www/philosophy free-sw.es.html open-source-miss...

[GNUN]

CVSROOT:        /web/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     GNUN <gnun>     15/09/05 09:57:24

Modified files:
        philosophy     : free-sw.es.html 
                         open-source-misses-the-point.es.html 
                         surveillance-vs-democracy.es.html 
        philosophy/po  : free-sw.es-en.html 
                         open-source-misses-the-point.es-en.html 
                         surveillance-vs-democracy.es-en.html 

Log message:
        Automatic update by GNUnited Nations.

CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/free-sw.es.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.82&r2=1.83
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.es.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.74&r2=1.75
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/surveillance-vs-democracy.es.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.24&r2=1.25
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/free-sw.es-en.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.39&r2=1.40
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.es-en.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.37&r2=1.38
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/surveillance-vs-democracy.es-en.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.19&r2=1.20

Patches:
Index: free-sw.es.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/free-sw.es.html,v
retrieving revision 1.82
retrieving revision 1.83
diff -u -b -r1.82 -r1.83
--- free-sw.es.html     5 Jun 2015 12:06:42 -0000       1.82
+++ free-sw.es.html     5 Sep 2015 09:57:23 -0000       1.83
@@ -80,6 +80,14 @@
 en base a cuánto les falta para llegar a ser libres, nosotros los
 consideramos contrarios a la ética a todos por igual.</p>
 
+<p>En cualquier circunstancia, estas libertades deben aplicarse a todo código
+que se planee usar o hacer que otros lo usen. Tomemos por ejemplo un
+programa A que automáticamente ejecuta un programa B para que realice alguna
+tarea. Si se tiene la intención de distribuir A tal cual, esto implica que
+los usuarios necesitarán B, de modo que es necesario considerar si tanto A
+como B son libres. No obstante, si se piensa modificar A para que no haga
+uso de B, solo A debe ser libre y se puede ignorar B. </p>
+
 <p>En el resto de esta página tratamos algunos puntos que aclaran qué es lo 
que
 hace que las libertades específicas sean adecuadas o no.</p>
 
@@ -396,6 +404,10 @@
 <ul>
 
 <li><a
+href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.140&amp;r2=1.141";>Version
+1.141</a>: Expresar más claramente qué código debe ser libre. </li>
+
+<li><a
 
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.134&amp;r2=1.135";>Versión
 1.135</a>: Mencionar en cada caso que la libertad 0 es la libertad de
 ejecutar el programa como se desea.</li>
@@ -585,7 +597,7 @@
 
 <!-- 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
+     be under CC BY-ND 4.0.  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
@@ -603,8 +615,8 @@
 Software Foundation, Inc.</p>
 
 <p>Esta página está bajo licencia <a rel="license"
-href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/deed.es_ES";>Creative
-Commons Reconocimiento-SinObraDerivada 3.0 Estados Unidos de América</a>.</p>
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/deed.es_ES";>Creative
+Commons Reconocimiento-SinObraDerivada 4.0 Internacional</a>.</p>
 
 <!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.es.html" -->
 <div class="translators-credits">
@@ -616,7 +628,7 @@
 <p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
 Última actualización:
 
-$Date: 2015/06/05 12:06:42 $
+$Date: 2015/09/05 09:57:23 $
 
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>

Index: open-source-misses-the-point.es.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.es.html,v
retrieving revision 1.74
retrieving revision 1.75
diff -u -b -r1.74 -r1.75
--- open-source-misses-the-point.es.html        5 Jun 2015 12:06:46 -0000       
1.74
+++ open-source-misses-the-point.es.html        5 Sep 2015 09:57:23 -0000       
1.75
@@ -192,6 +192,12 @@
 forma conficendial), algo que los programadores de software privativo han
 hecho durante décadas.</p>
 
+<p>El término se ha extendido para incluir los planos de máquinas que <a
+href="http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/aug/27/texas-teenager-water-purifier-toxic-e-waste-pollution";>se
+publican sin patentes</a>. Los planos de máquinas libres de patentes son una
+loable contribución a la sociedad, pero la expresión «código fuente» no se
+aplica en este caso.</p>
+
 <p>Los partidarios del código abierto intentan afrontar este problema
 refiriéndose a su definición oficial, pero ese enfoque correctivo es menos
 efectivo para ellos que para nosotros. El término «software libre» tiene dos
@@ -479,8 +485,8 @@
 <p>Copyright &copy; 2007, 2010, 2012, 2015 Richard Stallman</p>
 
