trans-coord-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

trans-coord/gnun/philosophy open-source-misses-...

From: Yavor Doganov
Subject: trans-coord/gnun/philosophy open-source-misses-...
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 19:25:15 +0000 
CVSROOT:        /sources/trans-coord
Module name:    trans-coord
Changes by:     Yavor Doganov <yavor>   09/11/15 19:25:15

Modified files:
        gnun/philosophy: open-source-misses-the-point.bg.html 
                         open-source-misses-the-point.es.html 

Log message:
        Automatic update by GNUnited Nations.

CVSWeb URLs:
http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/trans-coord/gnun/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.bg.html?cvsroot=trans-coord&r1=1.19&r2=1.20
http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/trans-coord/gnun/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.es.html?cvsroot=trans-coord&r1=1.13&r2=1.14

Patches:
Index: open-source-misses-the-point.bg.html
===================================================================
RCS file: 
/sources/trans-coord/trans-coord/gnun/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.bg.html,v
retrieving revision 1.19
retrieving revision 1.20
diff -u -b -r1.19 -r1.20
--- open-source-misses-the-point.bg.html        2 Aug 2009 18:25:30 -0000       
1.19
+++ open-source-misses-the-point.bg.html        15 Nov 2009 19:25:15 -0000      
1.20
@@ -3,11 +3,11 @@
 <!--#include virtual="/server/header.bg.html" -->
 
 <!-- This file is automatically generated by GNUnited Nations! -->
-<title>Защо „Отвореният код“ пропуска 
най-важното за свободния софтуер - Проектът
-GNU - Фондация за свободен софтуер (ФСС)</title>
+<title>Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software - GNU Project - Free
+Software Foundation (FSF)</title>
 
 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.bg.html" -->
-<h2>Защо „Отвореният код“ пропуска 
най-важното за свободния софтуер</h2>
+<h2>Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software</h2>
 
 <p>by <strong>Richard Stallman</strong></p>
 
@@ -18,161 +18,154 @@
 не на цена, така че мислете за „свобода на 
словото“, а не за „безплатен
 обяд“<sup><a href="#TransNote1">1</a></sup>.</p>
 
-<p>Тези свободи са жизненоважни.  Те са 
съществени не просто заради
-индивидуалните потребители, а защото 
поощряват социална солидарност —
-споделяне и сътрудничество.  Те стават все 
по-важни, тъй като голяма част от
-нашата култура и ежедневие се 
цифровизират.  В един свят с цифрови звуци,
-изображения и думи, свободният софтуер с 
все по-голяма сила се равнява със
-свободата като общо понятие.</p>
-
-<p>Днес десетки милиони души по света 
използват свободен софтуер — училищата от
-райони на Индия и Испания вече учат 
учениците си да използват свободната <a
-href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.bg.html">операционна система 
GNU/Линукс</a>.  Но
-повечето от тези потребители никога не са 
чували за етичните причини, поради
-които разработихме тази система и изградих
ме общността на свободния софтуер,
-защото днес тази система и общността 
по-често се представят като „отворен
-код“.  Приписват се и на различна 
философия, в която тези свободи почти не
-се споменават.</p>
-
-<p>Движението за свободен софтуер се е 
борило за свободата на компютърните
-потребители от 1983 г. насам.  През 1984 г. 
започнахме разработката на
-свободната операционна система GNU, за да 
можем да избегнем несвободните
-операционни системи, които отнемат 
свободата на потребителите си.  През
-80-те години разработихме повечето от 
съществените компоненти на системата,
-както и <a href="/licenses/gpl.html">GNU General Public License</a> —
-лиценз, създаден точно за да защитава 
свободата на всички потребители на
-дадена програма.</p>
-
-<p>Но не всички потребители и разработчици 
на свободен софтуер бяха съгласни с
-целите на Движението за свободен софтуер.  
През 1998 г., част от общността
-на свободния софтуер се отцепи и започна 
кампания в името на „отворения
-код“.  Първоначално терминът бе предложен, 
за да се избегне евентуално
-погрешно тълкуване на термина „свободен 
софтуер“, но скоро бе обвързан с
-философски възгледи, твърде различни от 
тези на Движението за свободен
-софтуер.</p>
-
-<p>Някои от привържениците на „отворения 
код“ го смятаха за „маркетингова
-кампания за свободен софтуер“, която да 
привлича хора с позиции в бизнеса
-чрез изтъкване на практическите ползи, 
като същевременно се избягват идеите
-за „добро“ и „лошо“, които те не биха 
искали да чуят.  Други привърженици
-решително отхвърлиха етичните и социални 
ценности на Движението за свободен
-софтуер.  Каквито и да са били възгледите 
им, при воденето на кампания за
-„отворен код“ те не са цитирали или 
заставали зад тези ценности.  Терминът
-„отворен код“ бързо се обвърза с 
практиката на цитиране само на практически
-ценности, като писането на мощен и 
надежден софтуер.  Повечето от
-поддръжниците на „отворения код“ още 
оттогава имат това предвид и за тях
-това е практиката, която олицетворява тях
ната кампания.</p>
-
-<p>Почти всеки софтуер с отворен код е 
свободен софтуер — двете понятия описват
-почти една и съща категория софтуер.  Но те 
стоят зад възгледи, базирани на
-коренно различни в основата си ценности.  
Отвореният код е методика за
-разработка; свободният софтуер е социално 
движение.  За Движението за
-свободен софтуер, свободният софтуер е 
етически императив, защото само
-свободният софтуер зачита свободата на 
потребителите.  За разлика от него,
-философията на отворения код разглежда 
въпросите в светлината на правенето
-на „по-добър“ софтуер — само от 
практическа гледна точка.  В нея се твърди,
-че несвободният софтуер е лошо, но 
приемливо решение.  За Движението за
-свободен софтуер, обаче, несвободният 
софтуер е социален проблем и решението
-е мигрирането към свободен софтуер.</p>
-
-<p>Свободен софтуер, софтуер с отворен код.  
Ако това е един и същ софтуер, има
-ли значение какво име използвате?  Да, 
защото различните думи въплъщават
-различни идеи.  Докато една свободна 
програма под каквото и да е име би ви
-предоставила същата свобода днес, 
затвърждаването на свободата в дългосрочен
-план зависи преди всичко от това — хората 
да се научат да ценят свободата.
-Ако искате да ни помогнете да направим 
това, крайно необходимо е да говорите
-за „свободен софтуер“.</p>
-
-<p>Ние в Движението за свободен софтуер не 
мислим за лагера на софтуера с
-отворен код като за враг — врагът е 
собственическия софтуер.  Но искаме
-хората да знаят, че държим на свободата, 
така че не приемаме да бъдем
-идентифицирани погрешно като поддръжници 
на „отворения код“.</p>
-
-<h3>Широко разпространено погрешно 
тълкуване на „свободен софтуер“ и 
„отворен
-код“</h3>
-
-<p>Терминът „свободен софтуер“ има 
проблем с двусмислието<sup><a
-href="#TransNote2">2</a></sup> си.  На английски език 
терминът може да значи
-„софтуер, с който може да се сдобиете на 
нулева цена“, а може да значи и
-„софтуер, който предоставя на потребителя 
определени свободи“, което
-всъщност е желаното значение.  Ние 
адресираме проблема, като публикуваме
-дефиницията за свободен софтуер, и като 
казваме „Мислете за свобода на
-словото, не за безплатен обяд“.  Това не е 
идеално решение и не може да
-елиминира проблема напълно.  Би било 
по-добре да има недвусмислен термин,
-ако той нямаше други проблеми.</p>
+<p>These freedoms are vitally important.  They are essential, not just for the
+individual users' sake, but for society as a whole because they promote
+social solidarity&mdash;that is, sharing and cooperation.  They become even
+more important as our culture and life activities are increasingly
+digitized.  In a world of digital sounds, images, and words, free software
+becomes increasingly essential for freedom in general.</p>
+
+<p>Tens of millions of people around the world now use free software; the
+schools of regions of India and Spain now teach all students to use the free
+<a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux 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 &ldquo;open
+source,&rdquo;, attributing them to a different philosophy in which these
+freedoms are hardly mentioned.</p>
+
+<p>The free software movement has campaigned for computer users' freedom since
+1983.  In 1984 we launched the development of the free operating system GNU,
+so that we could avoid the nonfree operating systems that deny freedom to
+their users.  During the 1980s, we developed most of the essential
+components of the system and designed the <a href="/licenses/gpl.html">GNU
+General Public License</a> (GNU GPL) to release them under&mdash;a license
+designed specifically to protect freedom for all users of a program.</p>
+
+<p>Not all of the users and developers of free software agreed with the goals
+of the free software movement.  In 1998, a part of the free software
+community splintered off and began campaigning in the name of &ldquo;open
+source.&rdquo; The term was originally proposed to avoid a possible
+misunderstanding of the term &ldquo;free software,&rdquo; but it soon became
+associated with philosophical views quite different from those of the free
+software movement.</p>
+
+<p>Some of the supporters of open source considered the term a &ldquo;marketing
+campaign for free software,&rdquo; which would appeal to business executives
+by highlighting the software's practical benefits, while not raising issues
+of right and wrong that they might not like to hear.  Other supporters
+flatly rejected the free software movement's ethical and social values.
+Whichever their views, when campaigning for open source, they neither cited
+nor advocated those values.  The term &ldquo;open source&rdquo; quickly
+became associated 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
+association.</p>
+
+<p>Nearly all open source software is free software.  The two terms describe
+almost the same category of software, but they stand for views based on
+fundamentally different values.  Open source is a development methodology;
+free software is a social movement.  For the free software movement, free
+software is an ethical imperative, because only free software respects the
+users' freedom.  By contrast, the philosophy of open source considers issues
+in terms of how to make software &ldquo;better&rdquo;&mdash;in a practical
+sense only.  It says that nonfree software is an inferior solution to the
+practical problem at hand.  For the free software movement, however, nonfree
+software is a social problem, and the solution is to stop using it and move
+to free software.</p>
+
+<p>&ldquo;Free software.&rdquo; &ldquo;Open source.&rdquo; If it's the same
+software, does it matter which name you use? Yes, because different words
+convey different ideas.  While a free program by any other name would give
+you the same freedom today, establishing freedom in a lasting way depends
+above all on teaching people to value freedom.  If you want to help do this,
+it is essential to speak of &ldquo;free software.&rdquo;</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>
+
+<h3>Common Misunderstandings of &ldquo;Free Software&rdquo; and &ldquo;Open
+Source&rdquo;</h3>
+
+<p>The term &ldquo;free software&rdquo; is prone to misinterpretation: an
+unintended meaning, &ldquo;software you can get for zero price,&rdquo; fits
+the term just as well as the intended meaning, &ldquo;software which gives
+the user certain freedoms.&rdquo; We address this problem by publishing the
+definition of free software, and by saying &ldquo;Think of &lsquo;free
+speech,&rsquo; not &lsquo;free beer.&rsquo;&rdquo; This is not a perfect
+solution; it cannot completely eliminate the problem.  An unambiguous and
+correct term would be better, if it didn't present other problems.</p>
 
