[GNU-traductores] gnudist:/home/www/html/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html -- recent changes

[gnudist's file diff daemon]

This is an automated report from gnudist.
Recent changes to /home/www/html/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html:

  18 -rw-rw-r--   1 webcvs   www         17071 Jun 13 08:16 
/home/www/html/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html

diff  -u  
/home/diffmon/old_file_dir/gnudist:!home!www!html!philosophy!free-software-for-freedom.html.gz
 /home/www/html/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html
--- /tmp/diffmon25110   Thu Jun 14 07:29:00 2001
+++ /home/www/html/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html    Wed Jun 13 
08:16:53 2001
@@ -21,12 +21,21 @@
 | <A HREF="/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.ru.html">Russian</A> ]
 
 <P>
-Some free software developers have started to use the term <A
-HREF="http://www.opensource.org/";>``open source software''</A> instead of <A
-HREF="/philosophy/free-sw.html">``free software''</A>.  While free
-software by any other name would give you the same freedom, it makes a
-big difference which name we use: different words <em>convey different
-meanings</em>.
+In 1998, some of the people in the free software community began using
+the ternm <A HREF="http://www.opensource.org/";>``open source
+software''</A> instead of <A HREF="/philosophy/free-sw.html">``free
+software''</A> to describe what they do.
+<P>
+
+While free software by any other name would give you the same
+freedom, it makes a big difference which name we use: different words
+<em>convey different ideas</em>.  The term ``open source'' quickly
+became associated with a different approach, a different philosophy,
+different values, and even a different criterion for which licenses
+are acceptable.  The Free Software movement and the Open Source
+movement are today effectively <A HREF="#relationship"> separate
+movements</A>, although we can and do work together on practical
+projects.
 
 <P>
 
@@ -43,7 +52,7 @@
 HREF="/philosophy/free-sw.html"> more precise definition of free
 software</A>, but this is not a perfect solution; it cannot completely
 eliminate the problem.  An unambiguously correct term would be better,
-assuming it doesn't have other problems.
+if it didn't have other problems.
 
 <P>
 
@@ -68,16 +77,42 @@
 
 That obvious meaning for ``open source'' is not the meaning that its
 advocates intend.  (Their ``official'' definition is much closer to
-``free software.'')  The result is that people often misunderstand
-them.
+``free software.'')  The result is that most people misunderstand what
+they are advocating.  Here is how writer Neal Stephenson defined
+``open source'':
+<P>
+
+<quot>
+Linux is "open source" software
+meaning, simply, that anyone can get copies of its source code files.
+</quot>
+
+<P>
+I don't think he deliberately sought to reject or dispute the
+``official'' definition.  I think he simply applied the conventions of
+the English language to come up with a meaning for the term.  The <A
+HREF="http://da.state.ks.us/itec/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf";> state of
+Kansas</A> published a similar definition:
+<P>
+
+<quot>
+Make use of open-source software (OSS). OSS is software for which the
+source code is freely and publicly available, though the specific licensing
+agreements vary as to what one is allowed to do with that code.
+</quot>
+
+<P>
+Of course, the open source people have tried to deal with this by
+publishing a precise definition for the term, just as we have done for
+``free software.''
+<P>
 
-Of course, this can be addressed by publishing a precise definition
-for the term.  The people using ``open source software'' have done
-this, just as we have done for ``free software.''  But this approach
-is only partially effective in either case.  For free software, we
-have to teach people that we intend one meaning rather than another
-which fits the words equally well.  For open source, we would have to
-teach them to use a meaning which does not really fit at all.
+But the explanation for ``free software'' is simple--a person who has
+heard ``free speech, not free beer'' will not get it wrong again.
+There is no succinct way to explain the official definition meaning of
+``open source'' that will show clearly why the natural definition is
+the wrong one.
+<p>
 
 <H4>Fear of Freedom</H4>
 
@@ -151,12 +186,13 @@
 attempt went awry when the application was allowed to lapse in 1999;
 thus, the legal status of ``open source'' is the same as that of
 ``free software'': there is no <em>legal</em> constraint on using it.
+I have heard reports of a number of companies' calling software
+packages ``open source'' even though they did not fit the official
+definition; I have observed some instances myself.
 
 <P>
 But would it have made a big difference to use a term that is a
-trademark?  I am not convinced.  I heard reports of a number of
-companies' calling software packages ``open source'' even though they
-did not fit the official definition; I observed some instances myself.
+trademark?  Not necessarily.
 
 <P>
 Companies also made announcements that give the impression that a
@@ -174,7 +210,7 @@
 source'', but many readers did not notice that detail.  (I should note
 that IBM was sincerely trying to make this program free software, and
 later adopted a new license which does make it free software and
-``open source''; but when the announcement was made, the program did
+``open source''; but when that announcement was made, the program did
 not qualify as either one.)
 
