/wiki/Status";>trovare un bug o
+“exploit”</a> che renda possibile l'installazione di un sistema
+operativo diverso.</p>
+ </li>
+
+ <li><p><a
+href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/11/apple-downgrades-macbook-video-drm";>DRM
+(digital restriction mechanisms, meccanismi per restrizioni digitali) in
+MacOS</a>. Questo articolo si concentra sul fatto che un nuovo modello di
+Macbook ha introdotto un requisito per hardware del monitor malevolo, ma il
+software DRM di MacOS è coinvolto nell'attivazione di questo hardware. Il
+software che accede ad iTunes è a sua volta responsabile.</p>
+ </li>
+
+ <li><p><a href="http://arstechnica.com/apple/2007/08/aacs-tentacles/";>DRM
+introdotto per soddisfare i requisiti dei dischi Bluray</a>. (L'articolo si
+concentra su Windows ma afferma che MacOS farà lo stesso in seguito.)</p></li>
+
+ <li><p>L'iPhone ha una backdoor <a
+href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/3358134/Apples-Jobs-confirms-iPhone-kill-switch.html";>che
+permette ad Apple di disinstallare a distanza applicazioni</a> che reputa
+“inappropriate”. Jobs disse che è giusto che Apple abbia questo
+potere perché di Apple ci si può fidare, eccome.</p>
+ </li>
+
+ <li><p>L'iPhone ha una backdoor per <a
+href="http://www.npr.org/2010/11/22/131511381/wipeout-when-your-company-kills-your-iphone";>la
+formattazione a distanza</a>. Non è sempre abilitata, ma gli utenti vengono
+spinti ad abilitarla a loro insaputa.</p>
+ </li>
+
+ <li><p><a
+href="http://www.computerworld.com/article/2541250/apple-mac/update--apple-plays-hardball--upgrade--bricks--unlocked-iphones.html";>Un
+“aggiornamento” di Apple al firmware degli iPhone ha reso
+inutilizzabili i dispositivi che erano stati
+sbloccati</a>. L'“aggiornamento” ha anche disattivato le
+applicazioni non approvate dalla <a
+href="/philosophy/proprietary-jails.html">censura di Apple</a>. Tutto questo
+era apparentemente intenzionale.</p>
+ </li>
+
+ <li><p>Apple può (e spesso lo fa) <a
+href="http://arstechnica.com/apple/2014/05/new-guidelines-outline-what-iphone-data-apple-can-give-to-police/";>estrarre
+dati dagli iPhone a distanza per il governo</a>.
+ </p>
+ <p>Questo potrebbe essere cambiato con <a
+href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/2014/09/17/2612af58-3ed2-11e4-b03f-de718edeb92f_story.html";>i
+miglioramenti di sicurezza di iOS8</a>; ma <a
+href="https://firstlook.org/theintercept/?p=5199";>meno di quanto affermato
+da Apple</a>.</p>
+ </li>
+
+ <li><p>Apple <a
+href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/dec/04/apple-deleted-music-ipods-rivals-steve-jobs";>ha
+cancellato dagli iPod la musica scaricata da negozi di musica digitale
+concorrenti di iTunes</a>.</p>
+ </li>
+
+ <li><p><a
+href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/dec/11/papers-please-game-ipad-nude-body-scans";>Altri
+esempi della censura arbitraria ed incoerente perpetrata da Apple</a>.</p>
+ </li>
+
+</ul>
+
+<div class="translators-notes">
+
+<!--TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't have notes.-->
+ </div>
+</div>
+
+<!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.it.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Per informazioni su FSF e GNU rivolgetevi, possibilmente in inglese, a <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>. Ci sono anche <a
+href="/contact/">altri modi di contattare</a> la FSF. Inviate segnalazioni
+di link non funzionanti e altri suggerimenti relativi alle pagine web a <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+<p>
+<!-- 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>. -->
+Le traduzioni italiane sono effettuate ponendo la massima attenzione ai
+dettagli e alla qualità , ma a volte potrebbero contenere imperfezioni. Se ne
+riscontrate, inviate i vostri commenti e suggerimenti riguardo le traduzioni
+a <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden";><address@hidden></a>
+oppure contattate direttamente il <a
+href="http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/www-it/";>gruppo dei traduttori
+italiani</a>.<br/>Per informazioni su come gestire e inviare traduzioni
+delle nostre pagine web consultate la <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Guida alle
traduzioni</a>.</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- 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 © 2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p>
+
+<p>Questa pagina è distribuita secondo i termini della licenza <a
rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/deed.it";>Creative
+Commons Attribuzione - Non opere derivate 3.0 Stati Uniti</a> (CC BY-ND
