[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
trans-coord/gnun licenses/po/license-list.pot p...
|
From: |
Yavor Doganov |
|
Subject: |
trans-coord/gnun licenses/po/license-list.pot p... |
|
Date: |
Wed, 03 Mar 2010 19:25:07 +0000 |
CVSROOT: /sources/trans-coord
Module name: trans-coord
Changes by: Yavor Doganov <yavor> 10/03/03 19:25:07
Modified files:
gnun/licenses/po: license-list.pot
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/licenses/po/license-list.pot?cvsroot=trans-coord&r1=1.37&r2=1.38
http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/trans-coord/gnun/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.bg.html?cvsroot=trans-coord&r1=1.20&r2=1.21
http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/trans-coord/gnun/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.es.html?cvsroot=trans-coord&r1=1.14&r2=1.15
Patches:
Index: licenses/po/license-list.pot
===================================================================
RCS file: /sources/trans-coord/trans-coord/gnun/licenses/po/license-list.pot,v
retrieving revision 1.37
retrieving revision 1.38
diff -u -b -r1.37 -r1.38
--- licenses/po/license-list.pot 9 Dec 2009 19:25:22 -0000 1.37
+++ licenses/po/license-list.pot 3 Mar 2010 19:25:07 -0000 1.38
@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@
msgid ""
msgstr ""
"Project-Id-Version: PACKAGE VERSION\n"
-"POT-Creation-Date: 2009-12-09 14:25-0500\n"
+"POT-Creation-Date: 2010-03-03 14:25-0500\n"
"PO-Revision-Date: YEAR-MO-DA HO:MI+ZONE\n"
"Last-Translator: FULL NAME <address@hidden>\n"
"Language-Team: LANGUAGE <address@hidden>\n"
@@ -1891,6 +1891,22 @@
msgstr ""
# type: Content of: <dl><dt>
+msgid ""
+"<a id=\"JSON\" href=\"http://www.json.org/license.html\";>The JSON "
+"License</a>"
+msgstr ""
+
+# type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
+msgid ""
+"This is the license of the original implementation of the JSON data "
+"interchange format. This license uses the Expat license as a base, but adds "
+"a clause mandating: “The Software shall be used for Good, not "
+"Evil.” This is a restriction on usage and thus conflicts with freedom "
+"0. The restriction might be unenforcible, but we cannot presume that. "
+"Thus, the license is nonfree."
+msgstr ""
+
+# type: Content of: <dl><dt>
msgid "Old license of ksh93"
msgstr ""
Index: philosophy/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 1.20
retrieving revision 1.21
diff -u -b -r1.20 -r1.21
--- philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.bg.html 15 Nov 2009 19:25:15
-0000 1.20
+++ philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.bg.html 3 Mar 2010 19:25:07
-0000 1.21
@@ -110,9 +110,12 @@
“open source software”</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>
+looser in some respects, so the open source people have accepted a few
+licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive. Also, they judge solely
+by the license of the source code, whereas our criterion also considers
+whether a device will let you <em>run</em> your modified version of the
+program. 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
@@ -155,9 +158,16 @@
<p>Another misunderstanding of “open source” is the idea that it
means “not using the GNU GPL.” This tends to accompany another
misunderstanding that “free software” means “GPL-covered
-software.” 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>
+software.” These are both mistaken, since the GNU GPL qualifies as an
+open source license and most of the open source licenses qualify as free
+software licenses.</p>
+
+<p>The term “open source” has been further stretched by its
+application to other activities, such as government, education, and science,
+where there is no such thing as source code, and where 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”.</p>
<h3>Different Values Can Lead to Similar Conclusions…but Not Always</h3>
@@ -365,7 +375,7 @@
<!-- timestamp start -->
ÐоÑледно обновÑване:
-$Date: 2009/11/15 19:25:15 $
+$Date: 2010/03/03 19:25:07 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: philosophy/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 1.14
retrieving revision 1.15
diff -u -b -r1.14 -r1.15
--- philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.es.html 15 Nov 2009 19:25:15
-0000 1.14
+++ philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.es.html 3 Mar 2010 19:25:07
-0000 1.15
@@ -110,9 +110,12 @@
“open source software”</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>
+looser in some respects, so the open source people have accepted a few
+licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive. Also, they judge solely
+by the license of the source code, whereas our criterion also considers
+whether a device will let you <em>run</em> your modified version of the
+program. 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
@@ -155,9 +158,16 @@
<p>Another misunderstanding of “open source” is the idea that it
means “not using the GNU GPL.” This tends to accompany another
misunderstanding that “free software” means “GPL-covered
-software.” 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>
+software.” These are both mistaken, since the GNU GPL qualifies as an
+open source license and most of the open source licenses qualify as free
+software licenses.</p>
+
+<p>The term “open source” has been further stretched by its
+application to other activities, such as government, education, and science,
+where there is no such thing as source code, and where 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”.</p>
<h3>Different Values Can Lead to Similar Conclusions…but Not Always</h3>
@@ -354,7 +364,7 @@
<!-- timestamp start -->
Ãltima actualización:
-$Date: 2009/11/15 19:25:15 $
+$Date: 2010/03/03 19:25:07 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
| [Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- trans-coord/gnun licenses/po/license-list.pot p...,
Yavor Doganov <=