 <p>Unfortunately, all the alternatives in English have problems of their own.
-We've looked at many alternatives that people have suggested, but none is so
-clearly &ldquo;right&rdquo; that switching to it would be a good idea.  (For
-instance, in some contexts the French/Spanish word "libre" can be used, but
-people in India do not recognize the word at all.)  Every proposed
+We've looked at many that people have suggested, but none is so clearly
+&ldquo;right&rdquo; that switching to it would be a good idea.  (For
+instance, in some contexts the French and Spanish word &ldquo;libre&rdquo;
+works well, but people in India do not recognize it at all.)  Every proposed
 replacement for &ldquo;free software&rdquo; has some kind of semantic
 problem&mdash;and this includes &ldquo;open source software.&rdquo;</p>
 
-<p><a href="http://opensource.org/docs/osd";>Официалната 
дефиниция за „софтуер с
-отворен код“</a> (която е публикувана от 
Инициативата за отворен код и е
-твърде дълга, за да я цитираме тук), произх
ожда непряко от нашите критерии
-за свободен софтуер.  Не е същата, по-х
лабава е в някои отношения —
-поддръжниците на отворения код са приели 
някои лицензи, които ние считаме за
-недопустимо ограничаващи потребителите.  
Въпреки това, на практика тя е
-доста близка до нашата дефиниция.</p>
-
-<p>Но очевидното значение на израза 
„софтуер с отворен код“ е „може да
-погледнете изходния код“ и повечето хора 
изглежда мислят, че това е
-значението.  Това е много по-слаб критерий 
от свободния софтуер, и по-слаб
-от официалната дефиниция за отворен код.  
Това определение включва много
-програми, които не са нито свободен 
софтуер, нито софтуер с отворен код.</p>
-
-<p>Понеже това очевидно значение на 
„отворен код“ не е значението, което
-застъпниците му са имали предвид, 
резултатът е, че повечето хора разбират
-погрешно термина.  Ето как писателят Нийл 
Стивънсън определя „отворен код“:</p>
-
-  <blockquote><p>Линукс е „софтуер с отворен 
код“, което просто означава, че всеки може 
да се
-сдобие с копие на файловете с изходен 
код.</p></blockquote>
-
-<p>Не мисля, че той нарочно е решил да отх
върли или да оспори „официалната“
-дефиниция.  Според мен той просто е 
приложил конвенциите на английския език,
-за да получи това значение на термина.  
Щатът Канзас е публикувал подобна
-дефиниция:</p>
-
-<!-- It was from http://da.state.ks.us/itec/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf,
-but that page is no longer available. -->
-<blockquote><p>Използване на софтуер с отворен 
код (СОК).  СОК е софтуер, чийто изходен код
-е безплатен и публично достъпен, въпреки, 
че специфичните лицензионни
-споразумения варират в зависимост от това 
какво е позволено да се прави с
-този код.</p></blockquote>
+<p>The <a href="http://opensource.org/docs/osd";>official definition of
+&ldquo;open source software&rdquo;</a> (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, so open source supporters have accepted a few
+licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive of the users.
+Nonetheless, it is fairly close to our definition in practice.</p>
+
+<p>However, the obvious meaning for the expression &ldquo;open source
+software&rdquo;&mdash;and the one most people seem to think it
+means&mdash;is &ldquo;You can look at the source code.&rdquo; 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>
+
+<p><!-- It was from http://da.state.ks.us/itec/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf, but
+that page is no longer available. -->
+Since that obvious meaning for &ldquo;open source&rdquo; is not the meaning
+that its advocates intend, the result is that most people misunderstand the
+term.  According to writer Neal Stephenson, &ldquo;Linux is &lsquo;open
+source&rsquo; software meaning, simply, that anyone can get copies of its
+source code files.&rdquo; I don't think he deliberately sought to reject or
+dispute the &ldquo;official&rdquo; definition.  I think he simply applied
+the conventions of the English language to come up with a meaning for the
+term.  The state of Kansas published a similar definition: &ldquo;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.&rdquo;</p>
 
