www/philosophy free-sw.hr.html po/free-sw.hr-en...

[GNUN]

CVSROOT:        /web/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     GNUN <gnun>     13/04/09 03:58:55

Modified files:
        philosophy     : free-sw.hr.html 
        philosophy/po  : free-sw.hr-en.html free-sw.hr.po 
                         open-source-misses-the-point.hr.po 
                         open-source-misses-the-point.translist 
Added files:
        philosophy     : open-source-misses-the-point.hr.html 
        philosophy/po  : open-source-misses-the-point.hr-en.html 

Log message:
        Automatic update by GNUnited Nations.

CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/free-sw.hr.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.11&r2=1.12
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.hr.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/free-sw.hr-en.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.1&r2=1.2
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/free-sw.hr.po?cvsroot=www&r1=1.3&r2=1.4
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.hr.po?cvsroot=www&r1=1.1&r2=1.2
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.translist?cvsroot=www&r1=1.12&r2=1.13
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.hr-en.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1

Patches:
Index: free-sw.hr.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/free-sw.hr.html,v
retrieving revision 1.11
retrieving revision 1.12
diff -u -b -r1.11 -r1.12
--- free-sw.hr.html     8 Apr 2013 14:59:36 -0000       1.11
+++ free-sw.hr.html     9 Apr 2013 03:58:54 -0000       1.12
@@ -290,7 +290,7 @@
 Ako ste zainteresirani o tome da li se određena licenca kvalificira kao
 licenca slobodnog softvera, pogledajte naš <a
 href="/licenses/license-list.html">popis licenci</a>. Ako je licenca kojom
-ste bavite nije uključena u popis, možete nas pitati o toj licenci slanjem
+se bavite nije uključena u popis, možete nas pitati o toj licenci slanjem
 elektroničke pošte na <a
 href="mailto:address@hidden";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>.
 </p> 
@@ -504,7 +504,7 @@
  <p><!-- timestamp start -->
 Zadnji put promijenjeno:
 
-$Date: 2013/04/08 14:59:36 $
+$Date: 2013/04/09 03:58:54 $
 
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>

Index: po/free-sw.hr-en.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/free-sw.hr-en.html,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -b -r1.1 -r1.2
--- po/free-sw.hr-en.html       8 Apr 2013 14:59:37 -0000       1.1
+++ po/free-sw.hr-en.html       9 Apr 2013 03:58:55 -0000       1.2
@@ -466,7 +466,7 @@
 
 <p>Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2013/04/08 14:59:37 $
+$Date: 2013/04/09 03:58:55 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>

Index: po/free-sw.hr.po
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/free-sw.hr.po,v
retrieving revision 1.3
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -u -b -r1.3 -r1.4

Index: po/open-source-misses-the-point.hr.po
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.hr.po,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -b -r1.1 -r1.2
--- po/open-source-misses-the-point.hr.po       9 Apr 2013 03:52:05 -0000       
1.1
+++ po/open-source-misses-the-point.hr.po       9 Apr 2013 03:58:55 -0000       
1.2
@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
 "PO-Revision-Date: 2013-04-08 20:55+0100\n"
 "Last-Translator: Marin Rameša <address@hidden>\n"
 "Language-Team: hrvatski <>\n"
+"Language: \n"
 "MIME-Version: 1.0\n"
 "Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8\n"
 "Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit\n"
@@ -95,8 +96,8 @@
 "designed specifically to protect freedom for all users of a program."
 msgstr ""
 "Pokret slobodnog softvera je vodio kampanju za slobodu računalnih korisnika "
-"još od 1983. U 1984. smo pokrenuli razvoj slobodnog operativnoga sustava "
-"po imenu GNU, tako da bi mogli izbjeći neslobodne operativne sustave koji "
+"još od 1983. U 1984. smo pokrenuli razvoj slobodnog operativnoga sustava po "
+"imenu GNU, tako da bi mogli izbjeći neslobodne operativne sustave koji "
 "osporavaju slobodu vlastitim korisnicima. Tokom 1980-ih, razvili smo većinu "
 "osnovnih komponenata sustava i dizajnirali <a href=\"/licenses/gpl.html"
 "\">GNU opću javnu licencu (<i>GNU General Public License</i>)</a> (GNU GPL) "

Index: po/open-source-misses-the-point.translist
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.translist,v
retrieving revision 1.12
retrieving revision 1.13
diff -u -b -r1.12 -r1.13
--- po/open-source-misses-the-point.translist   31 Mar 2013 17:31:21 -0000      
1.12
+++ po/open-source-misses-the-point.translist   9 Apr 2013 03:58:55 -0000       
1.13
@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@
 <span dir="ltr"><a lang="es" hreflang="es" 
href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.es.html">español</a>&nbsp;[es]</span>&nbsp;&nbsp;
 <span dir="ltr"><a lang="fa" hreflang="fa" 
href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.fa.html">فارسی</a>&nbsp;[fa]</span>&nbsp;&nbsp;
 <span dir="ltr"><a lang="fr" hreflang="fr" 
href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.fr.html">français</a>&nbsp;[fr]</span>&nbsp;&nbsp;
+<span dir="ltr"><a lang="hr" hreflang="hr" 
href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.hr.html">hrvatski</a>&nbsp;[hr]</span>&nbsp;&nbsp;
 <span dir="ltr"><a lang="it" hreflang="it" 
href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.it.html">italiano</a>&nbsp;[it]</span>&nbsp;&nbsp;
 <span dir="ltr"><a lang="ja" hreflang="ja" 
href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.ja.html">日本語</a>&nbsp;[ja]</span>&nbsp;&nbsp;
 <span dir="ltr"><a lang="ml" hreflang="ml" 
href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.ml.html">മലയാളം</a>&nbsp;[ml]</span>&nbsp;&nbsp;