+3.0).</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.it.html" -->
+<div class="translators-credits">
+
+<!--TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't want credits.-->
+Traduzione originale di Fabio Pesari. Revisioni di Alessandro Rubini, Andrea
+Pescetti.</div>
+
+<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
+Ultimo aggiornamento:
+
+$Date: 2015/04/05 17:58:04 $
+
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
Index: philosophy/proprietary/po/malware-apple.it-en.html
===================================================================
RCS file: philosophy/proprietary/po/malware-apple.it-en.html
diff -N philosophy/proprietary/po/malware-apple.it-en.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ philosophy/proprietary/po/malware-apple.it-en.html 5 Apr 2015 17:58:04
-0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,236 @@
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+<title>Apple's Operating Systems are Malware
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+ <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/proprietary/po/malware-apple.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>Apple's Operating Systems Are Malware</h2>
+
+<p><a href="/philosophy/proprietary/">Other examples of proprietary
malware</a></p>
+
+<div class="highlight-para">
+<p>
+<em>Malware</em> means software designed to function in ways that
+mistreat or harm the user. (This does not include accidental errors.)
+This page explains how the software in Apple's computer products are
+malware.
+</p>
+
+<p>
+Malware and nonfree software are two different issues. The difference
+between <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">free software</a> and
+nonfree software is in
+<a href="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html">
+whether the users have control of the program or vice versa</a>. It's
+not directly a question of what the program <em>does</em> when it
+runs. However, in practice nonfree software is often malware,
+because the developer's awareness that the users would be powerless to fix
+any malicious functionalities tempts the developer to impose some.
+</p>
+</div>
+
+<p>Here's how Apple's systems are malware.</p>
+
+<ul>
+
+ <li><p><a
href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/10/30/how-one-mans-private-files-ended-up-on-apples-icloud-without-his-consent/";>
+ MacOS automatically sends to Apple servers unsaved documents being
+ edited</a>. The <a
+
href="https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/10/apple_copies_yo.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter";>
+ things you have not decided to save are even more sensitive than the
+ things you have stored in files</a>.</p>
+ </li>
+
+ <li><p>Apple has made various
+ <a
href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/04/apple-data-privacy-icloud";>
+ MacOS programs send files to Apple servers without asking permission</a>.
+ This exposes the files to Big Brother and perhaps to other snoops.</p>
+
+ <p>It also demonstrates how you can't trust proprietary software,
+ because even if today's version doesn't have a malicious
+ functionality, tomorrow's version might add it. The developer won't
+ remove the malfeature unless many users push back hard, and the users
+ can't remove it themselves.</p>
+ </li>
+
+ <li><p>Various operations in
+ <a
href="http://lifehacker.com/safari-and-spotlight-can-send-data-to-apple-heres-how-1648453540";>
+ the latest MacOS send reports to Apple</a> servers.</p>
+ </li>
+
+ <li><p>Spyware in MacOS:
+ <a
href="http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/privacy-advocates-worry-over-new-apple-iphone-tracking-feature-161836223.html";>
+ Spotlight search</a> sends users' search terms to Apple.</p>
+ </li>
+
+ <li><p>Apple admits the
+ <a
href="http://www.intego.com/mac-security-blog/spotlight-suggestions-in-os-x-yosemite-and-ios-are-you-staying-private/";>
+ spying in a search facility</a>, but there's a lot
+ <a href="https://github.com/fix-macosx/yosemite-phone-home";>
+ more snooping that Apple has not talked about</a>.</p>
+ </li>
+
+ <li><p><a
href="http://boingboing.net/2010/04/02/why-i-wont-buy-an-ipad-and-think-yo.html";>
+ iOS, the operating system of the Apple iThings, is a jail for
+ users.</a> That means it imposes censorship of application programs.</p>
+
+ <p>Apple has used this power to
+ <a
href="http://boingboing.net/2014/02/07/apple-yanks-last-remaining-bit.html";>
+ censor all bitcoin apps</a> for the iThings.</p>
+
+ <p>Apple, in the iThings, pioneered the practice of general purpose
