[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
www/philosophy open-source-misses-the-point.ja....
|
From: |
GNUN |
|
Subject: |
www/philosophy open-source-misses-the-point.ja.... |
|
Date: |
Sun, 20 Feb 2022 19:30:36 -0500 (EST) |
CVSROOT: /web/www
Module name: www
Changes by: GNUN <gnun> 22/02/20 19:30:36
Modified files:
philosophy : open-source-misses-the-point.ja.html
open-source-misses-the-point.nl.html
open-source-misses-the-point.pl.html
who-does-that-server-really-serve.ja.html
who-does-that-server-really-serve.nl.html
who-does-that-server-really-serve.pl.html
philosophy/po : open-source-misses-the-point.ja-diff.html
open-source-misses-the-point.nl-diff.html
open-source-misses-the-point.pl-diff.html
who-does-that-server-really-serve.ja-diff.html
who-does-that-server-really-serve.nl-diff.html
who-does-that-server-really-serve.pl-diff.html
Log message:
Automatic update by GNUnited Nations.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.ja.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.56&r2=1.57
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.nl.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.30&r2=1.31
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.pl.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.56&r2=1.57
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.ja.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.26&r2=1.27
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.nl.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.7&r2=1.8
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.pl.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.41&r2=1.42
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.ja-diff.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.3&r2=1.4
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.nl-diff.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.37&r2=1.38
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.pl-diff.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.12&r2=1.13
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/who-does-that-server-really-serve.ja-diff.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.7&r2=1.8
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/who-does-that-server-really-serve.nl-diff.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.8&r2=1.9
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/who-does-that-server-really-serve.pl-diff.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.29&r2=1.30
Patches:
Index: open-source-misses-the-point.ja.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.ja.html,v
retrieving revision 1.56
retrieving revision 1.57
diff -u -b -r1.56 -r1.57
--- open-source-misses-the-point.ja.html 1 Oct 2021 05:32:41 -0000
1.56
+++ open-source-misses-the-point.ja.html 21 Feb 2022 00:30:36 -0000
1.57
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE"
value="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.ja.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.ja.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE"
value="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE"
value="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.ja-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2021-12-23" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.ja.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 -->
@@ -13,6 +18,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.ja.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.ja.html" -->
<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.ja.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.ja.html" -->
<div class="article reduced-width">
<h2>ãªãããªã¼ãã³ã½ã¼ã¹ã¯èªç±ã½ããã¦ã§ã¢ã®çãå¤ãã®ã</h2>
@@ -253,7 +259,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
æçµæ´æ°:
-$Date: 2021/10/01 05:32:41 $
+$Date: 2022/02/21 00:30:36 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: open-source-misses-the-point.nl.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.nl.html,v
retrieving revision 1.30
retrieving revision 1.31
diff -u -b -r1.30 -r1.31
--- open-source-misses-the-point.nl.html 4 Oct 2021 09:33:39 -0000
1.30
+++ open-source-misses-the-point.nl.html 21 Feb 2022 00:30:36 -0000
1.31
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE"
value="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.nl.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.nl.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE"
value="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE"
value="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.nl-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2021-12-23" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.nl.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 -->
@@ -14,6 +19,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.nl.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.nl.html" -->
<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.nl.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.nl.html" -->
<div class="article reduced-width">
<h2>Waarom “open bron” de essentie van vrije software niet
begrijpt</h2>
@@ -514,7 +520,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Bijgewerkt:
-$Date: 2021/10/04 09:33:39 $
+$Date: 2022/02/21 00:30:36 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: open-source-misses-the-point.pl.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.pl.html,v
retrieving revision 1.56
retrieving revision 1.57
diff -u -b -r1.56 -r1.57
--- open-source-misses-the-point.pl.html 7 Oct 2021 20:02:26 -0000
1.56
+++ open-source-misses-the-point.pl.html 21 Feb 2022 00:30:36 -0000
1.57
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE"
value="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.pl.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.pl.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE"
value="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE"
value="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.pl-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2021-12-23" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.pl.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 -->
@@ -14,6 +19,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.pl.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.pl.html" -->
<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.pl.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.pl.html" -->
<div class="article reduced-width">
<h2>Dlaczego otwartemu oprogramowaniu umyka idea Wolnego Oprogramowania</h2>
@@ -593,7 +599,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Aktualizowane:
-$Date: 2021/10/07 20:02:26 $
+$Date: 2022/02/21 00:30:36 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: who-does-that-server-really-serve.ja.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.ja.html,v
retrieving revision 1.26
retrieving revision 1.27
diff -u -b -r1.26 -r1.27
--- who-does-that-server-really-serve.ja.html 1 Nov 2021 13:30:49 -0000
1.26
+++ who-does-that-server-really-serve.ja.html 21 Feb 2022 00:30:36 -0000
1.27
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE"
value="/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/who-does-that-server-really-serve.ja.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/who-does-that-server-really-serve.ja.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE"
value="/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE"
value="/philosophy/po/who-does-that-server-really-serve.ja-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2021-12-23" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE"
value="/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.ja.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 -->
@@ -13,6 +18,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.ja.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.ja.html" -->
<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.ja.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.ja.html" -->
<div class="article reduced-width">
<h2>ãã®ãµã¼ãã¯ãã£ãã誰ã«ãµã¼ãããã®ã?</h2>
@@ -250,7 +256,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
æçµæ´æ°:
-$Date: 2021/11/01 13:30:49 $
+$Date: 2022/02/21 00:30:36 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: who-does-that-server-really-serve.nl.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.nl.html,v
retrieving revision 1.7
retrieving revision 1.8
diff -u -b -r1.7 -r1.8
--- who-does-that-server-really-serve.nl.html 4 Oct 2021 08:33:50 -0000
1.7
+++ who-does-that-server-really-serve.nl.html 21 Feb 2022 00:30:36 -0000
1.8
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE"
value="/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/who-does-that-server-really-serve.nl.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/who-does-that-server-really-serve.nl.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE"
value="/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE"
value="/philosophy/po/who-does-that-server-really-serve.nl-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2021-12-23" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE"
value="/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.nl.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 -->
@@ -14,6 +19,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.nl.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.nl.html" -->
<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.nl.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.nl.html" -->
<div class="article reduced-width">
<h2>Wie dient die server eigenlijk echt?</h2>
@@ -524,7 +530,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Bijgewerkt:
-$Date: 2021/10/04 08:33:50 $
+$Date: 2022/02/21 00:30:36 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: who-does-that-server-really-serve.pl.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.pl.html,v
retrieving revision 1.41
retrieving revision 1.42
diff -u -b -r1.41 -r1.42
--- who-does-that-server-really-serve.pl.html 7 Oct 2021 20:02:27 -0000
1.41
+++ who-does-that-server-really-serve.pl.html 21 Feb 2022 00:30:36 -0000
1.42
@@ -1,4 +1,9 @@
-<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE"
value="/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.en.html" -->
+<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
+ value='<a href="/philosophy/po/who-does-that-server-really-serve.pl.po">
+ https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/who-does-that-server-really-serve.pl.po</a>'
+ --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE"
value="/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html"
+ --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE"
value="/philosophy/po/who-does-that-server-really-serve.pl-diff.html"
+ --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2021-12-23" --><!--#set
var="ENGLISH_PAGE"
value="/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.en.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.pl.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 -->
@@ -14,6 +19,7 @@
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.pl.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.pl.html" -->
<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.pl.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.pl.html" -->
<div class="article reduced-width">
<h2>Komu tak na prawdÄ sÅuży ten serwer?</h2>
@@ -546,7 +552,7 @@
<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
Aktualizowane:
-$Date: 2021/10/07 20:02:27 $
+$Date: 2022/02/21 00:30:36 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: po/open-source-misses-the-point.ja-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.ja-diff.html,v
retrieving revision 1.3
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -u -b -r1.3 -r1.4
--- po/open-source-misses-the-point.ja-diff.html 26 Jun 2019 20:32:25
-0000 1.3
+++ po/open-source-misses-the-point.ja-diff.html 21 Feb 2022 00:30:36
-0000 1.4
@@ -11,20 +11,23 @@
</style></head>
<body><pre>
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
-<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 -->
+<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
+<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays aboutfs free-open" -->
+<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" -->
<title>Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software - GNU Project -
Free Software Foundation</title>
<!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
-<h2>Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software</h2>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
+<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
+<div class="article reduced-width">
+<h2>Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software</h2>
-<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>by <strong>Richard
Stallman</strong></p></strong></del></span>
+<address class="byline">by Richard Stallman</address>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p class="byline">by Richard
Stallman</p>
-
-<div class="article">
-
-<blockquote class="comment"><p>
+<div class="important"><p>
The terms “free software” and “open
source” stand for almost the same range of programs. However,
they say deeply different things about those programs, based on
@@ -33,7 +36,7 @@
By contrast, the open source idea values mainly practical advantage
and does not campaign for principles. This is why we do not agree
with open source, and do not use that term.
-</p></blockquote></em></ins></span>
+</p></div>
<p>When we call software “free,” we mean that it respects
the <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">users' essential
freedoms</a>:
@@ -55,7 +58,7 @@
operating system</a>. Most of these users, however, have never heard of
the ethical reasons for which we developed this system and built the free
software community, because nowadays this system and community are more
-often spoken of as “open source”, attributing them to a
+often spoken of as “open source,” attributing them to a
different philosophy in which these freedoms are hardly mentioned.</p>
<p>The free software movement has campaigned for computer users'
@@ -86,27 +89,22 @@
with ideas and arguments based only on practical values, such as
making or having powerful, reliable software. Most of the supporters
of open source have come to it since then, and they make the same
-<span class="removed"><del><strong>association.</p></strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em>association. Most discussion of “open
source” pays no
+association. Most discussion of “open source” pays no
attention to right and wrong, only to popularity and success; here's
-a <a
href="http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/Open-Source-Is-Woven-Into-the-Latest-Hottest-Trends-78937.html">
+a <a
href="https://linuxinsider.com/story/Open-Source-Is-Woven-Into-the-Latest-Hottest-Trends-78937.html">
typical example</a>. A minority of supporters of open source do
nowadays say freedom is part of the issue, but they are not very visible
-among the many that don't.</p></em></ins></span>
+among the many that don't.</p>
-<p>The two <span
class="removed"><del><strong>terms</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>now</em></ins></span>
+<p>The two now
describe almost the same category of software, but they stand for
-views based on fundamentally different values. <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Open source is a
-development methodology; free software is a social
movement.</strong></del></span> For the
+views based on fundamentally different values. For the
free software movement, free software is an ethical imperative,
essential respect for the users' freedom. By contrast,
the philosophy of open source considers issues in terms of how to make
software “better”—in a practical sense only. It
says that nonfree software is an inferior solution to the practical
-problem at <span class="removed"><del><strong>hand. Most discussion of
“open source” pays no
-attention to right and wrong, only to popularity and success; here's
-a <a
href="http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/Open-Source-Is-Woven-Into-the-Latest-Hottest-Trends-78937.html">
-typical example</a>.</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>hand.</p></em></ins></span>
+problem at hand.</p>
<p>For the free software movement, however, nonfree software is a
social problem, and the solution is to stop using it and move to free
@@ -121,51 +119,69 @@
essential to speak of “free software.”</p>
<p>We in the free software movement don't think of the open source
-camp as an enemy; the enemy is proprietary (nonfree) software. But
-we want people to know we stand for freedom, so we do not accept being
-mislabeled as open source supporters.</p>
+camp as an enemy; the enemy is proprietary (nonfree) software. But we
+want people to know we stand for freedom, so we do not accept being
+mislabeled as open source supporters. What we advocate is not
+“open source,” and what we oppose is not “closed
+source.” To make this clear, we avoid using those terms.