 <p>Esta página está bajo licencia <a rel="license"
-href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/deed.es_ES";>Creative
-Commons Reconocimiento-SinObraDerivada 3.0 Estados Unidos de América</a>.</p>
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/deed.es_ES";>Creative
+Commons Reconocimiento-SinObraDerivada 4.0 Internacional</a>.</p>
 
 <!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.es.html" -->
 <div class="translators-credits">
@@ -491,7 +497,7 @@
 <p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
 Última actualización:
 
-$Date: 2015/06/05 12:06:46 $
+$Date: 2015/09/05 09:57:23 $
 
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>

Index: surveillance-vs-democracy.es.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/surveillance-vs-democracy.es.html,v
retrieving revision 1.24
retrieving revision 1.25
diff -u -b -r1.24 -r1.25
--- surveillance-vs-democracy.es.html   24 Jul 2015 10:27:24 -0000      1.24
+++ surveillance-vs-democracy.es.html   5 Sep 2015 09:57:24 -0000       1.25
@@ -431,7 +431,7 @@
 lo que hace Estados Unidos con algunas o todas las compañías
 telefónicas</a>. Tendríamos que confiar en que se prohibiera por ley. Sin
 embargo, eso sería mejor que la situación actual, pues la legislación
-relevante, la <cite>PATRIOT Act</cite> (Ley Patriótica), no prohíbe
+relevante, la <cite>PAT RIOT Act</cite> (Ley Patriótica), no prohíbe
 claramente esta práctica. Además, si el gobierno retomara este tipo de
 vigilancia, no conseguiría los datos sobre todas las llamadas telefónicas
 anteriores a esa fecha.</p>
@@ -496,9 +496,17 @@
 mucho más allá de lo que experimentamos en la década de los noventa, y <a
 
href="http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2013/06/your_iphone_works_for_the_secret_police.html";>mucho
 más allá de lo que experimentó la población detrás de la Cortina de
-Hierro</a> en los años ochenta, e irá aún más allá, incluso si se imponen
-límites legales adicionales al uso que los Estados pueden hacer de los datos
-acumulados.</p>
+Hierro</a> en los años ochenta, y los límites legales que se proponen sobre
+el uso de los datos acumulados por parte del Estado no modificarán la
+situación. </p>
+
+<p>Las empresas están diseñando medios de vigilancia cada vez más
+invasivos. Hay quienes predicen que la vigilancia invasiva, ligada a
+empresas tales como Facebook, podría afectar profundamente el <a
+href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/aug/10/internet-of-things-predictable-people";>modo
+de pensar de las personas</a>.  Tales posibilidades son imprevisibles, pero
+el peligro para la democracia está fuera de discusión. Existe y es tangible
+hoy.</p>
 
 <p>A menos que creamos que en el pasado nuestros países libres adolecieron de
 un grave déficit de vigilancia, y que deberíamos ser vigilados más de lo que
@@ -580,7 +588,7 @@
 <p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
 Última actualización:
 
-$Date: 2015/07/24 10:27:24 $
+$Date: 2015/09/05 09:57:24 $
 
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>

Index: po/free-sw.es-en.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/free-sw.es-en.html,v
retrieving revision 1.39
retrieving revision 1.40
diff -u -b -r1.39 -r1.40
--- po/free-sw.es-en.html       18 Feb 2015 14:27:59 -0000      1.39
+++ po/free-sw.es-en.html       5 Sep 2015 09:57:24 -0000       1.40
@@ -75,6 +75,14 @@
 nonfree distribution schemes in terms of how far they fall short of
 being free, we consider them all equally unethical.</p>
 