-<p>The New York Times has <a
+<p>The <i>New York Times</i> has <a
 
href="http://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-design-37415.html";>
-stretched the term</a> to refer to user beta testing &mdash; letting a few
-users try an early version and give confidential feedback &mdash; which
-proprietary software developers have practiced for decades.</p>
-
-<p>Поддръжниците на кампанията за софтуер с 
отворен код се опитват да разрешат
-проблема, посочвайки тяхната официална 
дефиниция, но този корективен подход
-не е толкова ефективен, колкото нашия.  
Терминът „свободен софтуер“ има две
-естествени значения, едното от които е 
желаното.  Човек, който е схванал
-идеята за „свобода на словото, а не 
безплатен обяд“ никога няма да го
-възприеме по погрешния начин.  Но „отворен 
код“ има само едно естествено
-значение, което е различно от желаното от 
поддръжниците на кампанията.  Няма
-кратък и ясен начин да се обясни 
официалното значение на „отворен код“.
-Това води до задълбочаване на 
объркването.</p>
-
-<p>Друго недоразумение на „отворен код“ е 
идеята, че означава „да не се ползва
-GNU GPL“.  Изглежда това съпровожда и 
погрешното разбиране за „свободен
-софтуер“, приравнявайки го към „софтуер 
под GPL“.  Те са еднакво погрешни,
-понеже GNU GPL се счита за лиценз за софтуер с 
отворен код, както и повечето
-от лицензите за отворен код се считат за 
лицензи за свободен софтуер.</p>
-
-<h3>Различните ценности могат да доведат до 
почти едни и същи изводи&hellip;но
-не винаги</h3>
-
-<p>През 60-те години радикални групи си 
издействаха репутацията на
-фракционисти.  Някои организации се 
разделяха поради различия относно
-подробности за стратегиите и впоследствие 
двете дъщерни групи се отнасяха
-един с друг като с врагове, въпреки сх
одните основни цели и ценности.
-Десните често правеха това и критикуваха 
цялото ляво пространство за тази
-практика.</p>
+run an article that stretches the meaning of the term</a> to refer to user
+beta testing&mdash;letting a few users try an early version and give
+confidential feedback&mdash;which proprietary software developers have
+practiced for decades.</p>
+
+<p>Open source supporters try to deal with this by pointing to their official
+definition, but that corrective approach is less effective for them than it
+is for us.  The term &ldquo;free software&rdquo; has two natural meanings,
+one of which is the intended meaning, so a person who has grasped the idea
+of &ldquo;free speech, not free beer&rdquo; will not get it wrong again.
+But the term &ldquo;open source&rdquo; has only one natural meaning, which
+is different from the meaning its supporters intend.  So there is no
+succinct way to explain and justify its official definition.  That makes for
+worse confusion.</p>
+
+<p>Another misunderstanding of &ldquo;open source&rdquo; is the idea that it
+means &ldquo;not using the GNU GPL.&rdquo; This tends to accompany another
+misunderstanding that &ldquo;free software&rdquo; means &ldquo;GPL-covered
+software.&rdquo; These are equally mistaken, since the GNU GPL is accepted
+as an open source license and most of the open source licenses qualify as
+free software licenses.</p>
+
+<h3>Different Values Can Lead to Similar Conclusions&hellip;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, and the
+two daughter groups treated each other as enemies despite having similar
+basic goals and values.  The right wing made much of this and used it to
+criticize the entire left.</p>
 
 <p>Някои се опитват да очернят Движението 
за свободен софтуер, като сравняват
 нашите различия с лагера на отворения код 
с различията на онези радикални
@@ -181,20 +174,19 @@
 възгледи в много случаи водят до едно и 
също поведение на практика, като
 разработката на свободен софтуер.</p>
 
-<p>В резултат на това, хора от Движението за 
свободен софтуер и от лагера на
-отворения код работят заедно по 
практически проекти като разработка на
-софтуер.  Забележително е, че толкова 
различни философски възгледи могат
-толкова често да мотивират различни хора 
да участват в едни и същи проекти.
-Въпреки това, тези възгледи са много 
различни, и има ситуации, в които водят
-до много различни действия.</p>
-
-<p>Идеята на отворения код е, че като се 
позволява на потребителите да променят
-и разпространяват софтуера, това ще го 
направи по-мощен и по-надежден.  Но
-това не винаги е гарантирано.  Р
азработчиците на собственически софтуер не
-винаги са некомпетентни.  Понякога те 
разработват програма, която е мощна и
-надеждна, дори и да не зачита свободата на 
потребителите.  Как биха
-реагирали активисти на Движението за 
свободен софтуер и ентусиасти на
-отворения код на това?</p>
+<p>As a result, people from the free software movement and the open source camp
+often work together on practical projects such as software development.  It
+is remarkable that such different philosophical views can so often motivate
+different people to participate in the same projects.  Nonetheless, there
+are situations where these fundamentally different views lead to very
+different actions.</p>
+
+<p>The idea of open source is that allowing users to change and redistribute
+the software will make it more powerful and reliable.  But this is not
+guaranteed.  Developers of proprietary software are not necessarily
+incompetent.  Sometimes they produce a program that is powerful and
+reliable, even though it does not respect the users' freedom.  Free software
+activists and open source enthusiasts will react very differently to that.</p>
 
 <p>Един същински ентусиаст на отворения 
код, който изобщо не е повлиян от
 идеалите на свободния софтуер, би казал: 
„Изненадан съм, че сте успели да
@@ -203,66 +195,63 @@
 отношение би било в полза на схеми, които 
отнемат свободата ни и водят до
 пълната ѝ загуба.</p>
 
-<p>Активистът на Движението за свободен 
софтуер би казал: „Вашата програма е
-много привлекателна, но не и на цената на 
свободата ми.  Така че ще мина и
-без нея.  Вместо това ще поддържам проект 
за разработката на свободен
-заместител.“ Ако ценим свободата си, може 
да я поддържаме и защитаваме.</p>
+<p>The free software activist will say, &ldquo;Your program is very attractive,
+but I value my freedom more.  So I reject your program.  Instead I will
+support a project to develop a free replacement.&rdquo; If we value our
+freedom, we can act to maintain and defend it.</p>
 
-<h3>Мощният, надежден софтуер може да бъде 
лошо нещо</h3>
+<h3>Powerful, Reliable Software Can Be Bad</h3>
 
 <p>Идеята, че искаме софтуерът да е мощен и 
надежден, следва от
 предположението, че софтуера би трябвало 
да служи на потребителите.  Ако е
 мощен и надежден, той им служи по-добре.</p>
 
-<p>Но може да се каже, че софтуерът служи на 
потребителите, само ако зачита
-тяхната свобода.  Ами ако софтуерът е 
проектиран, за да слага окови на
-потребителите?  Тогава мощността само 
означава, че оковите са още по-здрави
-и стегнати, а надеждността просто 
означава, че е по-трудно те да бъдат
-премахнати.  Злонамерени функционалности 
като шпиониране на потребителите,
-ограничаването им, задни врати и 
принудителна актуализация са често срещани
-сред собственическия софтуер, и някои от 
поддръжниците на отворения код
-искат да постъпват по същия начин.</p>
-
-<p>Под натиска на филмови и звукозаписни 
компании, софтуерът все по-често се
-проектира специално за да ограничава 
правата на ползващите го.  Тази
-злонамерена технология е позната като DRM, 
или „цифрово управление на
-ограниченията“ (вижте <a
-href="http://defectivebydesign.org/";>DefectiveByDesign.org</a>), и по дух
 е
-антитезата на свободата, която свободния 
софтуер се стреми да осигури.  И не
-само по дух — понеже целта на DRM е да погази 
свободата ви, разработчиците
-на DRM се опитват да направят трудно, 
невъзможно и дори незаконно за вас да
-променяте софтуера, който реализира DRM.</p>
-
-<p>Въпреки това някои поддръжници на 
отворения код предложиха софтуер с „DRM с
-отворен код“.  Идеята им е, че чрез 
публикуването на изходния код на
-програмите, създадени да ограничават 
достъпа ви до шифрирани носители, и
-позволявайки на другите да го променят, те 
ще могат да създадат по-мощен и
-надежден софтуер за ограничаването на 
потребители като вас.  После той ще ви
-бъде предоставен в устройства, които не ви 
позволяват да го променяте.</p>
-
-<p>Този софтуер може и да е с „отворен код“ 
и да се използва модела за
-разработка на отворения код, но той няма да 
бъде свободен софтуер, понеже
-няма да зачита свободата на потребителите, 
които в действителност го
-използват.  Ако моделът за разработка на 
отворения код успее да направи този
-софтуер по-мощен и надежден в 
ограничаването ви, това ще го превърне в още
-по-лош.</p>
-
-<h3>Страх от свободата</h3>
-
-<p>Основната първоначална мотивация за 
термина „софтуер с отворен код“ е, че
-етичните идеи на „свободен софтуер“ 
карат някои хора да се чувстват
-неловко.  Вярно е — да се говори за 
свободата, за етични въпроси, за
-отговорности, както и за удобство, значи да 
се подканват хората да се
-замислят за неща, които те навярно биха 
предпочели да пренебрегнат —
-например дали поведението им е етично.  
Това може да предизвика неудобство и
-смущение, и някои хора просто биха отх
върлили идеята.  Но от това не следва,
-че би трябвало да спрем да говорим за тези 
неща.</p>
-
-<p>Само че точно това са решили да направят 
предводителите на „отворения код“.
-Открили са, че ако си мълчат за етиката и 
свободата, и говорят само за
-бързите практически ползи на даден 
свободен софтуер, те биха могли да
-„продадат“ софтуера по-ефективно на 
определени потребители, особено от
-средите на бизнеса.</p>
+<p>But software can be said to serve its users only if it respects their
+freedom.  What if the software is designed to put chains on its users? Then
+powerfulness means the chains are more constricting, and reliability that
+they are harder to remove.  Malicious features, such as spying on the users,
+restricting the users, back doors, and imposed upgrades are common in
+proprietary software, and some open source supporters want to implement them
+in open source programs.</p>
+
+<p>Under pressure from the movie and record companies, software for 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 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, or even illegal for you to
+change the software that implements the DRM.</p>
+
+<p>Yet some open source supporters have proposed &ldquo;open source DRM&rdquo;
+software.  Their idea is that, by publishing the source code of programs
+designed to restrict your access to encrypted media and by allowing others
+to change it, they will produce more powerful and reliable software for
+restricting users like you.  The software would then be delivered to you in
+devices that do not allow you to change it.</p>
+
+<p>This software might be open source and use the open source development
+model, but it won't be free software since it won't respect the freedom of
+the users that actually run it.  If the open source development model
+succeeds in making this software more powerful and reliable for restricting
+you, that will make it even worse.</p>
+
+<h3>Fear of Freedom</h3>
+
+<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 &ldquo;free
+software&rdquo; 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
+discomfort, and some people may simply close their minds to it.  It does not
+follow that we ought to stop talking about these issues.</p>
+
+<p>That is, however, what the leaders of open source decided to do.  They
+figured that by keeping quiet about ethics and freedom, and talking only
+about the immediate practical benefits of certain free software, they might
+be able to &ldquo;sell&rdquo; the software more effectively to certain
+users, especially business.</p>
 
