[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www philosophy/free-software-even-more-importan...
|
From: |
GNUN |
|
Subject: |
www philosophy/free-software-even-more-importan... |
|
Date: |
Tue, 7 Mar 2017 17:29:33 -0500 (EST) |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: GNUN <gnun> 17/03/07 17:29:33
Modified files:
philosophy : free-software-even-more-important.ar.html
free-software-even-more-important.el.html
free-software-even-more-important.lt.html
proprietary : proprietary.de.html proprietary.it.html
proprietary/po : proprietary.de-diff.html
Added files:
philosophy/po : free-software-even-more-important.ar-diff.html
free-software-even-more-important.el-diff.html
free-software-even-more-important.lt-diff.html
proprietary/po : proprietary.it-diff.html
Log message:
Automatic update by GNUnited Nations.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.ar.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.1&r2=1.2
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.el.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.2&r2=1.3
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.lt.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.3&r2=1.4
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/free-software-even-more-important.ar-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/free-software-even-more-important.el-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/free-software-even-more-important.lt-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/proprietary/proprietary.de.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.12&r2=1.13
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/proprietary/proprietary.it.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.8&r2=1.9
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/proprietary/po/proprietary.de-diff.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.6&r2=1.7
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/proprietary/po/proprietary.it-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
Patches:
Index: philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.ar.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.ar.html,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -b -r1.1 -r1.2
--- philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.ar.html 12 Dec 2016
10:27:40 -0000 1.1
+++ philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.ar.html 7 Mar 2017
22:29:32 -0000 1.2
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE"
value="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/free-software-even-more-important.ar.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/free-software-even-more-important.ar.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE"
value="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE"
value="/philosophy/po/free-software-even-more-important.ar-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2017-01-06" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE"
value="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.ar.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
@@ -9,6 +14,7 @@
<!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/po/free-software-even-more-important.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.ar.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.ar.html" -->
<h2>اÙبرÙ
جÙات اÙØرة أضØت Ø£Ùثر Ø£ÙÙ
ÙØ© Ù
٠أÙ
ÙÙت Ù
ضÙ</h2>
<p>بÙÙÙ
<a href="http://www.stallman.org/";><strong>رÙتشارد
ستاÙÙ
Ù</strong></a></p>
@@ -347,7 +353,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
تØدÙØ«:
-$Date: 2016/12/12 10:27:40 $
+$Date: 2017/03/07 22:29:32 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.el.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.el.html,v
retrieving revision 1.2
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -b -r1.2 -r1.3
--- philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.el.html 8 May 2016
19:28:27 -0000 1.2
+++ philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.el.html 7 Mar 2017
22:29:32 -0000 1.3
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE"
value="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/free-software-even-more-important.el.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/free-software-even-more-important.el.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE"
value="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE"
value="/philosophy/po/free-software-even-more-important.el-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2017-01-06" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE"
value="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.el.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
@@ -9,6 +14,7 @@
<!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/po/free-software-even-more-important.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.el.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.el.html" -->
<h2>Το ελεÏθεÏο λογιÏÎ¼Î¹ÎºÏ ÎµÎ¯Î½Î±Î¹ ÏήμεÏα
ακÏμη Ïιο ÏημανÏικÏ</h2>
<p>αÏÏ Ïον <a href="http://www.stallman.org/";><strong>Richard
@@ -397,7 +403,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
ÎνημεÏÏθηκε:
-$Date: 2016/05/08 19:28:27 $
+$Date: 2017/03/07 22:29:32 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.lt.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.lt.html,v
retrieving revision 1.3
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -u -b -r1.3 -r1.4
--- philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.lt.html 19 Jan 2016
07:08:20 -0000 1.3
+++ philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.lt.html 7 Mar 2017
22:29:32 -0000 1.4
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE"
value="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/free-software-even-more-important.lt.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/free-software-even-more-important.lt.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE"
value="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE"
value="/philosophy/po/free-software-even-more-important.lt-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2017-01-06" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE"
value="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.lt.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
@@ -9,6 +14,7 @@
<!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/po/free-software-even-more-important.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.lt.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.lt.html" -->
<h2>Laisva programinÄ Ä¯ranga dabar yra dar svarbesnÄ</h2>
<p>pagal <a href="http://www.stallman.org/";><strong>Richard
@@ -375,7 +381,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Atnaujinta:
-$Date: 2016/01/19 07:08:20 $
+$Date: 2017/03/07 22:29:32 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: proprietary/proprietary.de.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/proprietary/proprietary.de.html,v
retrieving revision 1.12
retrieving revision 1.13
diff -u -b -r1.12 -r1.13
--- proprietary/proprietary.de.html 3 Dec 2016 23:45:15 -0000 1.12
+++ proprietary/proprietary.de.html 7 Mar 2017 22:29:33 -0000 1.13
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/proprietary/proprietary.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/proprietary/po/proprietary.de.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/po/proprietary.de.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/proprietary/proprietary.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/proprietary/po/proprietary.de-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2017-01-06" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/proprietary/proprietary.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.de.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 -->
@@ -18,6 +23,7 @@
</style>
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.de.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.de.html" -->
<h2>Proprietäre Software ist häufig Schadsoftware</h2>
<p>Proprietäre Software, auch unfreie Software genannt, bezeichnet Software,
@@ -180,7 +186,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Letzte Ãnderung:
-$Date: 2016/12/03 23:45:15 $
+$Date: 2017/03/07 22:29:33 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: proprietary/proprietary.it.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/proprietary/proprietary.it.html,v
retrieving revision 1.8
retrieving revision 1.9
diff -u -b -r1.8 -r1.9
--- proprietary/proprietary.it.html 3 Nov 2016 19:57:35 -0000 1.8
+++ proprietary/proprietary.it.html 7 Mar 2017 22:29:33 -0000 1.9
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/proprietary/proprietary.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/proprietary/po/proprietary.it.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/po/proprietary.it.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/proprietary/proprietary.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/proprietary/po/proprietary.it-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2017-01-06" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/proprietary/proprietary.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.it.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 -->
@@ -18,6 +23,7 @@
</style>
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.it.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.it.html" -->
<h2>Il software proprietario spesso è malware</h2>
<p>Il software proprietario, conosciuto anche come software non libero, è
@@ -167,7 +173,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Ultimo aggiornamento:
-$Date: 2016/11/03 19:57:35 $
+$Date: 2017/03/07 22:29:33 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: proprietary/po/proprietary.de-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/proprietary/po/proprietary.de-diff.html,v
retrieving revision 1.6
retrieving revision 1.7
diff -u -b -r1.6 -r1.7
--- proprietary/po/proprietary.de-diff.html 14 Sep 2016 06:29:34 -0000
1.6
+++ proprietary/po/proprietary.de-diff.html 7 Mar 2017 22:29:33 -0000
1.7
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@
</style></head>
<body><pre>
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
-<!-- Parent-Version: <span
class="removed"><del><strong>1.77</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>1.79</em></ins></span> -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 -->
<title>Proprietary Software
- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
<!--#include virtual="/proprietary/po/proprietary.translist" -->
@@ -29,25 +29,29 @@
<p>Proprietary software, also called nonfree software,
means software that doesn't
<a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">respect users' freedom and
-community</a>. This means that
+community</a>. A proprietary program puts its developer or owner
<a href="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html">
-its developer or owner has power over its users.</a>
-This power is itself an injustice.</p>
+in a position of power over its users.</a>
+This power is in itself an injustice.</p>
<p>The point of this page is that the initial injustice of proprietary
software often leads to further injustices: malicious
functionalities.</p>
-<p>Power corrupts, so the proprietary program's developer is tempted
-to design the program to mistreat its users—that is, to make
-it <em>malware</em>. (Malware means software whose functioning
-mistreats the user.) Of course, the developer usually does not do
-this out of malice, but rather to put the users at a disadvantage.
