www-commits
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

www/philosophy open-source-misses-the-point.pt-...


From: GNUN
Subject: www/philosophy open-source-misses-the-point.pt-...
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 06:00:16 +0000 (UTC)

CVSROOT:        /web/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     GNUN <gnun>     16/11/14 06:00:16

Modified files:
        philosophy     : open-source-misses-the-point.pt-br.html 
        philosophy/po  : open-source-misses-the-point.pt-br-en.html 
                         open-source-misses-the-point.pt-br.po 

Log message:
        Automatic update by GNUnited Nations.

CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.pt-br.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.10&r2=1.11
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.pt-br-en.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.5&r2=1.6
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.pt-br.po?cvsroot=www&r1=1.31&r2=1.32

Patches:
Index: open-source-misses-the-point.pt-br.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.pt-br.html,v
retrieving revision 1.10
retrieving revision 1.11
diff -u -b -r1.10 -r1.11
--- open-source-misses-the-point.pt-br.html     27 Jul 2016 04:59:13 -0000      
1.10
+++ open-source-misses-the-point.pt-br.html     14 Nov 2016 06:00:16 -0000      
1.11
@@ -1,9 +1,3 @@
-<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
- value='<a href="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.pt-br.po">
- https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.pt-br.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.pt-br-diff.html"
- --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2012-12-29" -->
 <!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" 
value="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html" -->
 
 <!--#include virtual="/server/header.pt-br.html" -->
@@ -15,16 +9,15 @@
 
 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.translist" 
-->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.pt-br.html" -->
-<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.pt-br.html" -->
 <h2>Por que o Código Aberto não compartilha dos objetivos do Software 
Livre</h2>
 
 <p>por <strong>Richard Stallman</strong></p>
 
 <p>Quando dizemos que um software é “livre”, queremos dizer que ele 
respeita as
-<a href="/philosophy/free-sw.pt-br.html">liberdades essenciais dos
-usuários</a>: a liberdade de rodá-lo, de estudá-lo e mudá-lo, e 
redistribuir
-cópias com ou sem mudanças. Isso é uma questão de liberdade, não de 
preço -
-pense em “liberdade de expressão”, não em “cerveja grátis”.</p>
+<a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">liberdades essenciais dos usuários</a>: a
+liberdade de executá-lo, de estudá-lo e mudá-lo, e redistribuir cópias com
+ou sem mudanças. Isso é uma questão de liberdade, não de preço&mdash;pense
+em “liberdade de expressão”, não em “cerveja grátis”.</p>
 
 <p>Essas liberdades são vitalmente importantes. Elas são essenciais não 
apenas
 para os propósitos individuais dos usuários, mas para a sociedade como um
@@ -56,9 +49,10 @@
 <p>Nem todos os usuários e desenvolvedores de software livre concordaram com 
os
 objetivos do movimento do software livre. Em 1998, um parte da comunidade do
 software livre se separou e iniciou uma campanha em nome do “código
-aberto”. O termo foi originalmente proposto afim de evitar uma possível
-confusão com o termo “software livre”, porém logo se tornou associado a
-visões filosóficas bem diferentes daquelas do movimento do software 
livre.</p>
+aberto”. O termo foi originalmente proposto com a finalidade de evitar uma
+possível confusão com o termo “software livre”, porém logo se tornou
+associado a visões filosóficas bem diferentes daquelas do movimento do
+software livre.</p>
 
 <p>Alguns dos partidários do código aberto consideram o termo uma 
“campanha de
 marketing pelo software livre”, que apela aos empresários ao salientar os
@@ -75,14 +69,17 @@
 <p>Os dois termos descrevem quase a mesma categoria de software, porém eles
 apoiam visões baseadas em valores fundamentalmente diferentes. O código
 aberto é uma metodologia de desenvolvimento; o software livre é um movimento
-social. Para o movimento do software livre, o software live é um imperativo
-ético, pois apenas o software livre respeita a liberdade dos usuários. Em
-contrapartida, a filosofia do código aberto considera os problemas em termos
-de como tornar o software “melhor” &mdash; e apenas num sentido prático. 
Ela
-diz que o software não-livre é uma solução inferior para o problema 
prático
-em questão.</p>
+social. Para o movimento do software livre, o software livre é um imperativo
+ético, com respeito essencial à liberdade dos usuários. Em contrapartida, a
+filosofia do código aberto considera os problemas em termos de como tornar o
+software “melhor” &mdash; e apenas num sentido prático. Ela diz que o
+software não livre é uma solução inferior para o problema prático em
+questão. A maioria das discussões de “código aberto” não tem foco no 
certo e
+errado, apenas na popularidade e sucesso; aqui está um <a
+href="http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/Open-Source-Is-Woven-Into-the-Latest-Hottest-Trends-78937.html";>exemplo
+típico</a>.</p>
 