Index: open-source-misses-the-point.hr.html
===================================================================
RCS file: open-source-misses-the-point.hr.html
diff -N open-source-misses-the-point.hr.html
--- /dev/null   1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ open-source-misses-the-point.hr.html        9 Apr 2013 03:58:54 -0000       
1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,421 @@
+
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.hr.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.75 -->
+
+<!-- This file is automatically generated by GNUnited Nations! -->
+ <!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" 
value="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html" -->
+
+<title>Zašto otvoreni izvorni kod promašuje bit slobodnog softvera - GNU 
projekt -
+Zaklada za slobodan softver</title>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.translist" 
-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.hr.html" -->
+<h2>Zašto otvoreni izvorni kod promašuje bit slobodnog softvera</h2>
+
+<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong></p>
+
+<p>Kada softver zovemo &ldquo;slobodnim,&rdquo; podrazumijevamo poštovanje
+prema <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">osnovnim pravima korisnika</a>:
+sloboda da se softver pokrene, da se prouči i izmijeni, i da se kopije
+ponovno distribuiraju, sa ili bez promjena. To je stvar slobode, ne cijene,
+dakle mislite na &ldquo;sloboda govora,&rdquo; u kontrastu sa
+&ldquo;slobodnim (besplatnim) pivom.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p>Spomenute slobode su od životne važnosti. One su osnovne, ne samo zbog
+koristi koje individualnih korisnici imaju od njih, nego i zbog društva kao
+cjeline, jer promoviraju društvenu solidarnost&mdash; to jest, razmjenu i
+suradnju. Postaju još i više važnije kako naša kultura i životne 
aktivnosti
+postaju sve više digitalizirane. U svijetu digitalnih zvukova, slika i
+riječi, slobodan softver postaje sve više temeljan za slobodu općenito. </p>
+
+<p>Deseci milijuna ljudi Å¡irom svijeta koriste slobodan softver; javne Å¡kole
+nekih regija Indije i Španjolske podučavaju sve studente da koriste slobodni
+<a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux operativni sustav</a>. Većina
+tih korisnika, međutim, nisu nikada čuli etičke razloge zbog kojih smo
+razvili ovaj sustav i izgradili zajednicu slobodnog softvera, jer danas se o
+ovome sustavu i zajednici sve češće govori kao o &ldquo;otvorenom izvornom
+kodu&rdquo; (<i>open source</i>), pripisujući ih drugačijoj filozofiji u
+kojoj su te slobode jedva spomenute. </p>
+
+<p>Pokret slobodnog softvera je vodio kampanju za slobodu računalnih korisnika
+još od 1983. U 1984. smo pokrenuli razvoj slobodnog operativnoga sustava po
+imenu GNU, tako da bi mogli izbjeći neslobodne operativne sustave koji
+osporavaju slobodu vlastitim korisnicima. Tokom 1980-ih, razvili smo većinu
+osnovnih komponenata sustava i dizajnirali <a href="/licenses/gpl.html">GNU
+opću javnu licencu (<i>GNU General Public License</i>)</a> (GNU GPL) pod
+kojom smo ih objavili&mdash;licenca dizajnirana specifično za obranu slobode
+za sve korisnike programa.</p>
+
+<p>Nisu se svi korisnici i developeri slobodnog softvera složili sa ciljevima
+pokreta slobodnog softvera. U 1998., dio zajednice slobodnog softvera se
+odlomio i pokrenuo kampanju u ime &ldquo;otvorenog izvornog koda.&rdquo;
+Termin je originalno predložen da bi se izbjeglo moguće pogrešno shvaćanje
+termina &ldquo;slobodan softver,&rdquo; ali je ubrzo postao udružen sa
+filozofskim gledištima bitno različitim od onih pokreta slobodnog softvera.  
</p>
+
+<p>Neki od pobornika otvorenog izvornog koda smatrali su termin
+&ldquo;marketinškom kampanjom za slobodan softver,&rdquo; koja bi se
+obratila poslovnim rukovoditeljima osvjetljavajući praktične prednosti
+softvera, bez podizanja pitanja ispravnog i pogrešnog, koje možda ne bi
+htjeli čuti. Drugi pobornici izričito su odbili etičke i društvene
+vrijednosti pokreta slobodnog softvera. Koja god bila njihova gledišta, kada
+su radili kampanju za otvoreni izvorni kod, nisu niti citirali, niti
+zagovarali te vrijednosti. Termin &ldquo;otvoreni izvorni kod&rdquo; je
+ubrzo postao udružen sa idejama i argumentima temeljenima samo na praktičnim
+vrijednostima, kao što su izrada i posjed moćnog, pouzdanog softvera. Od
+tada, većina pobornika otvorenog izvornog koda su poprimili takvo gledište,
+i rade istu asocijaciju. </p>
+
+<p>Ta dva termina opisuju skoro istu kategoriju softvera, ali drže gledišta
+osnovana na temeljno različitim vrijednostima. Otvoreni izvorni kod je
