open-source-misses-the-point.html - en to unknown language translation catalogue (43 entries)

note: type: Content of: <title>
en: Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation
target: Zašto otvoreni izvorni kod promašuje smisao slobodnog softvera - Projekt GNU - Zaklada za slobodan softver

note: type: Content of: <div><address>
en: by Richard Stallman
target: napisao Richard Stallman

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: When we call software &ldquo;free,&rdquo; we mean that it respects the <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">users' essential freedoms</a>: the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute copies with or without changes.  This is a matter of freedom, not price, so think of &ldquo;free speech,&rdquo; not &ldquo;free beer.&rdquo;
target: Kada softver zovemo &ldquo;slobodnim,&rdquo; podrazumijevamo poštovanje <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">osnovnih korisničkih sloboda</a>: slobode pokretanja softvera, slobode  proučavanja i mijenjanja, te slobode daljnjeg distribuiranja kopija, sa ili bez promjena. Ovo je stvar slobode, a ne cijene - razmišljajte o &ldquo;slobodi govora&rdquo;, a ne o &ldquo;besplatnom pivu&rdquo;.

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: 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.
target: Spomenute slobode su od životne važnosti. One su osnovne, ne samo zbog koristi koje individualnih korisnici imaju od njih, nego i zbog društva kao cjeline, jer promoviraju društvenu solidarnost&mdash; to jest, razmjenu i suradnju. Postaju još i više važnije kako naša kultura i životne aktivnosti postaju sve više digitalizirane. U svijetu digitalnih zvukova, slika i riječi, slobodan softver postaje sve više temeljan za slobodu općenito.

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Tens of millions of people around the world now use free software; the public schools of some 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.
target: Deseci milijuna ljudi širom svijeta koriste slobodan softver; javne škole nekih regija Indije i Španjolske podučavaju sve učenike da koriste slobodni <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux operativni sustav</a>. Većina tih korisnika, međutim, nisu nikada čuli etičke razloge zbog kojih smo razvili ovaj sustav i izgradili zajednicu slobodnog softvera, jer danas se o ovome sustavu i zajednici sve češće govori kao o &ldquo;otvorenom izvornom kodu&rdquo; (<i>open source</i>), pripisujući ih drugačijoj filozofiji u kojoj su te slobode jedva spomenute.

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: 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.
target: Pokret slobodnog softvera je vodio kampanju za slobodu računalnih korisnika još od 1983. U 1984. smo pokrenuli razvoj slobodnog operativnoga sustava po imenu GNU, tako da bi mogli izbjeći neslobodne operativne sustave koji osporavaju slobodu vlastitim korisnicima. Tokom 1980-ih, razvili smo većinu osnovnih komponenata sustava i dizajnirali <a href="/licenses/gpl.html">GNU opću javnu licencu (<i>GNU General Public License</i>)</a> (GNU GPL) pod kojom smo ih objavili&mdash;licenca dizajnirana specifično za obranu slobode za sve korisnike programa.

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: 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.
target: Nisu se svi korisnici i developeri slobodnog softvera složili sa ciljevima pokreta slobodnog softvera. U 1998., dio zajednice slobodnog softvera se odlomio i pokrenuo kampanju u ime &ldquo;otvorenog izvornog koda.&rdquo; Termin je originalno predložen da bi se izbjeglo moguće pogrešno shvaćanje termina &ldquo;slobodan softver,&rdquo; ali je ubrzo postao udružen sa filozofskim gledištima bitno različitim od onih pokreta slobodnog softvera.

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: 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.
target: Međutim, pokretu za slobodan softver neslobodan softver predstavlja društveni problem čije je rješenje prestanak korištenja neslobodnog i prijelaz na slobodni softver.

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: &ldquo;Free software.&rdquo; &ldquo;Open source.&rdquo; If it's the same software (<a href="/philosophy/free-open-overlap.html">or nearly so</a>), 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;
target: &ldquo;Slobodan softver.&rdquo; &ldquo;Otvoreni izvorni kod.&rdquo; Ako je to isti softver (<a href="/philosophy/free-open-overlap.html">ili barem približno</a>), je li važno koje ime koristite? Da, zato jer različite riječi prenose različite ideje. Dok bi vam danas slobodni program pod bilo kojim drugim imenom dao istu slobodu, uspostavljanje slobode na trajan način ovisi iznad svega o poduci ljudi da cijene slobodu. Ako želite pomoći napraviti to, nužno je govoriti o &ldquo;slobodnom softveru.&rdquo;