 <p>Този подход се оказа ефективен, по свой 
собствен начин.  Реториката на
 отворения код е убедила много хора и 
бизнес потребители да използват и дори
@@ -274,51 +263,47 @@
 осигурим свободата.  Привличането на 
потребители към свободния софтуер ги
 отвежда само до част от пътя да станат 
защитници на собствената си свобода.</p>
 
-<p>Рано или късно тези потребители ще бъдат 
поканени да се прехвърлят на
-собственически софтуер заради някакво 
практическо преимущество.  Безброй
-компании се стремят да предложат такова 
изкушение, някои дори предлагат
-безплатни копия.  Защо биха отказали 
потребителите?  Само ако те са научили
-да оценяват свободата, която свободният 
софтуер им предоставя, да оценяват
-свободата сама по себе си, вместо тех
ническото и практическо удобство на
-даден свободен софтуер.  За да 
разпространяваме тази идея, трябва да 
говорим
-за свободата.  Определена доза от подхода 
„да си мълчим“ към бизнеса може да
-бъде полезна за общността, но е опасно ако 
стане толкова често срещан, че
-любовта към свободата да изглежда като 
ексцентричност.</p>
-
-<p>Точно в такава опасна ситуация се 
намираме в момента.  Повечето хора,
-свързвани със свободния софтуер, говорят 
малко за свободата — обикновено
-защото се стремят да са „по-приемливи за 
бизнеса“.  Разпространителите на
-софтуер най-вече следват този пример.  
Почти всички дистрибуции на
-операционната система GNU/Линукс добавят 
собственически пакети към основната
-свободна система, и подканват 
потребителите да разглеждат това като
-преимущество, вместо като стъпка назад от 
свободата.</p>
-
-<p>Добавеният собственически софтуер и 
частично несвободните дистрибуции на
-GNU/Линукс намират плодотворна почва, 
защото по-голямата част от нашата
-общност не изисква софтуера да е свободен.  
Това не е случайно.  Повечето
-потребители на GNU/Линукс са се запознали 
със системата чрез обсъждания за
-„отворен код“, където не се говори, че 
свободата е цел.  Практиките, които
-не поддържат свободата и думите, които не 
говорят за свободата, вървят ръка
-за ръка — всяка насърчава другата.  За да 
превъзмогнем тази тенденция, е
-нужно да говорим повече, а не по-малко за 
свободата.</p>
+<p>Sooner or later these users will be invited to switch back to proprietary
+software for some practical advantage.  Countless companies seek to offer
+such temptation, some even offering copies gratis.  Why would users decline?
+Only if they have learned to value the freedom free software gives them, to
+value freedom in and of itself rather than the technical and practical
+convenience of specific free software.  To spread this idea, we have to talk
+about freedom.  A certain amount of the &ldquo;keep quiet&rdquo; approach to
+business can be useful for the community, but it is dangerous if it becomes
+so common that the love of freedom comes to seem like an eccentricity.</p>
+
+<p>That dangerous situation is exactly what we have.  Most people involved with
+free software, especially its distributors, say little about
+freedom&mdash;usually because they seek to be &ldquo;more acceptable to
+business.&rdquo; Nearly all GNU/Linux operating system distributions add
+proprietary packages to the basic free system, and they invite users to
+consider this an advantage rather than a flaw.</p>
+
+<p>Proprietary add-on software and partially nonfree GNU/Linux distributions
+find fertile ground because most of our community does not insist on freedom
+with its software.  This is no coincidence.  Most GNU/Linux users were
+introduced to the system through &ldquo;open source&rdquo; discussion, which
+doesn't say that freedom is a goal.  The practices that don't uphold freedom
+and the words that don't talk about freedom go hand in hand, each promoting
+the other.  To overcome this tendency, we need more, not less, talk about
+freedom.</p>
 
 <h3>Заключение</h3>
 
-<p>Докато застъпниците на отворения код 
привличат нови потребители в нашата
-общност, ние, активистите на свободния 
софтуер, трябва да работим дори
-по-усърдно, за да повдигнем въпроса за 
свободата на вниманието на тези нови
-потребители.  Трябва да казваме „Това е 
свободен софтуер и ви предоставя
-свобода!“ повече и по-гръмко от когато и да 
е.  Всеки път, когато вие
-казвате „свободен софтуер“ вместо 
„софтуер с отворен код“, вие помагате на
-нашето начинание.</p>
+<p>As the advocates of open source draw new users into our community, we free
+software activists must shoulder the task of bringing the issue of freedom
+to their attention.  We have to say, &ldquo;It's free software and it gives
+you freedom!&rdquo;&mdash;more and louder than ever.  Every time you say
+&ldquo;free software&rdquo; rather than &ldquo;open source,&rdquo; you help
+our campaign.</p>
 
 <h4>Бележки</h4>
 
 <p>
-Джо Бар е написал статия, озаглавена <a
-href="http://www.itworld.com/AppDev/350/LWD010523vcontrol4/";>Живей и
-лицензирай<sup><a href="#TransNote3">3</a></sup></a>, която 
представя
-неговите възгледи по този въпрос.</p>
+Joe Barr's article, <a
+href="http://www.itworld.com/AppDev/350/LWD010523vcontrol4/";>&ldquo;Live and
+let license,&rdquo;</a> gives his perspective on this issue.</p>
 
 <p>
 <a href="http://freesoftware.mit.edu/papers/lakhaniwolf.pdf";>Докладът 
за
@@ -352,11 +337,11 @@
 <!--#include virtual="/server/footer.bg.html" -->
 <div id="footer">
 <p>
-Моля, отправяйте въпроси относно ФСС и GNU 
по е-поща: <a
-href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.  Има и 
други начини за
-<a href="/contact/">връзка</a> с ФСС.  <br /> Моля, 
изпращайте доклади за
-счупени хипервръзки и други корекции (или 
предложения) на е-поща: <a
-href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
+Please send FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>.  There are also <a
+href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> the FSF.  <br /> Please send
+broken links and other corrections or suggestions to <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>.
 </p>
 