+metodologija razvoja; slobodni softver je društveni pokret. Za pokret
+slobodnog softvera, slobodan softver je etički imperativ, osnovno poštivanje
+slobode korisnika. U kontrastu, filozofija otvorenog izvornog koda razmatra
+pitanja u terminima načina kako napraviti softver
+&ldquo;boljim&rdquo;&mdash;samo u praktičnom smislu. Tvrdi da je neslobodni
+softver inferiorno riješenje praktičnog priručnog problema. Za pokret
+slobodnog softvera, međutim, neslobodni softver je društveni problem, i
+riješenje je prestanak njegovog korištenja i prijelaz na slobodni softver.  
</p>
+
+<p>&ldquo;Slobodan softver.&rdquo; &ldquo;Otvoreni izvorni kod.&rdquo; Ako je
+to isti softver (ili barem približno), da li je važno koje ime koristite?
+Da, zato jer različite riječi prenose različite ideje. Dok bi vam danas
+slobodni program pod bilo kojim drugim imenom dao istu slobodu,
+uspostavljanje slobode na trajan način ovisi iznad svega o poduci ljudi da
+cijene slobodu. Ako želite pomoći napraviti to, nužno je govoriti o
+&ldquo;slobodnom softveru.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p>Mi, u pokretu slobodnog softvera, ne smatramo tabor otvorenog izvornog koda
+neprijateljima; neprijatelj je posjednički (neslobodni) softver. Ali želimo
+da ljudi znaju da predstavljamo slobodu, dakle ne prihvaćamo pogrešnu oznaku
+pobornika otvorenog izvornog koda. </p>
+
+<h3>Praktične razlike između slobodnog softvera i otvorenog izvornog 
koda</h3>
+
+<p>U praksi, otvoreni izvorni kod se zalaže za malo slabije kriterije od onih
+slobodnog softvera. Koliko znamo, sav postojeći slobodan softver bi se
+kvalificirao kao otvoreni izvorni kod. Gotovo sav softver otvorenog izvornog
+koda je slobodan softver, ali postoje iznimke. Prvo, neke licence otvorenog
+izvornog koda su previše restriktivne, prema tome se ne kvalificiraju kao
+slobodne licence. Srećom, samo nekoliko programa koristi te licence.</p>
+
+<p>Drugo, važnije, mnogi proizvodi koji sadrže računala (uključujući mnoge
+Android uređaje) dolaze sa izvršnim programima koji odgovaraju izvornom kodu
+slobodnog softvera, ali ti uređaji ne dozvoljavaju korisniku da instalira
+izmijenjene verzije tih izvršnih datoteka; samo jedna posebna kompanija ima
+moć da ih izmjeni. Zovemo te uređaje &ldquo;tirani&rdquo;, i ta praksa se
+naziva &ldquo;tivoizacija&rdquo; prema proizvodu kod kojeg smo to prvo
+vidjeli. Te izvršne datoteke nisu slobodan softver iako je njihov izvorni
+kod slobodan softver. Kriteriji za otvoreni izvorni kod ne prepoznaju ovaj
+problem; oni su zabrinuti samo sa licenciranjima izvornog koda.</p>
+
+<h3>Česta pogrešna shvaćanja &ldquo;slobodnog softvera&rdquo; i 
&ldquo;otvorenog
+izvornog koda&rdquo;</h3>
+
+<p>Termin &ldquo;slobodan softver&rdquo; je sklon pogrešnoj interpretaciji:
+nehotično značenje: &ldquo;softver koji možete dobiti besplatno,&rdquo; se
+uklapa isto dobro kao i namijenjeno značenje: &ldquo;softver koji daje
+korisniku određene slobode.&rdquo; Adresiramo taj problem objavljivanjem
+definicije slobodnog softvera, govoreći: &ldquo;Mislite na &lsquo;slobodu
+govora,&rsquo; ne na &lsquo;slobodno (besplatno) pivo.&rsquo;&rdquo; To nije
+savršeno riješenje; ne može u potpunosti odstraniti problem. Nedvosmisleni i
+točan termin bi bio bolji, kada ne bi proizveo druge probleme.</p>
+
+<p>Nažalost, sve alternative u engleskom jeziku imaju svoje osobite
+probleme. Razmatrali smo mnoge koje su ljudi predložili, ali niti jedan nije
+toliko &ldquo;ispravan&rdquo; da bi prebacivanje na njega bila dobra
+ideja. (Na primjer, u nekim kontekstima francuska i španjolska riječ
+&ldquo;libre&rdquo; funkcionira, ali ljudi u Indiji uopće ne prepoznaju tu
+riječ.) Svaka predložena zamjena za &ldquo;slobodan softver&rdquo; ima neku
+vrstu semantičkoga problema&mdash;i to uključuje i &ldquo;softver otvorenog
+izvornog koda.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p><a href="http://opensource.org/docs/osd";>Službena definicija 
&ldquo;softvera
+otvorenog izvornog koda&rdquo;</a> (koja je objavljena od strane Open Source
+Initiative i preduga je da bi se uključila ovdje) je indirektno derivirana
+iz našeg kriterija za slobodan softver. Nije jednaka; malo je blaža u nekim
+pogledima. Pored toga, njihova definicija se, u većini slučajeva, slaže sa
+našom definicijom. </p>
+
+<p>Međutim, očito značenje izraza &ldquo;softver otvorenog izvornog
+koda&rdquo;&mdash;ono koje većina ljudi, čini se, misle da znači&mdash;jest
+&ldquo;Možete gledati izvorni kod.&rdquo; Taj kriterij je mnogo slabiji od
+definicije slobodnog softvera, mnogo slabiji isto i od službene definicije