-That does not make it any less nasty or more legitimate.</p>
+<p>Power corrupts; the proprietary program's developer is tempted to
+design the program to mistreat its users. (Software whose functioning
+mistreats the user is called <em>malware</em>.) Of course, the
+developer usually does not do this out of malice, but rather to profit
+more at the users' expense. That does not make it any less nasty or
+more legitimate.</p>
<p>Yielding to that temptation has become ever more frequent; nowadays
-it is standard practice. Modern proprietary software is software for
-suckers!</p>
+it is standard practice. Modern proprietary software is typically
+a way to be had.</p>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p>As of January, 2017, the files in
this directory list around 260
+instances of malicious functionalities, but there are surely thousands
+more we don't know about.</p></em></ins></span>
<div class="toc">
<div class="companies">
@@ -55,12 +59,13 @@
<li><strong>Company or type of product</strong></li>
<li><a href="/proprietary/malware-apple.html">Apple
Malware</a></li>
<li><a href="/proprietary/malware-microsoft.html">Microsoft
Malware</a></li>
- <li><a <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="/proprietary/malware-adobe.html">Adobe
Malware</a></li>
+ <li><a href="/proprietary/malware-adobe.html">Adobe
Malware</a></li>
+ <li><a <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="/proprietary/malware-amazon.html">Amazon
Malware</a></li>
<li><a</em></ins></span>
href="/proprietary/malware-mobiles.html">Malware in mobile
devices</a></li>
- <li><a href="/proprietary/malware-kindle-swindle.html">Malware
in the Amazon
+ <li><a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="/proprietary/malware-kindle-swindle.html">Malware
in the Amazon
Swindle</a></li>
- <li><a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="/proprietary/proprietary-deception.html">Deceptive
companies</a> masking their intentions.</li></strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="/proprietary/malware-games.html">Malware in
games</a></li>
- <li><a href="/proprietary/malware-appliances.html">Malware in
appliances</a></li></em></ins></span>
+ <li><a</strong></del></span>
href="/proprietary/malware-games.html">Malware in games</a></li>
+ <li><a href="/proprietary/malware-appliances.html">Malware in
appliances</a></li>
</ul>
</div>
@@ -69,15 +74,16 @@
<li><strong>Type of malware</strong></li>
<li><a href="/proprietary/proprietary-back-doors.html">Back
doors</a></li>
<li><a
href="/proprietary/proprietary-censorship.html">Censorship</a></li>
-<li><a <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="/proprietary/proprietary-deception.html">Deception</a></li>
-<li><a</em></ins></span>
href="/proprietary/proprietary-insecurity.html">Insecurity</a></li>
+<li><a <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="/proprietary/proprietary-coverups.html">Coverups</a></li>
+<li><a</em></ins></span>
href="/proprietary/proprietary-deception.html">Deception</a></li>
+<li><a
href="/proprietary/proprietary-insecurity.html">Insecurity</a></li>
<li><a
href="/proprietary/proprietary-sabotage.html">Sabotage</a></li>
<li><a
href="/proprietary/proprietary-interference.html">Interference</a></li>
<li><a
href="/proprietary/proprietary-surveillance.html">Surveillance</a></li>
-<li><a <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="/proprietary/proprietary-subscriptions.html">Subscriptions</a></li>
+<li><a
href="/proprietary/proprietary-subscriptions.html">Subscriptions</a></li>
<li><a
href="/proprietary/proprietary-tethers.html">Tethers</a> to
servers</li>
-<li><a</em></ins></span>
href="/proprietary/proprietary-drm.html">Digital restrictions
+<li><a href="/proprietary/proprietary-drm.html">Digital
restrictions
management</a> or “DRM” means functionalities designed
to restrict what users can do with the data in their computers.</li>
<li><a
href="/proprietary/proprietary-jails.html">Jails</a>—systems
@@ -143,7 +149,7 @@
There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
-<p>Copyright © 2013, 2014, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2015</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2015, 2016</em></ins></span> Free Software
Foundation, Inc.</p>
+<p>Copyright © 2013, 2014, 2015, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2016</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2016, 2017</em></ins></span> Free Software
Foundation, Inc.</p>
<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
@@ -153,7 +159,7 @@
<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2016/09/14 06:29:34 $
+$Date: 2017/03/07 22:29:33 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
Index: philosophy/po/free-software-even-more-important.ar-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: philosophy/po/free-software-even-more-important.ar-diff.html
diff -N philosophy/po/free-software-even-more-important.ar-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ philosophy/po/free-software-even-more-important.ar-diff.html 7 Mar
2017 22:29:32 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,380 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+<title>Free Software Is Even More Important Now
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+ <!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/po/free-software-even-more-important.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+
+<h2>Free Software Is Even More Important Now</h2>
+
+<p>by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/"><strong>Richard
+Stallman</strong></a></p>
+
+<blockquote>
+<p>A substantially edited version of this article was published in <a
+href="http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/09/why-free-software-is-more-important-now-than-ever-before">
+Wired</a>.</p>
+<p>
+<a href="/help">Suggested ways you can help the free software
movement</a>.
+</p>
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>Since 1983, the Free Software Movement has campaigned for computer
+users' freedom—for users to control the software they
+use, rather than vice versa. When a program respects users' freedom
+and community, we call it “free software.”</p>
+
+<p>We also sometimes call it “libre software” to emphasize
+that we're talking about liberty, not price. Some proprietary
+(nonfree) programs, such as Photoshop, are very expensive; others,
+such as Flash Player, are available gratis—but that's a minor
+detail. Either way, they give the program's developer power
+over the users, power that no one should have.</p>
+
+<p>Those two nonfree programs have something else in common: they are
+both <em>malware</em>. That is, both have functionalities
designed to
+mistreat the user. Proprietary software nowadays is often malware
+because <a href="/proprietary/proprietary.html">the developers' power
+corrupts <span
class="removed"><del><strong>them</a>.</p></strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>them</a>. That directory lists around
260 different
+malicious functionalities (as of Jan 2017), but it is surely just the
+tip of the iceberg.</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>With free software, the users control the program, both individually
+and collectively. So they control what their computers do (assuming
+those computers are <a
href="/philosophy/loyal-computers.html">loyal</a>
+and do what the users' programs tell them to do).</p>
+
+<p>With proprietary software, the program controls the users, and some
+other entity (the developer or “owner”) controls the
+program. So the proprietary program gives its developer power over
+its users. That is unjust in itself, and tempts the developer to
+mistreat the users in other ways.</p>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p>Even when proprietary software isn't
downright malicious, its
+developers have an incentive to make
+it <a
href="https://getpocket.com/explore/item/how-technology-hijacks-people-s-minds-from-a-magician-and-google-s-design-ethicist-1300144185">addictive,
+controlling and manipulative</a>. You can say, as does the author of
+that article, that the developers have an ethical obligation not to do
+that, but generally they follow their interests. If you want this not
+to happen, make sure the program is controlled by its
users.</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>Freedom means having control over your own life. If you use a
+program to carry out activities in your life, your freedom depends on
+your having control over the program. You deserve to have control
+over the programs you use, and all the more so when you use them for
+something important in your life.</p>
+
+<p>Users' control over the program requires four
+<a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">essential freedoms</a>.