-<p>Para o movimento do software livre, contudo, o software não-livre é um
+<p>Para o movimento do software livre, contudo, o software não livre é um
 problema social e a solução é parar de usá-lo e migrar para o software
 livre.</p>
 
@@ -95,11 +92,38 @@
 nesse sentido, é essencial falar em “software livre”.</p>
 
 <p>Nós do movimento do software livre não vemos o código aberto como um
-empreendimento inimigo; o inimigo é o software (não-livre)
+empreendimento inimigo; o inimigo é o software (não livre)
 proprietário. Porém, nós queremos que as pessoas saibam que apoiamos a
 liberdade, por isso não aceitamos ser rotulados erroneamente como
 partidários do código aberto.</p>
 
+<h3>Diferenças práticas entre Software Livre e Código Aberto</h3>
+
+<p>Na prática, o código aberto apoia critérios um pouco mais flexíveis que 
os
+do software livre. Até onde sabemos, todos os códigos abertos de software
+livre lançados se qualificariam como código aberto. Quase todos os softwares
+de código aberto são software livre, mas há exceções. Primeiro, algumas
+licenças de código aberto são restritivas demais, de forma que elas não se
+qualificam como licenças livres. Por exemplo, a “Open Watcom” é não 
livre
+porque sua licença não permite fazer uma versão modificada e usá-la
+privativamente. Por sorte, poucos programas usam tais licenças.</p>
+
+<p>Segundo, e mais importante na prática, muitos produtos contendo 
computadores
+verificam assinaturas em seus programas executáveis para bloquear usuários
+de instalar executáveis; apenas uma empresa privilegiada pode fazer
+executáveis que funcionem no dispositivo e que possa acessar toda sua
+capacidade. Nós chamamos esses dispositivos de “tiranos”, e a prática é
+chamada de “tivoização” em referência ao produto (Tivo) através do 
qual nós
+vimos isto pela primeira vez. Mesmo que o executável tenha sido feito de
+código aberto, os usuários não podem executar versões modificadas dele,
+motivo pelo qual o executável é não livre.</p>
+
+<p>Os critérios de código aberto não reconhecem essa questão; eles se 
preocupam
+unicamente com o licenciamento do código aberto. Então, esses executáveis
+não modificáveis, quando feitos a partir de código aberto como o Linux, que
+é um código aberto e livre, são códigos abertos, porém não livres. Muitos
+produtos do Android contém executáveis tivoizados não livres do Linux.</p>
+
 <h3>Enganos comuns em relação ao “Software Livre” e “Código 
Aberto”</h3>
 
 <p>O termo “software livre” está propenso a interpretação errada: o 
sentido não
@@ -120,7 +144,7 @@
 tipo de problema semântico &mdash; e isso inclui “software de código
 aberto”.</p>
 
-<p>A <a href="http://opensource.org/docs/osd";>definição oficial de 
“software de
+<p>A <a href="https://opensource.org/osd";>definição oficial de “software de
 código aberto”</a> (que foi publicada pela Open Source Initiative e é longa
 demais para ser incluída aqui) foi indiretamente derivada dos nossos
 critérios para o software livre. Ela não é igual; é um pouco mais ampla em
@@ -134,20 +158,19 @@
 oficial de código aberto, pois isso inclui muitos programas que não são nem
 livres nem código aberto.</p>
 
-<p><!-- It was from http://da.state.ks.us/itec/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf, but
-that page is no longer available. -->
-Visto que o sentido óbvio para “código aberto” não é o mesmo que seus
-defensores intencionam, o resultado é que muitas pessoas interpretam mal o
+<p>Visto que o sentido óbvio para “código aberto” não é o mesmo que 
seus
+defensores intencionam, o resultado é que muitas pessoas interpretam mau o
 termo. De acordo com o escritor Neal Stephenson, “o Linux é um software de
 ‘código aberto’, o que significa, simplesmente, que qualquer um pode obter
 cópias de seus arquivos de código-fonte”. Eu não acho que ele
 deliberadamente procurou rejeitar ou contestar a definição “oficial”. Eu
 penso que ele simplesmente aplicou as convenções da língua inglesa para
-encontrar um sentido para o termo. O estado do Kansas publicou uma definição
-similar: “Fazer uso de software de código-aberto (OSS). OSS é o software
-para o qual o código-fonte é livre e disponibilizado publicamente, porém os
-acordos de licenciamento específicos variam quanto ao que é permitido se
-fazer com o código”.</p>
+encontrar um sentido para o termo. O <a
+href="https://web.archive.org/web/20001011193422/http://da.state.ks.us/ITEC/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf";>estado
+do Kansas</a> publicou uma definição similar: “Fazer uso de software de
+código-aberto (OSS). OSS é o software para o qual o código-fonte é livre e
+disponibilizado publicamente, porém os acordos de licenciamento específicos
+variam quanto ao que é permitido se fazer com o código”.</p>
 