+otvorenog izvornog koda. Uključuje mnoge programe koji nisu niti slobodni,
+niti otvoreni izvorni kod.</p>
+
+<p><!-- It was from http://da.state.ks.us/itec/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf, but
+that page is no longer available. -->
+Pošto očito značenje &ldquo;otvorenog izvornog koda&rdquo; nije značenje
+koje su njegovi pobornici naumili, rezultat je taj da većina ljudi pogrešno
+shvaća termin. Prema piscu Nealu Stephensonu: &ldquo;Linux je softver
+&lsquo;otvorenog izvornog koda&rsquo; što znači, jednostavno, da svatko može
+preuzeti kopije njegovih datoteka izvornog koda.&rdquo; Ne mislim da je
+namjerno nastojao odbaciti ili osporiti službenu definiciju. Mislim da je
+jednostavno primijenio konvencije engleskog jezika da bi došao do značenja
+termina. Država Kansas objavila je sličnu definiciju: &ldquo;Koristite
+softver otvorenog izvornog koda (OSS). OSS je softver za koji je izvorni kod
+slobodno i javno dostupan, iako se specifični sporazumi oko licenciranja
+razlikuju i o tome ovisi što netko može napraviti s tim kodom.&rdquo; </p>
+
+<p><i>New York Times</i> je <a
+href="http://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-design-37415.html";>
+objavio članak koji razvlači značenje termina</a> da bi referirao na
+korisničko beta testiranje&mdash;dopuštenje da nekoliko korisnika isprobaju
+ranu verziju i daju povjerljive povratne informacije&mdash;Å¡to developeri
+posjedničkog softvera prakticiraju već desetljećima.</p>
+
+<p>Pobornici otvorenog izvornog koda se pokušavaju nositi s tim pokazivanjem 
na
+njihovu službenu definiciju, ali takav korektivni pristup je manje efektivan
+za njih nego je za nas. Termin &ldquo;slobodan softver&rdquo; ima dva
+prirodna značenja, jedno od kojih je namijenjeno značenje, tako osoba koja
+je shvatila ideju &ldquo;sloboda govora, ne slobodno (besplatno) pivo&rdquo;
+neće više pogrešno shvatiti. Ali termin &ldquo;otvoren izvorni kod&rdquo;
+ima samo jedno prirodno značenje, koje je različito od značenja koje su
+njegovi pobornici naumili. Dakle, ne postoji sažet način da se objasni i
+opravda njegova službena definicija. Zbog toga se konfuzija povećava. </p>
+
+<p>Drugo pogrešno shvaćanje &ldquo;otvorenog izvornog koda&rdquo; je ideja da
+znači &ldquo;nekorištenje GNU GPL-a.&rdquo; To obično ide uz još jedno
+pogrešno shvaćanje da &ldquo;slobodan softver&rdquo; znači &ldquo;softver
+pokriven GPL-om.&rdquo; Ova shvaćanja su oba pogrešna, pošto se GNU GPL
+kvalificira kao licenca otvorenog izvornog koda i većina licenci otvorenog
+izvornog koda se kvalificiraju kao licence slobodnog softvera. Postoje <a
+href="/licenses/license-list.html"> mnoge licence slobodnog softvera</a> uz
+GNU GPL.</p>
+
+<p>Termin &ldquo;otvoren izvorni kod&rdquo; je dalje protegnuti svojom
+aplikacijom na druge aktivnosti, kao Å¡to su vlada, obrazovanje i znanost,
+gdje ne postoji nešto kao izvorni kod i gdje kriteriji za licenciranje
+softvera jednostavno nisu primjereni. Jedina zajednička stvar tih aktivnosti
+je da one nekako pozivaju ljude da sudjeluju. Oni protežu termin toliko
+daleko da samo znači &ldquo;participatorno&rdquo; ili
+&ldquo;transparentno&rdquo;, ili manje od toga. U najgorem slučaju, <a
+href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/opinion/sunday/morozov-open-and-closed.html";>
+postane prazna poštapalica (<i>buzzword</i>)</a>.</p>
+
+<h3>Različite vrijednosti mogu voditi prema sličnim zaključcima&hellip;ali 
ne
+uvijek</h3>
+
+<p>Radikalne grupe su u 1960-ima imale ugled frakcionalizma: neke organizacije
+su se rascijepile zbog neslaganja o detaljima strategije, i dvije grupe
+kćeri su se odnosili kao neprijatelji usprkos sličnim bazičnim ciljevima i
+vrijednostima. Desnica je od toga napravila veliku stvar i iskoristila je to
+da kritizira cijelu ljevicu.</p>
+
+<p>Neki pokušavaju poniziti pokret slobodnog softvera uspoređujući naše
+neslaganje sa otvorenim izvornim kodom sa neslaganjem te dvije radikalne
+grupe. Oni su to shvatili naopako. Ne slažemo se sa taborom otvorenog
+izvornog koda u bazičnim ciljevima i vrijednostima, ali njihova gledišta i
+naša vode, u mnogo slučajeva, u isto praktično ponašanje&mdash;kao što je
+razvitak slobodnog softvera.</p>
+
+<p>Kao rezultat, ljudi iz pokreta slobodnog softvera i tabor otvorenog izvornog
+koda često zajedno rade na praktičnim projektima kao što je razvijanje
+softvera. Izvanredno je da takva različita filozofska gledišta mogu tako
+često motivirati različite ljude da sudjeluju u istim projektima. Pored
+toga, postoje situacije gdje ta fundamentalno različita gledišta vode u vrlo
+različite akcije.</p>
+
+<p>Ideja otvorenog izvornog koda je da će dopuštenje korisnicima da 