 <p>Авторски права &copy; 2007 Ричард Столман <br /> 
Дословното копиране и
@@ -380,7 +365,7 @@
 <!-- timestamp start -->
 Последно обновяване:
 
-$Date: 2009/08/02 18:25:30 $
+$Date: 2009/11/15 19:25:15 $
 
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
@@ -396,7 +381,7 @@
 
 <ul class="translations-list">
 <!-- Arabic -->
-<li><a hreflang="ar" 
href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.ar.html">&#1575;&#1604;&#1593;&#1585;&#1576;&#1610;&#1577;</a>&nbsp;[ar]</li>
+<li><a hreflang="ar" 
href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.ar.html">&#1575;&#1604;&#1593;&#1585;&#1576;&#1610;&#1577;</a>&nbsp;[At]</li>
 <!-- Bulgarian -->
 <li><a hreflang="bg" 
href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.bg.html">&#x431;&#x44A;&#x43B;&#x433;&#x430;&#x440;&#x441;&#x43A;&#x438;</a>&nbsp;[bg]</li>
 <!-- German -->

Index: open-source-misses-the-point.es.html
===================================================================
RCS file: 
/sources/trans-coord/trans-coord/gnun/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.es.html,v
retrieving revision 1.13
retrieving revision 1.14
diff -u -b -r1.13 -r1.14
--- open-source-misses-the-point.es.html        2 Aug 2009 18:25:30 -0000       
1.13
+++ open-source-misses-the-point.es.html        15 Nov 2009 19:25:15 -0000      
1.14
@@ -3,11 +3,11 @@
 <!--#include virtual="/server/header.es.html" -->
 
 <!-- This file is automatically generated by GNUnited Nations! -->
-<title>Por qué el código abierto pierde el punto de vista del Software Libre 
-
-Proyecto GNU - Free Software Foundation (FSF)</title>
+<title>Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software - GNU Project - Free
+Software Foundation (FSF)</title>
 
 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.es.html" -->
-<h2>Por qué el código abierto pierde el punto de vista del Software 
Libre</h2>
+<h2>Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software</h2>
 
 <p>by <strong>Richard Stallman</strong></p>
 
@@ -18,161 +18,154 @@
 no de precio, por lo tanto piense en «libertad de expresión» y no en «barra
 libre». <sup><a href="#TransNote1" id="TransNote1Home">[1]</a></sup></p>
 
-<p>Estas libertades son de vital importancia. Son esenciales, no solamente para
-el bien del usuario individual, porque promueven la solidaridad social: el
-compartir y cooperar. Éstas libertades se vuelven aún más importantes
-mientras nuestra cultura y actividades de la vida diaria se vuelven más y
-más digitales. En un mundo de sonidos, imágenes y palabras digitales, el
-software libre viene a representar a la libertad en general. </p>
-
-<p>Decenas de millones de personas alrededor del mundo utilizan ahora software
-libre; las escuelas de regiones de India y España enseñan a todos los
-estudiantes a utilizar el <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.es.html">sistema
-operativo libre GNU/Linux</a>. La mayoría de estos usuarios nunca han
-escuchado las razones éticas por las cuales desarrollamos este sistema y
-construimos la comunidad de software libre, porque este sistema y esta
-comunidad son descritos como «de código abierto», y atribuidos a una
-filosofía diferente, en la cual estas libertades son rara vez mencionadas.</p>
-
-<p>El movimiento de software libre ha hecho campaña por la libertad de los
-usuarios de ordenador desde 1983. En 1984 iniciamos el desarrollo del
-sistema operativo libre GNU, para poder evitar los sistemas operativos que
-no son libres y niegan la libertad a sus usuarios. Durante los años 80
-creamos la mayor parte de los componentes esenciales de dicho sistema, tal
-como la <a href="/licenses/gpl.es.html">Licencia Pública General GNU</a>,
-una licencia diseñada específicamente para proteger la libertad de todos los
-usuarios de un programa.</p>
-
-<p>Sin embargo, no todos los usuarios y programadores de software libre estaban
-de acuerdo con las metas del movimiento del software libre. En 1998, una
-parte de la comunidad de software libre se bifurcó y empezó a hacer una
-campaña en nombre del «código abierto» («<span
-style="font-style:italic;">Open Source</span>» en inglés). El término se
-propuso originalmente para evitar un posible malentendido con el término
-«software libre», pero pronto se asoció con visiones filosóficas diferentes
-a las del movimiento del software libre.</p>
-
-<p>Algunos de los defensores del «código abierto» lo consideraron una 
«campaña
-de marketing para el software libre»; la cual atraería a los ejecutivos de
-empresas al citar los beneficios prácticos, mientras evitaba las ideas de
-correcto e incorrecto que quizá no deseaban oír. Otros defensores rechazaban
-frontalmente los valores éticos y sociológicos del software
-libre. Cualesquiera que hayan sido sus perspectivas, cuando hacían campaña
-por el «código abierto» no citaban o abogaban por esos valores. El término
-«código abierto» fue rápidamente asociado con la costumbre de citar
-solamente los valores prácticos, como el hacer software potente y
-confiable. La mayoría de simpatizantes del «código abierto» han llegado a
-dicho movimiento desde entonces y ése es el significado que le atribuyen.</p>
-
-<p>Casi todo el software de código abierto es software libre. Los dos 
conceptos
-describen casi la misma categoría de software, pero representan puntos de
-vista basados en valores fundamentalmente diferentes. El código abierto es
-una metodología de programación, el software libre es un movimiento
-social. Para el movimiento del software libre, el software libre es un
-imperativo ético porque solamente el software libre respeta la libertad del
-usuario. En cambio, la filosofía del código abierto considera los asuntos
-bajo los términos de cómo hacer «mejor» al software, en un sentido 
práctico
-solamente. Plantea que el software que no es libre no es una solución
-óptima. Para el movimiento del software libre, sin embargo, el software que
-no es libre es un problema social, y usar en su lugar software libre es la
-solución.</p>
-
-<p>Software libre. Código abierto. Si es el mismo software, ¿importa acaso 
qué
-nombre se utiliza?. Sí, porque las diferentes palabras expresan ideas
-diferentes. Mientras que un programa libre, con cualquier otro nombre, le
-dará la misma libertad; establecer la libertad de una manera perdurable
-depende sobre todo de enseñar a las personas a valorar la libertad. Si desea
-ayudar a hacer esto, es esencial que hable de «software libre».</p>
-
-<p>Nosotros, en el movimiento del software libre, no vemos el ámbito del 
código
-abierto como al enemigo; el enemigo es el software privativo, el que no es
-libre. Pero queremos que la gente sepa que defendemos la libertad, así que
-no aceptamos que se nos identifique como partidarios del código abierto. </p>
-
-<h3>Malinterpretaciones comunes entre «software libre» y «código 
abierto»</h3>
-
-<p>El término «software libre» tiene un problema de interpretación, un
-significado no intencional. «Software que puedes obtener a coste cero» calza
-tan bien con el término como el significado intencionado: «software que da
-al usuario ciertas libertades» <sup><a href="#TransNote2"
-id="TransNote2Home">[2]</a></sup>. Tratamos este problema publicando la
-definición de software libre y diciendo «piense en libertad de expresión, no
-en barra libre». Ésta no es una solución perfecta, no puede eliminar
-completamente el problema. Un término correcto e inequívoco sería mejor, si
-no tuviese otros problemas.</p>
+<p>These freedoms are vitally important.  They are essential, not just for the
+individual users' sake, but for society as a whole because they promote
+social solidarity&mdash;that is, sharing and cooperation.  They become even
+more important as our culture and life activities are increasingly
+digitized.  In a world of digital sounds, images, and words, free software
+becomes increasingly essential for freedom in general.</p>
+
+<p>Tens of millions of people around the world now use free software; the
+schools of regions of India and Spain now teach all students to use the free
+<a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux 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 &ldquo;open
+source,&rdquo;, attributing them to a different philosophy in which these
+freedoms are hardly mentioned.</p>
+
+<p>The free software movement has campaigned for computer users' freedom since
+1983.  In 1984 we launched the development of the free operating system GNU,
+so that we could avoid the nonfree operating systems that deny freedom to
+their users.  During the 1980s, we developed most of the essential
+components of the system and designed the <a href="/licenses/gpl.html">GNU
+General Public License</a> (GNU GPL) to release them under&mdash;a license
+designed specifically to protect freedom for all users of a program.</p>
+
+<p>Not all of the users and developers of free software agreed with the goals
+of the free software movement.  In 1998, a part of the free software
+community splintered off and began campaigning in the name of &ldquo;open
+source.&rdquo; The term was originally proposed to avoid a possible
+misunderstanding of the term &ldquo;free software,&rdquo; but it soon became
+associated with philosophical views quite different from those of the free
+software movement.</p>
+
+<p>Some of the supporters of open source considered the term a &ldquo;marketing
+campaign for free software,&rdquo; which would appeal to business executives
+by highlighting the software's practical benefits, while not raising issues
+of right and wrong that they might not like to hear.  Other supporters
+flatly rejected the free software movement's ethical and social values.
+Whichever their views, when campaigning for open source, they neither cited
+nor advocated those values.  The term &ldquo;open source&rdquo; quickly
+became associated 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
+association.</p>
+
+<p>Nearly all open source software is free software.  The two terms describe
+almost the same category of software, but they stand for views based on
+fundamentally different values.  Open source is a development methodology;
+free software is a social movement.  For the free software movement, free
+software is an ethical imperative, because only free software respects the
+users' freedom.  By contrast, the philosophy of open source considers issues
+in terms of how to make software &ldquo;better&rdquo;&mdash;in a practical
+sense only.  It says that nonfree software is an inferior solution to the
+practical problem at hand.  For the free software movement, however, nonfree
+software is a social problem, and the solution is to stop using it and move
+to free software.</p>
+
+<p>&ldquo;Free software.&rdquo; &ldquo;Open source.&rdquo; If it's the same
+software, does it matter which name you use? Yes, because different words
+convey different ideas.  While a free program by any other name would give
+you the same freedom today, establishing freedom in a lasting way depends
+above all on teaching people to value freedom.  If you want to help do this,
+it is essential to speak of &ldquo;free software.&rdquo;</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>
+
+<h3>Common Misunderstandings of &ldquo;Free Software&rdquo; and &ldquo;Open
+Source&rdquo;</h3>
+
+<p>The term &ldquo;free software&rdquo; is prone to misinterpretation: an
+unintended meaning, &ldquo;software you can get for zero price,&rdquo; fits
+the term just as well as the intended meaning, &ldquo;software which gives
+the user certain freedoms.&rdquo; We address this problem by publishing the
+definition of free software, and by saying &ldquo;Think of &lsquo;free
+speech,&rsquo; not &lsquo;free beer.&rsquo;&rdquo; This is not a perfect
+solution; it cannot completely eliminate the problem.  An unambiguous and
+correct term would be better, if it didn't present other problems.</p>
 