 <p>O <i>New York Times</i> <a
 
href="http://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-design-37415.html";>publicou
@@ -156,6 +179,13 @@
 enviem feedback confidencial &mdash; que os desenvolvedores de software
 proprietário têm praticado por décadas.</p>
 
+<p>O termo foi estendido até mesmo para incluir projetos para equipamento que
+estão <a
+href="http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/aug/27/texas-teenager-water-purifier-toxic-e-waste-pollution";>publicados
+sem uma patente</a>. Projetos de equipamentos sem patentes podem ser
+contribuições louváveis para a sociedade, porém o termo “código 
aberto” não
+se aplica a eles.</p>
+
 <p>Os partidários do código aberto tentam lidar com isso chamando atenção 
para
 sua definição oficial, mas essa abordagem corretiva é menos efetiva para
 eles do que para nós. O termo “software livre” tem dois sentidos naturais,
@@ -170,14 +200,19 @@
 a GNU GPL”. Esse engano tende a acompanhar outro mal-entendido que 
“software
 livre” significa “software coberto pela GPL”. Ambos são equívocos, 
visto que
 a GNU GPL qualifica-se como uma licença código aberto e a maioria das
-licenças de código aberto qualificam-se como licenças de software livre.</p>
+licenças de código aberto qualificam-se como licenças de software livre. Há
+<a href="/licenses/license-list.html">muitas licenças de software livre</a>
+além da GNU GPL.</p>
 
 <p>O termo “código aberto” tem sido adicionalmente estendido por sua 
aplicação
 a outras atividades, tais como governo, educação e ciência, onde não existe
 código-fonte e onde os critérios para licenciamento de software são
 simplesmente não pertinentes. A única coisa que essas atividades têm em
 comum é que elas, de alguma forma, convidam as pessoas a participar. Eles
-estenderam tanto o termo que ele apenas significa “participatório”.</p>
+estenderam tanto o termo que ele apenas significa “participativo” ou
+“transparente”, ou menos que isso. Na pior das hipóteses, ele se <a
+href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/opinion/sunday/morozov-open-and-closed.html";>tornou
+um termo vazio na moda</a>.</p>
 
 <h3>Valores diferentes podem levar a conclusões similares&hellip; mas nem 
sempre</h3>
 
@@ -216,10 +251,10 @@
 recompensará esquemas que tiram nossa liberdade, levando à sua perda.</p>
 
 <p>Um ativista do software livre dirá: “Seu programa é muito atrativo, 
porém,
-eu valorizo mais a minha liberdade. Sendo assim, eu rejeito seu programa. Ao
-invés disso, irei apoiar um projeto para desenvolver um substituto
-livre”. Se nós valorizamos nossa liberdade, nós podemos agir para 
mantê-la e
-defendê-la.</p>
+eu valorizo mais a minha liberdade. Sendo assim, eu rejeito seu programa. Eu
+criarei minha obra de outra forma, e apoiarei um projeto para desenvolver um
+substituto livre”. Se nós valorizamos nossa liberdade, nós podemos agir 
para
+mantê-la e defendê-la.</p>
 
 <h3>Software poderoso e confiável pode ser ruim</h3>
 
@@ -232,8 +267,8 @@
 usuários? Então, ser poderoso significa que as correntes são mais
 constritivas e ser confiável significa que elas são mais difíceis de
 remover.Características maliciosas, tais como espionar os usuários,
-restringir os usuários, back doors, e imposição de upgrades são comuns no
-software proprietário, e alguns mantenedores do código aberto querem
+restringir os usuários, <i>backdoors</i>, e imposição de upgrades são 
comuns
+no software proprietário, e alguns mantenedores do código aberto querem
 implementá-los nos programas de código aberto.</p>
 
 <p>Sob pressão das companhias de cinema e gravadoras, o software para uso
@@ -259,7 +294,7 @@
 desenvolvimento de código aberto obter êxito em tornar esse software mais
 poderoso e confiável ao limitar você, isso o tornará ainda pior.</p>
 
-<h3>Medo da liberdade</h3>
+<h3>Medo da Liberdade</h3>
 
 <p>A principal motivação inicial daqueles que se desligaram do movimento do
 software livre e criaram o empreendimento do código aberto era que as ideias
@@ -276,6 +311,12 @@
 poderiam “vender” o software de maneira mais eficaz a certos usuários,
 especialmente a empresas.</p>
 