mijenjaju i
+ponovno distribuiraju softver napraviti isti taj softver moćnijim i
+pouzdanijim. Ali to nije garantirano. Developeri posjedničkog softvera nisu
+nužno nesposobni. Ponekad izrade program koji je moćan i pouzdan, iako ne
+poštuje korisničku slobodu. Aktivisti slobodnog softvera i entuzijasti
+otvorenog izvornog koda će reagirati vrlo različito na to.</p>
+
+<p>Čisti entuzijast otvorenog izvornog koda, netko tko uopće nije pod 
utjecajem
+ideala slobodnog softvera, će reći: &ldquo;Iznenađen sam da ste uspjeli
+natjerati program da radi tako dobro bez korištenja našeg razvojnog modela,
+ali uspjeli ste. Kako mogu dobiti kopiju?&rdquo; Takav stav će nagraditi
+sheme koje oduzimaju našu slobodu, vodeći prema njenom gubitku. </p>
+
+<p>Aktivist slobodnog softvera će reći: &ldquo;Vaš program je vrlo 
privlačan,
+ali ja cijenim više svoju slobodu. Dakle, odbijam vaš program. Umjesto toga,
+podržavati ću projekt razvitka slobodne zamjene.&rdquo; Ako cijenimo našu
+slobodu, možemo djelovati da je održavamo i branimo.</p>
+
+<h3>Moćan, pouzdan softver može biti loš</h3>
+
+<p>Ideja da želimo softver da bude moćan i pouzdan dolazi iz pretpostavke da 
je
+softver dizajnirani da služi svojim korisnicima. Ako je moćan i pouzdan, to
+znači da im bolje služi. </p>
+
+<p>Ali može se reći da softver služi svojim korisnicima jedino ako poštuje
+njihovu slobodu. Å to ako je softver dizajnirani da stavlja lance na svoje
+korisnike? Tada njegova moć znači da su lanci više stegnuti, i pouzdanost
+znači da su lanci teži za ukloniti. Zlonamjerne značajke, kao što su
+špijuniranje korisnika, ograničenje korisnika, stražnja vrata i nametnuta
+poboljšanja su učestali kod posjedničkog softvera, i neki pobornici
+otvorenog izvornog koda ih žele implementirati u programima otvorenog
+izvornog koda. </p>
+
+<p>Pod pritiskom filmskih i glazbenih kompanija, softver za korištenje od
+strane individualnih korisnika je sve više dizajnirani specifično da ih
+ograničuje. Ta zlonamjerna značajka je znana kao Digitalno Upravljanje
+Restrikcijama (<i>Digital Restrictions Management</i>) (DRM) (pogledajte <a
+href="http://defectivebydesign.org/";>DefectiveByDesign.org</a>) i to je
+antiteza duha slobode koji slobodni softver cilja da pruži. I ne samo u
+duhu: pošto je cilj DRM-a gaženje vaše slobode, DRM developeri pokušavaju
+napraviti teškim, nemogućim ili čak nezakonitim vaše mijenjanje softvera
+koji implementira DRM. </p>
+
+<p>No, neki pobornici otvorenog izvornog koda su predložili &ldquo;DRM softver
+otvorenog izvornog koda&rdquo;. Njihova ideja je da će, objavljivanjem
+izvornog koda programa dizajniranih da ograniče vaš pristup kodiranom mediju
+i dopuštenjem drugih da ga izmjene, oni izraditi moćniji i pouzdan softver
+da ograniči korisnike poput vas. Softver bi tada bio isporučen vama u
+uređajima koji ne dopuštaju izmjenu softvera.</p>
+
+<p>Taj softver bi mogao biti otvoreni izvorni kod i mogao bi koristiti model
+razvoja otvorenog izvornog koda, ali neće biti slobodan softver pošto neće
+poštovati slobodu korisnika koji ga zapravo pokreću. Ako razvojni model
+otvorenog izvornog koda uspije izraditi taj softver moćnijim i pouzdanijim u
+njegovom ograničavanju korisnika, to će ga učiniti još gorim.</p>
+
+<h3>Strah od slobode</h3>
+
+<p>Glavna prvobitna motivacija onih koji su razdvojili tabor otvorenog izvornog
+koda od pokreta slobodnog softvera je bila ta da etičke ideje
+&ldquo;slobodnog softvera&rdquo; stvaraju nelagodu u nekim ljudima. To je
+istina: podizanje etičkih pitanja kao što su sloboda, govor o odgovornosti
+kao i o pogodnosti, je traženje od ljudi da razmisle o stvarima koje bi
+možda radije ignorirali, kao što je pitanje o tome da li je njihovo
+ponašanje etično. To može izazvati nelagodnost i neki ljudi će možda na to
+jednostavno zatvoriti svoje umove. Iz toga ne slijedi da bi trebali prestati
+govoriti o tim pitanjima.</p>
+
+<p>To je, međutim, ono što su vođe otvorenog izvornog koda odlučili
+napraviti. Oni su shvatili da bi Å¡utnjom o etici i slobodi, i govorom samo o
+neposrednim praktičnim prednostima određenog slobodnog softvera, mogli biti
+u mogućnosti &ldquo;prodavati&rdquo; softver efektivnije određenim
+korisnicima, posebno onim poslovnim.</p>
+
+<p>Taj pristup se pokazao efektivnim, u vlastitom mandatu. Retorika otvorenog
+izvornog koda je uvjerila mnoge tvrtke i individue da koriste, čak i da
+razvijaju, slobodan softver, što je proširilo našu zajednicu&mdash;ali samo
+na površnoj, praktičnoj razini. Filozofija otvorenog izvornog koda, sa
+svojim čisto praktičnim vrijednostima, ometa razumijevanje dubljih ideja