+</p>
<h3>Practical Differences between Free Software and Open
Source</h3>
<p>In practice, open source stands for criteria a little looser than
those of free software. As far as we know, all existing released free
software source code would qualify as open source. Nearly all open
-source software is free software, but there are exceptions. First,
-some open source licenses are too restrictive, so they do not qualify
-as free licenses. For example, “Open Watcom” is nonfree
+source software is free software, but there are <span
class="removed"><del><strong>exceptions. First,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>exceptions.</p>
+
+<p>First,</em></ins></span> some open source licenses are too
restrictive, so they do
+not qualify as free licenses. For example, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“Open Watcom”</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>Open Watcom</em></ins></span> 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, <span class="inserted"><ins><em>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,</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</em></ins></span> and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>more</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>distribute free
-executables.</p>
-
-<p>Finally, and most</em></ins></span> 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, <span class="inserted"><ins><em>and nominally carries a free
license,</em></ins></span> the users cannot
-run modified versions of it, so the executable is <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>de-facto</em></ins></span> nonfree.</p>
-
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><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></em></ins></span>
-
-<p>The criteria for open source <span class="removed"><del><strong>do
not recognize this issue; they</strong></del></span> are concerned solely with
the
-licensing of the source code. Thus, these
-<span class="removed"><del><strong>unmodifiable</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>nonfree</em></ins></span> executables, when
-made from source code such as Linux that is open source and free, are
-open source but not <span class="removed"><del><strong>free. Many
-Android products contain nonfree tivoized executables of
Linux.</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>free.</p></em></ins></span>
+<p>Second, <span class="inserted"><ins><em>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</em></ins></span> when a
program's source code
+carries a weak <span class="inserted"><ins><em>free</em></ins></span> license,
one without copyleft, <span class="inserted"><ins><em>but</em></ins></span> its
executables <span class="removed"><del><strong>can</strong></del></span>
+carry additional nonfree conditions. <span class="removed"><del><strong><a
href="https://code.visualstudio.com/License/">Microsoft
+does this with Visual Studio Code</a>, for example.</p>
+
+<p>If these</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Supposing the</em></ins></span> executables <span
class="removed"><del><strong>fully</strong></del></span>
+correspond <span class="inserted"><ins><em>exactly</em></ins></span> to the
released <span class="removed"><del><strong>sources, they
+qualify as open source but</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>sources—which may or may</em></ins></span> not
<span class="removed"><del><strong>as free software. However, in that
+case users</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>be so—users</em></ins></span> can
compile the source code to make and distribute
+free
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>executables.</p>
+
+<p>Finally,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>executables. That's why this case is trivial; it is
no grave
+problem.</p>
+
+<p>The nontrivial case is harmful</em></ins></span> and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>most important in practice,
many</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>important.
Many</em></ins></span> products
+containing computers check signatures on their executable programs to
+block users from <span
class="removed"><del><strong>installing</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>effectively using</em></ins></span> different
executables; only one
+privileged company can make executables that can run in the device <span
class="removed"><del><strong>or can access</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>and
+use</em></ins></span> 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 <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>usefully</em></ins></span> 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. <span
class="removed"><del><strong>We</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>(We</em></ins></span>
+designed GNU GPL version 3 to prohibit this <span
class="removed"><del><strong>practice.</p>
+
+<p>The criteria for open source are concerned solely with the
+licensing of the source code. Thus, these nonfree</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>practice; too bad Linux
+did not adopt it.) These</em></ins></span> executables, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>when</strong></del></span> made from source code
<span class="removed"><del><strong>such as Linux</strong></del></span> that is
+open source and free, are
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>open source</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>generally spoken of as “open
+source,”</em></ins></span> but <span class="removed"><del><strong>not
free.</p></strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>they are
<em>not</em> free software.</p></em></ins></span>
<h3>Common Misunderstandings of “Free Software” and
“Open Source”</h3>
@@ -190,18 +206,28 @@
this includes “open source software.”</p>
<p>The <a href="https://opensource.org/osd">official definition of
-“open source software”</a> (which is published by the Open
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>“open</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>open</em></ins></span> source <span
class="removed"><del><strong>software”</a></strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>software</a></em></ins></span> (which is
published by the Open
Source Initiative and is too long to include here) was derived
indirectly from our criteria for free software. It is not the same;
it is a little looser in some respects. Nonetheless, their definition
agrees with our definition in most cases.</p>
<p>However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source
-software”—and the one most people seem to think it
-means—is “You can look at the source code.” That
-criterion is much weaker than the free software definition, much
-weaker also than the official definition of open source. It includes
-many programs that are neither free nor open source.</p>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>software”—and the one most
people seem to think it
+means—is</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>software” is</em></ins></span>
“You can look at the source code.”
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>Indeed, most people seem to misunderstand
“open source
+software” that way. (The clear term for that meaning is
+“source available.”)</em></ins></span> That criterion is much
weaker than
+the free software definition, much weaker also than the official
+definition of open source. It includes many programs that are neither
+free nor open source.</p>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p>Why do people misunderstand it that
way? Because that is the
+natural meaning of the words “open source.” But the
+concept for which the open source advocates sought another name was
+a variant of that of free software.</p></em></ins></span>
<p>Since the obvious meaning for “open source” is not the
meaning that its advocates intend, the result is that most people
@@ -218,8 +244,8 @@
agreements vary as to what one is allowed to do with that
code.”</p>
-<p>The <i>New York
-Times</i> <a
href="http://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-design-37415.html">
+<p>The <cite>New York Times</cite> <a
+href="https://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-design-37415.html">
ran an article that stretched the meaning of the term</a> to refer to
user beta testing—letting a few users try an early version and
give confidential feedback—which proprietary software developers
@@ -227,7 +253,7 @@
<p>The term has even been stretched to include designs for equipment
that
-are <a
href="http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/aug/27/texas-teenager-water-purifier-toxic-e-waste-pollution">published
+are <a
href="https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/aug/27/texas-teenager-water-purifier-toxic-e-waste-pollution">published
without a patent</a>. Patent-free equipment designs can be laudable
contributions to society, but the term “source code” does
not pertain to them.</p>
@@ -258,12 +284,12 @@
criteria for software licensing are simply not pertinent. The only
thing these activities have in common is that they somehow invite
people to participate. They stretch the term so far that it only
-means “participatory” or “transparent”, or
+means “participatory” or “transparent,” or
less than that. At worst, it
-has <a
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/opinion/sunday/morozov-open-and-closed.html">
+has <a
href="https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/opinion/sunday/morozov-open-and-closed.html">
become a vacuous buzzword</a>.</p>
-<h3>Different Values Can Lead to Similar <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Conclusions…but</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Conclusions—but</em></ins></span> Not
Always</h3>
+<h3>Different Values Can Lead to Similar Conclusions—but Not
Always</h3>
<p>Radical groups in the 1960s had a reputation for factionalism: some
organizations split because of disagreements on details of strategy,
@@ -323,7 +349,7 @@
individuals to use is increasingly designed specifically to restrict
them. This malicious feature is known as Digital Restrictions
Management (DRM) (see <a
-href="http://defectivebydesign.org/">DefectiveByDesign.org</a>) and is
+href="https://defectivebydesign.org">DefectiveByDesign.org</a>) and is
the antithesis in spirit of the freedom that free software aims
to provide. And not just in spirit: since the goal of DRM is to
trample your freedom, DRM developers try to make it hard, impossible,
@@ -347,7 +373,8 @@
<p>The main initial motivation of those who split off the open source
camp from the free software movement was that the ethical ideas of
-“free software” made some people uneasy. That's true: raising
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>“free
software”</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>free software</em></ins></span> made some
people uneasy. That's true: raising
ethical issues such as freedom, talking about responsibilities as well as
convenience, is asking people to think about things they might prefer
to ignore, such as whether their conduct is ethical. This can trigger
@@ -417,7 +444,8 @@
<h3>Rivals for Mindshare</h3>
<p>“Free” and “open” are rivals for mindshare.
-“Free software” and “open source” are
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>“Free
software”</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>Free software</em></ins></span> and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“open source”</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>open source</em></ins></span> are
different ideas but, in most people's way of looking at software, they
compete for the same conceptual slot. When people become habituated
to saying and thinking “open source,” that is an obstacle
@@ -446,12 +474,9 @@
free software and it gives you freedom!”—more and louder
than ever. Every time you say “free software” rather than
“open source,” you help our cause.</p>
+<div class="column-limit"></div>
-<span
class="removed"><del><strong><h4>Notes</h4></strong></del></span>
-
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div>
-
-<h4>Note</h4></em></ins></span>
+<h3 class="footnote">Note</h3>
<!-- The article is incomplete (#793776) as of 21st January 2013.
<p>
@@ -461,18 +486,17 @@
-->
<p>
Lakhani and Wolf's <a
-href="http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/lakhaniwolf.pdf">
+href="https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/lakhaniwolf.pdf">
paper on the motivation of free software developers</a> says that a
considerable fraction are motivated by the view that software should be
free. This is despite the fact that they surveyed the developers on
SourceForge, a site that does not support the view that this is an ethical
issue.</p>
+</div>
</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
-
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
-
-<div id="footer">
+<div id="footer" role="contentinfo">
<div class="unprintable">
<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to <a
@@ -490,18 +514,35 @@
to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">
<web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p>
- <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ <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 submitting translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and contributing translations
of this article.</p>
</div>
-<p>Copyright © 2007, 2010, 2012, 2015, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2016</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2016, 2019</em></ins></span> Richard
Stallman</p>
+<!-- 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 © 2007, 2010, 2012-2016, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2019-2021</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2019-2022</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
@@ -511,11 +552,11 @@
<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2019/06/26 20:32:25 $
+$Date: 2022/02/21 00:30:36 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
-</div>
+</div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include -->
</body>
</html>
</pre></body></html>
Index: po/open-source-misses-the-point.nl-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.nl-diff.html,v
retrieving revision 1.37
retrieving revision 1.38
diff -u -b -r1.37 -r1.38
--- po/open-source-misses-the-point.nl-diff.html 12 Sep 2021 09:06:05
-0000 1.37
+++ po/open-source-misses-the-point.nl-diff.html 21 Feb 2022 00:30:36
-0000 1.38
@@ -11,25 +11,23 @@
</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 -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 -->
<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays aboutfs free-open" -->
-<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes"</em></ins></span> -->
+<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" -->
<title>Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software - GNU Project -
Free Software Foundation</title>
<!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
+<!--#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>Why Open Source <span
class="removed"><del><strong>misses</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Misses</em></ins></span> the <span
class="removed"><del><strong>point</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Point</em></ins></span> of Free Software</h2>
+<div class="article reduced-width">
+<h2>Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software</h2>
<address class="byline">by Richard Stallman</address>
-<div <span class="removed"><del><strong>class="article">
-
-<blockquote class="comment"><p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>class="important"><p></em></ins></span>
+<div class="important"><p>
The terms “free software” and “open
source” stand for almost the same range of programs. However,
they say deeply different things about those programs, based on
@@ -38,8 +36,7 @@
By contrast, the open source idea values mainly practical advantage
and does not campaign for principles. This is why we do not agree
with open source, and do not use that term.
-<span
class="removed"><del><strong></p></blockquote></strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em></p></div></em></ins></span>
+</p></div>
<p>When we call software “free,” we mean that it respects
the <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">users' essential
freedoms</a>:
@@ -61,7 +58,7 @@
operating system</a>. Most of these users, however, have never heard of
the ethical reasons for which we developed this system and built the free
software community, because nowadays this system and community are more
-often spoken of as “open <span
class="removed"><del><strong>source”,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>source,”</em></ins></span> attributing them to
a
+often spoken of as “open source,” attributing them to a
different philosophy in which these freedoms are hardly mentioned.</p>
<p>The free software movement has campaigned for computer users'
@@ -94,7 +91,7 @@
of open source have come to it since then, and they make the same
association. Most discussion of “open source” pays no
attention to right and wrong, only to popularity and success; here's
-a <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/Open-Source-Is-Woven-Into-the-Latest-Hottest-Trends-78937.html"></strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://linuxinsider.com/story/Open-Source-Is-Woven-Into-the-Latest-Hottest-Trends-78937.html"></em></ins></span>
+a <a
href="https://linuxinsider.com/story/Open-Source-Is-Woven-Into-the-Latest-Hottest-Trends-78937.html">
typical example</a>. A minority of supporters of open source do
nowadays say freedom is part of the issue, but they are not very visible
among the many that don't.</p>
@@ -126,8 +123,7 @@
want people to know we stand for freedom, so we do not accept being
mislabeled as open source supporters. What we advocate is not
“open source,” and what we oppose is not “closed
-<span class="removed"><del><strong>source”.</strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em>source.”</em></ins></span> To make this
clear, we avoid using those terms.
+source.” To make this clear, we avoid using those terms.
</p>
<h3>Practical Differences between Free Software and Open
Source</h3>
@@ -135,40 +131,57 @@
<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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>exceptions. First,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>exceptions.</p>
+
+<p>First,</em></ins></span> some open source licenses are too
restrictive, so they do
+not qualify as free licenses. For example, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“Open Watcom”</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>Open Watcom</em></ins></span> 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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“tyrants”,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“tyrants,”</em></ins></span> 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, <span class="inserted"><ins><em>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</em></ins></span> when a
program's source code
+carries a weak <span class="inserted"><ins><em>free</em></ins></span> license,
one without copyleft, <span class="inserted"><ins><em>but</em></ins></span> its
executables <span class="removed"><del><strong>can</strong></del></span>
+carry additional nonfree conditions. <span class="removed"><del><strong><a
href="https://code.visualstudio.com/License/">Microsoft
+does this with Visual Studio Code</a>, for example.</p>
+
+<p>If these</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Supposing the</em></ins></span> executables <span
class="removed"><del><strong>fully</strong></del></span>
+correspond <span class="inserted"><ins><em>exactly</em></ins></span> to the
released <span class="removed"><del><strong>sources, they
+qualify as open source but</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>sources—which may or may</em></ins></span> not
<span class="removed"><del><strong>as free software. However, in that
+case users</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>be so—users</em></ins></span> can
compile the source code to make and distribute
+free
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>executables.</p>
+
+<p>Finally,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>executables. That's why this case is trivial; it is
no grave
+problem.</p>
+
+<p>The nontrivial case is harmful</em></ins></span> and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>most important in practice,
many</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>important.
Many</em></ins></span> products
+containing computers check signatures on their executable programs to
+block users from <span
class="removed"><del><strong>installing</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>effectively using</em></ins></span> different
executables; only one
+privileged company can make executables that can run in the device <span
class="removed"><del><strong>or can access</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>and
+use</em></ins></span> 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 <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>usefully</em></ins></span> 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>
+Linux, even though its source code is under GNU GPL version 2. <span
class="removed"><del><strong>We</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>(We</em></ins></span>
+designed GNU GPL version 3 to prohibit this <span
class="removed"><del><strong>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>
+licensing of the source code. Thus, these nonfree</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>practice; too bad Linux
+did not adopt it.) These</em></ins></span> executables, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>when</strong></del></span> made from source code
<span class="removed"><del><strong>such as Linux</strong></del></span> that is
+open source and free, are
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>open source</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>generally spoken of as “open
+source,”</em></ins></span> but <span class="removed"><del><strong>not
free.</p></strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>they are
<em>not</em> free software.</p></em></ins></span>
<h3>Common Misunderstandings of “Free Software” and
“Open Source”</h3>
@@ -193,18 +206,28 @@
this includes “open source software.”</p>
<p>The <a href="https://opensource.org/osd">official definition of
-“open source software”</a> (which is published by the Open
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>“open</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>open</em></ins></span> source <span
class="removed"><del><strong>software”</a></strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>software</a></em></ins></span> (which is
published by the Open
Source Initiative and is too long to include here) was derived
indirectly from our criteria for free software. It is not the same;
it is a little looser in some respects. Nonetheless, their definition
agrees with our definition in most cases.</p>
<p>However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source
-software”—and the one most people seem to think it
-means—is “You can look at the source code.” That
-criterion is much weaker than the free software definition, much
-weaker also than the official definition of open source. It includes
-many programs that are neither free nor open source.</p>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>software”—and the one most
people seem to think it
+means—is</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>software” is</em></ins></span>
“You can look at the source code.”
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>Indeed, most people seem to misunderstand
“open source
+software” that way. (The clear term for that meaning is
+“source available.”)</em></ins></span> That criterion is much
weaker than
+the free software definition, much weaker also than the official
+definition of open source. It includes many programs that are neither
+free nor open source.</p>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p>Why do people misunderstand it that
way? Because that is the
+natural meaning of the words “open source.” But the
+concept for which the open source advocates sought another name was
+a variant of that of free software.</p></em></ins></span>
<p>Since the obvious meaning for “open source” is not the
meaning that its advocates intend, the result is that most people
@@ -221,9 +244,8 @@
agreements vary as to what one is allowed to do with that
code.”</p>
-<p>The <span
class="removed"><del><strong><i>New</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em><cite>New</em></ins></span> York
-<span class="removed"><del><strong>Times</i></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Times</cite></em></ins></span> <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-design-37415.html"></strong></del></span>
-<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-design-37415.html"></em></ins></span>
+<p>The <cite>New York Times</cite> <a
+href="https://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-design-37415.html">
ran an article that stretched the meaning of the term</a> to refer to
user beta testing—letting a few users try an early version and
give confidential feedback—which proprietary software developers
@@ -231,7 +253,7 @@
<p>The term has even been stretched to include designs for equipment
that
-are <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/aug/27/texas-teenager-water-purifier-toxic-e-waste-pollution">published</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/aug/27/texas-teenager-water-purifier-toxic-e-waste-pollution">published</em></ins></span>
+are <a
href="https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/aug/27/texas-teenager-water-purifier-toxic-e-waste-pollution">published
without a patent</a>. Patent-free equipment designs can be laudable
contributions to society, but the term “source code” does
not pertain to them.</p>
@@ -262,9 +284,9 @@
criteria for software licensing are simply not pertinent. The only
thing these activities have in common is that they somehow invite
people to participate. They stretch the term so far that it only
-means “participatory” or <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“transparent”,</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“transparent,”</em></ins></span> or
+means “participatory” or “transparent,” or
less than that. At worst, it
-has <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/opinion/sunday/morozov-open-and-closed.html"></strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/opinion/sunday/morozov-open-and-closed.html"></em></ins></span>
+has <a
href="https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/opinion/sunday/morozov-open-and-closed.html">
become a vacuous buzzword</a>.</p>
<h3>Different Values Can Lead to Similar Conclusions—but Not
Always</h3>
@@ -327,8 +349,7 @@
individuals to use is increasingly designed specifically to restrict
them. This malicious feature is known as Digital Restrictions
Management (DRM) (see <a
-<span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://defectivebydesign.org/">DefectiveByDesign.org</a>)</strong></del></span>
-<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://defectivebydesign.org">DefectiveByDesign.org</a>)</em></ins></span>
and is
+href="https://defectivebydesign.org">DefectiveByDesign.org</a>) and is
the antithesis in spirit of the freedom that free software aims
to provide. And not just in spirit: since the goal of DRM is to
trample your freedom, DRM developers try to make it hard, impossible,
@@ -352,7 +373,8 @@
<p>The main initial motivation of those who split off the open source
camp from the free software movement was that the ethical ideas of
-“free software” made some people uneasy. That's true: raising
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>“free
software”</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>free software</em></ins></span> made some
people uneasy. That's true: raising
ethical issues such as freedom, talking about responsibilities as well as
convenience, is asking people to think about things they might prefer
to ignore, such as whether their conduct is ethical. This can trigger
@@ -422,7 +444,8 @@
<h3>Rivals for Mindshare</h3>
<p>“Free” and “open” are rivals for mindshare.
-“Free software” and “open source” are
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>“Free
software”</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>Free software</em></ins></span> and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“open source”</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>open source</em></ins></span> are
different ideas but, in most people's way of looking at software, they
compete for the same conceptual slot. When people become habituated
to saying and thinking “open source,” that is an obstacle
@@ -451,13 +474,9 @@
free software and it gives you freedom!”—more and louder
than ever. Every time you say “free software” rather than
“open source,” you help our cause.</p>
+<div class="column-limit"></div>
-<span class="removed"><del><strong></div>
-
-<h4>Note</h4></strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="column-limit"></div>
-
-<h3 class="footnote">Note</h3></em></ins></span>
+<h3 class="footnote">Note</h3>
<!-- The article is incomplete (#793776) as of 21st January 2013.
<p>
@@ -467,18 +486,17 @@
-->
<p>
Lakhani and Wolf's <a
-<span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/lakhaniwolf.pdf"></strong></del></span>
-<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/lakhaniwolf.pdf"></em></ins></span>
+href="https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/lakhaniwolf.pdf">
paper on the motivation of free software developers</a> says that a
considerable fraction are motivated by the view that software should be
free. This is despite the fact that they surveyed the developers on
SourceForge, a site that does not support the view that this is an ethical
issue.</p>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div></em></ins></span>
+</div>
</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 id="footer" role="contentinfo">
<div class="unprintable">
<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to <a
@@ -496,18 +514,18 @@
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
+ <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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and contributing translations
of this article.</p>
</div>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!-- Regarding copyright, in general,
standalone pages (as opposed to
+<!-- 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.
@@ -522,9 +540,9 @@
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. --></em></ins></span>
+ Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
-<p>Copyright © 2007, 2010, <span class="removed"><del><strong>2012,
2015, 2016, 2019, 2020, 2021</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2012-2016, 2019-2021</em></ins></span> Richard
Stallman</p>
+<p>Copyright © 2007, 2010, 2012-2016, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2019-2021</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2019-2022</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
@@ -534,12 +552,11 @@
<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2021/09/12 09:06:05 $
+$Date: 2022/02/21 00:30:36 $
<!-- 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>
+</div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include -->
</body>
</html>
</pre></body></html>
Index: po/open-source-misses-the-point.pl-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.pl-diff.html,v
retrieving revision 1.12
retrieving revision 1.13
diff -u -b -r1.12 -r1.13
--- po/open-source-misses-the-point.pl-diff.html 12 Sep 2021 09:06:05
-0000 1.12
+++ po/open-source-misses-the-point.pl-diff.html 21 Feb 2022 00:30:36
-0000 1.13
@@ -11,25 +11,23 @@
</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 -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 -->
<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays aboutfs free-open" -->
-<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes"</em></ins></span> -->
+<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" -->
<title>Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software - GNU Project -
Free Software Foundation</title>
<!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
+<!--#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>Why Open Source <span
class="removed"><del><strong>misses</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Misses</em></ins></span> the <span
class="removed"><del><strong>point</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Point</em></ins></span> of Free Software</h2>
+<div class="article reduced-width">
+<h2>Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software</h2>
<address class="byline">by Richard Stallman</address>
-<div <span class="removed"><del><strong>class="article">
-
-<blockquote class="comment"><p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>class="important"><p></em></ins></span>
+<div class="important"><p>
The terms “free software” and “open
source” stand for almost the same range of programs. However,
they say deeply different things about those programs, based on
@@ -38,8 +36,7 @@
By contrast, the open source idea values mainly practical advantage
and does not campaign for principles. This is why we do not agree
with open source, and do not use that term.
-<span
class="removed"><del><strong></p></blockquote></strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em></p></div></em></ins></span>
+</p></div>
<p>When we call software “free,” we mean that it respects
the <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">users' essential
freedoms</a>:
@@ -61,7 +58,7 @@
operating system</a>. Most of these users, however, have never heard of
the ethical reasons for which we developed this system and built the free
software community, because nowadays this system and community are more
-often spoken of as “open <span
class="removed"><del><strong>source”,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>source,”</em></ins></span> attributing them to
a
+often spoken of as “open source,” attributing them to a
different philosophy in which these freedoms are hardly mentioned.</p>
<p>The free software movement has campaigned for computer users'
@@ -94,7 +91,7 @@
of open source have come to it since then, and they make the same
association. Most discussion of “open source” pays no
attention to right and wrong, only to popularity and success; here's
-a <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/Open-Source-Is-Woven-Into-the-Latest-Hottest-Trends-78937.html"></strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://linuxinsider.com/story/Open-Source-Is-Woven-Into-the-Latest-Hottest-Trends-78937.html"></em></ins></span>
+a <a
href="https://linuxinsider.com/story/Open-Source-Is-Woven-Into-the-Latest-Hottest-Trends-78937.html">
typical example</a>. A minority of supporters of open source do
nowadays say freedom is part of the issue, but they are not very visible
among the many that don't.</p>
@@ -126,8 +123,7 @@
want people to know we stand for freedom, so we do not accept being
mislabeled as open source supporters. What we advocate is not
“open source,” and what we oppose is not “closed
-<span class="removed"><del><strong>source”.</strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em>source.”</em></ins></span> To make this
clear, we avoid using those terms.
+source.” To make this clear, we avoid using those terms.
</p>
<h3>Practical Differences between Free Software and Open
Source</h3>
@@ -135,40 +131,57 @@
<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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>exceptions. First,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>exceptions.</p>
+
+<p>First,</em></ins></span> some open source licenses are too
restrictive, so they do
+not qualify as free licenses. For example, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“Open Watcom”</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>Open Watcom</em></ins></span> 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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“tyrants”,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>“tyrants,”</em></ins></span> 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, <span class="inserted"><ins><em>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</em></ins></span> when a
program's source code
+carries a weak <span class="inserted"><ins><em>free</em></ins></span> license,
one without copyleft, <span class="inserted"><ins><em>but</em></ins></span> its
executables <span class="removed"><del><strong>can</strong></del></span>
+carry additional nonfree conditions. <span class="removed"><del><strong><a
href="https://code.visualstudio.com/License/">Microsoft
+does this with Visual Studio Code</a>, for example.</p>
+
+<p>If these</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Supposing the</em></ins></span> executables <span
class="removed"><del><strong>fully</strong></del></span>
+correspond <span class="inserted"><ins><em>exactly</em></ins></span> to the
released <span class="removed"><del><strong>sources, they
+qualify as open source but</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>sources—which may or may</em></ins></span> not
<span class="removed"><del><strong>as free software. However, in that
+case users</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>be so—users</em></ins></span> can
compile the source code to make and distribute
+free
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>executables.</p>
+
+<p>Finally,</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>executables. That's why this case is trivial; it is
no grave
+problem.</p>
+
+<p>The nontrivial case is harmful</em></ins></span> and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>most important in practice,
many</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>important.
Many</em></ins></span> products
+containing computers check signatures on their executable programs to
+block users from <span
class="removed"><del><strong>installing</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>effectively using</em></ins></span> different
executables; only one
+privileged company can make executables that can run in the device <span
class="removed"><del><strong>or can access</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>and
+use</em></ins></span> 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 <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>usefully</em></ins></span> 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>
+Linux, even though its source code is under GNU GPL version 2. <span
class="removed"><del><strong>We</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>(We</em></ins></span>
+designed GNU GPL version 3 to prohibit this <span
class="removed"><del><strong>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>
+licensing of the source code. Thus, these nonfree</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>practice; too bad Linux
+did not adopt it.) These</em></ins></span> executables, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>when</strong></del></span> made from source code
<span class="removed"><del><strong>such as Linux</strong></del></span> that is
+open source and free, are
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>open source</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>generally spoken of as “open
+source,”</em></ins></span> but <span class="removed"><del><strong>not
free.</p></strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>they are
<em>not</em> free software.</p></em></ins></span>
<h3>Common Misunderstandings of “Free Software” and
“Open Source”</h3>
@@ -193,18 +206,28 @@
this includes “open source software.”</p>
<p>The <a href="https://opensource.org/osd">official definition of
-“open source software”</a> (which is published by the Open
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>“open</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>open</em></ins></span> source <span
class="removed"><del><strong>software”</a></strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>software</a></em></ins></span> (which is
published by the Open
Source Initiative and is too long to include here) was derived
indirectly from our criteria for free software. It is not the same;
it is a little looser in some respects. Nonetheless, their definition
agrees with our definition in most cases.</p>
<p>However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source
-software”—and the one most people seem to think it
-means—is “You can look at the source code.” That
-criterion is much weaker than the free software definition, much
-weaker also than the official definition of open source. It includes
-many programs that are neither free nor open source.</p>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>software”—and the one most
people seem to think it
+means—is</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>software” is</em></ins></span>
“You can look at the source code.”
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>Indeed, most people seem to misunderstand
“open source
+software” that way. (The clear term for that meaning is
+“source available.”)</em></ins></span> That criterion is much
weaker than
+the free software definition, much weaker also than the official
+definition of open source. It includes many programs that are neither
+free nor open source.</p>
+
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p>Why do people misunderstand it that
way? Because that is the
+natural meaning of the words “open source.” But the
+concept for which the open source advocates sought another name was
+a variant of that of free software.</p></em></ins></span>
<p>Since the obvious meaning for “open source” is not the
meaning that its advocates intend, the result is that most people
@@ -221,9 +244,8 @@
agreements vary as to what one is allowed to do with that
code.”</p>
-<p>The <span
class="removed"><del><strong><i>New</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em><cite>New</em></ins></span> York
-<span class="removed"><del><strong>Times</i></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Times</cite></em></ins></span> <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-design-37415.html"></strong></del></span>
-<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-design-37415.html"></em></ins></span>
+<p>The <cite>New York Times</cite> <a
+href="https://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-design-37415.html">
ran an article that stretched the meaning of the term</a> to refer to
user beta testing—letting a few users try an early version and
give confidential feedback—which proprietary software developers
@@ -231,7 +253,7 @@
<p>The term has even been stretched to include designs for equipment
that
-are <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/aug/27/texas-teenager-water-purifier-toxic-e-waste-pollution">published</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/aug/27/texas-teenager-water-purifier-toxic-e-waste-pollution">published</em></ins></span>
+are <a
href="https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/aug/27/texas-teenager-water-purifier-toxic-e-waste-pollution">published
without a patent</a>. Patent-free equipment designs can be laudable
contributions to society, but the term “source code” does
not pertain to them.</p>
@@ -262,9 +284,9 @@
criteria for software licensing are simply not pertinent. The only
thing these activities have in common is that they somehow invite
people to participate. They stretch the term so far that it only
-means “participatory” or <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“transparent”,</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>“transparent,”</em></ins></span> or
+means “participatory” or “transparent,” or
less than that. At worst, it
-has <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/opinion/sunday/morozov-open-and-closed.html"></strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/opinion/sunday/morozov-open-and-closed.html"></em></ins></span>
+has <a
href="https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/opinion/sunday/morozov-open-and-closed.html">
become a vacuous buzzword</a>.</p>
<h3>Different Values Can Lead to Similar Conclusions—but Not
Always</h3>
@@ -327,8 +349,7 @@
individuals to use is increasingly designed specifically to restrict
them. This malicious feature is known as Digital Restrictions
Management (DRM) (see <a
-<span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://defectivebydesign.org/">DefectiveByDesign.org</a>)</strong></del></span>
-<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://defectivebydesign.org">DefectiveByDesign.org</a>)</em></ins></span>
and is
+href="https://defectivebydesign.org">DefectiveByDesign.org</a>) and is
the antithesis in spirit of the freedom that free software aims
to provide. And not just in spirit: since the goal of DRM is to
trample your freedom, DRM developers try to make it hard, impossible,
@@ -352,7 +373,8 @@
<p>The main initial motivation of those who split off the open source
camp from the free software movement was that the ethical ideas of
-“free software” made some people uneasy. That's true: raising
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>“free
software”</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>free software</em></ins></span> made some
people uneasy. That's true: raising
ethical issues such as freedom, talking about responsibilities as well as
convenience, is asking people to think about things they might prefer
to ignore, such as whether their conduct is ethical. This can trigger
@@ -422,7 +444,8 @@
<h3>Rivals for Mindshare</h3>
<p>“Free” and “open” are rivals for mindshare.
-“Free software” and “open source” are
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>“Free
software”</strong></del></span>
+<span class="inserted"><ins><em>Free software</em></ins></span> and <span
class="removed"><del><strong>“open source”</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>open source</em></ins></span> are
different ideas but, in most people's way of looking at software, they
compete for the same conceptual slot. When people become habituated
to saying and thinking “open source,” that is an obstacle
@@ -451,13 +474,9 @@
free software and it gives you freedom!”—more and louder
than ever. Every time you say “free software” rather than
“open source,” you help our cause.</p>
+<div class="column-limit"></div>
-<span class="removed"><del><strong></div>
-
-<h4>Note</h4></strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><div class="column-limit"></div>
-
-<h3 class="footnote">Note</h3></em></ins></span>
+<h3 class="footnote">Note</h3>
<!-- The article is incomplete (#793776) as of 21st January 2013.
<p>
@@ -467,18 +486,17 @@
-->
<p>
Lakhani and Wolf's <a
-<span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/lakhaniwolf.pdf"></strong></del></span>
-<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/lakhaniwolf.pdf"></em></ins></span>
+href="https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/lakhaniwolf.pdf">
paper on the motivation of free software developers</a> says that a
considerable fraction are motivated by the view that software should be
free. This is despite the fact that they surveyed the developers on
SourceForge, a site that does not support the view that this is an ethical
issue.</p>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em></div></em></ins></span>
+</div>
</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 id="footer" role="contentinfo">
<div class="unprintable">
<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to <a
@@ -496,18 +514,18 @@
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
+ <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 <span
class="removed"><del><strong>submitting</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>contributing</em></ins></span> translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and contributing translations
of this article.</p>
</div>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><!-- Regarding copyright, in general,
standalone pages (as opposed to
+<!-- 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.
@@ -522,9 +540,9 @@
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. --></em></ins></span>
+ Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
-<p>Copyright © 2007, 2010, <span class="removed"><del><strong>2012,
2015, 2016, 2019, 2020, 2021</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2012-2016, 2019-2021</em></ins></span> Richard
Stallman</p>
+<p>Copyright © 2007, 2010, 2012-2016, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2019-2021</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2019-2022</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
@@ -534,12 +552,11 @@
<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2021/09/12 09:06:05 $
+$Date: 2022/02/21 00:30:36 $
<!-- 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>
+</div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include -->
</body>
</html>
</pre></body></html>
Index: po/who-does-that-server-really-serve.ja-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file:
/web/www/www/philosophy/po/who-does-that-server-really-serve.ja-diff.html,v
retrieving revision 1.7
retrieving revision 1.8
diff -u -b -r1.7 -r1.8
--- po/who-does-that-server-really-serve.ja-diff.html 31 Dec 2019 01:04:16
-0000 1.7
+++ po/who-does-that-server-really-serve.ja-diff.html 21 Feb 2022 00:30:36
-0000 1.8
@@ -11,36 +11,39 @@
</style></head>
<body><pre>
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
-<!-- Parent-Version: <span
class="removed"><del><strong>1.79</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>1.86</em></ins></span> -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 -->
+<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
+<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays cultural ns" -->
+<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" -->
<title>Who Does That Server Really Serve?
- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
-
<!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/po/who-does-that-server-really-serve.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
-
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
+<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
+<div class="article reduced-width">
<h2>Who does that server really serve?</h2>
-<p>by <strong>Richard Stallman</strong></p>
+<address class="byline">by Richard Stallman</address>
-<blockquote><p>(The first version was published
-in <a
href="http://www.bostonreview.net/richard-stallman-free-software-DRM">
-Boston Review</a>.)</p></blockquote>
-
-<p><strong>On the Internet, proprietary software isn't the only
way to
-lose your freedom. Service as a Software Substitute, or SaaSS, is
-another way to give someone else power over your
computing.</strong></p>
-
-<p>The basic point is, you can have control over a program someone else
-wrote (if it's free), but you can never have control over a service
-someone else runs, so never use a service where in principle a program
-would do.</p>
+<div class="introduction">
+<p><em>On the Internet, proprietary software isn't the only way to
+lose your computing freedom. Service as a Software Substitute, or SaaSS, is
+another way to give someone else power over your
computing.</em></p>
+</div>
+
+<p>The basic point is, you can have control over a program someone
+else wrote (if it's free), but you can never have control over a
+service someone else runs, so never use a service where in principle
+running a program would do.</p>
<p>SaaSS means using a service implemented by someone else as a
substitute for running your copy of a program. The term is ours;
articles and ads won't use it, and they won't tell you whether a
service is SaaSS. Instead they will probably use the vague and
-distracting term “cloud”, which lumps SaaSS together with
+distracting term “cloud,” which lumps SaaSS together with
various other practices, some abusive and some ok. With the
explanation and examples in this page, you can tell whether a service
is SaaSS.</p>
@@ -53,7 +56,7 @@
control because the owner (a company such as Apple or Microsoft)
controls it. The owner often takes advantage of this unjust power by
inserting malicious features such as spyware, back doors, and <a
-href="http://DefectiveByDesign.org">Digital Restrictions Management
+href="https://www.defectivebydesign.org">Digital Restrictions Management
(DRM)</a> (referred to as “Digital Rights Management” in
their propaganda).</p>
@@ -78,18 +81,36 @@
<p>Service as a Software Substitute (SaaSS) means using a service as a
substitute for running your copy of a program. Concretely, it means
that someone sets up a network server that does certain computing
-tasks—for instance, modifying a photo, translating text into
-another language, etc.—then invites users to do computing via
-that server. A user of the server would send her data to the server,
-which does <em>her own computing</em> on the data thus provided,
then
-sends the results back to her or acts directly on her behalf.</p>
-
-<p>The computing is <em>her own</em> because, by assumption,
she
-could, in principle, have done it by running a program on her own
-computer (whether or not that program is available to her at
-present). In cases where this assumption is not so, it isn't SaaSS.</p>
+activities—for instance, modifying a photo, translating text into
+another language, etc.—then invites users to let that server do
+<em>their own computing</em> for them. As a user of the server,
you
+would send your data to the server, which does that computing
+activity on the data thus provided, then sends the results back
+to you or else acts directly on your behalf.</p>
+
+<p>What does it mean to say that a given computing activity
+is <em>your own</em>? It means that no one else is inherently
+involved in it. To clarify the meaning of “inherently
+involved,” we present a thought experiment. Suppose that any
+free software you might need for the job is available to you, and
+whatever data you might need, as well as computers of whatever speed,
+functionality and capacity might be required. Could you do this
+particular computing activity entirely within those computers, not
+communicating with anyone else's computers?</p>
+
+<p>If you could, then the activity is <em>entirely your
own</em>. For
+your freedom's sake, you deserve to control it. If you do it by
+running free software, you do control it. However, doing it via
+someone else's service would give that someone else control over your
+computing activity. We call that scenario SaaSS, and we say it is
+unjust.</p>
+
+<p>By contrast, if for fundamental reasons you couldn't possibly do
+that activity in your own computers, then the activity isn't entirely
+your own, so the issue of SaaSS is not applicable to that activity.
+In general, these activities involve communication with others.</p>
-<p>These servers wrest control from the users even more inexorably
+<p>SaaSS servers wrest control from the users even more inexorably
than proprietary software. With proprietary software, users typically
get an executable file but not the source code. That makes it hard to
study the code that is running, so it's hard to determine what the
@@ -119,15 +140,15 @@
nature of SaaSS. Amy Webb, who intended never to post any photos of
her daughter, made the mistake of using SaaSS (Instagram) to edit
photos of her. Eventually
-<a
href="http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/data_mine_1/2013/09/privacy_facebook_kids_don_t_post_photos_of_your_kids_on_social_media.html">
they
-leaked from there</a>.
-</p>
+<a
href="https://slate.com/technology/2013/09/privacy-facebook-kids-dont-post-photos-of-your-kids-on-social-media.html">
+they leaked from there</a>.</p>
<p>Theoretically, homomorphic encryption might some day advance to the
point where future SaaSS services might be constructed to be unable to
understand some of the data that users send them. Such
services <em>could</em> be set up not to snoop on users; this does
not
-mean they <em>will</em> do no snooping.</p>
+mean they <em>will</em> do no snooping. Also, snooping is only one
+among the secondary injustices of SaaSS.</p>
<p>Some proprietary operating systems have a universal back door,
permitting someone to remotely install software changes. For
@@ -151,8 +172,8 @@
<h3>SaaSS and SaaS</h3>
<p>Originally we referred to this problematical practice as
-“SaaS”, which stands for “Software as a
-Service”. It's a commonly used term for setting up software on a
+“SaaS,” which stands for “Software as a
+Service.” It's a commonly used term for setting up software on a
server rather than offering copies of it to users, and we thought it
described precisely the cases where this problem occurs.</p>
@@ -160,7 +181,7 @@
communication services—activities for which this issue is not
applicable. In addition, the term “Software as a Service”
doesn't explain <em>why</em> the practice is bad. So we coined
the term
-“Service as a Software Substitute”, which defines the bad
+“Service as a Software Substitute,” which defines the bad
practice more clearly and says what is bad about it.</p>
<h3>Untangling the SaaSS Issue from the Proprietary Software
Issue</h3>
@@ -209,10 +230,10 @@
to do your own computing on data provided by you.</p>
<p>This issue demonstrates the depth of the difference between
-“open” and “free”. Source code that is open
+“open” and “free.” Source code that is open
source <a href="/philosophy/free-open-overlap.html">is, nearly always,
free</a>. However, the idea of
-an <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://opendefinition.org/software-service">“open</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://opendefinition.org/ossd/">“open</em></ins></span>
+an <a href="https://opendefinition.org/ossd/">“open
software” service</a>, meaning one whose server software is open
source and/or free, fails to address the issue of SaaSS.</p>
@@ -260,12 +281,12 @@
<p>If a service is not SaaSS, that does not mean it is OK. There are
other ethical issues about services. For instance, Facebook
-distributes video in Flash, which pressures users to run nonfree
-software; it requires running nonfree JavaScript code; and it gives
-users a misleading impression of privacy while luring them into baring
-their lives to Facebook. Those are important issues, different from
-the SaaSS issue.
-</p>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>distributes video in Flash, which pressures
users to run nonfree
+software; it</strong></del></span> requires
+running nonfree JavaScript <span
class="removed"><del><strong>code;</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>code,</em></ins></span> and it gives users a
misleading
+impression of privacy while luring them into baring their lives to
+Facebook. Those are important issues, different from the SaaSS <span
class="removed"><del><strong>issue.</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>issue.
+</p></em></ins></span>
<p>Services such as search engines collect data from around the web
and let you examine it. Looking through their collection of data
@@ -364,9 +385,9 @@
if you had the server at home, but that is a separate issue from
SaaSS.</p>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p>This kind of server rental is
sometimes called “IaaS,”
+<p>This kind of server rental is sometimes called “IaaS,”
but that term fits into a conceptual structure that downplays the issues
-that we consider important.</p></em></ins></span>
+that we consider important.</p>
<h3>Dealing with the SaaSS Problem</h3>
@@ -399,7 +420,7 @@
using servers. For instance, we can create a peer-to-peer program
through which collaborators can share data encrypted. The free
software community should develop distributed peer-to-peer
-replacements for important “web applications”. It may be
+replacements for important “web applications.” It may be
wise to release them under
the <a href="/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html"> GNU Affero GPL</a>,
since
they are likely candidates for being converted into server-based
@@ -409,19 +430,30 @@
<p>In the meantime, if a company invites you to use its server to do
your own computing tasks, don't yield; don't use SaaSS. Don't buy or
-install “thin clients”, which are simply computers so weak
+install “thin clients,” which are simply computers so weak
they make you do the real work on a server, unless you're going to use
them with <em>your</em> server. Use a real computer and keep your
data there. Do your own computing with your own copy of a free
program, for your freedom's sake.</p>
-<h3>See also:</h3>
-<p><a href="/philosophy/bug-nobody-allowed-to-understand.html">The
+<div class="announcement comment" role="complementary">
+<p>See also:
+<a href="/philosophy/bug-nobody-allowed-to-understand.html">The
Bug Nobody is Allowed to Understand</a>.</p>
+</div>
+
+<div class="infobox extra" role="complementary">
+<hr />
+<p>The first version of this article was published
+in the <span class="removed"><del><strong><a
href="http://www.bostonreview.net/richard-stallman-free-software-DRM"></strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em><cite><a
+href="https://bostonreview.net/articles/richard-stallman-free-software-drm/"></em></ins></span>
+Boston <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Review</a>.</p></strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Review</a></cite>.</p></em></ins></span>
+</div>
+</div>
</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
-<div id="footer">
+<div id="footer" role="contentinfo">
<div class="unprintable">
<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
@@ -439,13 +471,13 @@
to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">
<web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p>
- <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ <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 submitting translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and contributing translations
of this article.</p>
</div>
@@ -466,7 +498,7 @@
There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
-<p>Copyright © 2010, 2013, 2015, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2016</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2016, 2018</em></ins></span> Richard
Stallman</p>
+<p>Copyright © 2010, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2018, 2020, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2021</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2021, 2022</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
@@ -476,12 +508,11 @@
<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2019/12/31 01:04:16 $
+$Date: 2022/02/21 00:30:36 $
<!-- 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>
+</div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include -->
</body>
</html>
</pre></body></html>
Index: po/who-does-that-server-really-serve.nl-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file:
/web/www/www/philosophy/po/who-does-that-server-really-serve.nl-diff.html,v
retrieving revision 1.8
retrieving revision 1.9
diff -u -b -r1.8 -r1.9
--- po/who-does-that-server-really-serve.nl-diff.html 31 May 2021 09:06:22
-0000 1.8
+++ po/who-does-that-server-really-serve.nl-diff.html 21 Feb 2022 00:30:36
-0000 1.9
@@ -11,36 +11,39 @@
</style></head>
<body><pre>
<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
-<!-- Parent-Version: <span
class="removed"><del><strong>1.79</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>1.86</em></ins></span> -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 -->
+<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
+<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays cultural ns" -->
+<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" -->
<title>Who Does That Server Really Serve?
- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
-
<!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/po/who-does-that-server-really-serve.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
-
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
+<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
+<div class="article reduced-width">
<h2>Who does that server really serve?</h2>
-<p>by <strong>Richard Stallman</strong></p>
+<address class="byline">by Richard Stallman</address>
-<blockquote><p>(The first version was published
-in <a
href="http://www.bostonreview.net/richard-stallman-free-software-DRM">
-Boston Review</a>.)</p></blockquote>
-
-<p><strong>On the Internet, proprietary software isn't the only
way to
-lose your <span class="inserted"><ins><em>computing</em></ins></span> freedom.
Service as a Software Substitute, or SaaSS, is
-another way to give someone else power over your
computing.</strong></p>
+<div class="introduction">
+<p><em>On the Internet, proprietary software isn't the only way to
+lose your computing freedom. Service as a Software Substitute, or SaaSS, is
+another way to give someone else power over your
computing.</em></p>
+</div>
<p>The basic point is, you can have control over a program someone
else wrote (if it's free), but you can never have control over a
service someone else runs, so never use a service where in principle
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em>running</em></ins></span> a program would
do.</p>
+running a program would do.</p>
<p>SaaSS means using a service implemented by someone else as a
substitute for running your copy of a program. The term is ours;
articles and ads won't use it, and they won't tell you whether a
service is SaaSS. Instead they will probably use the vague and
-distracting term “cloud”, which lumps SaaSS together with
+distracting term “cloud,” which lumps SaaSS together with
various other practices, some abusive and some ok. With the
explanation and examples in this page, you can tell whether a service
is SaaSS.</p>
@@ -53,7 +56,7 @@
control because the owner (a company such as Apple or Microsoft)
controls it. The owner often takes advantage of this unjust power by
inserting malicious features such as spyware, back doors, and <a
-href="http://DefectiveByDesign.org">Digital Restrictions Management
+href="https://www.defectivebydesign.org">Digital Restrictions Management
(DRM)</a> (referred to as “Digital Rights Management” in
their propaganda).</p>
@@ -78,44 +81,36 @@
<p>Service as a Software Substitute (SaaSS) means using a service as a
substitute for running your copy of a program. Concretely, it means
that someone sets up a network server that does certain computing
-<span class="removed"><del><strong>tasks—for</strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em>activities—for</em></ins></span>
instance, modifying a photo, translating text into
-another language, etc.—then invites users to <span
class="removed"><del><strong>do computing via</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>let</em></ins></span> that <span
class="removed"><del><strong>server. A</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>server do
-<em>their own computing</em> for them. As a</em></ins></span>
user of the <span class="removed"><del><strong>server</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>server, you</em></ins></span>
-would send <span class="removed"><del><strong>her</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>your</em></ins></span> data to the server, which does
<span class="removed"><del><strong><em>her own
computing</em></strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>that
computing
-activity</em></ins></span> on the data thus provided, then sends the results
back
-to <span class="removed"><del><strong>her</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>you</em></ins></span> or <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>else</em></ins></span> acts directly on <span
class="removed"><del><strong>her</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>your</em></ins></span> behalf.</p>
-
-<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>The</strong></del></span>
-
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p>What does it mean to say that a
given</em></ins></span> computing <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>activity</em></ins></span>
-is <span class="removed"><del><strong><em>her own</em> because, by
assumption, she
-could,</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em><em>your
own</em>? It means that no one else is inherently
-involved</em></ins></span> in <span class="removed"><del><strong>principle,
have done it by running</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>it. To clarify the meaning of “inherently
-involved”, we present</em></ins></span> a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>program on her own
-computer (whether or not</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>thought experiment. Suppose</em></ins></span> that
<span class="removed"><del><strong>program</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>any
-free software you might need for the job</em></ins></span> is available to
<span class="removed"><del><strong>her at
-present). In cases where</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>you, and
+activities—for instance, modifying a photo, translating text into
+another language, etc.—then invites users to let that server do
+<em>their own computing</em> for them. As a user of the server,
you
+would send your data to the server, which does that computing
+activity on the data thus provided, then sends the results back
+to you or else acts directly on your behalf.</p>
+
+<p>What does it mean to say that a given computing activity
+is <em>your own</em>? It means that no one else is inherently
+involved in it. To clarify the meaning of “inherently
+involved,” we present a thought experiment. Suppose that any
+free software you might need for the job is available to you, and
whatever data you might need, as well as computers of whatever speed,
-functionality and capacity might be required. Could you do</em></ins></span>
this <span class="removed"><del><strong>assumption is</strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em>particular computing activity entirely within
those computers,</em></ins></span> not <span
class="removed"><del><strong>so,</strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em>communicating with anyone else's
computers?</p>
+functionality and capacity might be required. Could you do this
+particular computing activity entirely within those computers, not
+communicating with anyone else's computers?</p>
<p>If you could, then the activity is <em>entirely your
own</em>. For
your freedom's sake, you deserve to control it. If you do it by
-running free software, you do control it. However, doing</em></ins></span> it
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>via
+running free software, you do control it. However, doing it via
someone else's service would give that someone else control over your
computing activity. We call that scenario SaaSS, and we say it is
unjust.</p>
<p>By contrast, if for fundamental reasons you couldn't possibly do
-that activity in your own computers, then the activity</em></ins></span> isn't
<span class="removed"><del><strong>SaaSS.</p>
-
-<p>These</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>entirely
+that activity in your own computers, then the activity isn't entirely
your own, so the issue of SaaSS is not applicable to that activity.
In general, these activities involve communication with others.</p>
-<p>SaaSS</em></ins></span> servers wrest control from the users even
more inexorably
+<p>SaaSS servers wrest control from the users even more inexorably
than proprietary software. With proprietary software, users typically
get an executable file but not the source code. That makes it hard to
study the code that is running, so it's hard to determine what the
@@ -145,16 +140,15 @@
nature of SaaSS. Amy Webb, who intended never to post any photos of
her daughter, made the mistake of using SaaSS (Instagram) to edit
photos of her. Eventually
-<a
href="http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/data_mine_1/2013/09/privacy_facebook_kids_don_t_post_photos_of_your_kids_on_social_media.html">
they
-leaked from there</a>.
-</p>
+<a
href="https://slate.com/technology/2013/09/privacy-facebook-kids-dont-post-photos-of-your-kids-on-social-media.html">
+they leaked from there</a>.</p>
<p>Theoretically, homomorphic encryption might some day advance to the
point where future SaaSS services might be constructed to be unable to
understand some of the data that users send them. Such
services <em>could</em> be set up not to snoop on users; this does
not
-mean they <em>will</em> do no <span
class="removed"><del><strong>snooping.</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>snooping. Also, snooping is only one
-among the secondary injustices of SaaSS.</p></em></ins></span>
+mean they <em>will</em> do no snooping. Also, snooping is only one
+among the secondary injustices of SaaSS.</p>
<p>Some proprietary operating systems have a universal back door,
permitting someone to remotely install software changes. For
@@ -178,8 +172,8 @@
<h3>SaaSS and SaaS</h3>
<p>Originally we referred to this problematical practice as
-“SaaS”, which stands for “Software as a
-Service”. It's a commonly used term for setting up software on a
+“SaaS,” which stands for “Software as a
+Service.” It's a commonly used term for setting up software on a
server rather than offering copies of it to users, and we thought it
described precisely the cases where this problem occurs.</p>
@@ -187,7 +181,7 @@
communication services—activities for which this issue is not
applicable. In addition, the term “Software as a Service”
doesn't explain <em>why</em> the practice is bad. So we coined
the term
-“Service as a Software Substitute”, which defines the bad
+“Service as a Software Substitute,” which defines the bad
practice more clearly and says what is bad about it.</p>
<h3>Untangling the SaaSS Issue from the Proprietary Software
Issue</h3>
@@ -236,10 +230,10 @@
to do your own computing on data provided by you.</p>
<p>This issue demonstrates the depth of the difference between
-“open” and “free”. Source code that is open
+“open” and “free.” Source code that is open
source <a href="/philosophy/free-open-overlap.html">is, nearly always,
free</a>. However, the idea of
-an <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://opendefinition.org/software-service">“open</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://opendefinition.org/ossd/">“open</em></ins></span>
+an <a href="https://opendefinition.org/ossd/">“open
software” service</a>, meaning one whose server software is open
source and/or free, fails to address the issue of SaaSS.</p>
@@ -287,12 +281,12 @@
<p>If a service is not SaaSS, that does not mean it is OK. There are
other ethical issues about services. For instance, Facebook
-distributes video in Flash, which pressures users to run nonfree
-software; it requires running nonfree JavaScript code; and it gives
-users a misleading impression of privacy while luring them into baring
-their lives to Facebook. Those are important issues, different from
-the SaaSS issue.
-</p>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>distributes video in Flash, which pressures
users to run nonfree
+software; it</strong></del></span> requires
+running nonfree JavaScript <span
class="removed"><del><strong>code;</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>code,</em></ins></span> and it gives users a
misleading
+impression of privacy while luring them into baring their lives to
+Facebook. Those are important issues, different from the SaaSS <span
class="removed"><del><strong>issue.</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>issue.
+</p></em></ins></span>
<p>Services such as search engines collect data from around the web
and let you examine it. Looking through their collection of data
@@ -391,9 +385,9 @@
if you had the server at home, but that is a separate issue from
SaaSS.</p>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p>This kind of server rental is
sometimes called “IaaS,”
+<p>This kind of server rental is sometimes called “IaaS,”
but that term fits into a conceptual structure that downplays the issues
-that we consider important.</p></em></ins></span>
+that we consider important.</p>
<h3>Dealing with the SaaSS Problem</h3>
@@ -426,7 +420,7 @@
using servers. For instance, we can create a peer-to-peer program
through which collaborators can share data encrypted. The free
software community should develop distributed peer-to-peer
-replacements for important “web applications”. It may be
+replacements for important “web applications.” It may be
wise to release them under
the <a href="/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html"> GNU Affero GPL</a>,
since
they are likely candidates for being converted into server-based
@@ -436,19 +430,30 @@
<p>In the meantime, if a company invites you to use its server to do
your own computing tasks, don't yield; don't use SaaSS. Don't buy or
-install “thin clients”, which are simply computers so weak
+install “thin clients,” which are simply computers so weak
they make you do the real work on a server, unless you're going to use
them with <em>your</em> server. Use a real computer and keep your
data there. Do your own computing with your own copy of a free
program, for your freedom's sake.</p>
-<h3>See also:</h3>
-<p><a href="/philosophy/bug-nobody-allowed-to-understand.html">The
+<div class="announcement comment" role="complementary">
+<p>See also:
+<a href="/philosophy/bug-nobody-allowed-to-understand.html">The
Bug Nobody is Allowed to Understand</a>.</p>
+</div>
+
+<div class="infobox extra" role="complementary">
+<hr />
+<p>The first version of this article was published
+in the <span class="removed"><del><strong><a
href="http://www.bostonreview.net/richard-stallman-free-software-DRM"></strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em><cite><a
+href="https://bostonreview.net/articles/richard-stallman-free-software-drm/"></em></ins></span>
+Boston <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Review</a>.</p></strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Review</a></cite>.</p></em></ins></span>
+</div>
+</div>
</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
-<div id="footer">
+<div id="footer" role="contentinfo">
<div class="unprintable">
<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
@@ -466,13 +471,13 @@
to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">
<web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p>
- <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ <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 submitting translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and contributing translations
of this article.</p>
</div>
@@ -493,7 +498,7 @@
There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
-<p>Copyright © 2010, 2013, 2015, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2016</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2016, 2018, 2020</em></ins></span> Richard
Stallman</p>
+<p>Copyright © 2010, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2018, 2020, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2021</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2021, 2022</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
@@ -503,12 +508,11 @@
<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2021/05/31 09:06:22 $
+$Date: 2022/02/21 00:30:36 $
<!-- 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>
+</div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include -->
</body>
</html>
</pre></body></html>
Index: po/who-does-that-server-really-serve.pl-diff.html
===================================================================
RCS file:
/web/www/www/philosophy/po/who-does-that-server-really-serve.pl-diff.html,v
retrieving revision 1.29
retrieving revision 1.30
diff -u -b -r1.29 -r1.30
--- po/who-does-that-server-really-serve.pl-diff.html 18 Dec 2020 06:01:56
-0000 1.29
+++ po/who-does-that-server-really-serve.pl-diff.html 21 Feb 2022 00:30:36
-0000 1.30
@@ -11,41 +11,42 @@
</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>1.86</em></ins></span> -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 -->
+<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
+<!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays cultural ns" -->
+<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" -->
<title>Who Does That Server Really Serve?
- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
-
<!--#include
virtual="/philosophy/po/who-does-that-server-really-serve.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
-
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
+<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
+<div class="article reduced-width">
<h2>Who does that server really serve?</h2>
-<p>by <strong>Richard Stallman</strong></p>
-
-<blockquote><p>(The first version was published
-in <a
href="http://www.bostonreview.net/richard-stallman-free-software-DRM">
-Boston Review</a>.)</p></blockquote>
+<address class="byline">by Richard Stallman</address>
-<p><strong>On the Internet, proprietary software isn't the only
way to
-lose your <span class="inserted"><ins><em>computing</em></ins></span> freedom.
Service as a Software Substitute, or SaaSS, is
-another way to <span class="removed"><del><strong>let</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>give</em></ins></span> someone else <span
class="removed"><del><strong>have</strong></del></span> power over your
computing.</strong></p>
-
-<span class="removed"><del><strong>SaaSS</strong></del></span>
+<div class="introduction">
+<p><em>On the Internet, proprietary software isn't the only way to
+lose your computing freedom. Service as a Software Substitute, or SaaSS, is
+another way to give someone else power over your
computing.</em></p>
+</div>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p>The basic point is, you can have
control over a program someone
+<p>The basic point is, you can have control over a program someone
else wrote (if it's free), but you can never have control over a
service someone else runs, so never use a service where in principle
running a program would do.</p>
-<p>SaaSS</em></ins></span> means using a service implemented by someone
else as a
+<p>SaaSS means using a service implemented by someone else as a
substitute for running your copy of a program. The term is ours;
articles and ads won't use it, and they won't tell you whether a
service is SaaSS. Instead they will probably use the vague and
-distracting term “cloud”, which lumps SaaSS together with
+distracting term “cloud,” which lumps SaaSS together with
various other practices, some abusive and some ok. With the
explanation and examples in this page, you can tell whether a service
-is <span class="removed"><del><strong>SaaSS.</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>SaaSS.</p></em></ins></span>
+is SaaSS.</p>
<h3>Background: How Proprietary Software Takes Away Your
Freedom</h3>
@@ -55,7 +56,7 @@
control because the owner (a company such as Apple or Microsoft)
controls it. The owner often takes advantage of this unjust power by
inserting malicious features such as spyware, back doors, and <a
-href="http://DefectiveByDesign.org">Digital Restrictions Management
+href="https://www.defectivebydesign.org">Digital Restrictions Management
(DRM)</a> (referred to as “Digital Rights Management” in
their propaganda).</p>
@@ -70,9 +71,8 @@
<p>With free software, we, the users, take back control of our
computing. Proprietary software still exists, but we can exclude it
-from our lives and many of us have done so. However, we <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>are</em></ins></span> now <span
class="removed"><del><strong>face a
-new threat</strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em>offered another tempting way</em></ins></span>
to <span class="removed"><del><strong>our</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>cede</em></ins></span> control over our computing:
+from our lives and many of us have done so. However, we are now
+offered another tempting way to cede control over our computing:
Service as a Software Substitute (SaaSS). For our freedom's sake, we
have to reject that too.</p>
@@ -81,44 +81,36 @@
<p>Service as a Software Substitute (SaaSS) means using a service as a
substitute for running your copy of a program. Concretely, it means
that someone sets up a network server that does certain computing
-<span class="removed"><del><strong>tasks—for</strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em>activities—for</em></ins></span>
instance, modifying a photo, translating text into
-another language, etc.—then invites users to <span
class="removed"><del><strong>do computing via</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>let</em></ins></span> that <span
class="removed"><del><strong>server. A</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>server do
-<em>their own computing</em> for them. As a</em></ins></span>
user of the <span class="removed"><del><strong>server</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>server, you</em></ins></span>
-would send <span class="removed"><del><strong>her</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>your</em></ins></span> data to the server, which does
<span class="removed"><del><strong><em>her own
computing</em></strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>that
computing
-activity</em></ins></span> on the data thus provided, then sends the results
back
-to <span class="removed"><del><strong>her</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>you</em></ins></span> or <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>else</em></ins></span> acts directly on <span
class="removed"><del><strong>her</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>your</em></ins></span> behalf.</p>
-
-<span class="removed"><del><strong><p>The</strong></del></span>
-
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p>What does it mean to say that a
given</em></ins></span> computing <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>activity</em></ins></span>
-is <span class="removed"><del><strong><em>her own</em> because, by
assumption, she
-could,</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em><em>your
own</em>? It means that no one else is inherently
-involved</em></ins></span> in <span class="removed"><del><strong>principle,
have done it by running</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>it. To clarify the meaning of “inherently
-involved”, we present</em></ins></span> a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>program on her own
-computer (whether or not</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>thought experiment. Suppose</em></ins></span> that
<span class="removed"><del><strong>program</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>any
-free software you might need for the job</em></ins></span> is available to
<span class="removed"><del><strong>her at
-present). When</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>you, and
+activities—for instance, modifying a photo, translating text into
+another language, etc.—then invites users to let that server do
+<em>their own computing</em> for them. As a user of the server,
you
+would send your data to the server, which does that computing
+activity on the data thus provided, then sends the results back
+to you or else acts directly on your behalf.</p>
+
+<p>What does it mean to say that a given computing activity
+is <em>your own</em>? It means that no one else is inherently
+involved in it. To clarify the meaning of “inherently
+involved,” we present a thought experiment. Suppose that any
+free software you might need for the job is available to you, and
whatever data you might need, as well as computers of whatever speed,
-functionality and capacity might be required. Could you do</em></ins></span>
this <span class="removed"><del><strong>assumption is</strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em>particular computing activity entirely within
those computers,</em></ins></span> not <span
class="removed"><del><strong>so,</strong></del></span>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em>communicating with anyone else's
computers?</p>
+functionality and capacity might be required. Could you do this
+particular computing activity entirely within those computers, not
+communicating with anyone else's computers?</p>
<p>If you could, then the activity is <em>entirely your
own</em>. For
your freedom's sake, you deserve to control it. If you do it by
running free software, you do control it. However, doing it via
someone else's service would give that someone else control over your
-computing activity. We call that scenario SaaSS, and we say</em></ins></span>
it <span class="inserted"><ins><em>is
+computing activity. We call that scenario SaaSS, and we say it is
unjust.</p>
<p>By contrast, if for fundamental reasons you couldn't possibly do
-that activity in your own computers, then the activity</em></ins></span> isn't
<span class="removed"><del><strong>SaaSS.</p>
-
-<p>These</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>entirely
+that activity in your own computers, then the activity isn't entirely
your own, so the issue of SaaSS is not applicable to that activity.
In general, these activities involve communication with others.</p>
-<p>SaaSS</em></ins></span> servers wrest control from the users even
more inexorably
+<p>SaaSS servers wrest control from the users even more inexorably
than proprietary software. With proprietary software, users typically
get an executable file but not the source code. That makes it hard to
study the code that is running, so it's hard to determine what the
@@ -148,16 +140,15 @@
nature of SaaSS. Amy Webb, who intended never to post any photos of
her daughter, made the mistake of using SaaSS (Instagram) to edit
photos of her. Eventually
-<a
href="http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/data_mine_1/2013/09/privacy_facebook_kids_don_t_post_photos_of_your_kids_on_social_media.html">
they
-leaked from there</a>.
-</p>
+<a
href="https://slate.com/technology/2013/09/privacy-facebook-kids-dont-post-photos-of-your-kids-on-social-media.html">
+they leaked from there</a>.</p>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><p>Theoretically, homomorphic encryption
might some day advance to the
+<p>Theoretically, homomorphic encryption might some day advance to the
point where future SaaSS services might be constructed to be unable to
understand some of the data that users send them. Such
services <em>could</em> be set up not to snoop on users; this does
not
mean they <em>will</em> do no snooping. Also, snooping is only one
-among the secondary injustices of SaaSS.</p></em></ins></span>
+among the secondary injustices of SaaSS.</p>
<p>Some proprietary operating systems have a universal back door,
permitting someone to remotely install software changes. For
@@ -181,8 +172,8 @@
<h3>SaaSS and SaaS</h3>
<p>Originally we referred to this problematical practice as
-“SaaS”, which stands for “Software as a
-Service”. It's a commonly used term for setting up software on a
+“SaaS,” which stands for “Software as a
+Service.” It's a commonly used term for setting up software on a
server rather than offering copies of it to users, and we thought it
described precisely the cases where this problem occurs.</p>
@@ -190,7 +181,7 @@
communication services—activities for which this issue is not
applicable. In addition, the term “Software as a Service”
doesn't explain <em>why</em> the practice is bad. So we coined
the term
-“Service as a Software Substitute”, which defines the bad
+“Service as a Software Substitute,” which defines the bad
practice more clearly and says what is bad about it.</p>
<h3>Untangling the SaaSS Issue from the Proprietary Software
Issue</h3>
@@ -214,9 +205,9 @@
<p>Many free software supporters assume that the problem of SaaSS will
be solved by developing free software for servers. For the server
operator's sake, the programs on the server had better be free; if
-they are proprietary, their <span
class="removed"><del><strong>owners</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>developers/owners</em></ins></span> have power over
the
+they are proprietary, their developers/owners have power over the
server. That's unfair to the server operator, and doesn't help the
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em>server's</em></ins></span> users at all. But
if the programs on the server are free,
+server's users at all. But if the programs on the server are free,
that doesn't protect <em>the server's users</em> from the effects
of
SaaSS. These programs liberate the server operator, but not the
server's users.</p>
@@ -229,8 +220,8 @@
often used on servers.</p>
<p>But none of these servers would give you control over computing you
-do on it, unless it's <em>your</em> <span
class="removed"><del><strong>server.</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>server (one whose software load
-you control, regardless of whether the machine is your
property).</em></ins></span> It
+do on it, unless it's <em>your</em> server (one whose software load
+you control, regardless of whether the machine is your property). It
may be OK to trust your friend's server for some jobs, just as you
might let your friend maintain the software on your own computer.
Outside of that, all these servers would be SaaSS for you. SaaSS
@@ -239,10 +230,10 @@
to do your own computing on data provided by you.</p>
<p>This issue demonstrates the depth of the difference between
-“open” and “free”. Source code that is open
+“open” and “free.” Source code that is open
source <a href="/philosophy/free-open-overlap.html">is, nearly always,
free</a>. However, the idea of
-an <a <span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://opendefinition.org/software-service">“open</strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="https://opendefinition.org/ossd/">“open</em></ins></span>
+an <a href="https://opendefinition.org/ossd/">“open
software” service</a>, meaning one whose server software is open
source and/or free, fails to address the issue of SaaSS.</p>
@@ -267,20 +258,20 @@
<p>Another clear example is using a service such as Flickr or
Instagram to modify a photo. Modifying photos is an activity that
people have done in their own computers for decades; doing it in a
-server <span class="removed"><del><strong>instead of</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>you don't control, rather
than</em></ins></span> your own <span
class="removed"><del><strong>computer</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>computer,</em></ins></span> is SaaSS.</p>
+server you don't control, rather than your own computer, is SaaSS.</p>
<p>Rejecting SaaSS does not mean refusing to use any network servers
run by anyone other than you. Most servers are not SaaSS because the
-jobs they do are <span class="removed"><del><strong>not</strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em>some sort of communication, rather
than</em></ins></span> the user's
+jobs they do are some sort of communication, rather than the user's
own computing.</p>
<p>The original idea of web servers wasn't to do computing for you, it
was to publish information for you to access. Even today this is what
most web sites do, and it doesn't pose the SaaSS problem, because
accessing someone's published information isn't doing your own
-computing. Neither is <span class="removed"><del><strong>publishing your own
materials via</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>use
of</em></ins></span> a blog site <span class="inserted"><ins><em>to publish
your own works,</em></ins></span>
-or <span class="inserted"><ins><em>using</em></ins></span> a microblogging
service such as Twitter or StatusNet. (These
-services may <span class="inserted"><ins><em>or may not</em></ins></span> have
other problems, <span class="removed"><del><strong>of
course.)</strong></del></span> <span class="inserted"><ins><em>depending on
details.)</em></ins></span>
+computing. Neither is use of a blog site to publish your own works,
+or using a microblogging service such as Twitter or StatusNet. (These
+services may or may not have other problems, depending on details.)
The same goes for other communication not meant to be private, such as
chat groups.</p>
@@ -290,12 +281,12 @@
<p>If a service is not SaaSS, that does not mean it is OK. There are
other ethical issues about services. For instance, Facebook
-distributes video in Flash, which pressures users to run nonfree
-software; it requires running nonfree JavaScript code; and it gives
-users a misleading impression of privacy while luring them into baring
-their lives to Facebook. Those are important issues, different from
-the SaaSS issue.
-</p>
+<span class="removed"><del><strong>distributes video in Flash, which pressures
users to run nonfree
+software; it</strong></del></span> requires
+running nonfree JavaScript <span
class="removed"><del><strong>code;</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>code,</em></ins></span> and it gives users a
misleading
+impression of privacy while luring them into baring their lives to
+Facebook. Those are important issues, different from the SaaSS <span
class="removed"><del><strong>issue.</p></strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>issue.
+</p></em></ins></span>
<p>Services such as search engines collect data from around the web
and let you examine it. Looking through their collection of data
@@ -305,12 +296,12 @@
facility for your own site <em>is</em> SaaSS.</p>
<p>Purchasing online is not SaaSS, because the computing
-isn't <em>your <span
class="removed"><del><strong>own</em>;</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>own</em> activity;</em></ins></span> rather, it
is done jointly by and
+isn't <em>your own</em> activity; rather, it is done jointly by and
for you and the store. The real issue in online shopping is whether
you trust the other party with your money and other personal
information (starting with your name).</p>
-<p>Repository sites such as <span
class="removed"><del><strong>as</strong></del></span> Savannah and SourceForge
are not
+<p>Repository sites such as Savannah and SourceForge are not
inherently SaaSS, because a repository's job is publication of data
supplied to it.</p>
@@ -380,7 +371,7 @@
For the sake of clear thinking about computing, let's avoid the term
“cloud.”</p>
-<span class="inserted"><ins><em><h3 id="renting">Renting a Server
Distinguished from SaaSS</h3>
+<h3 id="renting">Renting a Server Distinguished from SaaSS</h3>
<p>If you rent a server (real or virtual), whose software load you
have control over, that's not SaaSS. In SaaSS, someone else decides
@@ -396,7 +387,7 @@
<p>This kind of server rental is sometimes called “IaaS,”
but that term fits into a conceptual structure that downplays the issues
-that we consider important.</p></em></ins></span>
+that we consider important.</p>
<h3>Dealing with the SaaSS Problem</h3>
@@ -429,7 +420,7 @@
using servers. For instance, we can create a peer-to-peer program
through which collaborators can share data encrypted. The free
software community should develop distributed peer-to-peer
-replacements for important “web applications”. It may be
+replacements for important “web applications.” It may be
wise to release them under
the <a href="/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html"> GNU Affero GPL</a>,
since
they are likely candidates for being converted into server-based
@@ -439,19 +430,30 @@
<p>In the meantime, if a company invites you to use its server to do
your own computing tasks, don't yield; don't use SaaSS. Don't buy or
-install “thin clients”, which are simply computers so weak
+install “thin clients,” which are simply computers so weak
they make you do the real work on a server, unless you're going to use
them with <em>your</em> server. Use a real computer and keep your
data there. Do your own computing with your own copy of a free
program, for your freedom's sake.</p>
-<h3>See also:</h3>
-<p><a href="/philosophy/bug-nobody-allowed-to-understand.html">The
+<div class="announcement comment" role="complementary">
+<p>See also:
+<a href="/philosophy/bug-nobody-allowed-to-understand.html">The
Bug Nobody is Allowed to Understand</a>.</p>
+</div>
+
+<div class="infobox extra" role="complementary">
+<hr />
+<p>The first version of this article was published
+in the <span class="removed"><del><strong><a
href="http://www.bostonreview.net/richard-stallman-free-software-DRM"></strong></del></span>
<span class="inserted"><ins><em><cite><a
+href="https://bostonreview.net/articles/richard-stallman-free-software-drm/"></em></ins></span>
+Boston <span
class="removed"><del><strong>Review</a>.</p></strong></del></span>
<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Review</a></cite>.</p></em></ins></span>
+</div>
+</div>
</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
-<div id="footer">
+<div id="footer" role="contentinfo">
<div class="unprintable">
<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to
@@ -469,19 +471,19 @@
to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">
<web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p>
- <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ <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 submitting 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 <span class="removed"><del><strong>3.0
US.</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>4.0.</em></ins></span> Please do NOT change or
remove this
+ 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
@@ -496,23 +498,21 @@
There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
-<p>Copyright © 2010, 2013, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2015</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2015, 2016, 2018, 2020</em></ins></span> Richard
Stallman</p>
+<p>Copyright © 2010, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2018, 2020, <span
class="removed"><del><strong>2021</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>2021, 2022</em></ins></span> Richard
Stallman</p>
<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
-<span
class="removed"><del><strong>href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative</strong></del></span>
-<span
class="inserted"><ins><em>href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative</em></ins></span>
-Commons <span class="removed"><del><strong>Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United
States</strong></del></span> <span
class="inserted"><ins><em>Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0
International</em></ins></span> License</a>.</p>
+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: 2020/12/18 06:01:56 $
+$Date: 2022/02/21 00:30:36 $
<!-- 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>
+</div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include -->
</body>
</html>
</pre></body></html>
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- www/philosophy open-source-misses-the-point.ja....,
GNUN <=