+<p>Quando proponentes de código aberto falam sobre qualquer coisa mais 
profunda
+que isso, geralmente é a ideia de fazer do código-fonte um “presente” 
para a
+humanidade. Apresentar isso como uma espécie de boa ação, além do que é
+moralmente exigido, presume que distribuir software sem um código-fonte é
+moralmente legítimo.</p>
+
 <p>Essa abordagem se mostrou efetiva, em seus próprios termos. A retórica do
 código aberto tem convencido muitos empresários e indivíduos a usar, e ainda
 desenvolver, software livre, o que tem estendido nossa comunidade &mdash;
@@ -305,8 +346,8 @@
 proprietários ao sistema livre básico, e eles convidam os usuários a
 considerar isso um vantagem, ao invés de uma falha.</p>
 
-<p>Software proprietário adicional e distribuições GNU/Linux parcialmente
-não-livres encontram campo fértil porque boa parte de nossa comunidade não
+<p>Software proprietário adicional e distribuições GNU/Linux parcialmente 
não
+livres encontram campo fértil porque boa parte de nossa comunidade não
 insiste na liberdade em seu software. Isso não é coincidência. A maioria dos
 usuários GNU/Linux foram introduzidos ao sistema por meio da discussão do
 “código aberto”, que não diz que a liberdade é um objetivo. As 
práticas que
@@ -314,6 +355,36 @@
 mãos dadas, uma promovendo a outra. Para superar essa tendência, nós
 precisamos de mais, não de menos, discussões sobre liberdade.</p>
 
+<h3>“FLOSS” e “FOSS”</h3>
+
+<p> Os termos “FLOSS” e “FOSS” costumavam ser <a
+href="/philosophy/floss-and-foss.html">neutros entre software livre e código
+aberto</a>. Se neutralidade é o objetivo, “FLOSS” é o melhor dos
+dois. Porém, se você deseja apoiar a liberdade, usar um termo neutro não é 
o
+caminho. Defender a liberdade significa mostrar para as pessoas que você
+apoia a liberdade.</p>
+
+<h3>Rivais de ideias</h3>
+
+<p>“Livre” e “aberto” são rivais em ideias. “Software livre” e 
“código aberto”
+são ideias diferentes mas, na forma que a maioria das pessoas estão vendo os
+softwares, elas competem pelo mesmo espaço conceitual. Quando pessoas se
+habituam a dizer e pensar “código aberto”, isso é um obstáculo para
+compreender a filosofia do movimento de software livre e pensar sobre
+isso. Se elas já nos associaram e nossos softwares com a palavra “aberto”,
+nós podemos precisar dar um choque intelectual antes que eles reconheçam que
+nós apoiamos alguma <em>outra</em> coisa. Qualquer atividade que promove a
+palavra “aberto” tende a estender a cortina que oculta as ideias do
+movimento de software livre.</p>
+
+<p>Então, ativistas de software livre são aconselhados a negar trabalhar em 
uma
+atividade que se denomina “aberto”. Mesmo se a atividade seja boa, toda
+contribuição que você faz prejudica um pouco no sentido de promover a ideia
+de código aberto. Há muitas outras atividades boas que se autodenominam
+“livre” ou “libre”. Cada contribuição para estes projetos faz um bem 
extra
+neste sentido. Com tantos projetos úteis para escolher, por que não escolher
+aqueles que fazem um bem extra?</p>
+
 <h3>Conclusão</h3>
 
 <p>Na medida em que os defensores do código aberto atraem novos usuários a
@@ -321,7 +392,7 @@
 de trazer a questão da liberdade à sua atenção. Nós temos que dizer: 
“Isso é
 software livre e dá a você liberdade”, mais e mais alto do que nunca. Toda
 vez que você diz “software livre”, ao invés de “código aberto”, 
você ajuda
-nossa campanha.</p>
+nossa causa.</p>
 
 <h4>Notas</h4>
 
@@ -383,23 +454,25 @@
 traduções das páginas desse site.</p>
 </div>
 
-<p>Copyright &copy; 2007, 2010 Richard Stallman</p>
+<p>Copyright &copy; 2007, 2010, 2012, 2015, 2016 Richard Stallman</p>
 
 <p>Esta página está licenciada sob uma licença <a rel="license"
-href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/deed.pt_BR";>Creative
-Commons Atribuição-SemDerivações 3.0 Estados Unidos</a>.</p>
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/deed.pt_BR";>Creative
+Commons Atribuição-SemDerivações 4.0 Internacional</a>.</p>
 
 <!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.pt-br.html" -->
 <div class="translators-credits">
 
 <!--TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't want credits.-->
-<b>Tradução:</b> Thiago Carreira
-<a href="mailto:address@hidden";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>, 2012</div>
+<b>Tradução:</b> Thiago Carreira <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>, 2012;
+Rafael Fontenelle <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>, 2016;</div>
 