+slobodnog softvera; donosi mnoge ljude u našu zajednicu, ali ih ne podučava
+da je brane. To je dobro, utoliko koliko to prolazi, ali nije dovoljno da
+osigura slobodu. Privlačenje korisnika prema slobodnom softveru vodi ih samo
+dio puta do toga da postanu branitelji vlastite slobode.</p>
+
+<p>Prije ili kasnije ti korisnici će biti pozvani da prijeđu natrag na
+posjednički softver zbog neke praktične prednosti. Nebrojeno mnogo kompanija
+žele ponuditi takvo iskušenje, neki čak nude kopije besplatno. Zašto bi
+korisnici odbili? Samo da su naučili cijeniti slobodu koju im daje slobodan
+softver, cijeniti slobodu zbog slobode same radije nego tehničke i praktične
+pogodnosti određenog slobodnog softvera. Da bi raširili tu ideju, moramo
+govoriti o slobodi. Određena količina &ldquo;šutnje&rdquo; kao poslovnog
+pristupa može biti korisna za zajednicu, ali je opasna ako postane toliko
+česta da se ljubav prema slobodi počinje činiti kao ekscentritet.</p>
+
+<p>Ta opasna situacija je točno ono što imamo. Većina ljudi povezanih sa
+slobodnim softverom, posebno njegovi distributeri, govore malo o
+slobodi&mdash;obično zato jer žele biti &ldquo;prihvatljiviji
+tvrtkama.&rdquo; Skoro sve distribucije GNU/Linux operativnoga sustava
+dodaju posjedničke pakete osnovnom slobodnom sustavu, i pozivaju korisnike
+da smatraju to prednošću radije nego manom.</p>
+
+<p>Posjednički dodatni softver i djelomično neslobodne GNU/Linux distribucije
+nalaze plodno tlo jer većina naše zajednice ne insistira na slobodi kad je
+riječ o njihovom softveru. To nije slučajnost. Većina GNU/Linux korisnika je
+uvedena u sustav kroz raspravu o &ldquo;otvorenom izvornom kodu&rdquo;, koja
+ne govori da je cilj sloboda. Prakse koje ne podržavaju slobodu i riječi
+koje ne govore o slobodi idu ruku pod ruku, podržavajući jedna drugu. Da se
+prebrodi ta tendencija, trebamo više, ne manje, govora o slobodi.</p>
+
+<h3>Zaključak</h3>
+
+<p>Dok zagovornici otvorenog izvornog koda povlače nove korisnike u zajednicu,
+mi, aktivisti slobodnog softvera moramo poduprijeti zadatak donošenja
+pitanja slobode u njihovu pažnju. Moramo reći: &ldquo;To je slobodan softver
+i daje vam slobodu!&rdquo;&mdash;više i glasnije nego ikad. Svaki put kada
+kažete &ldquo;slobodan softver&rdquo; radije nego &ldquo;otvoreni izvorni
+kod,&rdquo; vi pomažete našu kampanju.</p>
+
+<h4>Bilješke</h4>
+
+<!-- The article is incomplete (#793776) as of 21st January 2013.
+<p>
+
+Joe Barr's article, 
+<a href="http://www.itworld.com/LWD010523vcontrol4";>&ldquo;Live and
+let license,&rdquo;</a> gives his perspective on this issue.</p>
+-->
+<p>
+Lakhanijev i Wolfov <a
+href="http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/lakhaniwolf.pdf";>
+članak o motivaciji developera slobodnog softvera</a> kaže da je znatna
+frakcija motivirana gledištem da softver treba biti slobodan. To je unatoč
+činjenici da su anketirali developere na SourceForge-u, portal koji ne
+podržava gledište da je to etično pitanje. </p>
+
+
+<div style="font-size: small;">
+
+<!--TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't have notes.-->
+ </div>
+</div>
+
+<!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.hr.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+
+<p>Molim vas šaljite općenite FSF &amp; GNU upite na <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>.  Postoje isto i <a
+href="/contact/">drugi načini kontaktiranja</a> FSF-a. Prekinute poveznice i
+drugi ispravci ili prijedlozi mogu biti poslani na <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>. -->
+Radimo naporno i dajemo sve od sebe da bi pružili točne, visoko kvalitetne
+prijevode. Međutim, nismo oslobođeni od nesavršenosti. Molim vas šaljite
+vaše komentare i općenite prijedloge u tom smislu na <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>.</p>
+<p>Za informacije o koordiniranju i slanju prijevoda naših mrežnih stranica,
+pogledajte <a href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">README za
+prijevode</a>.</p>
+
+<p>Copyright &copy; 2007, 2010, 2012 Richard Stallman<br />Copyright &copy;
+2013 Marin Rameša (translation)</p>
+
+<p>Ovo djelo je dano na korištenje pod licencom <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/deed.hr";> Creative
+Commons Imenovanje-Bez prerada 3.0 SAD</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.hr.html" -->
+<div class="translators-credits">
+
+<!--TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't want credits.-->
+ </div>
+
+
+ <p><!-- timestamp start -->
+Zadnji put promijenjeno:
+
+$Date: 2013/04/09 03:58:54 $
+
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>

