[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/philosophy open-source-misses-the-point.es....
|
From: |
GNUN |
|
Subject: |
www/philosophy open-source-misses-the-point.es.... |
|
Date: |
Thu, 3 Feb 2022 08:14:59 -0500 (EST) |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: GNUN <gnun> 22/02/03 08:14:59
Modified files:
philosophy : open-source-misses-the-point.es.html
philosophy/po : open-source-misses-the-point.es-en.html
open-source-misses-the-point.es.po
Log message:
Automatic update by GNUnited Nations.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.es.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.103&r2=1.104
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.es-en.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.56&r2=1.57
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.es.po?cvsroot=www&r1=1.146&r2=1.147
Patches:
Index: open-source-misses-the-point.es.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.es.html,v
retrieving revision 1.103
retrieving revision 1.104
diff -u -b -r1.103 -r1.104
--- open-source-misses-the-point.es.html 30 Dec 2021 23:00:02 -0000
1.103
+++ open-source-misses-the-point.es.html 3 Feb 2022 13:14:56 -0000
1.104
@@ -131,43 +131,47 @@
del software libre. Que sepamos, todo el código fuente existente del
software libre publicado se podrÃa considerar de código abierto. Y casi todo
el software de código abierto es software libre, pero hay algunas
-excepciones. En primer lugar, algunas licencias de código abierto son
-demasiado restrictivas, por lo que no se las puede considerar licencias
-libres. Por ejemplo, Open Watcom no es libre porque su licencia no permite
-hacer versiones modificadas y utilizarlas de forma privada. Afortunadamente,
-son muy pocos los programas que llevan tales licencias.</p>
-
-<p>En segundo lugar, cuando el código fuente de un programa tiene una licencia
-débil, una licencia sin copyleft, sus ejecutables pueden tener condiciones
-adicionales que no son libres. <a
-href="https://code.visualstudio.com/License/";>Microsoft hace esto con Visual
-Studio Code</a>, por ejemplo.</p>
-
-<p>Si estos ejecutables se corresponden totalmente con los archivos fuente
-publicados, serán de código abierto, pero no software libre. No obstante, en
-ese caso los usuarios pueden compilar el código fuente para crear y
-distribuir ejecutables libres.</p>
-
-<p>Por último, y lo que es más importante en la práctica, muchos productos
que
-contienen ordenadores verifican las firmas de sus programas ejecutables para
-impedir que los usuarios instalen ejecutables diferentes; solo una compañÃa
-tiene el privilegio de elaborar ejecutables que funcionen en el dispositivo
-y de acceder a todas las prestaciones del mismo. A estos dispositivos los
-llamamos «tiranos» y la práctica se denomina «tivoización», por
referencia
-al producto (Tivo) en el que se utilizó por primera vez. Aun cuando el
+excepciones.</p>
+
+<p>En primer lugar, algunas licencias de código abierto son demasiado
+restrictivas, por lo que no se las puede considerar licencias libres. Por
+ejemplo, Open Watcom no es libre porque su licencia no permite hacer
+versiones modificadas y utilizarlas de forma privada. Afortunadamente, son
+muy pocos los programas que llevan tales licencias.</p>
+
+<p>En segundo lugar, los criterios del código abierto solo atienden a la
+licencia del código fuente. No obstante, la gente a menudo se refiere a un
+ejecutable como «código abierto», ya que su código fuente está disponible
de
+esa manera. Esto es causa de confusión en situaciones paradójicas en las que
+el código fuente es código abierto (y libre), pero el ejecutable es
+privativo.</p>
+
+<p>El caso trivial de esta paradoja se da cuando el código fuente de un
+programa tiene una licencia libre débil, una licencia sin copyleft, pero sus
+ejecutables tienen condiciones adicionales que no son libres. Suponiendo que
+los ejecutables se correspondan exactamente con los archivo fuente
+publicados (puede ser o no ser asÃ), los usuarios pueden compilar el código
+fuente para crear y distribuir ejecutables libres. Por eso este caso es
+trivial y no supone un grave problema.</p>
+
+<p>El caso no trivial es dañino e importante. Muchos productos que contienen
+ordenadores verifican las firmas de sus programas ejecutables para impedir
+que los usuarios utilicen ejecutables diferentes; solo una compañÃa tiene el
+privilegio de elaborar ejecutables que funcionen en el dispositivo y
+utilicen todas las prestaciones del mismo. A estos dispositivos los llamamos
+«tiranos» y la práctica se denomina «tivoización», por referencia al
+producto (Tivo) en el que se utilizó por primera vez. Aun cuando el
ejecutable esté hecho a partir de código fuente libre, y nominalmente tenga
-una licencia libre, los usuarios no pueden ejecutar versiones modificadas,
-de modo que el ejecutable no es de hecho libre.</p>
+una licencia libre, los usuarios no pueden ejecutar útilmente versiones
+modificadas, de modo que el ejecutable no es de hecho libre.</p>
<p>Muchos productos de Android contienen ejecutables de Linux
<em>tivoizados</em> que no son libres, aun cuando su código fuente está bajo
-la GPL de GNU, versión 2. Concebimos la versión 3 de la GPL de GNU para
-prohibir esta práctica.</p>
-
-<p>Los criterios del código abierto solo atienden a la licencia del código
-fuente. De modo que esos ejecutables privativos, cuando están hechos a
-partir de un código fuente como Linux, que es de código abierto y libre, son
-de código abierto pero no son libres.</p>
+la GPL de GNU, versión 2. (Concebimos la versión 3 de la GPL de GNU para
+prohibir esta práctica; lástima que Linux no la haya adoptado.) Esos
+ejecutables, hechos a partir de código fuente que es abierto y libre, se
+dice generalmente que son «código abierto», pero <em>no</em> son software
+libre.</p>
<h3>Errores frecuentes sobre el significado de «software libre» y «código
abierto»</h3>
@@ -546,7 +550,7 @@
There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
-<p>Copyright © 2007, 2010, 2012-2016, 2019-2021 Richard Stallman</p>
+<p>Copyright © 2007, 2010, 2012-2016, 2019-2022 Richard Stallman</p>