 <p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
 Última atualização: 
 
-$Date: 2016/07/27 04:59:13 $
+$Date: 2016/11/14 06:00:16 $
 
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>

Index: po/open-source-misses-the-point.pt-br-en.html
===================================================================
RCS file: 
/web/www/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.pt-br-en.html,v
retrieving revision 1.5
retrieving revision 1.6
diff -u -b -r1.5 -r1.6
--- po/open-source-misses-the-point.pt-br-en.html       27 Sep 2012 16:55:43 
-0000      1.5
+++ po/open-source-misses-the-point.pt-br-en.html       14 Nov 2016 06:00:16 
-0000      1.6
@@ -1,10 +1,9 @@
 <!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
-
-<title>Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software - GNU Project - Free 
Software Foundation (FSF)</title>
-
-<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+<title>Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software - GNU Project - 
+Free Software Foundation</title>
 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.translist" 
-->
-   
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
 <h2>Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software</h2>
 
 <p>by <strong>Richard Stallman</strong></p>
@@ -17,28 +16,29 @@
 beer.&rdquo;</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&mdash;that is, sharing and cooperation.  They become even
-more important as our culture and life activities are increasingly digitized.
-In a world of digital sounds, images, and words, free
-software becomes increasingly essential for freedom in general.</p>
+for the individual users' sake, but for society as a whole because they 
+promote social solidarity&mdash;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 &ldquo;open source&rdquo;, attributing them to a different
-philosophy in which these freedoms are hardly mentioned.</p>
+the public schools of some regions of India and Spain now teach all 
+students to use the free <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux 
+operating system</a>.  Most of these users, however, have never heard of 
+the ethical reasons for which we developed this system and built the free 
+software community, because nowadays this system and community are more 
+often spoken of as &ldquo;open source&rdquo;, attributing them to a 
+different philosophy in which these freedoms are hardly mentioned.</p>
 
 <p>The free software movement has campaigned for computer users'
 freedom since 1983.  In 1984 we launched the development of the free
-operating system GNU, so that we could avoid the nonfree operating systems 
that deny freedom to their users.  During the 1980s, we developed most
+operating system GNU, so that we could avoid the nonfree operating systems 
+that deny freedom to their users.  During the 1980s, we developed most
 of the essential components of the system and designed
-the <a href="/licenses/gpl.html">GNU General Public License</a> (GNU GPL) to 
release them under&mdash;a
-license designed specifically to protect freedom for all users of a
-program.</p>
+the <a href="/licenses/gpl.html">GNU General Public License</a> (GNU GPL) 
+to release them under&mdash;a license designed specifically to protect 
+freedom for all users of a program.</p>
 
 <p>Not all of the users and developers of free software
 agreed with the goals of the free software movement.  In 1998, a part
@@ -50,41 +50,75 @@
 
 <p>Some of the supporters of open source considered the term a
 &ldquo;marketing campaign for free software,&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;open source&rdquo; quickly became associated with
-ideas and arguments based only on practical values, such as making or having 
powerful,
-reliable software.  Most of the supporters of open
-source have come to it since then, and they make the same association.</p>
+to business executives by highlighting the software's practical
+benefits, while not raising issues of right and wrong that they might
+not like to hear.  Other supporters flatly rejected the free software
+movement's ethical and social values.  Whichever their views, when
+campaigning for open source, they neither cited nor advocated those
+values.  The term &ldquo;open source&rdquo; quickly became associated
+with ideas and arguments based only on practical values, such as
+making or having powerful, reliable software.  Most of the supporters
+of open source have come to it since then, and they make the same
+association.</p>
 