Index: po/open-source-misses-the-point.hr-en.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/open-source-misses-the-point.hr-en.html
diff -N po/open-source-misses-the-point.hr-en.html
--- /dev/null   1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/open-source-misses-the-point.hr-en.html  9 Apr 2013 03:58:55 -0000       
1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,408 @@
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.75 -->
+<title>Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software - GNU Project - 
+Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.translist" 
-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software</h2>
+
+<p>by <strong>Richard Stallman</strong></p>
+
+<p>When we call software &ldquo;free,&rdquo; we mean that it respects
+the <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">users' essential freedoms</a>:
+the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute
+copies with or without changes.  This is a matter of freedom, not
+price, so think of &ldquo;free speech,&rdquo; not &ldquo;free
+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>
+
+<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>
+
+<p>The free software movement has campaigned for computer users'
+freedom since 1983.  In 1984 we launched the development of the free
+operating system GNU, so that we could avoid the nonfree operating systems 
+that deny freedom to their users.  During the 1980s, we developed most
+of the essential components of the system and designed
+the <a href="/licenses/gpl.html">GNU General Public License</a> (GNU GPL) 
+to release them under&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
+of the free software community splintered off and began campaigning in
+the name of &ldquo;open source.&rdquo;  The term was originally
+proposed to avoid a possible misunderstanding of the term &ldquo;free
+software,&rdquo; but it soon became associated with philosophical
+views quite different from those of the free software movement.</p>
+
+<p>Some of the supporters of open source considered the term a
+&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>
+
+<p>The two terms
+describe almost the same category of software, but they stand for
+views based on fundamentally different values.  Open source is a
+development methodology; free software is a social movement.  For the
+free software movement, free software is an ethical imperative,
+essential respect for the users' freedom.  By contrast,
+the philosophy of open source considers issues in terms of how to make
+software &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 (or nearly so), does it matter which name you use?  Yes, because 
+different words convey different ideas.  While a free program by any other 
+name would give you the same freedom today, establishing freedom in a 
+lasting way depends above all on teaching people to value freedom.  If you 
+want to help do this, it is essential to speak of 
+&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 weaker than
+those of free software.  As far as we know, all existing free software
+would qualify as open source.  Nearly all open source software is free
+software, but there are exceptions.  First, some open source licenses
+are too restrictive, so they do not qualify as free licenses.
+Fortunately, few programs use those licenses.</p>
+
+<p>Second, and more important, many products containing computers
+(including many Android devices) come with executable programs that
+correspond to free software source code, but the devices do not allow
+the user to install modified versions of those executables; only one
+special company has the power to modify them.  We call these devices
+&ldquo;tyrants&rdquo;, and the practice is called
+&ldquo;tivoization&rdquo; after the product where we first saw it.
+These executables are not free software even though their source code
+is free software.  The criteria for open source do not recognize this
+issue; they are concerned solely with the licensing of the source code.</p>
+
+<h3>Common Misunderstandings of &ldquo;Free Software&rdquo; and
+&ldquo;Open Source&rdquo;</h3>
+
+<p>The term &ldquo;free software&rdquo; is prone to misinterpretation:
+an unintended meaning, &ldquo;software you can get
+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>
+
+<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>
+
+<p>The <a href="http://opensource.org/docs/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.  Nonetheless, their definition
+agrees with our definition in most cases.</p>
+
+<p>However, the obvious meaning for the expression &ldquo;open source
+software&rdquo;&mdash;and the one most people seem to think it
+means&mdash;is &ldquo;You can look at the source code.&rdquo; That
+criterion is much weaker than the free software definition, much
+weaker also than the official definition of open source.  It includes
+many programs that are neither free nor open source.</p>
+
+<p>Since the obvious meaning for &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
+official definition.  I think he simply applied the
+conventions of the English language to come up with a meaning for the
+term.  The state of Kansas published a similar definition:
+<!-- It was from http://da.state.ks.us/itec/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf, but
+that page is no longer available. --> &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
+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>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
+two natural meanings, one of which is the intended meaning, so a
+person who has grasped the idea of &ldquo;free speech, not free
+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>
+
+<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.  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; 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>
+
+<p>Radical groups in the 1960s had a reputation for factionalism: some
+organizations split because of disagreements on details of strategy,
+and the two daughter groups treated each other as enemies despite
+having similar basic goals and values.  The right wing made much of
+this and used it to criticize the entire left.</p>
+
+<p>Some try to disparage the free software movement by comparing our
+disagreement with open source to the disagreements of those radical