+ computers that are jails, and the term comes from iThing users, who
+ referred to escaping from the censorship as “jailbreaking.”</p>
+
+ <p>Here is an article about the <a
+ href="http://weblog.rogueamoeba.com/2008/03/07/code-signing-and-you/";>
+ code signing</a> that the iThings use to jail the user.</p>
+ </li>
+
+ <li><p>Apple arbitrarily
+ <a href="http://9to5mac.com/2014/12/01/ios-8-1-signing-window-closed/";>
+ blocks users from installing old versions of iOS</a>.</p>
+ </li>
+
+ <li><p><a
href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/23/iphone-backdoors-surveillance-forensic-services";>
+ Several “features” of iOS seem to exist for no possible
+ purpose other than surveillance</a>. Here is the <a
+
href="http://www.zdziarski.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/iOS_Backdoors_Attack_Points_Surveillance_Mechanisms.pdf";>
+ Technical presentation</a>.</p>
+ </li>
+
+ <li><p>The <a
+
href="http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/privacy-advocates-worry-over-new-apple-iphone-tracking-feature-161836223.html";>
+ iBeacon</a> lets stores determine exactly where the iThing is, and
+ get other info too.</p>
+ </li>
+
+ <li><p>The iThings are tyrant devices: they do not permit
+ installing a different or modified operating system. There is a
+ port of Android to the iThings, but installing it
+ requires <a href="http://www.idroidproject.org/wiki/Status";>
+ finding a bug or “exploit”</a> to make it possible to
+ install a different system.</p>
+ </li>
+
+ <li><p><a
+
href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/11/apple-downgrades-macbook-video-drm";>
+ DRM (digital restrictions mechanisms) in MacOS</a>. This article
+ focuses on the fact that a new model of Macbook introduced a requirement
+ for monitors to have malicious hardware, but DRM software in MacOS is
+ involved in activating the hardware. The software for accessing iTunes
+ is also responsible.</p>
+ </li>
+
+ <li><p><a href="http://arstechnica.com/apple/2007/08/aacs-tentacles/";>
+ DRM that caters to Bluray disks</a>. (The article focused on Windows
+ and said that MacOS would do the same thing subsequently.)</p></li>
+
+ <li><p>The iPhone has a back door <a
+
href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/3358134/Apples-Jobs-confirms-iPhone-kill-switch.html";>
+ that allows Apple to remotely delete apps</a> which Apple considers
+ “inappropriate”. Jobs said it's OK for Apple to have this
+ power because of course we can trust Apple.</p>
+ </li>
+
+ <li><p>The iPhone has a back door for <a
+
href="http://www.npr.org/2010/11/22/131511381/wipeout-when-your-company-kills-your-iphone";>
+ remote wipe</a>. It's not always enabled, but users are led into
+ enabling it without understanding.</p>
+ </li>
+
+ <li><p><a
href="http://www.computerworld.com/article/2541250/apple-mac/update--apple-plays-hardball--upgrade--bricks--unlocked-iphones.html";>
+ An Apple firmware “upgrade” bricked iPhones that had been
+ unlocked.</a> The “upgrade” also deactivated applications
+ not approved by <a href="/philosophy/proprietary-jails.html">Apple
+ censorship</a>. All this was apparently intentional.</p>
+ </li>
+
+ <li><p>Apple can, and regularly does, <a
+
href="http://arstechnica.com/apple/2014/05/new-guidelines-outline-what-iphone-data-apple-can-give-to-police/";>
+ remotely extract some data from iPhones for the state</a>.
+ </p>
+ <p>This may have improved with
+ <a
href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/2014/09/17/2612af58-3ed2-11e4-b03f-de718edeb92f_story.html";>
+ iOS 8 security improvements</a>; but
+ <a href="https://firstlook.org/theintercept/?p=5199";>
+ not as much as Apple claims</a>.</p>
+ </li>
+
+ <li><p>Apple
+ <a
href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/dec/04/apple-deleted-music-ipods-rivals-steve-jobs";>
+ deleted from iPods the music that users had got from internet music
+ stores that competed with iTunes</a>.</p>
+ </li>
+
+ <li><p><a
href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/dec/11/papers-please-game-ipad-nude-body-scans";>
+ More examples of Apple's arbitrary and inconsistent censorship</a>.</p>
+ </li>
+
+</ul>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<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>
+</div>
+
+<!-- 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 © 2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/";>Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2015/04/05 17:58:04 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- www planetfeeds.it.html philosophy/po/when-free...,
GNUN <=