 <p>Unfortunately, all the alternatives in English have problems of their own.
-We've looked at many alternatives that people have suggested, but none is so
-clearly &ldquo;right&rdquo; that switching to it would be a good idea.  (For
-instance, in some contexts the French/Spanish word "libre" can be used, but
-people in India do not recognize the word at all.)  Every proposed
+We've looked at many that people have suggested, but none is so clearly
+&ldquo;right&rdquo; that switching to it would be a good idea.  (For
+instance, in some contexts the French and Spanish word &ldquo;libre&rdquo;
+works well, but people in India do not recognize it at all.)  Every proposed
 replacement for &ldquo;free software&rdquo; has some kind of semantic
 problem&mdash;and this includes &ldquo;open source software.&rdquo;</p>
 
-<p>La <a href="http://opensource.org/docs/osd";>definición oficial de 
«software
-de código abierto»</a>, publicada por la Open Source Initiative y muy larga
-de citar aquí, se derivó indirectamente de nuestro criterio para el software
-libre. No es la misma, es un poco más imprecisa en algunos aspectos, así que
-sus partidarios han aceptado algunas licencias que nosotros consideramos
-inaceptablemente restrictivas contra los usuarios. Sin embargo, está
-bastante cerca de nuestra definición en la práctica.</p>
-
-<p>Sin embargo, el significado obvio para la expresión «software de código
-abierto» es «puede mirar el código fuente», y muchas personas parecen 
pensar
-que eso es lo que significa. Ese es un criterio mucho más débil que software
-libre, y es mucho más débil que la definición oficial de código
-abierto. Incluye muchos programas que no son ni libres ni de código 
abierto.</p>
-
-<p>Como ese significado obvio de «código abierto» no es el significado que 
sus
-promotores desean, el resultado es que la mayoría de personas malentienden
-el término. Así es cómo el escritor Neal Stephenson definió «código
-abierto»:</p>
-
-  <blockquote><p>Linux es software de  «código abierto», lo que significa 
que cualquiera
-puede obtener copias de sus archivos de código fuente.</p></blockquote>
-
-<p>No pienso que deliberadamente buscara rechazar o disputar la definición
-«oficial». Creo que simplemente aplicó las convenciones de la lengua inglesa
-para llegar a un significado para el término. El estado de Kansas (Estados
-Unidos de América) publicó una definición similar:</p>
-
-<!-- It was from http://da.state.ks.us/itec/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf,
-but that page is no longer available. -->
-<blockquote><p>Utilice software de código abierto. El software de código 
abierto es
-software para el cual el código fuente está disponible gratuitamente y
-públicamente, aunque los acuerdos de licencia específicos varían en cuanto a
-lo que está permitido de hacer con ese código.</p></blockquote>
+<p>The <a href="http://opensource.org/docs/osd";>official definition of
+&ldquo;open source software&rdquo;</a> (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, so open source supporters have accepted a few
+licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive of the users.
+Nonetheless, it is fairly close to our definition in practice.</p>
+
+<p>However, the obvious meaning for the expression &ldquo;open source
+software&rdquo;&mdash;and the one most people seem to think it
+means&mdash;is &ldquo;You can look at the source code.&rdquo; 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>
+
+<p><!-- It was from http://da.state.ks.us/itec/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf, but
+that page is no longer available. -->
+Since that obvious meaning for &ldquo;open source&rdquo; is not the meaning
+that its advocates intend, the result is that most people misunderstand the
+term.  According to writer Neal Stephenson, &ldquo;Linux is &lsquo;open
+source&rsquo; software meaning, simply, that anyone can get copies of its
+source code files.&rdquo; I don't think he deliberately sought to reject or
+dispute the &ldquo;official&rdquo; definition.  I think he simply applied
+the conventions of the English language to come up with a meaning for the
+term.  The state of Kansas published a similar definition: &ldquo;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.&rdquo;</p>
 
-<p>The New York Times has <a
+<p>The <i>New York Times</i> has <a
 
href="http://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-design-37415.html";>
-stretched the term</a> to refer to user beta testing &mdash; letting a few
-users try an early version and give confidential feedback &mdash; which
-proprietary software developers have practiced for decades.</p>
-
-<p>La gente del código abierto intenta lidiar con este problema refiriéndose 
a
-su definición oficial, pero ese enfoque correctivo es menos efectivo para
-ellos que para nosotros. El término «software libre» tiene dos significados
-naturales, uno de los cuales es el que es deseado; de manera que una persona
-que ha comprendido la idea de «libertad de expresión, no barra libre» no se
-equivocará de nuevo. Sin embargo, el «código abierto» solamente tiene un
-significado natural, el cual es diferente del que sus partidarios
-desean. Así que no hay una manera breve de explicar y justificar la
-definición oficial de «código abierto». Eso causa mayor confusión.</p>
-
-<p>Otro malentendido de «código abierto» es la idea que significa «no usar 
la
-GPL de GNU». Lo suele acompañar el malentendido de «software libre» es 
igual
-al «software bajo la GPL de GNU». Ambos son malentendidos, ya que la GPL de
-GNU es considerada una licencia de código abierto; y la mayoría de las
-licencias de código abierto también se consideran licencias de software
-libre.</p>
-
-<h3>Valores diferentes pueden llevar a conclusiones similares, pero no 
siempre</h3>
-
-<p>Los grupos radicales en los 1960 tenían reputación de tener facciones:
-algunas organizaciones se dividían por desacuerdos respecto a detalles de
-estrategia; y los dos grupos resultantes se trataban entre ellos como
-enemigos, aunque tenían metas y valores básicos similares. La derecha se
-aprovechó de esto y lo utilizó para criticar a la izquierda en general.</p>
+run an article that stretches the meaning of the term</a> to refer to user
+beta testing&mdash;letting a few users try an early version and give
+confidential feedback&mdash;which proprietary software developers have
+practiced for decades.</p>
+
+<p>Open source supporters try to deal with this by pointing to their official
+definition, but that corrective approach is less effective for them than it
+is for us.  The term &ldquo;free software&rdquo; has two natural meanings,
+one of which is the intended meaning, so a person who has grasped the idea
+of &ldquo;free speech, not free beer&rdquo; will not get it wrong again.
+But the term &ldquo;open source&rdquo; has only one natural meaning, which
+is different from the meaning its supporters intend.  So there is no
+succinct way to explain and justify its official definition.  That makes for
+worse confusion.</p>
+
+<p>Another misunderstanding of &ldquo;open source&rdquo; is the idea that it
+means &ldquo;not using the GNU GPL.&rdquo; This tends to accompany another
+misunderstanding that &ldquo;free software&rdquo; means &ldquo;GPL-covered
+software.&rdquo; These are equally mistaken, since the GNU GPL is accepted
+as an open source license and most of the open source licenses qualify as
+free software licenses.</p>
+
+<h3>Different Values Can Lead to Similar Conclusions&hellip;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, and the
+two daughter groups treated each other as enemies despite having similar
+basic goals and values.  The right wing made much of this and used it to
+criticize the entire left.</p>
 
 <p>Algunos intentan desacreditar al movimiento de software libre comparando
 nuestro desacuerdo con el código abierto con los desacuerdos de esos grupos
@@ -181,19 +174,19 @@
 llevan en muchos casos al mismo comportamiento práctico, como programar
 software libre.</p>
 
-<p>Como resultado, gente del movimiento del software libre y del ámbito del
-código abierto trabajan, con frecuencia, juntos en proyectos prácticos como
-el desarrollo de software. Es remarcable que puntos de vista filosóficos tan
-diferentes puedan tan a menudo motivar a diferentes personas a participar en
-los mismos proyectos. Sin embargo, estos puntos de vista son muy diferentes
-y existen situaciones en las cuales llevan a acciones totalmente 
diferentes.</p>
-
-<p>La idea del código abierto es que el permitir a los usuarios modificar y
-redistribuir el software lo hará más potente y confiable, pero no hay
-garantía. Los programadores de software privativo no son necesariamente
-incompetentes. Algunas veces producen un programa potente y confiable,
-aunque no respete la libertad del usuario. ¿Cómo reaccionarían a ello los
-activistas de software libre y los entusiastas del código abierto?</p>
+<p>As a result, people from the free software movement and the open source camp
+often work together on practical projects such as software development.  It
+is remarkable that such different philosophical views can so often motivate
+different people to participate in the same projects.  Nonetheless, there
+are situations where these fundamentally different views lead to very
+different actions.</p>
+
+<p>The idea of open source is that allowing users to change and redistribute
+the software will make it more powerful and reliable.  But this is not
+guaranteed.  Developers of proprietary software are not necessarily
+incompetent.  Sometimes they produce a program that is powerful and
+reliable, even though it does not respect the users' freedom.  Free software
+activists and open source enthusiasts will react very differently to that.</p>
 
 <p>Un entusiasta puro del código abierto, uno que no esté influenciado para
 nada por los ideales del software libre, diría: «Estoy sorprendido que haya
@@ -202,68 +195,63 @@
 premiaría a los esquemas que nos quitan la libertad, llevándonos a su
 pérdida.</p>
 
-<p>El activista de software libre diría: «Su programa es muy atractivo pero 
no
-cederé mi libertad por él. Así que tengo que arreglármelas sin él. En vez 
de
-eso, apoyaré a un proyecto para que desarrolle un reemplazo libre.». Si
-valoramos nuestra libertad, podemos mantenerla y defenderla.</p>
+<p>The free software activist will say, &ldquo;Your program is very attractive,
+but I value my freedom more.  So I reject your program.  Instead I will
+support a project to develop a free replacement.&rdquo; If we value our
+freedom, we can act to maintain and defend it.</p>
 
-<h3>El software potente y confiable puede ser malo.</h3>
+<h3>Powerful, Reliable Software Can Be Bad</h3>
 
 <p>La idea de que queremos que el software sea potente y confiable viene de la
 suposición de que el software está diseñado para servir a sus usuarios. Si
 es potente y confiable, eso significa que los sirve mejor.</p>
 
-<p>Pero sólo se puede decir que el software sirve a sus usuarios si respeta su
-libertad. ¿Qué tal si el software es diseñado para encadenar a sus
-usuarios?. Entonces, la potencia únicamente significa que las cadenas son
-más restrictivas, y la confiabilidad significa que son más difíciles de
-quitar. Las funcionalidades maliciosas, como el espiar a los usuarios,
-restringir a los usuarios, las puertas traseras y las actualizaciones
-impuestas son comunes en el software privativo, y algunos defensores del
-código abierto quieren hacerlo de esa misma manera.</p>
-
-<p>Bajo la presión de las compañías discográficas y cinematográficas, el
-software que la gente puede utilizar está diseñado cada vez más
-específicamente para restringirlos. Esta funcionalidad maliciosa se conoce
-como <acronym lang="en" title="Digital Restrictions
-Management">DRM</acronym> o «Gestión de Restricciones Digitales» (vea <a
-href="http://defectivebydesign.org/";>DefectiveByDesign.org</a>) y es la
-antítesis, en espíritu, a la libertad que el software libre busca
-proveer. El <acronym lang="en" title="Digital Restrictions
-Management">DRM</acronym> no sólo atenta contra el espíritu del software
-libre, sino que además está diseñado expresamente para pisotear su
-libertad. Los programadores de DRM intentan dificultar e ilegalizar la
-modificación de los programas que implementan el DRM.</p>
-
-<p>Con todo, algunos partidarios del código abierto han propuesto software 
«DRM
-de código abierto». Su idea es que al publicar el código fuente de los
-programas diseñados para restringir su acceso a contenido cifrado, y
-permitir a otros que lo cambien, producirá software más potente y confiable
-para restringir a usuarios como usted. Entonces, se le entregará en
-dispositivos que no le permitirán modificarlo.</p>
-
-<p>Este software puede ser «código abierto» y puede utilizar el modelo de
-desarrollo del código abierto; pero no será software libre, ya que no
-respetará la libertad de los usuarios que en la práctica lo ejecutan. Si el
-modelo de desarrollo del código abierto tiene éxito en hacer de este
-software más poderoso y confiable para restringirle, eso lo hará aún 
peor.</p>
-
-<h3>Miedo de la libertad</h3>
-
-<p>La principal motivación inicial para el término «software de código 
abierto»
-es que la ideas éticas del «software libre» hacen a la gente sentirse
-incómoda. Eso es cierto: hablar acerca la libertad, asuntos éticos y
-responsabilidades tanto como de la conveniencia, es pedir a la gente que
-piense sobre cosas que podrían preferir ignorar; tales como si su conducta
-es ética. Esto puede provocar incomodidad, y algunas personas pueden
-simplemente cerrar sus mentes al respecto. No es motivo para que debamos
-dejar de hablar sobre estas cosas.</p>
-
-<p>Sin embargo, eso es lo que los líderes del «código abierto» decidieron
-hacer. Pensaron que al mantenerse callados sobre la ética y la libertad; y
-hablando solamente sobre los beneficios prácticos inmediatos de cierto
-software libre, podrían ser capaces de «vender» el software más
-efectivamente a ciertos usuarios, especialmente empresas.</p>
+<p>But software can be said to serve its users only if it respects their
+freedom.  What if the software is designed to put chains on its users? Then
+powerfulness means the chains are more constricting, and reliability that
+they are harder to remove.  Malicious features, such as spying on the users,
+restricting the users, back doors, and imposed upgrades are common in
+proprietary software, and some open source supporters want to implement them
+in open source programs.</p>
+
+<p>Under pressure from the movie and record companies, software for 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 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, or even illegal for you to
+change the software that implements the DRM.</p>
+
+<p>Yet some open source supporters have proposed &ldquo;open source DRM&rdquo;
+software.  Their idea is that, by publishing the source code of programs
+designed to restrict your access to encrypted media and by allowing others
+to change it, they will produce more powerful and reliable software for
+restricting users like you.  The software would then be delivered to you in
+devices that do not allow you to change it.</p>
+
+<p>This software might be open source and use the open source development
+model, but it won't be free software since it won't respect the freedom of
+the users that actually run it.  If the open source development model
+succeeds in making this software more powerful and reliable for restricting
+you, that will make it even worse.</p>
+
+<h3>Fear of Freedom</h3>
+
+<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 &ldquo;free
+software&rdquo; 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
+discomfort, and some people may simply close their minds to it.  It does not
+follow that we ought to stop talking about these issues.</p>
+
+<p>That is, however, what the leaders of open source decided to do.  They
+figured that by keeping quiet about ethics and freedom, and talking only
+about the immediate practical benefits of certain free software, they might
+be able to &ldquo;sell&rdquo; the software more effectively to certain
+users, especially business.</p>
 