+</p>
+
+<p>(0) The freedom to run the program as you wish, for whatever
purpose.</p>
+
+<p>(1) The freedom to study the program's “source code”,
+and change it, so the program does your computing as you wish.
+Programs are written by programmers in a programming
+language—like English combined with algebra—and that form
+of the program is the “source code”. Anyone who knows
+programming, and has the program in source code form, can read the
+source code, understand its functioning, and change it too. When all
+you get is the executable form, a series of numbers that are efficient
+for the computer to run but extremely hard for a human being to
+understand, understanding and changing the program in that form are
+forbiddingly hard.</p>
+
+<p>(2) The freedom to make and distribute exact copies when you wish.
+(It is not an obligation; doing this is your choice. If the program
+is free, that doesn't mean someone has an obligation to offer you a
+copy, or that you have an obligation to offer him a copy.
+Distributing a program to users without freedom mistreats them;
+however, choosing not to distribute the program—using it
+privately—does not mistreat anyone.)</p>
+
+<p>(3) The freedom to make and distribute copies of your modified
+versions, when you wish.</p>
+
+<p>The first two freedoms mean each user can exercise individual
+control over the program. With the other two freedoms, any group of
+users can together exercise <em>collective control</em> over the
+program. With all four freedoms, the users fully control the program.
+If any of them is missing or inadequate, the program is proprietary
+(nonfree), and unjust.</p>
+
+<p>Other kinds of works are also used for practical activities, including
+recipes for cooking, educational works such as textbooks, reference
+works such as dictionaries and encyclopedias, fonts for displaying
+paragraphs of text, circuit diagrams for hardware for people to build,
+and patterns for making useful (not merely decorative) objects with a
+3D printer. Since these are not software, the free software movement
+strictly speaking doesn't cover them; but the same reasoning applies
+and leads to the same conclusion: these works should carry the four
+freedoms.</p>
+
+<p>A free program allows you to tinker with it to make it do what you
+want (or cease do to something you dislike). Tinkering with software
+may sound ridiculous if you are accustomed to proprietary software as
+a sealed box, but in the Free World it's a common thing to do, and a
+good way to learn programming. Even the traditional American pastime
+of tinkering with cars is obstructed because cars now contain nonfree
+software.</p>
+
+<h3>The Injustice of Proprietariness</h3>
+
+<p>If the users don't control the program, the program controls the
+users. With proprietary software, there is always some entity, the
+developer or “owner” of the program, that controls the
+program—and through it, exercises power over its users. A
+nonfree program is a yoke, an instrument of unjust power.</p>
+
+<p>In outrageous cases (though this outrage has become quite usual) <a
+href="/proprietary/proprietary.html">proprietary programs are designed
+to spy on the users, restrict them, censor them, and abuse them</a>.
+For instance, the operating system of Apple iThings does all of these,
+and so does Windows on mobile devices with ARM chips. Windows, mobile
+phone firmware, and Google Chrome for Windows include a universal back
+door that allows some company to change the program remotely without
+asking permission. The Amazon Kindle has a back door that can erase
+books.</p>
+
+<p>The use of nonfree software in the “internet of things”
+would turn it into
+the <a
href="http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/rinesi20150806">“internet
+of telemarketers”</a> as well as the “internet of
+snoopers”.</p>
+
+<p>With the goal of ending the injustice of nonfree software, the free
+software movement develops free programs so users can free themselves.
+We began in 1984 by developing the free operating system <a
+href="/gnu/the-gnu-project.html">GNU</a>. Today, millions of computers
+run GNU, mainly in the <a href="/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html">GNU/Linux
+combination</a>.</p>
+
+<p>Distributing a program to users without freedom mistreats those users;
+however, choosing not to distribute the program does not mistreat
+anyone. If you write a program and use it privately, that does no
+wrong to others. (You do miss an opportunity to do good, but that's
+not the same as doing wrong.) Thus, when we say all software must
+be free, we mean that every copy must come with the four freedoms,
+but we don't mean that someone has an obligation to offer you a copy.</p>
+
+<h3>Nonfree Software and SaaSS</h3>
+
+<p>Nonfree software was the first way for companies to take control of
+people's computing. Nowadays, there is another way, called Service as
+a Software Substitute, or SaaSS. That means letting someone else's
+server do your own computing tasks.</p>
+
+<p>SaaSS doesn't mean the programs on the server are nonfree (though they
+often are). Rather, using SaaSS causes the same injustices as using a
+nonfree program: they are two paths to the same bad place. Take the
+example of a SaaSS translation service: The user sends text to the
+server, and the server translates it (from English to Spanish, say)
+and sends the translation back to the user. Now the job of
+translating is under the control of the server operator rather than
+the user.</p>
+
+<p>If you use SaaSS, the server operator controls your computing. It
+requires entrusting all the pertinent data to the server operator,
+which will be forced to show it to the state as well—<a
+href="/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html">who
+does that server really serve, after all?</a></p>
+
+<h3>Primary And Secondary Injustices</h3>
+
+<p>When you use proprietary programs or SaaSS, first of all you do wrong
+to yourself, because it gives some entity unjust power over you. For
+your own sake, you should escape. It also wrongs others if you make a
+promise not to share. It is evil to keep such a promise, and a lesser
+evil to break it; to be truly upright, you should not make the promise
+at all.</p>
+
+<p>There are cases where using nonfree software puts pressure directly
+on others to do likewise. Skype is a clear example: when one person
+uses the nonfree Skype client software, it requires another person to
+use that software too—thus both surrender their freedom.
+(Google Hangouts have the same problem.) It is wrong even to suggest
+using such programs. We should refuse to use them even briefly, even
+on someone else's computer.</p>
+
+<p>Another harm of using nonfree programs and SaaSS is that it rewards
+the perpetrator, encouraging further development of that program or
+“service”, leading in turn to even more people falling
+under the company's thumb.</p>
+
+<p>All the forms of indirect harm are magnified when the user is a
+public entity or a school.</p>
+
+<h3>Free Software and the State</h3>
+
+<p>Public agencies exist for the people, not for themselves. When they
+do computing, they do it for the people. They have a duty to maintain
+full control over that computing so that they can assure it is done
+properly for the people. (This constitutes the computational
+sovereignty of the state.) They must never allow control over the
+state's computing to fall into private hands.</p>
+
+<p>To maintain control of the people's computing, public agencies must
+not do it with proprietary software (software under the control of an
+entity other than the state). And they must not entrust it to a
+service programmed and run by an entity other than the state, since
+this would be SaaSS.</p>
+
+<p>Proprietary software has no security at all in one crucial case
+— against its developer. And the developer may help others attack.