<p>Esta página está bajo licencia <a rel="license"
href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/deed.es_ES";>Creative
@@ -562,7 +566,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Ãltima actualización:
-$Date: 2021/12/30 23:00:02 $
+$Date: 2022/02/03 13:14:56 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: po/open-source-misses-the-point.es-en.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.es-en.html,v
retrieving revision 1.56
retrieving revision 1.57
diff -u -b -r1.56 -r1.57
--- po/open-source-misses-the-point.es-en.html 30 Dec 2021 23:00:03 -0000
1.56
+++ po/open-source-misses-the-point.es-en.html 3 Feb 2022 13:14:57 -0000
1.57
@@ -119,40 +119,45 @@
<p>In practice, open source stands for criteria a little looser than
those of free software. As far as we know, all existing released free
software source code would qualify as open source. Nearly all open
-source software is free software, but there are exceptions. First,
-some open source licenses are too restrictive, so they do not qualify
-as free licenses. For example, Open Watcom is nonfree
+source software is free software, but there are exceptions.</p>
+
+<p>First, some open source licenses are too restrictive, so they do
+not qualify as free licenses. For example, Open Watcom is nonfree
because its license does not allow making a modified version and using
it privately. Fortunately, few programs use such licenses.</p>
-<p>Second, when a program's source code carries a weak license, one
-without copyleft, its executables can carry additional nonfree
-conditions. <a href="https://code.visualstudio.com/License/";>Microsoft
-does this with Visual Studio Code</a>, for example.</p>
-
-<p>If these executables fully correspond to the released sources, they
-qualify as open source but not as free software. However, in that
-case users can compile the source code to make and distribute free
-executables.</p>
-
-<p>Finally, and most important in practice, many products containing
-computers check signatures on their executable programs to block users
-from installing different executables; only one privileged company can
-make executables that can run in the device or can access its full
-capabilities. We call these devices “tyrants,” and the
-practice is called “tivoization” after the product (Tivo)
-where we first saw it. Even if the executable is made from free
-source code, and nominally carries a free license, the users cannot
-run modified versions of it, so the executable is de-facto nonfree.</p>
+<p>Second, the criteria for open source are concerned solely with the
+licensing of the source code. However, people often describe an
+executable as “open source,” because its source code is
+available that way. That causes confusion in paradoxical situations
+where the source code is open source (and free) but the executable
+itself is nonfree.</p>
+
+<p>The trivial case of this paradox is when a program's source code
+carries a weak free license, one without copyleft, but its executables
+carry additional nonfree conditions. Supposing the executables
+correspond exactly to the released sources—which may or may not
+be so—users can compile the source code to make and distribute
+free executables. That's why this case is trivial; it is no grave
+problem.</p>
+
+<p>The nontrivial case is harmful and important. Many products
+containing computers check signatures on their executable programs to
+block users from effectively using different executables; only one
+privileged company can make executables that can run in the device and
+use its full capabilities. We call these devices
+“tyrants,” and the practice is called
+“tivoization” after the product (Tivo) where we first saw
+it. Even if the executable is made from free source code, and
+nominally carries a free license, the users cannot usefully run
+modified versions of it, so the executable is de-facto nonfree.</p>
<p>Many Android products contain nonfree tivoized executables of
-Linux, even though its source code is under GNU GPL version 2. We
-designed GNU GPL version 3 to prohibit this practice.</p>
-
-<p>The criteria for open source are concerned solely with the
-licensing of the source code. Thus, these nonfree executables, when
-made from source code such as Linux that is open source and free, are
-open source but not free.</p>
+Linux, even though its source code is under GNU GPL version 2. (We
+designed GNU GPL version 3 to prohibit this practice; too bad Linux
+did not adopt it.) These executables, made from source code that is
+open source and free, are generally spoken of as “open
+source,” but they are <em>not</em> free software.</p>
<h3>Common Misunderstandings of “Free Software” and
“Open Source”</h3>
@@ -508,7 +513,7 @@
There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
-<p>Copyright © 2007, 2010, 2012-2016, 2019-2021 Richard Stallman</p>
+<p>Copyright © 2007, 2010, 2012-2016, 2019-2022 Richard Stallman</p>
<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/";>Creative
@@ -518,7 +523,7 @@
<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2021/12/30 23:00:03 $
+$Date: 2022/02/03 13:14:57 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
Index: po/open-source-misses-the-point.es.po
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.es.po,v
retrieving revision 1.146
retrieving revision 1.147
diff -u -b -r1.146 -r1.147
--- po/open-source-misses-the-point.es.po 3 Feb 2022 12:01:24 -0000
1.146
+++ po/open-source-misses-the-point.es.po 3 Feb 2022 13:14:58 -0000
1.147
@@ -266,14 +266,6 @@
msgid "Practical Differences between Free Software and Open Source"
msgstr "Diferencias prácticas entre software libre y código abierto"
-# | In practice, open source stands for criteria a little looser than those of
-# | free software. As far as we know, all existing released free software
-# | source code would qualify as open source. Nearly all open source software
-# | is free software, but there are exceptions. [-First, some open source
-# | licenses are too restrictive, so they do not qualify as free licenses.