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: Practical Differences between Free Software and Open Source
target: Praktične razlike između slobodnog softvera i otvorenog izvornog koda

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: Common Misunderstandings of &ldquo;Free Software&rdquo; and &ldquo;Open Source&rdquo;
target: Česta pogrešna shvaćanja &ldquo;slobodnog softvera&rdquo; i &ldquo;otvorenog izvornog koda&rdquo;

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: 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.
target: Termin &ldquo;slobodan softver&rdquo; je sklon pogrešnoj interpretaciji: nehotično značenje: &ldquo;softver koji možete dobiti besplatno,&rdquo; se uklapa isto dobro kao i namijenjeno značenje: &ldquo;softver koji daje korisniku određene slobode.&rdquo; Adresiramo taj problem objavljivanjem definicije slobodnog softvera, govoreći: &ldquo;Mislite na &lsquo;slobodu govora,&rsquo; ne na &lsquo;slobodno (besplatno) pivo.&rsquo;&rdquo; To nije savršeno riješenje; ne može u potpunosti odstraniti problem. Nedvosmisleni i točan termin bi bio bolji, kada ne bi proizveo druge probleme.

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Unfortunately, all the alternatives in English have problems of their own.  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;
target: Nažalost, sve alternative u engleskom jeziku imaju svoje osobite probleme. Razmatrali smo mnoge koje su ljudi predložili, ali niti jedan nije toliko &ldquo;ispravan&rdquo; da bi prebacivanje na njega bila dobra ideja. (Na primjer, u nekim kontekstima francuska i španjolska riječ &ldquo;libre&rdquo; funkcionira, ali ljudi u Indiji uopće ne prepoznaju tu riječ.) Svaka predložena zamjena za &ldquo;slobodan softver&rdquo; ima neku vrstu semantičkoga problema&mdash;i to uključuje i &ldquo;softver otvorenog izvornog koda.&rdquo;

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Since the 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 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="https://web.archive.org/web/20001011193422/http://da.state.ks.us/ITEC/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf">state of Kansas</a> 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;
target: Pošto očito značenje &ldquo;otvorenog izvornog koda&rdquo; nije značenje koje su njegovi pobornici naumili, rezultat je taj da većina ljudi pogrešno shvaća termin. Prema piscu Nealu Stephensonu: &ldquo;Linux je softver &lsquo;otvorenog izvornog koda&rsquo; što znači, jednostavno, da svatko može preuzeti kopije njegovih datoteka izvornog koda.&rdquo; Ne mislim da je namjerno nastojao odbaciti ili osporiti službenu definiciju. Mislim da je jednostavno primijenio konvencije engleskog jezika da bi došao do značenja termina. <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20001011193422/http://da.state.ks.us/ITEC/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf">Država Kansas</a> objavila je sličnu definiciju: &ldquo;Koristite softver otvorenog izvornog koda (OSS). OSS je softver za koji je izvorni kod slobodno i javno dostupan, iako se specifični sporazumi oko licenciranja razlikuju i o tome ovisi što netko može napraviti s tim kodom.&rdquo;

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: 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.
target: Pobornici otvorenog izvornog koda se pokušavaju nositi s tim pokazujući na njihovu službenu definiciju, ali takav korektivni pristup je manje efektivan za njih nego je za nas. Termin &ldquo;slobodan softver&rdquo; ima dva prirodna značenja, jedno od kojih je namijenjeno značenje, tako osoba koja je shvatila ideju &ldquo;sloboda govora, ne slobodno (besplatno) pivo&rdquo; neće više pogrešno shvatiti. Ali termin &ldquo;otvoren izvorni kod&rdquo; ima samo jedno prirodno značenje, koje je različito od značenja koje su njegovi pobornici naumili. Dakle, ne postoji sažet način da se objasni i opravda njegova službena definicija. Zbog toga se konfuzija povećava.

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: 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 both mistaken, since the GNU GPL qualifies as an open source license and most of the open source licenses qualify as free software licenses.  There are <a href="/licenses/license-list.html"> many free software licenses</a> aside from the GNU GPL.
target: Drugo pogrešno shvaćanje &ldquo;otvorenog izvornog koda&rdquo; je ideja da znači &ldquo;nekorištenje GNU GPL-a.&rdquo; To obično ide uz još jedno pogrešno shvaćanje da &ldquo;slobodan softver&rdquo; znači &ldquo;softver pokriven GPL-om.&rdquo; Ova shvaćanja su oba pogrešna, pošto se GNU GPL kvalificira kao licenca otvorenog izvornog koda i većina licenci otvorenog izvornog koda se kvalificiraju kao licence slobodnog softvera. Postoje <a href="/licenses/license-list.html"> mnoge licence slobodnog softvera</a> uz GNU GPL.