+<a
href="http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/06/nsa-gets-early-access-to-zero-day-data-from-microsoft-others/">
+Microsoft shows Windows bugs to the NSA</a> (the US government digital
+spying agency) before fixing them. We do not know whether Apple does
+likewise, but it is under the same government pressure as Microsoft.
+If the government of any other country uses such software, it
+endangers national security. Do you want the NSA to break into your
+government's computers? See
+our <a href="/philosophy/government-free-software.html">suggested
+policies for governments to promote free software</a>.</p>
+
+<h3>Free Software and Education</h3>
+
+<p>Schools (and this includes all educational activities) influence the
+future of society through what they teach. They should teach
+exclusively free software, so as to use their influence for the good.
+To teach a proprietary program is to implant dependence, which goes
+against the mission of education. By training in use of free
+software, schools will direct society's future towards freedom, and
+help talented programmers master the craft.</p>
+
+<p>They will also teach students the habit of cooperating, helping
+other people. Each class should have this rule: “Students, this
+class is a place where we share our knowledge. If you bring software
+to class, you may not keep it for yourself. Rather, you must share
+copies with the rest of the class—including the program's source
+code, in case someone else wants to learn. Therefore, bringing
+proprietary software to class is not permitted except to reverse
+engineer it.”</p>
+
+<p>Proprietary developers would have us punish students who are good
+enough at heart to share software and thwart those curious enough to
+want to change it. This means a bad education. See
+<a href="/education/">http://www.gnu.org/education/</a>
+for more discussion of the use of free software in schools.</p>
+
+<h3>Free Software: More Than “Advantages”</h3>
+
+<p>I'm often asked to describe the “advantages” of free
+software. But the word “advantages” is too weak when it
+comes to freedom. Life without freedom is oppression, and that
+applies to computing as well as every other activity in our lives. We
+must refuse to give the developers of the programs or computing services
+control over the computing we do. This is the right thing to do, for
+selfish reasons; but not solely for selfish reasons.</p>
+
+<p>Freedom includes the freedom to cooperate with others. Denying
+people that freedom means keeping them divided, which is the start of
+a scheme to oppress them. In the free software community, we are very
+much aware of the importance of the freedom to cooperate because our
+work consists of organized cooperation. If your friend comes to visit
+and sees you use a program, she might ask for a copy. A program which
+stops you from redistributing it, or says you're “not supposed
+to”, is antisocial.</p>
+
+<p>In computing, cooperation includes redistributing exact copies of a
+program to other users. It also includes distributing your changed
+versions to them. Free software encourages these forms of
+cooperation, while proprietary software forbids them. It forbids
+redistribution of copies, and by denying users the source code, it
+blocks them from making changes. SaaSS has the same effects: if your
+computing is done over the web in someone else's server, by someone
+else's copy of a program, you can't see it or touch the software that
+does your computing, so you can't redistribute it or change it.</p>
+
+<h3>Conclusion</h3>
+
+<p>We deserve to have control of our own computing; how can we win
+this control? By rejecting nonfree software on the computers we own
+or regularly use, and rejecting SaaSS. By <a
+href="/licenses/license-recommendations.html"> developing free
+software</a> (for those of us who are programmers.) By refusing to
+develop or promote nonfree software or SaaSS. By <a
+href="/help">spreading these ideas to others</a>.</p>
+
+<p>We and thousands of users have done this since 1984, which is how
+we now have the free GNU/Linux operating system that
+anyone—programmer or not—can use. Join our cause, as a
+programmer or an activist. Let's make all computer users free.</p>
+
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
+the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to <a
href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:address@hidden">
+ <address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. -->
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+ be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this
+ without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+ Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+ document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+ document was modified, or published.
+
+ If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+ Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+ years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+ year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+ being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+
+ There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+ Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
+
+<p>Copyright © <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2015</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2015, 2017</em></ins></span> 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: 2017/03/07 22:29:32 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: philosophy/po/free-software-even-more-important.el-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: philosophy/po/free-software-even-more-important.el-diff.html
diff -N philosophy/po/free-software-even-more-important.el-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ philosophy/po/free-software-even-more-important.el-diff.html 7 Mar
2017 22:29:32 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,380 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+<title>Free Software Is Even More Important Now
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+ <!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/po/free-software-even-more-important.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+
+<h2>Free Software Is Even More Important Now</h2>
+
+<p>by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/"><strong>Richard
+Stallman</strong></a></p>
+
+<blockquote>
+<p>A substantially edited version of this article was published in <a
+href="http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/09/why-free-software-is-more-important-now-than-ever-before">
+Wired</a>.</p>
+<p>
+<a href="/help">Suggested ways you can help the free software
movement</a>.
+</p>
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>Since 1983, the Free Software Movement has campaigned for computer
+users' freedom—for users to control the software they
+use, rather than vice versa. When a program respects users' freedom
+and community, we call it “free software.”</p>
+
+<p>We also sometimes call it “libre software” to emphasize
+that we're talking about liberty, not price. Some proprietary
+(nonfree) programs, such as Photoshop, are very expensive; others,
+such as Flash Player, are available gratis—but that's a minor
+detail. Either way, they give the program's developer power
+over the users, power that no one should have.</p>
+
+<p>Those two nonfree programs have something else in common: they are
+both <em>malware</em>. That is, both have functionalities
designed to
+mistreat the user. Proprietary software nowadays is often malware
+because <a href="/proprietary/proprietary.html">the developers' power
+corrupts <span
class="removed"><del><strong>them</a>.</p></strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>them</a>. That directory lists around
260 different
+malicious functionalities (as of Jan 2017), but it is surely just the
+tip of the iceberg.</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>With free software, the users control the program, both individually
+and collectively. So they control what their computers do (assuming
+those computers are <a
href="/philosophy/loyal-computers.html">loyal</a>
+and do what the users' programs tell them to do).</p>
+
+<p>With proprietary software, the program controls the users, and some
+other entity (the developer or “owner”) controls the
+program. So the proprietary program gives its developer power over
+its users. That is unjust in itself, and tempts the developer to
+mistreat the users in other ways.</p>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p>Even when proprietary software isn't
downright malicious, its
+developers have an incentive to make
+it <a
href="https://getpocket.com/explore/item/how-technology-hijacks-people-s-minds-from-a-magician-and-google-s-design-ethicist-1300144185">addictive,
+controlling and manipulative</a>. You can say, as does the author of
+that article, that the developers have an ethical obligation not to do
+that, but generally they follow their interests. If you want this not
+to happen, make sure the program is controlled by its
users.</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>Freedom means having control over your own life. If you use a
+program to carry out activities in your life, your freedom depends on
+your having control over the program. You deserve to have control
+over the programs you use, and all the more so when you use them for
+something important in your life.</p>
+
+<p>Users' control over the program requires four
+<a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">essential freedoms</a>.
+</p>
+
+<p>(0) The freedom to run the program as you wish, for whatever
purpose.</p>
+
+<p>(1) The freedom to study the program's “source code”,
+and change it, so the program does your computing as you wish.