+groups.  They have it backwards.  We disagree with the open source
+camp on the basic goals and values, but their views and ours lead in
+many cases to the same practical behavior&mdash;such as developing
+free software.</p>
+
+<p>As a result, people from the free software movement and the open
+source camp often work together on practical projects such as software
+development.  It is remarkable that such different philosophical views
+can so often motivate different people to participate in the same
+projects.  Nonetheless, there are situations where these fundamentally
+different views lead to very different actions.</p>
+
+<p>The idea of open source is that allowing users to change and
+redistribute the software will make it more powerful and reliable.
+But this is not guaranteed.  Developers of proprietary software are
+not necessarily incompetent.  Sometimes they produce a program that
+is powerful and reliable, even though it does not respect the users'
+freedom.   Free software activists and open source enthusiasts will
+react very differently to that.</p>
+
+<p>A pure open source enthusiast, one that is not at all influenced by
+the ideals of free software, will say, &ldquo;I am surprised you were able
+to make the program work so well without using our development model,
+but you did.  How can I get a copy?&rdquo;  This attitude will reward
+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>
+
+<h3>Powerful, Reliable Software Can Be Bad</h3>
+
+<p>The idea that we want software to be powerful and reliable comes
+from the supposition that the software is designed to serve its users.
+If it is powerful and reliable, that means it serves them better.</p>
+
+<p>But software can be said to serve its users only if it respects
+their freedom.  What if the software is designed to put chains on its
+users?  Then powerfulness means the chains are more constricting,
+and reliability that they are harder to remove.  Malicious features,
+such as spying on the users, restricting the users, back doors, and
+imposed upgrades are common in proprietary software, and some open
+source supporters want to implement them in open source programs.</p>
+
+<p>Under pressure from the movie and record companies, software for
+individuals to use is increasingly designed specifically to restrict
+them.  This malicious feature is known as Digital Restrictions
+Management (DRM) (see <a
+href="http://defectivebydesign.org/";>DefectiveByDesign.org</a>) and is
+the antithesis in spirit of the freedom that free software aims
+to provide.  And not just in spirit: since the goal of DRM is to
+trample your freedom, DRM developers try to make it hard, impossible,
+or even illegal for you to change the software that implements the DRM.</p>
+
+<p>Yet some open source supporters have proposed &ldquo;open source
+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>
+
+<p>This software might be open source and use the open
+source development model, but it won't be free software since it
+won't respect the freedom of the users that actually run it.  If the
+open source development model succeeds in making this software more
+powerful and reliable for restricting you, that will make it even
+worse.</p>
+
+<h3>Fear of Freedom</h3>
+
+<p>The main initial motivation of those who split off the open source
+camp from the free software movement was that the ethical ideas of
+&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
+does not follow that we ought to stop talking about these issues.</p>
+
+<p>That is, however, what the leaders of open source
+decided to do.  They figured that by keeping quiet about ethics and
+freedom, and talking only about the immediate practical benefits of
+certain free software, they might be able to &ldquo;sell&rdquo; the
+software more effectively to certain users, especially business.</p>
+
+<p>This approach has proved effective, in its own terms.  The rhetoric
+of open source has convinced many businesses and individuals to use,
+and even develop, free software, which has extended our
+community&mdash;but only at the superficial, practical level.  The
+philosophy of open source, with its purely practical values, impedes
+understanding of the deeper ideas of free software; it brings many
+people into our community, but does not teach them to defend it.  That
+is good, as far as it goes, but it is not enough to make freedom
+secure.  Attracting users to free software takes them just part of the
+way to becoming defenders of their own freedom.</p>
+
+<p>Sooner or later these users will be invited to switch back to
+proprietary software for some practical advantage.  Countless
+companies seek to offer such temptation, some even offering copies
+gratis.  Why would users decline?  Only if they have learned to value
+the freedom free software gives them, to value freedom in and of itself 
+rather than the technical and practical convenience of specific free
+software.  To spread this idea, we have to talk about freedom.  A
+certain amount of the &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>
+
+<p>Proprietary add-on software and partially nonfree GNU/Linux
+distributions find fertile ground because most of our community does
+not insist on freedom with its software.  This is no coincidence.
+Most GNU/Linux users were introduced to the system through &ldquo;open
+source&rdquo; discussion, which doesn't say that freedom is a goal.
+The practices that don't uphold freedom and the words that don't talk
+about freedom go hand in hand, each promoting the other.  To overcome
+this tendency, we need more, not less, talk about freedom.</p>
+
+<h3>Conclusion</h3>
+
+<p>As the advocates of open source draw new users into our community,
+we free software activists must shoulder the task of bringing the issue
+of freedom to their attention.  We have to say, &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>
+
+<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>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+
+<div id="footer">
+
+<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>
+
+<p>Copyright &copy; 2007, 2010, 2012 Richard Stallman</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/";>Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p>Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2013/04/09 03:58:55 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>