+<p>In any given scenario, these freedoms must apply to whatever code
+we plan to make use of, or lead others to make use of.  For instance,
+consider a program A which automatically launches a program B to
+handle some cases.  If we plan to distribute A as it stands, that
+implies users will need B, so we need to judge whether both A and B
+are free.  However, if we plan to modify A so that it doesn't use B,
+only A needs to be free; we can ignore B.</p>
+
 <p>The rest of this page clarifies certain points about what makes
 specific freedoms adequate or not.</p>
 
@@ -382,6 +390,9 @@
 
 <ul>
 
+<li><a 
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.140&amp;r2=1.141";>Version
+1.141</a>: Clarify which code needs to be free.</li>
+
 <li><a 
href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&amp;r1=1.134&amp;r2=1.135";>Version
 1.135</a>: Say each time that freedom 0 is the freedom to run the program
 as you wish.</li>
@@ -530,7 +541,7 @@
 
 <!-- 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
+     be under CC BY-ND 4.0.  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
@@ -549,14 +560,14 @@
 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>
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/";>Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p>
 
 <!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
 
 <p class="unprintable">Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2015/02/18 14:27:59 $
+$Date: 2015/09/05 09:57:24 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>

Index: po/open-source-misses-the-point.es-en.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.es-en.html,v
retrieving revision 1.37
retrieving revision 1.38
diff -u -b -r1.37 -r1.38
--- po/open-source-misses-the-point.es-en.html  23 Apr 2015 17:58:52 -0000      
1.37
+++ po/open-source-misses-the-point.es-en.html  5 Sep 2015 09:57:24 -0000       
1.38
@@ -178,6 +178,13 @@
 give confidential feedback&mdash;which proprietary software developers
 have practiced for decades.</p>
 
+<p>The term has even been stretched to include designs for equipment
+that
+are <a 
href="http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/aug/27/texas-teenager-water-purifier-toxic-e-waste-pollution";>published
+without a patent</a>.  Patent-free equipment designs can be laudible
+contributions to society, but the term &ldquo;source code&rdquo; does
+not pertain to it.</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 &ldquo;free software&rdquo; has
@@ -440,14 +447,14 @@
 <p>Copyright &copy; 2007, 2010, 2012, 2015 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>
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/";>Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p>
 
 <!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
 
 <p class="unprintable">Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2015/04/23 17:58:52 $
+$Date: 2015/09/05 09:57:24 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>

Index: po/surveillance-vs-democracy.es-en.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/surveillance-vs-democracy.es-en.html,v
retrieving revision 1.19
retrieving revision 1.20
diff -u -b -r1.19 -r1.20
--- po/surveillance-vs-democracy.es-en.html     24 Jul 2015 10:27:25 -0000      
1.19
+++ po/surveillance-vs-democracy.es-en.html     5 Sep 2015 09:57:24 -0000       
1.20
@@ -390,7 +390,7 @@
 the <a 
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order";>U.S.
 does
 with some or all phone companies</a>.  We would have to rely on
 prohibiting that by law.  However, that would be better than the
-current situation, where the relevant law (the PATRIOT Act) does not
+current situation, where the relevant law (the PAT RIOT Act) does not
 clearly prohibit the practice.  In addition, if the government did
 resume this sort of surveillance, it would not get data about
 everyone's phone calls made prior to that time.</p>
@@ -449,8 +449,15 @@
 It is far more than we experienced in the 1990s,
 and <a 
href="http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2013/06/your_iphone_works_for_the_secret_police.html";>far
 more than people behind the Iron Curtain experienced</a> in the 1980s,
-and would still be far more even with additional legal limits on state
-use of the accumulated data.</p>
+and proposed legal limits on state use of the accumulated data would
+not alter that.</p>
+
+<p>Companies are designing even more intrusive surveillance.  Some
+project that pervasive surveillance, hooked to companies such as
+Facebook, could have deep effects
+on <a 
href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/aug/10/internet-of-things-predictable-people";>how
+people think</a>.  Such possibilities are imponderable; but the threat
+to democracy is not speculation.  It exists and is visible today.</p>
 
 <p>Unless we believe that our free countries previously suffered from
 a grave surveillance deficit, and ought to be surveilled more than the
@@ -514,7 +521,7 @@
 
 <p class="unprintable">Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2015/07/24 10:27:25 $
+$Date: 2015/09/05 09:57:24 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>