+Programs are written by programmers in a programming
+language—like English combined with algebra—and that form
+of the program is the “source code”. Anyone who knows
+programming, and has the program in source code form, can read the
+source code, understand its functioning, and change it too. When all
+you get is the executable form, a series of numbers that are efficient
+for the computer to run but extremely hard for a human being to
+understand, understanding and changing the program in that form are
+forbiddingly hard.</p>
+
+<p>(2) The freedom to make and distribute exact copies when you wish.
+(It is not an obligation; doing this is your choice. If the program
+is free, that doesn't mean someone has an obligation to offer you a
+copy, or that you have an obligation to offer him a copy.
+Distributing a program to users without freedom mistreats them;
+however, choosing not to distribute the program—using it
+privately—does not mistreat anyone.)</p>
+
+<p>(3) The freedom to make and distribute copies of your modified
+versions, when you wish.</p>
+
+<p>The first two freedoms mean each user can exercise individual
+control over the program. With the other two freedoms, any group of
+users can together exercise <em>collective control</em> over the
+program. With all four freedoms, the users fully control the program.
+If any of them is missing or inadequate, the program is proprietary
+(nonfree), and unjust.</p>
+
+<p>Other kinds of works are also used for practical activities, including
+recipes for cooking, educational works such as textbooks, reference
+works such as dictionaries and encyclopedias, fonts for displaying
+paragraphs of text, circuit diagrams for hardware for people to build,
+and patterns for making useful (not merely decorative) objects with a
+3D printer. Since these are not software, the free software movement
+strictly speaking doesn't cover them; but the same reasoning applies
+and leads to the same conclusion: these works should carry the four
+freedoms.</p>
+
+<p>A free program allows you to tinker with it to make it do what you
+want (or cease do to something you dislike). Tinkering with software
+may sound ridiculous if you are accustomed to proprietary software as
+a sealed box, but in the Free World it's a common thing to do, and a
+good way to learn programming. Even the traditional American pastime
+of tinkering with cars is obstructed because cars now contain nonfree
+software.</p>
+
+<h3>The Injustice of Proprietariness</h3>
+
+<p>If the users don't control the program, the program controls the
+users. With proprietary software, there is always some entity, the
+developer or “owner” of the program, that controls the
+program—and through it, exercises power over its users. A
+nonfree program is a yoke, an instrument of unjust power.</p>
+
+<p>In outrageous cases (though this outrage has become quite usual) <a
+href="/proprietary/proprietary.html">proprietary programs are designed
+to spy on the users, restrict them, censor them, and abuse them</a>.
+For instance, the operating system of Apple iThings does all of these,
+and so does Windows on mobile devices with ARM chips. Windows, mobile
+phone firmware, and Google Chrome for Windows include a universal back
+door that allows some company to change the program remotely without
+asking permission. The Amazon Kindle has a back door that can erase
+books.</p>
+
+<p>The use of nonfree software in the “internet of things”
+would turn it into
+the <a
href="http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/rinesi20150806">“internet
+of telemarketers”</a> as well as the “internet of
+snoopers”.</p>
+
+<p>With the goal of ending the injustice of nonfree software, the free
+software movement develops free programs so users can free themselves.
+We began in 1984 by developing the free operating system <a
+href="/gnu/the-gnu-project.html">GNU</a>. Today, millions of computers
+run GNU, mainly in the <a href="/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html">GNU/Linux
+combination</a>.</p>
+
+<p>Distributing a program to users without freedom mistreats those users;
+however, choosing not to distribute the program does not mistreat
+anyone. If you write a program and use it privately, that does no
+wrong to others. (You do miss an opportunity to do good, but that's
+not the same as doing wrong.) Thus, when we say all software must
+be free, we mean that every copy must come with the four freedoms,
+but we don't mean that someone has an obligation to offer you a copy.</p>
+
+<h3>Nonfree Software and SaaSS</h3>
+
+<p>Nonfree software was the first way for companies to take control of
+people's computing. Nowadays, there is another way, called Service as
+a Software Substitute, or SaaSS. That means letting someone else's
+server do your own computing tasks.</p>
+
+<p>SaaSS doesn't mean the programs on the server are nonfree (though they
+often are). Rather, using SaaSS causes the same injustices as using a
+nonfree program: they are two paths to the same bad place. Take the
+example of a SaaSS translation service: The user sends text to the
+server, and the server translates it (from English to Spanish, say)
+and sends the translation back to the user. Now the job of
+translating is under the control of the server operator rather than
+the user.</p>
+
+<p>If you use SaaSS, the server operator controls your computing. It
+requires entrusting all the pertinent data to the server operator,
+which will be forced to show it to the state as well—<a
+href="/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html">who
+does that server really serve, after all?</a></p>
+
+<h3>Primary And Secondary Injustices</h3>
+
+<p>When you use proprietary programs or SaaSS, first of all you do wrong
+to yourself, because it gives some entity unjust power over you. For
+your own sake, you should escape. It also wrongs others if you make a
+promise not to share. It is evil to keep such a promise, and a lesser
+evil to break it; to be truly upright, you should not make the promise
+at all.</p>
+
+<p>There are cases where using nonfree software puts pressure directly
+on others to do likewise. Skype is a clear example: when one person
+uses the nonfree Skype client software, it requires another person to
+use that software too—thus both surrender their freedom.
+(Google Hangouts have the same problem.) It is wrong even to suggest
+using such programs. We should refuse to use them even briefly, even
+on someone else's computer.</p>
+
+<p>Another harm of using nonfree programs and SaaSS is that it rewards
+the perpetrator, encouraging further development of that program or
+“service”, leading in turn to even more people falling
+under the company's thumb.</p>
+
+<p>All the forms of indirect harm are magnified when the user is a
+public entity or a school.</p>
+
+<h3>Free Software and the State</h3>
+
+<p>Public agencies exist for the people, not for themselves. When they
+do computing, they do it for the people. They have a duty to maintain
+full control over that computing so that they can assure it is done
+properly for the people. (This constitutes the computational
+sovereignty of the state.) They must never allow control over the
+state's computing to fall into private hands.</p>
+
+<p>To maintain control of the people's computing, public agencies must
+not do it with proprietary software (software under the control of an
+entity other than the state). And they must not entrust it to a
+service programmed and run by an entity other than the state, since
+this would be SaaSS.</p>
+
+<p>Proprietary software has no security at all in one crucial case
+— against its developer. And the developer may help others attack.
+<a
href="http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/06/nsa-gets-early-access-to-zero-day-data-from-microsoft-others/">
+Microsoft shows Windows bugs to the NSA</a> (the US government digital
+spying agency) before fixing them. We do not know whether Apple does
+likewise, but it is under the same government pressure as Microsoft.
+If the government of any other country uses such software, it
+endangers national security. Do you want the NSA to break into your
+government's computers? See
+our <a href="/philosophy/government-free-software.html">suggested
+policies for governments to promote free software</a>.</p>
+
+<h3>Free Software and Education</h3>
+
+<p>Schools (and this includes all educational activities) influence the
+future of society through what they teach. They should teach
+exclusively free software, so as to use their influence for the good.
+To teach a proprietary program is to implant dependence, which goes
+against the mission of education. By training in use of free
+software, schools will direct society's future towards freedom, and
+help talented programmers master the craft.</p>
+
+<p>They will also teach students the habit of cooperating, helping
+other people. Each class should have this rule: “Students, this
+class is a place where we share our knowledge. If you bring software
+to class, you may not keep it for yourself. Rather, you must share
+copies with the rest of the class—including the program's source
+code, in case someone else wants to learn. Therefore, bringing
+proprietary software to class is not permitted except to reverse
+engineer it.”</p>
+
+<p>Proprietary developers would have us punish students who are good
+enough at heart to share software and thwart those curious enough to
+want to change it. This means a bad education. See
+<a href="/education/">http://www.gnu.org/education/</a>
+for more discussion of the use of free software in schools.</p>
+
+<h3>Free Software: More Than “Advantages”</h3>
+
+<p>I'm often asked to describe the “advantages” of free
+software. But the word “advantages” is too weak when it
+comes to freedom. Life without freedom is oppression, and that
+applies to computing as well as every other activity in our lives. We
+must refuse to give the developers of the programs or computing services
+control over the computing we do. This is the right thing to do, for
+selfish reasons; but not solely for selfish reasons.</p>
+
+<p>Freedom includes the freedom to cooperate with others. Denying
+people that freedom means keeping them divided, which is the start of
+a scheme to oppress them. In the free software community, we are very
+much aware of the importance of the freedom to cooperate because our
+work consists of organized cooperation. If your friend comes to visit
+and sees you use a program, she might ask for a copy. A program which
+stops you from redistributing it, or says you're “not supposed
+to”, is antisocial.</p>
+
+<p>In computing, cooperation includes redistributing exact copies of a
+program to other users. It also includes distributing your changed
+versions to them. Free software encourages these forms of
+cooperation, while proprietary software forbids them. It forbids
+redistribution of copies, and by denying users the source code, it
+blocks them from making changes. SaaSS has the same effects: if your
+computing is done over the web in someone else's server, by someone
+else's copy of a program, you can't see it or touch the software that
+does your computing, so you can't redistribute it or change it.</p>
+
+<h3>Conclusion</h3>
+
+<p>We deserve to have control of our own computing; how can we win
+this control? By rejecting nonfree software on the computers we own
+or regularly use, and rejecting SaaSS. By <a
+href="/licenses/license-recommendations.html"> developing free
+software</a> (for those of us who are programmers.) By refusing to
+develop or promote nonfree software or SaaSS. By <a
+href="/help">spreading these ideas to others</a>.</p>
+
+<p>We and thousands of users have done this since 1984, which is how
+we now have the free GNU/Linux operating system that
+anyone—programmer or not—can use. Join our cause, as a
+programmer or an activist. Let's make all computer users free.</p>
+
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
+the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to <a
href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:address@hidden">
+ <address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. -->
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+ be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this
+ without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+ Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+ document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+ document was modified, or published.
+
+ If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+ Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+ years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+ year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+ being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+
+ There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+ Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
+
+<p>Copyright © <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2015</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2015, 2017</em></ins></span> 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: 2017/03/07 22:29:32 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: philosophy/po/free-software-even-more-important.lt-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: philosophy/po/free-software-even-more-important.lt-diff.html
diff -N philosophy/po/free-software-even-more-important.lt-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ philosophy/po/free-software-even-more-important.lt-diff.html 7 Mar
2017 22:29:32 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,380 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+<title>Free Software Is Even More Important Now
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+ <!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/po/free-software-even-more-important.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+
+<h2>Free Software Is Even More Important Now</h2>
+
+<p>by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/"><strong>Richard
+Stallman</strong></a></p>
+
+<blockquote>
+<p>A substantially edited version of this article was published in <a
+href="http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/09/why-free-software-is-more-important-now-than-ever-before">
+Wired</a>.</p>
+<p>
+<a href="/help">Suggested ways you can help the free software
movement</a>.
+</p>
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>Since 1983, the Free Software Movement has campaigned for computer
+users' freedom—for users to control the software they
+use, rather than vice versa. When a program respects users' freedom
+and community, we call it “free software.”</p>
+
+<p>We also sometimes call it “libre software” to emphasize
+that we're talking about liberty, not price. Some proprietary
+(nonfree) programs, such as Photoshop, are very expensive; others,
+such as Flash Player, are available gratis—but that's a minor
+detail. Either way, they give the program's developer power
+over the users, power that no one should have.</p>
+
+<p>Those two nonfree programs have something else in common: they are
+both <em>malware</em>. That is, both have functionalities
designed to
+mistreat the user. Proprietary software nowadays is often malware
+because <a href="/proprietary/proprietary.html">the developers' power
+corrupts <span
class="removed"><del><strong>them</a>.</p></strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>them</a>. That directory lists around
260 different
+malicious functionalities (as of Jan 2017), but it is surely just the
+tip of the iceberg.</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>With free software, the users control the program, both individually
+and collectively. So they control what their computers do (assuming
+those computers are <a
href="/philosophy/loyal-computers.html">loyal</a>
+and do what the users' programs tell them to do).</p>
+
+<p>With proprietary software, the program controls the users, and some
+other entity (the developer or “owner”) controls the
+program. So the proprietary program gives its developer power over
+its users. That is unjust in itself, and tempts the developer to
+mistreat the users in other ways.</p>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p>Even when proprietary software isn't
downright malicious, its
+developers have an incentive to make
+it <a
href="https://getpocket.com/explore/item/how-technology-hijacks-people-s-minds-from-a-magician-and-google-s-design-ethicist-1300144185">addictive,
+controlling and manipulative</a>. You can say, as does the author of
+that article, that the developers have an ethical obligation not to do
+that, but generally they follow their interests. If you want this not
+to happen, make sure the program is controlled by its
users.</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>Freedom means having control over your own life. If you use a
+program to carry out activities in your life, your freedom depends on
+your having control over the program. You deserve to have control
+over the programs you use, and all the more so when you use them for
+something important in your life.</p>
+
+<p>Users' control over the program requires four
+<a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">essential freedoms</a>.
+</p>
+
+<p>(0) The freedom to run the program as you wish, for whatever
purpose.</p>
+
+<p>(1) The freedom to study the program's “source code”,
+and change it, so the program does your computing as you wish.
+Programs are written by programmers in a programming
+language—like English combined with algebra—and that form
+of the program is the “source code”. Anyone who knows
+programming, and has the program in source code form, can read the
+source code, understand its functioning, and change it too. When all
+you get is the executable form, a series of numbers that are efficient
+for the computer to run but extremely hard for a human being to
+understand, understanding and changing the program in that form are
+forbiddingly hard.</p>
+
+<p>(2) The freedom to make and distribute exact copies when you wish.
+(It is not an obligation; doing this is your choice. If the program
+is free, that doesn't mean someone has an obligation to offer you a
+copy, or that you have an obligation to offer him a copy.
+Distributing a program to users without freedom mistreats them;
+however, choosing not to distribute the program—using it
+privately—does not mistreat anyone.)</p>
+
+<p>(3) The freedom to make and distribute copies of your modified
+versions, when you wish.</p>
+
+<p>The first two freedoms mean each user can exercise individual
+control over the program. With the other two freedoms, any group of
+users can together exercise <em>collective control</em> over the
+program. With all four freedoms, the users fully control the program.
+If any of them is missing or inadequate, the program is proprietary
+(nonfree), and unjust.</p>
+
+<p>Other kinds of works are also used for practical activities, including
+recipes for cooking, educational works such as textbooks, reference
+works such as dictionaries and encyclopedias, fonts for displaying
+paragraphs of text, circuit diagrams for hardware for people to build,
+and patterns for making useful (not merely decorative) objects with a
+3D printer. Since these are not software, the free software movement
+strictly speaking doesn't cover them; but the same reasoning applies
+and leads to the same conclusion: these works should carry the four
+freedoms.</p>
+
+<p>A free program allows you to tinker with it to make it do what you
+want (or cease do to something you dislike). Tinkering with software
+may sound ridiculous if you are accustomed to proprietary software as
+a sealed box, but in the Free World it's a common thing to do, and a
+good way to learn programming. Even the traditional American pastime
+of tinkering with cars is obstructed because cars now contain nonfree
+software.</p>
+
+<h3>The Injustice of Proprietariness</h3>
+
+<p>If the users don't control the program, the program controls the
+users. With proprietary software, there is always some entity, the
+developer or “owner” of the program, that controls the
+program—and through it, exercises power over its users. A
+nonfree program is a yoke, an instrument of unjust power.</p>
+
+<p>In outrageous cases (though this outrage has become quite usual) <a
+href="/proprietary/proprietary.html">proprietary programs are designed
+to spy on the users, restrict them, censor them, and abuse them</a>.
+For instance, the operating system of Apple iThings does all of these,
+and so does Windows on mobile devices with ARM chips. Windows, mobile
+phone firmware, and Google Chrome for Windows include a universal back
+door that allows some company to change the program remotely without
+asking permission. The Amazon Kindle has a back door that can erase
+books.</p>
+
+<p>The use of nonfree software in the “internet of things”
+would turn it into
+the <a
href="http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/rinesi20150806">“internet
+of telemarketers”</a> as well as the “internet of
+snoopers”.</p>
+
+<p>With the goal of ending the injustice of nonfree software, the free
+software movement develops free programs so users can free themselves.
+We began in 1984 by developing the free operating system <a
+href="/gnu/the-gnu-project.html">GNU</a>. Today, millions of computers
+run GNU, mainly in the <a href="/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html">GNU/Linux
+combination</a>.</p>
+
+<p>Distributing a program to users without freedom mistreats those users;
+however, choosing not to distribute the program does not mistreat
+anyone. If you write a program and use it privately, that does no
+wrong to others. (You do miss an opportunity to do good, but that's
+not the same as doing wrong.) Thus, when we say all software must
+be free, we mean that every copy must come with the four freedoms,
+but we don't mean that someone has an obligation to offer you a copy.</p>
+
+<h3>Nonfree Software and SaaSS</h3>
+
+<p>Nonfree software was the first way for companies to take control of
+people's computing. Nowadays, there is another way, called Service as
+a Software Substitute, or SaaSS. That means letting someone else's
+server do your own computing tasks.</p>
+
+<p>SaaSS doesn't mean the programs on the server are nonfree (though they
+often are). Rather, using SaaSS causes the same injustices as using a
+nonfree program: they are two paths to the same bad place. Take the
+example of a SaaSS translation service: The user sends text to the
+server, and the server translates it (from English to Spanish, say)
+and sends the translation back to the user. Now the job of
+translating is under the control of the server operator rather than
+the user.</p>
+
+<p>If you use SaaSS, the server operator controls your computing. It
+requires entrusting all the pertinent data to the server operator,
+which will be forced to show it to the state as well—<a
+href="/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html">who
+does that server really serve, after all?</a></p>
+
+<h3>Primary And Secondary Injustices</h3>
+
+<p>When you use proprietary programs or SaaSS, first of all you do wrong
+to yourself, because it gives some entity unjust power over you. For
+your own sake, you should escape. It also wrongs others if you make a
+promise not to share. It is evil to keep such a promise, and a lesser
+evil to break it; to be truly upright, you should not make the promise
+at all.</p>
+
+<p>There are cases where using nonfree software puts pressure directly
+on others to do likewise. Skype is a clear example: when one person
+uses the nonfree Skype client software, it requires another person to
+use that software too—thus both surrender their freedom.
+(Google Hangouts have the same problem.) It is wrong even to suggest
+using such programs. We should refuse to use them even briefly, even
+on someone else's computer.</p>
+
+<p>Another harm of using nonfree programs and SaaSS is that it rewards
+the perpetrator, encouraging further development of that program or
+“service”, leading in turn to even more people falling
+under the company's thumb.</p>
+
+<p>All the forms of indirect harm are magnified when the user is a
+public entity or a school.</p>
+
+<h3>Free Software and the State</h3>
+
+<p>Public agencies exist for the people, not for themselves. When they
+do computing, they do it for the people. They have a duty to maintain
+full control over that computing so that they can assure it is done
+properly for the people. (This constitutes the computational
+sovereignty of the state.) They must never allow control over the
+state's computing to fall into private hands.</p>
+
+<p>To maintain control of the people's computing, public agencies must
+not do it with proprietary software (software under the control of an
+entity other than the state). And they must not entrust it to a
+service programmed and run by an entity other than the state, since
+this would be SaaSS.</p>
+
+<p>Proprietary software has no security at all in one crucial case
+— against its developer. And the developer may help others attack.
+<a
href="http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/06/nsa-gets-early-access-to-zero-day-data-from-microsoft-others/">
+Microsoft shows Windows bugs to the NSA</a> (the US government digital
+spying agency) before fixing them. We do not know whether Apple does
+likewise, but it is under the same government pressure as Microsoft.
+If the government of any other country uses such software, it
+endangers national security. Do you want the NSA to break into your
+government's computers? See
+our <a href="/philosophy/government-free-software.html">suggested
+policies for governments to promote free software</a>.</p>
+
+<h3>Free Software and Education</h3>
+
+<p>Schools (and this includes all educational activities) influence the
+future of society through what they teach. They should teach
+exclusively free software, so as to use their influence for the good.
+To teach a proprietary program is to implant dependence, which goes
+against the mission of education. By training in use of free
+software, schools will direct society's future towards freedom, and
+help talented programmers master the craft.</p>
+
+<p>They will also teach students the habit of cooperating, helping
+other people. Each class should have this rule: “Students, this
+class is a place where we share our knowledge. If you bring software
+to class, you may not keep it for yourself. Rather, you must share
+copies with the rest of the class—including the program's source
+code, in case someone else wants to learn. Therefore, bringing
+proprietary software to class is not permitted except to reverse
+engineer it.”</p>
+
+<p>Proprietary developers would have us punish students who are good
+enough at heart to share software and thwart those curious enough to
+want to change it. This means a bad education. See
+<a href="/education/">http://www.gnu.org/education/</a>
+for more discussion of the use of free software in schools.</p>
+
+<h3>Free Software: More Than “Advantages”</h3>
+
+<p>I'm often asked to describe the “advantages” of free
+software. But the word “advantages” is too weak when it
+comes to freedom. Life without freedom is oppression, and that
+applies to computing as well as every other activity in our lives. We
+must refuse to give the developers of the programs or computing services
+control over the computing we do. This is the right thing to do, for
+selfish reasons; but not solely for selfish reasons.</p>
+
+<p>Freedom includes the freedom to cooperate with others. Denying
+people that freedom means keeping them divided, which is the start of
+a scheme to oppress them. In the free software community, we are very
+much aware of the importance of the freedom to cooperate because our
+work consists of organized cooperation. If your friend comes to visit
+and sees you use a program, she might ask for a copy. A program which
+stops you from redistributing it, or says you're “not supposed
+to”, is antisocial.</p>
+
+<p>In computing, cooperation includes redistributing exact copies of a
+program to other users. It also includes distributing your changed
+versions to them. Free software encourages these forms of
+cooperation, while proprietary software forbids them. It forbids
+redistribution of copies, and by denying users the source code, it
+blocks them from making changes. SaaSS has the same effects: if your
+computing is done over the web in someone else's server, by someone
+else's copy of a program, you can't see it or touch the software that
+does your computing, so you can't redistribute it or change it.</p>
+
+<h3>Conclusion</h3>
+
+<p>We deserve to have control of our own computing; how can we win
+this control? By rejecting nonfree software on the computers we own
+or regularly use, and rejecting SaaSS. By <a
+href="/licenses/license-recommendations.html"> developing free
+software</a> (for those of us who are programmers.) By refusing to
+develop or promote nonfree software or SaaSS. By <a
+href="/help">spreading these ideas to others</a>.</p>
+
+<p>We and thousands of users have done this since 1984, which is how
+we now have the free GNU/Linux operating system that
+anyone—programmer or not—can use. Join our cause, as a
+programmer or an activist. Let's make all computer users free.</p>
+
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
+the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to <a
href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:address@hidden">
+ <address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. -->
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+ be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this
+ without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+ Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+ document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+ document was modified, or published.
+
+ If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+ Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+ years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+ year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+ being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+
+ There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+ Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
+
+<p>Copyright © <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2015</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2015, 2017</em></ins></span> 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: 2017/03/07 22:29:32 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: proprietary/po/proprietary.it-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: proprietary/po/proprietary.it-diff.html
diff -N proprietary/po/proprietary.it-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ proprietary/po/proprietary.it-diff.html 7 Mar 2017 22:29:33 -0000
1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,169 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+ "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd";>
+<!-- Generated by GNUN -->
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; xml:lang="en" lang="en">
+<head>
+<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
+<title>/proprietary/proprietary.html-diff</title>
+<style type="text/css">
+span.removed { background-color: #f22; color: #000; }
+span.inserted { background-color: #2f2; color: #000; }
+</style></head>
+<body><pre>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 -->
+<title>Proprietary Software
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+ <!--#include virtual="/proprietary/po/proprietary.translist" -->
+<style type="text/css" media="print,screen">
+div.companies { float: right; margin-bottom: .5em; }
+div.malfunctions { max-width: 27em; }
+<!--
+#content div.toc li { list-style: none; margin-bottom: 1em; }
+#content div.toc { margin-top: 1em; }
+-->
+</style>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>Proprietary Software Is Often Malware</h2>
+
+<p>Proprietary software, also called nonfree software,
+means software that doesn't
+<a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">respect users' freedom and
+community</a>. A proprietary program puts its developer or owner
+<a href="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html">
+in a position of power over its users.</a>
+This power is in itself an injustice.</p>
+
+<p>The point of this page is that the initial injustice of proprietary
+software often leads to further injustices: malicious
+functionalities.</p>
+
+<p>Power corrupts; the proprietary program's developer is tempted to
+design the program to mistreat its users. (Software whose functioning
+mistreats the user is called <em>malware</em>.) Of course, the
+developer usually does not do this out of malice, but rather to profit
+more at the users' expense. That does not make it any less nasty or
+more legitimate.</p>
+
+<p>Yielding to that temptation has become ever more frequent; nowadays
+it is standard practice. Modern proprietary software is typically
+a way to be had.</p>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p>As of January, 2017, the files in
this directory list around 260
+instances of malicious functionalities, but there are surely thousands
+more we don't know about.</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<div class="toc">
+<div class="companies">
+<ul>
+ <li><strong>Company or type of product</strong></li>
+ <li><a href="/proprietary/malware-apple.html">Apple
Malware</a></li>
+ <li><a href="/proprietary/malware-microsoft.html">Microsoft
Malware</a></li>
+ <li><a href="/proprietary/malware-adobe.html">Adobe
Malware</a></li>
+ <li><a <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="/proprietary/malware-amazon.html">Amazon
Malware</a></li>
+ <li><a</em></ins></span>
href="/proprietary/malware-mobiles.html">Malware in mobile
devices</a></li>
+ <li><a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="/proprietary/malware-kindle-swindle.html">Malware
in the Amazon
+ Swindle</a></li>
+ <li><a</strong></del></span>
href="/proprietary/malware-games.html">Malware in games</a></li>
+ <li><a href="/proprietary/malware-appliances.html">Malware in
appliances</a></li>
+</ul>
+</div>
+
+<div class="malfunctions">
+<ul>
+<li><strong>Type of malware</strong></li>
+<li><a href="/proprietary/proprietary-back-doors.html">Back
doors</a></li>
+<li><a
href="/proprietary/proprietary-censorship.html">Censorship</a></li>
+<li><a <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="/proprietary/proprietary-coverups.html">Coverups</a></li>
+<li><a</em></ins></span>
href="/proprietary/proprietary-deception.html">Deception</a></li>
+<li><a
href="/proprietary/proprietary-insecurity.html">Insecurity</a></li>
+<li><a
href="/proprietary/proprietary-sabotage.html">Sabotage</a></li>
+<li><a
href="/proprietary/proprietary-interference.html">Interference</a></li>
+<li><a
href="/proprietary/proprietary-surveillance.html">Surveillance</a></li>
+<li><a
href="/proprietary/proprietary-subscriptions.html">Subscriptions</a></li>
+<li><a
href="/proprietary/proprietary-tethers.html">Tethers</a> to
+servers</li>
+<li><a href="/proprietary/proprietary-drm.html">Digital
restrictions
+ management</a> or “DRM” means functionalities designed
+ to restrict what users can do with the data in their computers.</li>
+<li><a
href="/proprietary/proprietary-jails.html">Jails</a>—systems
+ that impose censorship on application programs.</li>
+<li><a
href="/proprietary/proprietary-tyrants.html">Tyrants</a>—systems
+ that reject any operating system not “authorized” by the
+ manufacturer.</li>
+</ul>
+</div>
+</div>
+
+<p>Users of proprietary software are defenseless against these forms
+of mistreatment. The way to avoid them is by insisting on
+<a href="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html">free
+(freedom-respecting) software.</a> Since free software is controlled
+by its users, they have a pretty good defense against malicious
+software functionality.</p>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
+the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to <a
href="mailto:address@hidden"><address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:address@hidden">
+ <address@hidden></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. -->
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+ be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this
+ without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+ Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+ document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+ document was modified, or published.
+
+ If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+ Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+ years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+ year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+ being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+
+ There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+ Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
+
+<p>Copyright © 2013, 2014, 2015, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2016</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2016, 2017</em></ins></span> Free Software
Foundation, Inc.</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: 2017/03/07 22:29:33 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- www philosophy/free-software-even-more-importan...,
GNUN <=