-<p>Nearly all open source software is free software.  The two terms
+<p>The two terms
 describe almost the same category of software, but they stand for
 views based on fundamentally different values.  Open source is a
 development methodology; free software is a social movement.  For the
 free software movement, free software is an ethical imperative,
-because only free software respects the users' freedom.  By contrast,
+essential respect for the users' freedom.  By contrast,
 the philosophy of open source considers issues in terms of how to make
 software &ldquo;better&rdquo;&mdash;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>&ldquo;Free software.&rdquo; &ldquo;Open source.&rdquo; If it's the same 
software, does it
-matter which name you use?  Yes, because different words convey
-different ideas.  While a free program by any other name would give
-you the same freedom today, establishing freedom in a lasting way
-depends above all on teaching people to value freedom.  If you want to
-help do this, it is essential to speak of &ldquo;free
-software.&rdquo;</p>
+problem at hand.  Most discussion of &ldquo;open source&rdquo; pays no
+attention to right and wrong, only to popularity and success; here's
+a <a 
href="http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/Open-Source-Is-Woven-Into-the-Latest-Hottest-Trends-78937.html";>
+typical example</a>.</p>
+
+<p>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>&ldquo;Free software.&rdquo; &ldquo;Open source.&rdquo; If it's the same 
+software (<a href="/philosophy/free-open-overlap.html">or nearly so</a>), 
+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 &ldquo;free software.&rdquo;</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 looser than
+those of free software.  As far as we know, all existing released free
+software source code 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.  For example, &ldquo;Open Watcom&rdquo; is nonfree
+because its license does not allow making a modified version and using
+it privately.  Fortunately, few programs use such licenses.</p>
+
+<p>Second, and more important in practice, many products containing
+computers check signatures on their executable programs to block users
+from installing different executables; only one privileged company can
+make executables that can run in the device or can access its full
+capabilities.  We call these devices &ldquo;tyrants&rdquo;, and the
+practice is called &ldquo;tivoization&rdquo; after the product (Tivo)
+where we first saw it.  Even if the executable is made from free
+source code, the users cannot run modified versions of it, so the
+executable is nonfree.</p>
+
+<p>The criteria for open source do not recognize this issue; they are
+concerned solely with the licensing of the source code.  Thus, these
+unmodifiable executables, when made from source code such as Linux
+that is open source and free, are open source but not free.  Many
+Android products contain nonfree tivoized executables of Linux.</p>
+
 <h3>Common Misunderstandings of &ldquo;Free Software&rdquo; and
 &ldquo;Open Source&rdquo;</h3>
 
@@ -93,30 +127,25 @@
 for zero price,&rdquo; fits the term just as well as the intended
 meaning, &ldquo;software which gives the user certain freedoms.&rdquo;
 We address this problem by publishing the definition of free software,
-and by saying &ldquo;Think of &lsquo;free speech,&rsquo; not &lsquo;free 
beer.&rsquo;&rdquo; This
-is not a perfect solution; it cannot completely eliminate the problem.
-An unambiguous and correct term would be better, if it didn't present other
-problems.</p>
+and by saying &ldquo;Think of &lsquo;free speech,&rsquo; not &lsquo;free 
+beer.&rsquo;&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;right&rdquo; that switching
 to it would be a good idea.  (For instance, in some contexts the
-French and Spanish word &ldquo;libre&rdquo; works well, but people in India do 
not
-recognize it at all.)  Every proposed replacement for
-&ldquo;free software&rdquo; has some kind of semantic
-problem&mdash;and this includes &ldquo;open source
-software.&rdquo;</p>
+French and Spanish word &ldquo;libre&rdquo; works well, but people in India 
+do not recognize it at all.)  Every proposed replacement for
+&ldquo;free software&rdquo; has some kind of semantic problem&mdash;and 
+this includes &ldquo;open source software.&rdquo;</p>
 
-<p>The <a href="http://opensource.org/docs/osd";>official definition of
+<p>The <a href="https://opensource.org/osd";>official definition of
 &ldquo;open source software&rdquo;</a> (which is published by the Open
 Source Initiative and is too long to include here) was derived
 indirectly from our criteria for free software.  It is not the same;
-it is a little looser in some respects, so the open source people have
-accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive.
-Also, they judge solely by the license of the source code, whereas our
-criterion also considers whether a device will let you <em>run</em>
-your modified version of the program.  Nonetheless, their definition
+it is a little looser in some respects.  Nonetheless, their definition
 agrees with our definition in most cases.</p>
 
 <p>However, the obvious meaning for the expression &ldquo;open source
@@ -126,28 +155,35 @@
 weaker also than the official definition of open source.  It includes
 many programs that are neither free nor open source.</p>
 
-<p>Since that obvious meaning for &ldquo;open source&rdquo; is not the
+<p>Since the obvious meaning for &ldquo;open source&rdquo; is not the
 meaning that its advocates intend, the result is that most people
 misunderstand the term.  According to writer Neal Stephenson,
 &ldquo;Linux is &lsquo;open source&rsquo; software meaning, simply,
 that anyone can get copies of its source code files.&rdquo; I don't
-think he deliberately sought to reject or dispute the
-&ldquo;official&rdquo; 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. --> &ldquo;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.&rdquo;</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
+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 <a 
+href="https://web.archive.org/web/20001011193422/http://da.state.ks.us/ITEC/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf";>state
+of Kansas</a> published a similar definition: &ldquo;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.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p>The <i>New York
+Times</i> <a 
href="http://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-design-37415.html";>
+ran an article that stretched the meaning of the term</a> to refer to
 user beta testing&mdash;letting a few users try an early version and
 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 laudable
+contributions to society, but the term &ldquo;source code&rdquo; does
+not pertain to them.</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
@@ -156,22 +192,28 @@
 beer&rdquo; will not get it wrong again.  But the term &ldquo;open
 source&rdquo; has only one natural meaning, which is different from
 the meaning its supporters intend.  So there is no succinct way to
-explain and justify its official definition.  That makes for worse 
confusion.</p>
+explain and justify its official definition.  That makes for worse 
+confusion.</p>
 