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The term &ldquo;open source&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;participatory&rdquo; or &ldquo;transparent,&rdquo; or less than that.  At worst, it has <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/opinion/sunday/morozov-open-and-closed.html"> become a vacuous buzzword</a>.
target: Termin &ldquo;otvoren izvorni kod&rdquo; je dalje protegnuti svojom aplikacijom na druge aktivnosti, kao što su vlada, obrazovanje i znanost, gdje ne postoji nešto kao izvorni kod i gdje kriteriji za licenciranje softvera jednostavno nisu primjereni. Jedina zajednička stvar tih aktivnosti je da one nekako pozivaju ljude da sudjeluju. Oni protežu termin toliko daleko da samo znači &ldquo;participatorno&rdquo; ili &ldquo;transparentno&rdquo;, ili manje od toga. U najgorem slučaju, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/opinion/sunday/morozov-open-and-closed.html"> postane prazan <i>buzzword</i></a><sup><a href="#TransNote1">1</a></sup>.

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: 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.
target: Radikalne grupe su u 1960-ima imale ugled frakcionalizma: neke organizacije su se rascijepile zbog neslaganja o detaljima strategije, i dvije grupe kćeri su se odnosili kao neprijatelji usprkos sličnim bazičnim ciljevima i vrijednostima. Desnica je od toga napravila veliku stvar i iskoristila je to da kritizira cijelu ljevicu.

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Some try to disparage the free software movement by comparing our disagreement with open source to the disagreements of those radical groups.  They have it backwards.  We disagree with the open source camp on the basic goals and values, but their views and ours lead in many cases to the same practical behavior&mdash;such as developing free software.
target: Neki pokušavaju poniziti pokret slobodnog softvera uspoređujući naše neslaganje sa otvorenim izvornim kodom sa neslaganjem te dvije radikalne grupe. Oni su to shvatili naopako. Ne slažemo se sa taborom otvorenog izvornog koda u bazičnim ciljevima i vrijednostima, ali njihova gledišta i naša vode, u mnogo slučajeva, u isto praktično ponašanje&mdash;kao što je razvitak slobodnog softvera.

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: 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.
target: Kao rezultat, ljudi iz pokreta slobodnog softvera i tabor otvorenog izvornog koda često zajedno rade na praktičnim projektima kao što je razvijanje softvera. Izvanredno je da takva različita filozofska gledišta mogu tako često motivirati različite ljude da sudjeluju u istim projektima. Pored toga, postoje situacije gdje ta fundamentalno različita gledišta vode u vrlo različite akcije.

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: 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.
target: Ideja otvorenog izvornog koda je da će dopuštenje korisnicima da mijenjaju i ponovno distribuiraju softver napraviti isti taj softver moćnijim i pouzdanijim. Ali to nije garantirano. Developeri vlasničkog softvera nisu nužno nesposobni. Ponekad izrade program koji je moćan i pouzdan, iako ne poštuje korisničku slobodu. Aktivisti slobodnog softvera i entuzijasti otvorenog izvornog koda će reagirati vrlo različito na to.

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: A pure open source enthusiast, one that is not at all influenced by the ideals of free software, will say, &ldquo;I am surprised you were able to make the program work so well without using our development model, but you did.  How can I get a copy?&rdquo; This attitude will reward schemes that take away our freedom, leading to its loss.
target: Čisti entuzijast otvorenog izvornog koda, netko tko uopće nije pod utjecajem ideala slobodnog softvera, će reći: &ldquo;Iznenađen sam da ste uspjeli natjerati program da radi tako dobro bez korištenja našeg razvojnog modela, ali uspjeli ste. Kako mogu dobiti kopiju?&rdquo; Takav stav će nagraditi sheme koje oduzimaju našu slobodu, vodeći prema njenom gubitku.

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: Powerful, Reliable Software Can Be Bad
target: Moćan, pouzdan softver može biti loš

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The idea that we want software to be powerful and reliable comes from the supposition that the software is designed to serve its users.  If it is powerful and reliable, that means it serves them better.
target: Ideja da želimo softver da bude moćan i pouzdan dolazi iz pretpostavke da je softver dizajnirani da služi svojim korisnicima. Ako je moćan i pouzdan, to znači da im bolje služi.