 <p>Este enfoque se ha probado efectivo, en sus propios términos. La retórica
 del código abierto ha convencido muchas empresas y particulares a usar, e
@@ -276,50 +264,47 @@
 libre los lleva sólo hasta una parte del camino que hay que recorrer para
 ser defensores de su propia libertad.</p>
 
-<p>Tarde o temprano estos usuarios serán invitados a volver al software
-privativo por alguna ventaja práctica. Incontables compañías buscan ofrecer
-esa tentación; algunas ofreciendo copias gratuitas. ¿Qué motivaría a los
-usuarios a declinarlas? Sólo si han aprendido a valorar la libertad que el
-software libre les da, a valorar la libertad como tal, en vez de la
-conveniencia técnica y práctica de algún software libre en particular. Para
-diseminar esta idea, tenemos que hablar acerca de la libertad. Cierta dosis
-de aproximamiento «silencioso» hacia las empresas puede ser útil para la
-comunidad, pero es peligroso si se vuelve tan común que el amor a la
-libertad llegara a verse como una excentricidad.</p>
-
-<p>Esta peligrosa situación es exactamente la que tenemos. Mucha gente
-relacionada con el software libre habla poco acerca de la libertad,
-normalmente porque buscan ser «más atractivos para las empresas». Los
-distribuidores de software son, especialmente, los que muestran este patrón
-de conducta. Casi todas las distribuciones del sistema operativo GNU/Linux
-agregan paquetes privativos al sistema base libre; y con ello invitan a los
-usuarios a considerar ésto una ventaja, en lugar de un paso hacia atrás en
-su libertad.</p>
-
-<p>Extensiones de software privativas y distribuciones de GNU/Linux que no son
-parcialmente libres encuentran terrenos abonados, porque gran parte de
-nuestra comunidad no insiste en la libertad de su software. Ésto no es una
-coincidencia. La mayor parte de usuarios de GNU/Linux llegaron al sistema
-por el discurso del «código abierto», el cual no menciona a la libertad como
-una meta. Las prácticas que no sostienen a la libertad y las palabras que no
-hablan de libertad van de la mano, promoviéndose entre sí. Para superar ésta
-tendencia necesitamos hablar más de libertad, no menos.</p>
+<p>Sooner or later these users will be invited to switch back to proprietary
+software for some practical advantage.  Countless companies seek to offer
+such temptation, some even offering copies gratis.  Why would users decline?
+Only if they have learned to value the freedom free software gives them, to
+value freedom in and of itself rather than the technical and practical
+convenience of specific free software.  To spread this idea, we have to talk
+about freedom.  A certain amount of the &ldquo;keep quiet&rdquo; approach to
+business can be useful for the community, but it is dangerous if it becomes
+so common that the love of freedom comes to seem like an eccentricity.</p>
+
+<p>That dangerous situation is exactly what we have.  Most people involved with
+free software, especially its distributors, say little about
+freedom&mdash;usually because they seek to be &ldquo;more acceptable to
+business.&rdquo; Nearly all GNU/Linux operating system distributions add
+proprietary packages to the basic free system, and they invite users to
+consider this an advantage rather than a flaw.</p>
+
+<p>Proprietary add-on software and partially nonfree GNU/Linux distributions
+find fertile ground because most of our community does not insist on freedom
+with its software.  This is no coincidence.  Most GNU/Linux users were
+introduced to the system through &ldquo;open source&rdquo; discussion, which
+doesn't say that freedom is a goal.  The practices that don't uphold freedom
+and the words that don't talk about freedom go hand in hand, each promoting
+the other.  To overcome this tendency, we need more, not less, talk about
+freedom.</p>
 
 <h3>Conclusión</h3>
 
-<p>Mientras los promotores del código abierto traen nuevos usuarios a nuestra
-comunidad; nosotros, los activistas del software libre, tenemos que trabajar
-aún más para llevar el concepto de libertad a estos nuevos usuarios. Tenemos
-que decir «¡Es software libre y te da libertad!» más fuerte que nunca. Cada
-vez que dice «software libre» en lugar de «código abierto», ayuda a 
nuestra
-campaña.</p>
+<p>As the advocates of open source draw new users into our community, we free
+software activists must shoulder the task of bringing the issue of freedom
+to their attention.  We have to say, &ldquo;It's free software and it gives
+you freedom!&rdquo;&mdash;more and louder than ever.  Every time you say
+&ldquo;free software&rdquo; rather than &ldquo;open source,&rdquo; you help
+our campaign.</p>
 
 <h4>Notas al pie</h4>
 
 <p>
-Joe Barr escribió un artículo en inglés de título <a
-href="http://www.itworld.com/AppDev/350/LWD010523vcontrol4/";>Vive y deja
-licenciar</a> que muestra su perspectiva respecto al tema.</p>
+Joe Barr's article, <a
+href="http://www.itworld.com/AppDev/350/LWD010523vcontrol4/";>&ldquo;Live and
+let license,&rdquo;</a> gives his perspective on this issue.</p>
 
 <p>
 La documento en inglés de Lakhani y Wolf <a
@@ -344,11 +329,11 @@
 <!--#include virtual="/server/footer.es.html" -->
 <div id="footer">
 <p>
-Por favor, envíe sus comentarios y preguntas sobre la FSF y el proyecto GNU
-a <a href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>. También puede 
<a
-href="/contact/">contactar con la FSFpor otros medios</a><br />Por favor,
-envíe enlaces rotos y otras correcciones o sugerencias a<a
-href="mailto:address@hidden";><em>address@hidden</em></a>.
+Please send FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>.  There are also <a
+href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> the FSF.  <br /> Please send
+broken links and other corrections or suggestions to <a
+href="mailto:address@hidden";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>.
 </p>
 
 <p>Copyright &copy; 2007 Richard Stallman <br /> Verbatim copying and
@@ -369,7 +354,7 @@
 <!-- timestamp start -->
 Última actualización:
 
-$Date: 2009/08/02 18:25:30 $
+$Date: 2009/11/15 19:25:15 $
 
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
@@ -385,7 +370,7 @@
 
 <ul class="translations-list">
 <!-- Arabic -->
-<li><a hreflang="ar" 
href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.ar.html">&#1575;&#1604;&#1593;&#1585;&#1576;&#1610;&#1577;</a>&nbsp;[ar]</li>
+<li><a hreflang="ar" 
href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.ar.html">&#1575;&#1604;&#1593;&#1585;&#1576;&#1610;&#1577;</a>&nbsp;[At]</li>
 <!-- Bulgarian -->
 <li><a hreflang="bg" 
href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.bg.html">&#x431;&#x44A;&#x43B;&#x433;&#x430;&#x440;&#x441;&#x43A;&#x438;</a>&nbsp;[bg]</li>
 <!-- German -->
reply via email to
[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]