 <p>Another misunderstanding of &ldquo;open source&rdquo; is the idea
 that it means &ldquo;not using the GNU GPL.&rdquo; This tends to
 accompany another misunderstanding that &ldquo;free software&rdquo;
 means &ldquo;GPL-covered software.&rdquo; These are both mistaken,
-since the GNU GPL qualifies as an open source license and most of
-the open source licenses qualify as free software licenses.</p>
+since the GNU GPL qualifies as an open source license and most of the
+open source licenses qualify as free software licenses.  There
+are <a href="/licenses/license-list.html"> many free software
+licenses</a> aside from the GNU GPL.</p>
 
 <p>The term &ldquo;open source&rdquo; 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
-&ldquo;participatory&rdquo;.</p>
+people to participate.  They stretch the term so far that it only
+means &ldquo;participatory&rdquo; or &ldquo;transparent&rdquo;, or
+less than that.  At worst, it
+has <a 
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/opinion/sunday/morozov-open-and-closed.html";>
+become a vacuous buzzword</a>.</p>
 
 <h3>Different Values Can Lead to Similar Conclusions&hellip;but Not Always</h3>
 
@@ -210,10 +252,10 @@
 schemes that take away our freedom, leading to its loss.</p>
 
 <p>The free software activist will say, &ldquo;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.&rdquo;  If we value our freedom, we can act to maintain and
-defend it.</p>
+attractive, but I value my freedom more.  So I reject your program.  I
+will get my work done some other way, and support a project to develop
+a free replacement.&rdquo; If we value our freedom, we can act to
+maintain and defend it.</p>
 
 <h3>Powerful, Reliable Software Can Be Bad</h3>
 
@@ -243,8 +285,8 @@
 DRM&rdquo; software.  Their idea is that, by publishing the source code
 of programs designed to restrict your access to encrypted media and by
 allowing others to change it, they will produce more powerful and
-reliable software for restricting users like you.  The software would then be
-delivered to you in devices that do not allow you to change it.</p>
+reliable software for restricting users like you.  The software would then 
+be delivered to you in devices that do not allow you to change it.</p>
 
 <p>This software might be open source and use the open
 source development model, but it won't be free software since it
@@ -257,7 +299,8 @@
 
 <p>The main initial motivation of those who split off the open source
 camp from the free software movement was that the ethical ideas of
-&ldquo;free software&rdquo; made some people uneasy.  That's true: raising 
ethical issues such as freedom, talking about responsibilities as well as
+&ldquo;free software&rdquo; 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
@@ -269,6 +312,12 @@
 certain free software, they might be able to &ldquo;sell&rdquo; the
 software more effectively to certain users, especially business.</p>
 
+<p>When open source proponents talk about anything deeper than that,
+it is usually the idea of making a &ldquo;gift&rdquo; of source code
+to humanity.  Presenting this as a special good deed, beyond what is
+morally required, presumes that distributing proprietary software
+without source code is morally legitimate.</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
@@ -284,20 +333,19 @@
 proprietary software for some practical advantage.  Countless
 companies seek to offer such temptation, some even offering copies
 gratis.  Why would users decline?  Only if they have learned to value
-the freedom free software gives them, to value freedom in and of itself rather
-than the technical and practical convenience of specific free
+the freedom free software gives them, to value freedom in and of itself 
+rather than the technical and practical convenience of specific free
 software.  To spread this idea, we have to talk about freedom.  A
 certain amount of the &ldquo;keep quiet&rdquo; 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&mdash;usually
-because they seek to be &ldquo;more acceptable to business.&rdquo;
-Nearly all
-GNU/Linux operating system distributions add proprietary packages to
-the basic free system, and they invite users to consider this an
-advantage rather than a flaw.</p>
+involved with free software, especially its distributors, say little about 
+freedom&mdash;usually because they seek to be &ldquo;more acceptable to 
+business.&rdquo; 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
@@ -308,6 +356,40 @@
 about freedom go hand in hand, each promoting the other.  To overcome
 this tendency, we need more, not less, talk about freedom.</p>
 