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: 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.
target: Ali može se reći da softver služi svojim korisnicima jedino ako poštuje njihovu slobodu. Što ako je softver dizajnirani da stavlja lance na svoje korisnike? Tada njegova moć znači da su lanci više stegnuti, i pouzdanost znači da su lanci teži za ukloniti. Zlonamjerne značajke, kao što su špijuniranje korisnika, ograničenje korisnika, stražnja vrata i nametnuta poboljšanja su učestali kod vlasničkog softvera, i neki pobornici otvorenog izvornog koda ih žele implementirati u programima otvorenog izvornog koda.

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: 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="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, or even illegal for you to change the software that implements the DRM.
target: Pod pritiskom filmskih i glazbenih kompanija, softver za korištenje od strane individualnih korisnika je sve više dizajnirani specifično da ih ograničuje. Ta zlonamjerna značajka je znana kao Digitalno Upravljanje Restrikcijama (<i>Digital Restrictions Management</i>) (DRM) (pogledajte <a href="https://defectivebydesign.org">DefectiveByDesign.org</a>) i to je antiteza duha slobode koji slobodni softver cilja da pruži. I ne samo u duhu: pošto je cilj DRM-a gaženje vaše slobode, DRM developeri pokušavaju napraviti teškim, nemogućim ili čak nezakonitim vaše mijenjanje softvera koji implementira DRM.

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: 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.
target: No, neki pobornici otvorenog izvornog koda su predložili &ldquo;DRM softver otvorenog izvornog koda&rdquo;. Njihova ideja je da će, objavljivanjem izvornog koda programa dizajniranih da ograniče vaš pristup kodiranom mediju i dopuštenjem drugih da ga izmjene, oni izraditi moćniji i pouzdan softver da ograniči korisnike poput vas. Softver bi tada bio isporučen vama u uređajima koji ne dopuštaju izmjenu softvera.

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: 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.
target: Taj softver bi mogao biti otvoreni izvorni kod i mogao bi koristiti model razvoja otvorenog izvornog koda, ali neće biti slobodan softver pošto neće poštovati slobodu korisnika koji ga zapravo pokreću. Ako razvojni model otvorenog izvornog koda uspije izraditi taj softver moćnijim i pouzdanijim u njegovom ograničavanju korisnika, to će ga učiniti još gorim.

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: Fear of Freedom
target: Strah od slobode

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: 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.
target: To je, međutim, ono što su vođe otvorenog izvornog koda odlučili napraviti. Oni su shvatili da bi šutnjom o etici i slobodi, i govorom samo o neposrednim praktičnim prednostima određenog slobodnog softvera, mogli biti u mogućnosti &ldquo;prodavati&rdquo; softver efektivnije određenim korisnicima, posebno onim poslovnim.

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: This approach has proved effective, in its own terms.  The rhetoric of open source has convinced many businesses and individuals to use, and even develop, free software, which has extended our community&mdash;but only at the superficial, practical level.  The philosophy of open source, with its purely practical values, impedes understanding of the deeper ideas of free software; it brings many people into our community, but does not teach them to defend it.  That is good, as far as it goes, but it is not enough to make freedom secure.  Attracting users to free software takes them just part of the way to becoming defenders of their own freedom.
target: Taj pristup se pokazao efektivnim, u vlastitom mandatu. Retorika otvorenog izvornog koda je uvjerila mnoge tvrtke i pojedince da koriste, čak i da razvijaju, slobodan softver, što je proširilo našu zajednicu&mdash;ali samo na površnoj, praktičnoj razini. Filozofija otvorenog izvornog koda, sa svojim čisto praktičnim vrijednostima, ometa razumijevanje dubljih ideja slobodnog softvera; donosi mnoge ljude u našu zajednicu, ali ih ne podučava da je brane. To je dobro, utoliko koliko to prolazi, ali nije dovoljno da osigura slobodu. Privlačenje korisnika prema slobodnom softveru vodi ih samo dio puta do toga da postanu branitelji vlastite slobode.

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: 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.
target: Prije ili kasnije ti korisnici će biti pozvani da prijeđu natrag na vlasnički softver zbog neke praktične prednosti. Nebrojeno mnogo kompanija žele ponuditi takvo iskušenje, neki čak nude kopije besplatno. Zašto bi korisnici odbili? Samo da su naučili cijeniti slobodu koju im daje slobodan softver, cijeniti slobodu zbog slobode same radije nego tehničke i praktične pogodnosti određenog slobodnog softvera. Da bi raširili tu ideju, moramo govoriti o slobodi. Određena količina &ldquo;šutnje&rdquo; kao poslovnog pristupa može biti korisna za zajednicu, ali je opasna ako postane toliko česta da se ljubav prema slobodi počinje činiti kao ekscentritet.