-# | For example, Open Watcom is nonfree because its license does not allow
-# | making a modified version and using it privately. Fortunately, few
-# | programs use such licenses.-]
#. type: Content of: <div><p>
msgid ""
"In practice, open source stands for criteria a little looser than those of "
@@ -287,14 +279,6 @@
"el software de código abierto es software libre, pero hay algunas "
"excepciones."
-# | [-In practice, open source stands for criteria a little looser than those
-# | of free software. As far as we know, all existing released free software
-# | source code would qualify as open source. Nearly all open source software
-# | is free software, but there are exceptions.-]First, some open source
-# | licenses are too restrictive, so they do not qualify as free licenses.
-# | For example, Open Watcom is nonfree because its license does not allow
-# | making a modified version and using it privately. Fortunately, few
-# | programs use such licenses.
#. type: Content of: <div><p>
msgid ""
"First, some open source licenses are too restrictive, so they do not qualify "
@@ -308,13 +292,6 @@
"versiones modificadas y utilizarlas de forma privada. Afortunadamente, son "
"muy pocos los programas que llevan tales licencias."
-# | [-The-]{+Second, the+} criteria for open source are concerned solely with
-# | the licensing of the source code. [-Thus, these nonfree executables, when
-# | made from-] {+However, people often describe an executable as “open
-# | source,” because its+} source code [-such as Linux that-] is
-# | [-open-] {+available that way. That causes confusion in paradoxical
-# | situations where the+} source [-and free, are-] {+code is+} open source
-# | {+(and free)+} but [-not free.-] {+the executable itself is nonfree.+}
#. type: Content of: <div><p>
msgid ""
"Second, the criteria for open source are concerned solely with the licensing "
@@ -330,14 +307,6 @@
"el código fuente es código abierto (y libre), pero el ejecutable es "
"privativo."
-# | [-If these-]{+The trivial case of this paradox is when a program's source
-# | code carries a weak free license, one without copyleft, but its
-# | executables carry additional nonfree conditions. Supposing the+}
-# | executables [-fully-] correspond {+exactly+} to the released [-sources,
-# | they qualify as open source but-] {+sources—which may or may+} not
-# | [-as free software. However, in that case users-] {+be so—users+}
-# | can compile the source code to make and distribute free executables.
-# | {+That's why this case is trivial; it is no grave problem.+}
#. type: Content of: <div><p>
msgid ""
"The trivial case of this paradox is when a program's source code carries a "
@@ -355,17 +324,6 @@
"fuente para crear y distribuir ejecutables libres. Por eso este caso es "
"trivial y no supone un grave problema."
-# | [-Finally,-]{+The nontrivial case is harmful+} and [-most important in
-# | practice, many-] {+important. Many+} products containing computers check
-# | signatures on their executable programs to block users from [-installing-]
-# | {+effectively using+} different executables; only one privileged company
-# | can make executables that can run in the device [-or can access-] {+and
-# | use+} its full capabilities. We call these devices “tyrants,”
-# | and the practice is called “tivoization” after the product
-# | (Tivo) where we first saw it. Even if the executable is made from free
-# | source code, and nominally carries a free license, the users cannot
-# | {+usefully+} run modified versions of it, so the executable is de-facto
-# | nonfree.
#. type: Content of: <div><p>
msgid ""
"The nontrivial case is harmful and important. Many products containing "
@@ -389,12 +347,6 @@
"una licencia libre, los usuarios no pueden ejecutar útilmente versiones "
"modificadas, de modo que el ejecutable no es de hecho libre."
-# | Many Android products contain nonfree tivoized executables of Linux, even
-# | though its source code is under GNU GPL version 2. {+(+}We designed GNU
-# | GPL version 3 to prohibit this [-practice.-] {+practice; too bad Linux did
-# | not adopt it.) These executables, made from source code that is open
-# | source and free, are generally spoken of as “open source,” but
-# | they are <em>not</em> free software.+}
#. type: Content of: <div><p>
msgid ""
"Many Android products contain nonfree tivoized executables of Linux, even "
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- www/philosophy open-source-misses-the-point.es....,
GNUN <=