 <P>
@@ -184,29 +220,15 @@
 
 <quot>
 Cygnus Solutions is a leader in the open source market and has just
-launched two products into the Linux marketplace. 
+launched two products into the [GNU/]Linux marketplace. 
 </quot>
 
 <P>
 Unlike IBM, Cygnus was not trying to make these packages free
 software, and the packages did not come close to qualifying.  But
 Cygnus didn't actually say that these are ``open source software'',
-they just made a vague statement to try to obtain the favorable
-attitude that comes with that term.
-
-<P>
-Individuals also frequently misunderstand the term.  Here is how
-writer Neal Stephenson defined ``open source'':
-
-<quot>
-Linux is "open source" software
-meaning, simply, that anyone can get copies of its source code files.
-</quot>
-
-<P>
-I don't think he deliberately sought to reject or argue with the
-``official'' definition.  He simply applied the conventions of the
-English language, and reached the natural conclusion.
+they just made use of the term to give careless readers that
+impression.
 
 <P>
 These observations suggest that a trademark would not have truly
@@ -220,8 +242,8 @@
 The Open Source Definition is clear enough, and it is quite clear that
 the typical non-free program does not qualify.  So you would think
 that ``Open Source company'' would mean one whose products are free
-software, right?  Alas, many companies are trying to give it a
-different meaning.
+software (or close to it), right?  Alas, many companies are trying to
+give it a different meaning.
 <P>
 
 At the ``Open Source Developers Day'' meeting in August 1998, several
@@ -252,12 +274,12 @@
 <P>
 
 We cannot do the same with these new companies, because they won't go
-along with it.  These companies actively try to lead the public to
-lump all their activities together; they want us to regard their
-non-free software as favorably as we would regard a real contribution,
-although it is not one.  They present themselves as ``open source
-companies,'' hoping that we will get a warm fuzzy feeling about them,
-and that we will be fuzzy-minded in applying it.
+let us.  These companies actively try to lead the public to lump all
+their activities together; they want us to regard their non-free
+software as favorably as we would regard a real contribution, although
+it is not one.  They present themselves as ``open source companies,''
+hoping that we will get a warm fuzzy feeling about them, and that we
+will be fuzzy-minded in applying it.
 <P>
 
 This manipulative practice would be no less harmful if it were done
@@ -289,13 +311,12 @@
 point.''  But is that so?  Which point did he not get?
 <P>
 
-He did not miss the usual point associated with the term ``open
-source.''  That point says nothing about freedom, it says only that
-allowing more people to look at the source code and help improve it
-will make for faster and better development.  The executive grasped
-that point completely; unwilling for other reasons to carry out this
-approach in full, users included, he was considering implementing it
-partially, within the company.
+He did not miss the point of the open source movement.  That point
+says nothing about freedom, it says only that allowing more people to
+look at the source code and help improve it will make for faster and
+better development.  The executive grasped that point completely;
+unwilling to carry out this approach in full, users included, he was
+considering implementing it partially, within the company.
 <P>
 
 The point that he missed is the point that ``open source'' was
@@ -314,28 +335,33 @@
 movement and Open Source movement</A></H4>
 <P>
 
-The Free Software movement and the Open Source movement are
-like two political parties within our community.
+The Free Software movement and the Open Source movement are like two
+political camps within the free software community.
 <P>
 
-Radical groups are known for factionalism: organizations split because
-of disagreements on details of strategy, and then hate each other.
-They agree on the basic principles, and disagree only on practical
-recommendations; but they consider each other enemies, and fight each
-other tooth and nail.
-<P>
-
-For the Free Software movement and the Open Source movement, it is
-just the opposite on every point.  We disagree on the basic
-principles, but agree on most practical recommendations.  We work
-together on many specific projects.
+Radical groups in the 1960s developed a reputation for factionalism:
+organizations split because of disagreements on details of strategy,
+and then hated each other.  They agreed on the basic principles, and
+disagreed only on practical recommendations; but they considered each
+other enemies, and fought tooth and nail.  Or at least, such is the
+image people have, whether or not it was accurate.
+<P>
+
+The relationship between the Free Software movement and the Open
+Source movement is just the opposite of that picture.  We disagree on
+the basic principles, but agree more or less on the practical
+recommendations.  So we can and do work together on many specific
+projects.  We don't think of the Open Source movement as an enemy.
+The enemy is <A
+HREF="/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware"> proprietary
+software</A>.
 <P>
 
-In the Free Software movement, we don't think of the Open Source
-movement as an enemy.  The enemy is <A
-HREF="/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware"> proprietary
-software</A>.  But we do want people in our community to know that we
-are not the same as them!
+We are not against the Open Source movement, but we don't want to be
+lumped in with them.  We acknowledge that they have contributed to our
+community, but we created our community.  We want people to associate
+our achievements with our values and our philosophy.  We want to be
+heard, not hidden behind a different view.
 <P>
 
 So please mention the Free Software movement when you talk about the
@@ -365,14 +391,14 @@
 send other questions to
 <A HREF="mailto:address@hidden";><EM>address@hidden</EM></A>.
 <P>
-Copyright (C) 1998, 1999, 2000 Free Software Foundation, Inc.,
+Copyright (C) 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 Free Software Foundation, Inc.,
 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA  02111,  USA
 <P>
 Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is
 permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.<P>
 Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2001/04/28 22:15:59 $ $Author: bkuhn $
+$Date: 2001/06/13 15:16:48 $ $Author: rms $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 <HR>
 </BODY>