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: 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.
target: Ta opasna situacija je točno ono što imamo. Većina ljudi povezanih sa slobodnim softverom, posebno njegovi distributeri, govore malo o slobodi&mdash;obično zato jer žele biti &ldquo;prihvatljiviji tvrtkama.&rdquo; Skoro sve distribucije GNU/Linux operativnoga sustava dodaju vlasničke pakete osnovnom slobodnom sustavu, i pozivaju korisnike da smatraju to prednošću radije nego manom.

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: 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.
target: Vlasnički dodatni softver i djelomično neslobodne GNU/Linux distribucije nalaze plodno tlo jer većina naše zajednice ne insistira na slobodi kad je riječ o njihovom softveru. To nije slučajnost. Većina GNU/Linux korisnika je uvedena u sustav kroz raspravu o &ldquo;otvorenom izvornom kodu&rdquo;, koja ne govori da je cilj sloboda. Prakse koje ne podržavaju slobodu i riječi koje ne govore o slobodi idu ruku pod ruku, podržavajući jedna drugu. Da se prebrodi ta tendencija, trebamo više, ne manje, govora o slobodi.

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: &ldquo;FLOSS&rdquo; and &ldquo;FOSS&rdquo;
target: &ldquo;FLOSS&rdquo; i &ldquo;FOSS&rdquo;

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The terms &ldquo;FLOSS&rdquo; and &ldquo;FOSS&rdquo; are used to be <a href="/philosophy/floss-and-foss.html"> neutral between free software and open source</a>.  If neutrality is your goal, &ldquo;FLOSS&rdquo; is the better of the two, since it really is neutral.  But if you want to stand up for freedom, using a neutral term isn't the way.  Standing up for freedom entails showing people your support for freedom.
target: Termini &ldquo;FLOSS&rdquo; i &ldquo;FOSS&rdquo; su <a href="/philosophy/floss-and-foss.html">neutralni i označavaju i slobodni softver i softver otvorenog koda.</a> Ako želite postići neutralnost, &ldquo;FLOSS&rdquo; je bolji odabir; no neutralnim terminom se nećete izjasniti kao zagovornik slobode - borba za slobodu obuhvaća i izjašnjavanje.

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: Conclusion
target: Zaključak

note: type: Content of: <div><ul><li>
en: Lakhani and Wolf's <a 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.
target: Lakhanijev i Wolfov <a href="https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/lakhaniwolf.pdf"> članak o motivaciji developera slobodnog softvera</a> kaže da je znatna frakcija motivirana gledištem da softver treba biti slobodan. To je unatoč činjenici da su anketirali developere na SourceForge-u, portal koji ne podržava gledište da je to etično pitanje.

note: TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't have notes. type: Content of: <div>
en: *GNUN-SLOT: TRANSLATOR'S NOTES*
target: <h3>Bilješke prevoditelja</h3><ol><li id="TransNote1">Riječ ili fraza korištena da se impresionira ili izraz koji je trenutno u modi. Doslovno, <i>buzz</i> znači &ldquo;brujanje&rdquo;, a <i>word</i> znači &ldquo;riječ&rdquo;.</li></ol>

note: type: Content of: <div><div><p>
en: Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to <a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org">&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;</a>.  There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> the FSF.  Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org">&lt;webmasters@gnu.org&gt;</a>.
target: Molim vas šaljite općenite FSF &amp; GNU upite na <a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org">&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;</a>.  Postoje isto i <a href="/contact/">drugi načini kontaktiranja</a> FSF-a. Prekinute poveznice i drugi ispravci ili prijedlozi mogu biti poslani na <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org">&lt;webmasters@gnu.org&gt;</a>.

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: This page is licensed under a <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.
target: Ovo djelo je dano na korištenje pod licencom <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/deed.hr">Creative Commons Imenovanje-Bez prerada 4.0 međunarodna</a>.

note: TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't want credits. type: Content of: <div><div>
en: *GNUN-SLOT: TRANSLATOR'S CREDITS*
target: <b>Prijevod</b>: Marin Rameša, 2013.

note: timestamp start type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Updated:
target: Zadnji put promijenjeno:
