[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/philosophy free-hardware-designs.pt-br.html...
|
From: |
GNUN |
|
Subject: |
www/philosophy free-hardware-designs.pt-br.html... |
|
Date: |
Sat, 13 Nov 2021 11:30:35 -0500 (EST) |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: GNUN <gnun> 21/11/13 11:30:34
Modified files:
philosophy : free-hardware-designs.pt-br.html
free-software-rocket.pt-br.html
hackathons.pt-br.html
Added files:
philosophy/po : free-hardware-designs.pt-br-diff.html
free-software-rocket.pt-br-diff.html
hackathons.pt-br-diff.html
Log message:
Automatic update by GNUnited Nations.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/free-hardware-designs.pt-br.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.1&r2=1.2
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/free-software-rocket.pt-br.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.1&r2=1.2
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/hackathons.pt-br.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.6&r2=1.7
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/free-hardware-designs.pt-br-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/free-software-rocket.pt-br-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/hackathons.pt-br-diff.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
Patches:
Index: free-hardware-designs.pt-br.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/free-hardware-designs.pt-br.html,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -b -r1.1 -r1.2
--- free-hardware-designs.pt-br.html 31 May 2021 14:30:19 -0000 1.1
+++ free-hardware-designs.pt-br.html 13 Nov 2021 16:30:33 -0000 1.2
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/free-hardware-designs.en.html"
-->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/free-hardware-designs.pt-br.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/free-hardware-designs.pt-br.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/free-hardware-designs.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE"
value="/philosophy/po/free-hardware-designs.pt-br-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2021-09-14" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/free-hardware-designs.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.pt-br.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.90 -->
@@ -9,6 +14,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/free-hardware-designs.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.pt-br.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.pt-br.html" -->
<h2>Hardware livre e designs de hardware livre</h2>
<p>por <a href="http://www.stallman.org/";>Richard M. Stallman</a></p>
@@ -526,7 +532,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Ãltima atualização:
-$Date: 2021/05/31 14:30:19 $
+$Date: 2021/11/13 16:30:33 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: free-software-rocket.pt-br.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/free-software-rocket.pt-br.html,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -b -r1.1 -r1.2
--- free-software-rocket.pt-br.html 31 May 2021 09:06:19 -0000 1.1
+++ free-software-rocket.pt-br.html 13 Nov 2021 16:30:33 -0000 1.2
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/free-software-rocket.en.html"
-->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/free-software-rocket.pt-br.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/free-software-rocket.pt-br.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/free-software-rocket.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE"
value="/philosophy/po/free-software-rocket.pt-br-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2021-09-14" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/free-software-rocket.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.pt-br.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.94 -->
@@ -10,6 +15,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/free-software-rocket.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.pt-br.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.pt-br.html" -->
<h2>Foguetes devem ter apenas software livre? Software e appliances livres
</h2>
@@ -204,7 +210,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Ãltima atualização:
-$Date: 2021/05/31 09:06:19 $
+$Date: 2021/11/13 16:30:33 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: hackathons.pt-br.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/hackathons.pt-br.html,v
retrieving revision 1.6
retrieving revision 1.7
diff -u -b -r1.6 -r1.7
--- hackathons.pt-br.html 3 May 2021 15:04:18 -0000 1.6
+++ hackathons.pt-br.html 13 Nov 2021 16:30:33 -0000 1.7
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/hackathons.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/hackathons.pt-br.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/hackathons.pt-br.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" value="/philosophy/hackathons.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" value="/philosophy/po/hackathons.pt-br-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2021-09-14" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/hackathons.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/html5-header.pt-br.html" -->
<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
@@ -10,6 +15,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/hackathons.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.pt-br.html" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.pt-br.html" -->
<div class="reduced-width">
<h2>Por que os hackathons devem insistir em Software Livre </h2>
<address class="byline">por Richard Stallman</address>
@@ -182,7 +188,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Ãltima atualização:
-$Date: 2021/05/03 15:04:18 $
+$Date: 2021/11/13 16:30:33 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: po/free-hardware-designs.pt-br-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/free-hardware-designs.pt-br-diff.html
diff -N po/free-hardware-designs.pt-br-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/free-hardware-designs.pt-br-diff.html 13 Nov 2021 16:30:34 -0000
1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,565 @@
+<!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-hardware-designs.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: <span
class="removed"><del><strong>1.90</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>1.96 -->
+<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
+<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays aboutfs extension" -->
+<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes"</em></ins></span> -->
+<title>Free Hardware and Free Hardware Designs
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+ <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/free-hardware-designs.translist"
-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
+<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
+<div class="article reduced-width"></em></ins></span>
+<h2>Free Hardware and Free Hardware Designs</h2>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>by</strong></del></span>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><address
class="byline">by</em></ins></span> <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.stallman.org/">Richard M.
Stallman</a></p>
+
+<!-- rms: I deleted the links because of Wired's announced
+ anti-ad-block system -->
+<blockquote>
+<p>Most of this article was published in two parts in Wired in
+March 2015.</p>
+</blockquote></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://www.stallman.org/">Richard
+Stallman</a></address>
+
+<div class="introduction"></em></ins></span>
+<p>To what extent do the ideas of free software extend to hardware?
+Is it a moral obligation to make our hardware designs free, just as it
+is to make our software free? Does maintaining our freedom require
+rejecting hardware made from nonfree designs?</p>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div></em></ins></span>
+
+<h3 id="definitions">Definitions</h3>
+
+<p><em>Free software</em> is a matter of freedom, not price;
broadly
+speaking, it means that users are free to use the software and to copy
+and redistribute the software, with or without changes. More
+precisely, the definition is formulated in terms of <a
+href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">the four essential freedoms</a>. To
+emphasize that “free”refers to freedom, not price, we
+often use the French or Spanish word “libre” along with
+“free.”</p>
+
+<p>Applying the same concept directly to hardware, <em>free
+hardware</em> means hardware that users are free to use and to copy
+and redistribute with or without changes. However, there are no
+copiers for hardware, aside from keys, DNA, and plastic objects'
+exterior shapes. Most hardware is made by fabrication from some sort
+of design. The design comes before the hardware.</p>
+
+<p>Thus, the concept we really need is that of a <em>free hardware
+design</em>. That's simple: it means a design that permits users to
+use the design (i.e., fabricate hardware from it) and to copy and
+redistribute it, with or without changes. The design must provide the
+same four freedoms that define free software.</p>
+
+<p>Then we can refer to hardware made from a free design as
+“free hardware,” but “free-design hardware” is
+a clearer term since it avoids possible misunderstanding.</p>
+
+<p>People first encountering the idea of free software often think it
+means you can get a copy gratis. Many free programs are available for
+zero price, since it costs you nothing to download your own copy, but
+that's not what “free” means here. (In fact, some spyware
+programs such as <a
+href="/philosophy/proprietary/proprietary-surveillance.html">Flash
+Player and Angry Birds</a> are gratis although they are not free.)
+Saying “libre” along with “free” helps clarify
+the point.</p>
+
+<p>For hardware, this confusion tends to go in the other direction;
+hardware costs money to produce, so commercially made hardware won't
+be gratis (unless it is a loss-leader or a tie-in), but that does not
+prevent its design from being free/libre. Things you make in your own
+3D printer can be quite cheap to make, but not exactly gratis since
+the raw materials will typically cost something. In ethical terms, the
+freedom issue trumps the price issue totally, since a device that
+denies freedom to its users is worth less than nothing.</p>
+
+<p>We can use the term “libre hardware” as a concise
+equivalent for “hardware made from a free (libre)
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong>design”.</p></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>design.”</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>The terms “open hardware” and “open source
+hardware” are used by some with the same concrete meaning as
+“free-design hardware,” but those terms downplay freedom as an
+issue. They were derived from the term “open source
+software,” which refers more or less to free software but <a
+href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">without talking
+about freedom or presenting the issue as a matter of right or
+wrong</a>. To underline the importance of freedom, we make a point of
+referring to freedom whenever it is pertinent; since
+“open” fails to do that, let's not substitute it for
+“free.”</p>
+
+<h3 id="hw-and-sw">Hardware and Software</h3>
+
+<p>Hardware and software are fundamentally different. A program, even
+in compiled executable form, is a collection of data which can be
+interpreted as instructions for a computer. Like any other digital
+work, it can be copied and changed using a computer. A copy of a
+program has no inherent preferred physical form or embodiment.</p>
+
+<p>By contrast, hardware is a physical structure and its physicality
+is crucial. While the hardware's design might be represented as data,
+in some cases even as a program, the design is not the hardware. A
+design for a CPU can't execute a program. You won't get very far
+trying to type on a design for a keyboard or display pixels on a
+design for a screen.</p>
+
+<p>Furthermore, while you can use a computer to modify or copy the
+hardware design, a computer can't convert the design into the physical
+structure it describes. That requires fabrication equipment.</p>
+
+<h3 id="boundary">The Boundary between Hardware and Software</h3>
+
+<p>What is the boundary, in digital devices, between hardware and
+software? It follows from the definitions. Software is the
+operational part of a device that can be copied and changed in a
+computer; hardware is the operational part that can't be. This is the
+right way to make the distinction because it relates to the practical
+consequences.</p>
+
+<p>There is a gray area between hardware and software that contains
+firmware that <em>can</em> be upgraded or replaced, but is not
meant
+ever to be upgraded or replaced once the product is sold. In
+conceptual terms, the gray area is rather narrow. In practice, it is
+important because many products fall in it. We can treat that
+firmware as hardware with a small stretch.</p>
+
+<p>Some have said that preinstalled firmware programs and
+Field-Programmable Gate Array chips (FPGAs) “blur the boundary
+between hardware and software,” but I think that is a
+misinterpretation of the facts. Firmware that is installed during use
+is software; firmware that is delivered inside the device and can't be
+changed is software by nature, but we can treat it as if it were a
+circuit. As for FPGAs, the FPGA itself is hardware, but the gate
+pattern that is loaded into the FPGA is a kind of firmware.</p>
+
+<p>Running free gate patterns on FPGAs could potentially be a useful
+method for making digital devices that are free at the circuit level.