+<h3>&ldquo;FLOSS&rdquo; and &ldquo;FOSS&rdquo;</h3>
+
+<p> The terms &ldquo;FLOSS&rdquo; and &ldquo;FOSS&rdquo; are used to
+be <a href="/philosophy/floss-and-foss.html"> neutral between free
+software and open source</a>.  If neutrality is your goal,
+&ldquo;FLOSS&rdquo; is the better of the two, since it really is
+neutral.  But if you want to stand up for freedom, using a neutral
+term isn't the way.  Standing up for freedom entails showing people
+your support for freedom.</p>
+
+<h3>Rivals for Mindshare</h3>
+
+<p>&ldquo;Free&rdquo; and &ldquo;open&rdquo; are rivals for mindshare.
+&ldquo;Free software&rdquo; and &ldquo;open source&rdquo; are
+different ideas but, in most people's way of looking at software, they
+compete for the same conceptual slot.  When people become habituated
+to saying and thinking &ldquo;open source,&rdquo; that is an obstacle
+to their grasping the free software movement's philosophy and thinking
+about it.  If they have already come to associate us and our software
+with the word &ldquo;open,&rdquo; we may need to shock them intellectually
+before they recognize that we stand for something <em>else</em>.
+Any activity that promotes the word &ldquo;open&rdquo; tends to
+extend the curtain that hides the ideas of the free software
+movement.</p>
+
+<p>Thus, free software activists are well advised to decline to work
+on an activity that calls itself &ldquo;open.&rdquo;  Even if the
+activity is good in and of itself, each contribution you make does a
+little harm on the side by promoting the open source idea.  There are
+plenty of other good activities which call themselves
+&ldquo;free&rdquo; or &ldquo;libre.&rdquo; Each contribution to those
+projects does a little extra good on the side.  With so many useful
+projects to choose from, why not choose one which does extra good?</p>
+
 <h3>Conclusion</h3>
 
 <p>As the advocates of open source draw new users into our community,
@@ -315,57 +397,72 @@
 of freedom to their attention.  We have to say, &ldquo;It's
 free software and it gives you freedom!&rdquo;&mdash;more and louder
 than ever.  Every time you say &ldquo;free software&rdquo; rather than
-&ldquo;open source,&rdquo; you help our campaign.</p>
+&ldquo;open source,&rdquo; you help our cause.</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";>&ldquo;Live and
 let license,&rdquo;</a> gives his perspective on this issue.</p>
-
+--> 
 <p>
-Lakhani and Wolf's
-<a 
href="http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/lakhaniwolf.pdf";>paper
 on the
-motivation of free software developers</a> says that a considerable
-fraction are motivated by the view that software should be free.  This
-is despite the fact that they surveyed the developers on SourceForge,
-a site that does not support the view that this is an ethical issue.</p>
+Lakhani and Wolf's <a 
+href="http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/lakhaniwolf.pdf";>
+paper on the motivation of free software developers</a> says that a 
+considerable fraction are motivated by the view that software should be 
+free. This is despite the fact that they surveyed the developers on 
+SourceForge, a site that does not support the view that this is an ethical 
+issue.</p>
 
-</div>
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
 
 <!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
 
 <div id="footer">
-<p>
-Please send FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to 
-<a href="mailto:address@hidden";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>.
-There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> 
-the FSF.
-<br />
-Please send broken links and other corrections or suggestions to
-<a href="mailto:address@hidden";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>.
-</p>
+<div class="unprintable">
 
-<p>Copyright &copy; 2007, 2010 Richard Stallman
-<br />
-This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
-href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/";>Creative
-Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>.
-</p>
+<p>Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</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";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</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";>
+        &lt;address@hidden&gt;</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>
 
-<p>
-Updated:
+<p>Copyright &copy; 2007, 2010, 2012, 2015, 2016 Richard Stallman</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+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: 2012/09/27 16:55:43 $
+$Date: 2016/11/14 06:00:16 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>
-<!-- All pages on the GNU web server should have the section about    -->
-<!-- verbatim copying.  Please do NOT remove this without talking     -->
-<!-- with the webmasters first. --> 
-<!-- Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the document -->
-<!-- and that it is like this "2001, 2002" not this "2001-2002." -->
 </div>
 </body>
 </html>

Index: po/open-source-misses-the-point.pt-br.po
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.pt-br.po,v
retrieving revision 1.31
retrieving revision 1.32
diff -u -b -r1.31 -r1.32
--- po/open-source-misses-the-point.pt-br.po    14 Nov 2016 05:45:47 -0000      
1.31
+++ po/open-source-misses-the-point.pt-br.po    14 Nov 2016 06:00:16 -0000      
1.32
@@ -19,7 +19,6 @@
 "Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit\n"
 "Plural-Forms: nplurals=2; plural=(n > 1);\n"
 "X-Generator: Virtaal 0.7.1\n"
-"Outdated-Since: 2012-12-29 18:25-0500\n"
 
 #. type: Content of: <title>
 msgid ""
@@ -917,9 +916,6 @@
 "address@hidden&gt;</a>."
 
 #
-#
-#
-#
 #.  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



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]