+However, to make FPGAs usable in the free world, we need free
+development tools for them. The obstacle is that the format of the
+gate pattern file that gets loaded into the FPGA is secret. For many
+years there was no model of FPGA for which those files could be
+produced without nonfree (proprietary) tools.</p>
+
+<p>As of 2015, free software tools are available for
+<a href="http://www.clifford.at/icestorm/">programming the Lattice
+iCE40</a>, a common model of FPGA, from input written in a hardware
+description language (HDL). It is also possible to compile C programs
+and run them on the Xilinx Spartan 6 LX9 FPGA
+with <a href="https://github.com/Wolfgang-Spraul/fpgatools">free
+tools</a>, but those do not support HDL input. We recommend that you
+reject other FPGA models until they too are supported by free
+tools.</p>
+
+<p>As for the HDL code itself, it can act as software (when it is run
+on an emulator or loaded into an FPGA) or as a hardware design (when
+it is realized in immutable silicon or a circuit board).</p>
+
+<h3 id="ethical-3d-printers">The Ethical Question for 3D
Printers</h3>
+
+<p>Ethically, <a
+href="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html">software
+must be free</a>; a nonfree program is an injustice. Should we take
+the same view for hardware designs?</p>
+
+<p>We certainly should, in the fields that 3D printing (or, more
+generally, any sort of personal fabrication) can handle. Printer
+patterns to make a useful, practical object (i.e., functional rather
+than decorative) <em>must</em> be free because they are works made
for
+practical use. Users deserve control over these works, just as they
+deserve control over the software they use. Distributing a nonfree
+functional object design is as wrong as distributing a nonfree
+program.</p>
+
+<p>Be careful to choose 3D printers that work with exclusively free
+software; the Free Software Foundation <a
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://fsf.org/resources/hw/endorsement">endorses</strong></del></span>
+<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://ryf.fsf.org/">endorses</em></ins></span>
such
+printers</a>. Some 3D printers are made from free hardware designs,
+but <a
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.cnet.com/news/pulling-back-from-open-source-hardware-makerbot-angers-some-adherents/">Makerbot's</strong></del></span>
+<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://www.cnet.com/news/pulling-back-from-open-source-hardware-makerbot-angers-some-adherents/">Makerbot's</em></ins></span>
+hardware designs are nonfree</a>.</p>
+
+<h3 id="reject-nonfree">Must We Reject Nonfree Digital
Hardware?</h3>
+
+<p>Is a nonfree digital <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="#fn1">(*)</a></strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#fn1">[1]</a></em></ins></span>
hardware design an
+injustice? Must we, for our freedom's sake, reject all digital
+hardware made from nonfree designs, as we must reject nonfree
+software?</p>
+
+<p>Due to the conceptual parallel between hardware designs and
+software source code, many hardware hackers are quick to condemn
+nonfree hardware designs just like nonfree software. I disagree
+because the circumstances for hardware and software are different.</p>
+
+<p>Present-day chip and board fabrication technology resembles the
+printing press: it lends itself to mass production in a factory. It
+is more like copying books in 1950 than like copying software
+today.</p>
+
+<p>Freedom to copy and change software is an ethical imperative
+because those activities are feasible for those who use software: the
+equipment that enables you to use the software (a computer) is also
+sufficient to copy and change it. Today's mobile computers are too
+weak to be good for this, but anyone can find a computer that's
+powerful enough.</p>
+
+<p>Moreover, a computer suffices to download and run a version changed
+by someone else who knows how, even if you are not a programmer.
+Indeed, nonprogrammers download software and run it every day. This
+is why free software makes a real difference to nonprogrammers.</p>
+
+<p>How much of this applies to hardware? Not everyone who can use
+digital hardware knows how to change a circuit design, or a chip
+design, but anyone who has a PC has the equipment needed to do so.
+Thus far, hardware is parallel to software, but next comes the big
+difference.</p>
+
+<p>You can't build and run a circuit design or a chip design in your
+computer. Constructing a big circuit is a lot of painstaking work,
+and that's once you have the circuit board. Fabricating a chip is not
+feasible for individuals today; only mass production can make them
+cheap enough. With today's hardware technology, users can't download
+and run a modified version of a widely used digital hardware design,
+as they could run a modified version of a widely used program.
+Thus, the four freedoms don't give users today collective control over
+a hardware design as they give users collective control over a
+program. That's where the reasoning showing that all software must be
+free fails to apply to today's hardware technology.</p>
+
+<p>In 1983 there was no free operating system, but it was clear that
+if we had one, we could immediately use it and get software freedom.
+All that was missing was the code for one.</p>
+
+<p>In 2014, if we had a free design for a CPU chip suitable for a PC,
+mass-produced chips made from that design would not give us the same
+freedom in the hardware domain. If we're going to buy a product mass
+produced in a factory, this dependence on the factory causes most of
+the same problems as a nonfree design. For free designs to give us
+hardware freedom, we need future fabrication technology.</p>
+
+<p>We can envision a future in which our personal fabricators can make
+chips, and our robots can assemble and solder them together with
+transformers, switches, keys, displays, fans and so on. In that
+future we will all make our own computers (and fabricators and
+robots), and we will all be able to take advantage of modified designs
+made by those who know hardware. The arguments for rejecting nonfree
+software will then apply to nonfree hardware designs too.</p>
+
+<p>That future is years away, at least. In the meantime, there is no
+need to reject hardware with nonfree designs on principle.</p>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><hr />
+
+<p id="fn1">* As used here, “digital hardware” includes
+hardware with some analog circuits and components in addition to
+digital ones.</p></strong></del></span>
+
+<h3 id="free-designs">We Need Free Digital Hardware Designs</h3>
+
+<p>Although we need not reject digital hardware made from nonfree
+designs in today's circumstances, we need to develop free designs and
+should use them when feasible. They provide advantages today, and in
+the future they may be the only way to use free software.</p>
+
+<p>Free hardware designs offer practical advantages. Multiple
+companies can fabricate one, which reduces dependence on a single
+vendor. Groups can arrange to fabricate them in quantity. Having
+circuit diagrams or HDL code makes it possible to study the design to
+look for errors or malicious functionalities (it is known that the NSA
+has procured malicious weaknesses in some computing hardware).
+Furthermore, free designs can serve as building blocks to design
+computers and other complex devices, whose specs will be published and
+which will have fewer parts that could be used against us.</p>
+
+<p>Free hardware designs may become usable for some parts of our
+computers and networks, and for embedded systems, before we are able
+to make entire computers this way.</p>
+
+<p>Free hardware designs may become essential even before we can
+fabricate the hardware personally, if they become the only way to
+avoid nonfree software. As common commercial hardware is increasingly
+designed to subjugate users, it becomes increasingly incompatible with
+free software, because of secret specifications and requirements for
+code to be signed by someone other than you. Cell phone modem chips
+and even some graphics accelerators already require firmware to be
+signed by the manufacturer. Any program in your computer, that
+someone else is allowed to change but you're not, is an instrument of
+unjust power over you; hardware that imposes that requirement is
+malicious hardware. In the case of cell phone modem chips, all the
+models now available are malicious.</p>
+
+<p>Some day, free-design digital hardware may be the only platform
+that permits running a free system at all. Let us aim to have the
+necessary free digital designs before then, and hope that we have the
+means to fabricate them cheaply enough for all users.</p>
+
+<p>If you design hardware, please make your designs free. If you use
+hardware, please join in urging and pressuring companies to make
+hardware designs free.</p>
+
+<h3 id="levels-of-design">Levels of Design</h3>
+
+<p>Software has levels of implementation; a package might include
+libraries, commands and scripts, for instance. But these levels don't
+make a significant difference for software freedom because it is
+feasible to make all the levels free. Designing components of a
+program is the same sort of work as designing the code that combines
+them; likewise, building the components from source is the same sort
+of operation as building the combined program from source. To make
+the whole thing free simply requires continuing the work until we have
+done the whole job.</p>
+
+<p>Therefore, we insist that a program be free at all levels. For a
+program to qualify as free, every line of the source code that
+composes it must be free, so that you can rebuild the program out of
+free source code alone.</p>
+
+<p>Physical objects, by contrast, are often built out of components
+that are designed and build in a different kind of factory. For
+instance, a computer is made from chips, but designing (or
+fabricating) chips is very different from designing (or fabricating)
+the computer out of chips.</p>
+
+<p>Thus, we need to distinguish <em>levels</em> in the
design of a
+digital product (and maybe some other kinds of products). The circuit
+that connects the chips is one level; each chip's design is another
+level. In an FPGA, the interconnection of primitive cells is one
+level, while the primitive cells themselves are another level. In the
+ideal future we will want the design be free at all levels. Under
+present circumstances, just making one level free is a significant
+advance.</p>
+
+<p>However, if a design at one level combines free and nonfree <span
class="removed"><del><strong>parts
+— for</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>parts—for</em></ins></span> example, a
“free” HDL circuit that
+incorporates proprietary “soft <span
class="removed"><del><strong>cores” — we</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>cores”—we</em></ins></span> must
+conclude that the design as a whole is nonfree at that level.
+Likewise for nonfree “wizards” or “macros,” if
+they specify part of the interconnections of chips or programmably
+connected parts of chips. The free parts may be a step towards the
+future goal of a free design, but reaching that goal entails replacing
+the nonfree parts. They can never be admissible in the free
+world.</p>
+
+<h3 id="licenses">Licenses and Copyright for Free Hardware
Designs</h3>
+
+<p>You make a hardware design free by releasing it under a free
+license. We recommend using the GNU General Public License, version 3
+or later. We designed GPL version 3 with a view to such use.</p>
+
+<p>Copyleft on circuits, and on nondecorative object shapes, doesn't
+go as far as one might suppose. The copyright on these designs only
+applies to the way the design is drawn or written. Copyleft is a way
+of using copyright law, so its effect carries only as far as copyright
+law carries.</p>
+
+<p>For instance, a circuit, as a topology, cannot be copyrighted (and
+therefore cannot be copylefted). Definitions of circuits written in
+HDL can be copyrighted (and therefore copylefted), but the copyleft
+covers only the details of expression of the HDL code, not the circuit
+topology it generates. Likewise, a drawing or layout of a circuit can
+be copyrighted, so it can be copylefted, but this only covers the
+drawing or layout, not the circuit topology. Anyone can legally draw
+the same circuit topology in a different-looking way, or write a
+different HDL definition that produces the same circuit.</p>
+
+<p>Copyright doesn't cover physical circuits, so when people build
+instances of the circuit, the design's license will have no legal
+effect on what they do with the devices they have built.</p>
+
+<p>For drawings of objects, and 3D printer models, copyright doesn't
+cover making a different drawing of the same purely functional object
+shape. It also doesn't cover the functional physical objects made
+from the drawing. As far as copyright is concerned, everyone is free
+to make them and use them (and that's a freedom we need very much).
+In the US, copyright does not cover the functional aspects that the
+design describes, but <a
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap13.html#1301">does</strong></del></span>
+<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap13.html#1301">does</em></ins></span>
cover decorative
+aspects</a>. When one object has decorative aspects and functional
+aspects, you get into tricky ground <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="#fn2">(*)</a>.</p></strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="#fn2">[2]</a>.</p></em></ins></span>
+
+<p>All this may be true in your country as well, or it may not.
+Before producing objects commercially or in quantity, you should
+consult a local lawyer. Copyright is not the only issue you need to
+be concerned with. You might be attacked using patents, most likely
+held by entities that had nothing to do with making the design you're
+using, and there may be other legal issues as well.</p>
+
+<p>Keep in mind that copyright law and patent law are totally
+different. It is a mistake to suppose that they have anything in
+common. This is why the term “<a
+href="/philosophy/not-ipr.html">intellectual property</a>” is
+pure confusion and should be totally rejected.</p>
+
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><hr />
+
+<p id="fn2">* An article by Public Knowledge gives useful information
+about this <a
+href="https://www.publicknowledge.org/assets/uploads/documents/3_Steps_for_Licensing_Your_3D_Printed_Stuff.pdf">
+complexity</a>, for the US, though it falls into the common mistake of
+using the bogus concept of “intellectual property” and the
+propaganda term “<a
+href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Protection">protection</a>.”</p></strong></del></span>
+
+<h3 id="promoting">Promoting Free Hardware Designs Through
Repositories</h3>
+
+<p>The most effective way to push for published hardware designs to be
+free is through rules in the repositories where they are published.
+Repository operators should place the freedom of the people who will
+use the designs above the preferences of people who make the designs.
+This means requiring designs of useful objects to be free, as a
+condition for posting them.</p>
+
+<p>For decorative objects, that argument does not apply, so we don't
+have to insist they must be free. However, we should insist that they
+be sharable. Thus, a repository that handles both decorative object
+models and functional ones should have an appropriate license policy
+for each category.</p>
+
+<p>For digital designs, I suggest that the repository insist on GNU
+GPL v3-or-later, Apache 2.0, or CC0. For functional 3D designs, the
+repository should ask the design's author to choose one of four
+licenses: GNU GPL v3-or-later, Apache 2.0, CC BY-SA, CC BY or CC0. For
+decorative designs, it should suggest GNU GPL v3-or-later, Apache 2.0, CC0,
+or any of the CC licenses.</p>
+
+<p>The repository should require all designs to be published as source
+code, and source code in secret formats usable only by proprietary
+design programs is not really adequate. For a 3D model, the <a
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STL_%28file_format%29">STL</strong></del></span>
+<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STL_%28file_format%29">STL</em></ins></span>
+format</a> is not the preferred format for changing the design and
+thus is not source code, so the repository should not accept it,
+except perhaps accompanying real source code.</p>
+
+<p>There is no reason to choose one single format for the source code
+of hardware designs, but source formats that cannot yet be handled
+with free software should be accepted reluctantly at best.</p>
+
+<h3 id="warranties">Free Hardware Designs and Warranties</h3>
+
+<p>In general, the authors of free hardware designs have no moral
+obligation to offer a warranty to those that fabricate the design.
+This is a different issue from the sale of physical hardware, which
+ought to come with a warranty from the seller and/or the
+manufacturer.</p>
+
+<h3 id="conclusion">Conclusion</h3>
+
+<p>We already have suitable licenses to make our hardware designs
+free. What we need is to recognize as a community that this is what
+we should do and to insist on free designs when we fabricate objects
+ourselves.</p>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="column-limit"></div>
+
+<h3 class="footnote">Footnotes</h3>
+<ol>
+<li id="fn1">As used here, “digital hardware” includes
+hardware with some analog circuits and components in addition to
+digital ones.</li>
+
+<li id="fn2">An article by Public Knowledge gives useful information
+about this <a
+href="https://www.publicknowledge.org/assets/uploads/documents/3_Steps_for_Licensing_Your_3D_Printed_Stuff.pdf">
+complexity</a>, for the US, though it falls into the common mistake of
+using the bogus concept of “intellectual property” and the
+propaganda term “<a
+href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Protection">protection</a>.”</li>
+</ol>
+
+<!-- rms: I deleted the links because of Wired's announced
+ anti-ad-block system -->
+<div class="infobox extra" role="complementary">
+<hr />
+<p>Most of this article was published in two parts in
<cite>Wired</cite> in
+March 2015.</p>
+</div>
+</div></em></ins></span>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div <span
class="removed"><del><strong>id="footer"></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>id="footer" role="contentinfo"></em></ins></span>
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></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:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></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:web-translators@gnu.org">
+ <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> 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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> 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 © 2015, <span class="removed"><del><strong>2016, 2018,
2019,</strong></del></span> 2021 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: 2021/11/13 16:30:34 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include -->
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: po/free-software-rocket.pt-br-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/free-software-rocket.pt-br-diff.html
diff -N po/free-software-rocket.pt-br-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/free-software-rocket.pt-br-diff.html 13 Nov 2021 16:30:34 -0000
1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,214 @@
+<!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-rocket.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: <span
class="removed"><del><strong>1.94</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>1.96</em></ins></span> -->
+<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays aboutfs
extension" -->
+<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" --></em></ins></span>
+<title>Should Rockets Have Only Free Software? Free Software and
Appliances
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+ <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/free-software-rocket.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
+<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
+<div class="article reduced-width"></em></ins></span>
+<h2>Should Rockets Have Only Free Software? Free Software and Appliances
+</h2>
+
+<address class="byline">by Richard Stallman</address>
+
+<p>Could there be a rocket that is totally free software? Should we
+demand that SpaceX liberate the software in its satellite launching
+rockets? I don't think the person who asked me this was serious, but
+answering that question may illuminate similar issues about the sorts
+of products people really buy today.</p>
+
+<p>As far as I know, software as such is not capable of generating
+thrust. A rocket is necessarily principally a physical device, so it
+can't literally <em>be</em> free software. But it may include
+computerized control and telemetry systems, and thus software.</p>
+
+<p>If someone offered to sell me a rocket, I would treat it like any
+other appliance. Consider, for instance, a thermostat. If it
+contains software to be modified, all the software in it needs to be
+free, and I alone should have the authority to decide whether to
+install some change. If, however, the software in it is not meant
+ever to be altered, and it communicates <em>only</em> through some
+limited interface, such as buttons on the control panel, a TV remote
+control, or a USB interface with a fixed set of commands, I would not
+consider it crucial to know what is inside the thermostat: whether it
+contains a special-purpose chip, or a processor running code, makes no
+direct difference to me as user. If it does contain code, it might as
+well have a special chip instead, so I don't need to care which it
+is.</p>
+
+<p>I would object if that thermostat sent someone data about my
+activities, regardless of how that was implemented. Once again,
+special chip or special code makes no direct difference. Free
+software in it could give me a way to turn off the surveillance, but
+that is not the only way. Another is by disconnecting its digital
+communication antennas, or switching them off.</p>
+
+<p>If the rocket contains software, releasing that as free software can
+be a contribution to the community, and we should appreciate that
+contribution—but that is a different issue. Such release also
+makes it possible for people who have bought the rockets to work on
+improving the software in them, though the irreversible nature of many
+rocket failures may discourage tinkering.</p>
+
+<p>Readers have pointed out that SpaceX has
+received <a
href="https://www.theverge.com/2019/6/18/18683455/nasa-space-angels-contracts-government-investment-spacex-air-force">important
+financial support from the US government</a> to develop its rockets.
+By rights, accepting this support should require SpaceX to release the
+rocket software under a free license, even if it uses that software
+only inside its own rockets.</p>
+
+<p>Given the experience of Tesla cars, which are full of surveillance and
+tracking malware that Tesla can change but the owner can't, I suppose
+SpaceX rockets have that too. If someday rockets are sold like today's
+cars and tractors, <a
+href="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html">software in
+them would be unjust</a>, and it would <a
+href="/proprietary/proprietary.html">probably be malware</a>. If the
+manufacturer could install modified software in it but the owner could
+not, that too would be unjust. People are starting to recognize this:
+look at the right-to-repair movement, which demands only the beginning
+of these freedoms (much less than freeing the car's software) and
+nonetheless faces a hard fight.</p>
+
+<p>However, I don't think SpaceX sells rockets; I think it provides the
+service of launching payloads in its own rockets. That makes the
+issue totally different: if you are a customer, you're not operating
+the rocket; SpaceX is doing that.</p>
+
+<p>The rocket that SpaceX uses is not like your own car or van, or even a
+car or van leased to you. Rather, it's comparable to a moving
+company's van that is, for the moment, transporting your books and
+furniture to your specified destination. It is the moving company
+that deserves control over the software in that van—not the
+customer of the moment.</p>
+
+<p>It makes sense to treat the job of transporting your things to Outer
+Mongolia, or to outer space, as a service because the job is mostly
+self-contained and mostly independent of the customer (“mostly”
+does not mean “absolutely” or “100%”),
+so the instructions for the job are simple (take these boxes to address
+A by date D).</p>
+
+<p>If SpaceX has released the rocket software under a free license,
+that would give you the right to make, use and distribute modified
+versions, but would not give you the right to modify the code running
+in SpaceX's rocket.</p>
+
+<p>But there is a kind of activity which a hypothetical future
+spaceship might do, which should never be treated as a service: private
+computational activity. That's because a private computational
+activity is exactly what you could do on your own computer in freedom,
+given suitable free software.</p>
+
+<p>When a program's task is to do computing for you, you are entitled to
+demand control over what it does and how, not just that it obey your
+orders as it interprets them. You are entitled, in other words, to
+use your own copy of a free program, running on a computer you
+control.</p>
+
+<p>No wonder there are companies that would like you to cede control over
+your computing activities to them, by labeling those activities as
+“services” to be done on their servers with programs that they
+control. Even things as minutely directed by the user as text
+editing! This is a scheme to get you to substitute their power for
+your freedom. We call that “Service as a Software
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>Substitute”,</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>Substitute,”</em></ins></span> SaaSS for
short (see
+“<a href="/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html">Who
+does that server really serve?</a>”), and we reject it.</p>
+
+<p>For instance, imagine a hypothetical SpaceX Smart Spaceship, which as
+a “service” wants to know all about your business so SpaceX servers
+can decide for you what cargoes to buy and sell on which planets.
+That planning service would be SaaSS—therefore a dis-service.
+Instead of using that dis-service, you should do that planning with
+your copy of free software on your own computer.</p>
+
+<p>SpaceX and others could then legitimately offer you the
+non-computational service of transporting cargoes, and you could use
+it sometimes; or you could choose some other method, perhaps to buy a
+spaceship and operate it yourself.</p>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div></em></ins></span>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div <span
class="removed"><del><strong>id="footer"></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>id="footer" role="contentinfo"></em></ins></span>
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></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:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></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:web-translators@gnu.org">
+ <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and contributing 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 contributing 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>2020</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2020, 2021</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: 2021/11/13 16:30:34 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include -->
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
Index: po/hackathons.pt-br-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/hackathons.pt-br-diff.html
diff -N po/hackathons.pt-br-diff.html
--- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/hackathons.pt-br-diff.html 13 Nov 2021 16:30:34 -0000 1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,191 @@
+<!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/hackathons.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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>virtual="/server/html5-header.html"</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>virtual="/server/header.html"</em></ins></span> -->
+<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 -->
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays upholding
action" -->
+<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" --></em></ins></span>
+<title>Hackathons should insist on free software
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+ <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/hackathons.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
+<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" --></em></ins></span>
+<div <span
class="removed"><del><strong>class="reduced-width"></strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>class="article
reduced-width"></em></ins></span>
+<h2>Why hackathons should insist on free software</h2>
+
+<address class="byline">by Richard Stallman</address>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong><div
class="thin"></div></strong></del></span>
+
+<p>Hackathons are an accepted method of giving community support to
+digital development projects. The community invites developers to
+join an event which offers an encouraging atmosphere, some useful
+resources, and the opportunity to work on useful projects. Most
+hackathons choose the projects they will support, based on stated
+criteria.</p>
+
+<p>Hackathons fit the spirit of a community in which people take an
+attitude of cooperation and respect towards each other. The software
+that accords with this spirit is free (libre) software, <a
+href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">free as in freedom</a>.
+Free software carries a license that gives its users (including
+programmers) freedom to cooperate. Thus, hackathons make sense within
+the free software community. <a
+href="/philosophy/free-hardware-designs.html">Hardware
+design projects</a> also can and ought to be free.</p>
+
+<p>Respect for freedom can't be taken for granted. On the contrary, we
+are surrounded by companies that shamelessly release proprietary
+(nonfree) software, available for use only to those that will yield to
+their power. These companies develop software as a <a
+href="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html">means
+to dominate and control others</a>.</p>
+
+<p>These companies' harmful success inspires young developers to follow
+their example by developing their own programs or hardware designs to
+dominate users. They sometimes bring their projects to hackathons,
+seeking the community's support while rejecting the community's
+spirit: they have no intention of returning cooperation for
+cooperation. Hackathons which accept this undermine the community
+spirit that they are based on.</p>
+
+<p>Some perverse hackathons are specifically dedicated to aiding the
+computing of certain companies: in some cases, <a
+href="https://web.archive.org/web/20210122185507/https://www.beyondhackathon.com/en">
+European</a> and <a
+<span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.hackathon.io/rbc-digital">Canadian</strong></del></span>
+<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://www.hackathon.io/rbc-digital">Canadian</em></ins></span>
banks</a>, and
+<a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://expediaconnectivity.com/blog#madrid-hackathon-winners"></strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://web.archive.org/web/20161019011626/http://expediaconnectivity.com/blog"></em></ins></span>
+Expedia</a>. While they don't explicitly say, the announcements give the
+impression that they aim to promote development of some nonfree
+software, and that attendees are meant to help these non-charitable
+projects.</p>
+
+<p>Those examples show how far down the slope hackathons can slide.
+Let's return to the more common
+case of a hackathon that is not specifically commercial, but accepts
+projects that are proprietary.</p>
+
+<p>When a developer brings a project to a hackathon, and doesn't say
+whether it will be free, that is not overt opposition to the community
+spirit, but it undermines that spirit. Hackathons should strengthen
+the community spirit they are based on, by insisting that hackathon
+projects commit to release in accord with that spirit.</p>
+
+<p>This means telling developers, “So that you deserve our support
and
+help, you must agree to give the community the use of your project's
+results in freedom, if you ever consider them good enough to use or
+release.”</p>
+
+<p>As an individual hackathon participant, you can support this
+principle: before joining in any hackathon project, ask “What license
+will you publish this under? I want to be sure this will be free
+(libre) before I join in developing it.” If the developers of the
+project say that they will choose the license later, you could respond
+that you will choose later whether to participate. Don't be shy—if
+others hear this discussion, they may decide to follow the
+same path.</p>
+
+<p>To see which licenses are free licenses, see <a
+href="/licenses/license-list.html">the GNU license
+list</a>. Most “open source” licenses are free, but <a
+href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">some
+open source licenses are nonfree because they are too
restrictive</a>.</p>
+
+<p>Firmness by individuals has an effect, but a policy of the hackathon
+itself will have a bigger effect. Hackathons should ask each
+participating project to pledge to follow this rule:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+<p>If you ever release or use this code or design, you will release its
source
+code under a free (libre) license. If you distribute the code in executable
+form, you will make that free (libre) also.</p>
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>Many hackathons are sponsored or hosted by schools, which is an
+additional reason they should adopt this rule. Free software is a
+contribution to public knowledge, while nonfree software withholds
+knowledge from the public. Thus, <a
+href="/education/edu-schools.html">free software
+supports the spirit of education, while proprietary software opposes
+it</a>. Schools should insist that all their software development be
+free software, including that of hackathons they support.</p>
+</div>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer" role="contentinfo">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></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:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></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:web-translators@gnu.org">
+ <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and contributing 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 contributing 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 © 2017, 2021 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: 2021/11/13 16:30:34 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong></div></strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div><!-- for class="inner", starts
in the banner include --></em></ins></span>
+</body>
+</html>
+</pre></body></html>
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- www/philosophy free-hardware-designs.pt-br.html...,
GNUN <=