# LANGUAGE translation of https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.html # Copyright (C) YEAR Free Software Foundation, Inc. # This file is distributed under the same license as the original article. # FIRST AUTHOR , YEAR. # #, fuzzy msgid "" msgstr "" "Project-Id-Version: when-free-software-isnt-practically-superior.html\n" "POT-Creation-Date: 2021-09-05 10:26+0000\n" "PO-Revision-Date: YEAR-MO-DA HO:MI+ZONE\n" "Last-Translator: FULL NAME \n" "Language-Team: LANGUAGE \n" "Language: \n" "MIME-Version: 1.0\n" "Content-Type: text/plain; charset=CHARSET\n" "Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit\n" #. type: Content of: msgid "" "When Free Software Isn't (Practically) Superior - GNU Project - Free " "Software Foundation" msgstr "" #. type: Content of: <div><h2> msgid "When Free Software Isn't (Practically) Superior" msgstr "" #. type: Content of: <div><address> msgid "by <a href=\"https://mako.cc/writing/\">Benjamin Mako Hill</a>" msgstr "" #. type: Content of: <div><p> msgid "" "The Open Source Initiative's mission statement reads, “Open source is " "a development method for software that harnesses the power of distributed " "peer review and transparency of process. The promise of open source is " "better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility, lower cost, and an end " "to predatory vendor lock-in.”" msgstr "" #. type: Content of: <div><p> msgid "" "For more than a decade now, the Free Software Foundation has argued against " "this “open source” characterization of the free software " "movement. Free software advocates have primarily argued against this framing " "because “open source” is an explicit effort to deemphasize our " "core message of freedom and obscure our movement's role in the success of " "the software we have built. We have argued that “open source” is " "bad, fundamentally, because it attempts to keep people from talking about " "software freedom. But there is another reason we should be wary of the open " "source framing. The fundamental open source argument, as quoted in the " "mission statement above, is often incorrect." msgstr "" #. type: Content of: <div><p> msgid "" "Although the Open Source Initiative suggests “the promise of open " "source is better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility,” this " "promise is not always realized. Although we do not often advertise the fact, " "any user of an early-stage free software project can explain that free " "software is not always as convenient, in purely practical terms, as its " "proprietary competitors. Free software is sometimes low quality. It is " "sometimes unreliable. It is sometimes inflexible. If people take the " "arguments in favor of open source seriously, they must explain why open " "source has not lived up to its “promise” and conclude that " "proprietary tools would be a better choice. There is no reason we should " "have to do either." msgstr "" #. type: Content of: <div><p> msgid "" "Richard Stallman speaks to this in his article on <a " "href=\"/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html\">Why Open Source " "Misses the Point</a> when he explains, “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.”" msgstr "" #. type: Content of: <div><p> msgid "" "For open source, poor-quality software is a problem to be explained away or " "a reason to eschew the software altogether. For free software, it is a " "problem to be worked through. For free software advocates, glitches and " "missing features are never a source of shame. Any piece of free software " "that respects users' freedom has a strong inherent advantage over a " "proprietary competitor that does not. Even if it has other issues, free " "software always has freedom." msgstr "" #. type: Content of: <div><p> msgid "" "Of course, every piece of free software must start somewhere. A brand-new " "piece of software, for example, is unlikely to be more featureful than an " "established proprietary tool. Projects begin with many bugs and improve over " "time. While open source advocates might argue that a project will grow into " "usefulness over time and with luck, free software projects represent " "important contributions on day one to a free software advocate. Every piece " "of software that gives users control over their technology is a step " "forward. Improved quality as a project matures is the icing on the cake." msgstr "" #. type: Content of: <div><p> msgid "" "A second, perhaps even more damning, fact is that the collaborative, " "distributed, peer-review development process at the heart of the definition " "of open source bears little resemblance to the practice of software " "development in the vast majority of projects under free (or “open " "source”) licenses." msgstr "" #. type: Content of: <div><p> msgid "" "Several academic studies of <a href=\"/software/repo-criteria.html\"> free " "software hosting sites</a> SourceForge and <a " "href=\"https://sv.gnu.org\">Savannah</a> have shown what many free software " "developers who have put a codebase online already know first-hand. The vast " "majority of free software projects are not particularly collaborative. The " "median number of contributors to a free software project on SourceForge? " "One. A lone developer. SourceForge projects at the ninety-fifth percentile " "by participant size have only five contributors. More than half of these " "free software projects—and even most projects that have made several " "successful releases and been downloaded frequently, are the work of a single " "developer with little outside help." msgstr "" #. type: Content of: <div><p> msgid "" "By emphasizing the power of collaborative development and “distributed " "peer review,” open source approaches seem to have very little to say " "about why one should use, or contribute to, the vast majority of free " "software projects. Because the purported benefits of collaboration cannot be " "realized when there is no collaboration, the vast majority of free " "development projects are at no technical advantage with respect to a " "proprietary competitor." msgstr "" #. type: Content of: <div><p> msgid "" "For free software advocates, these same projects are each seen as important " "successes. Because every piece of free software respects its users' freedom, " "advocates of software freedom argue that each piece of free software begins " "with an inherent ethical advantage over proprietary competitors—even a " "more featureful one. By emphasizing freedom over practical advantages, free " "software's advocacy is rooted in a technical reality in a way that open " "source is often not. When free software is better, we can celebrate this " "fact. When it is not, we need not treat it as a damning critique of free " "software advocacy or even as a compelling argument against the use of the " "software in question." msgstr "" #. type: Content of: <div><p> msgid "" "Open source advocates must defend their thesis that freely developed " "software should, or will with time, be better than proprietary " "software. Free software supporters can instead ask, “How can we make " "free software better?” In a free software framing, high quality " "software exists as a means to an end rather than an end itself. Free " "software developers should strive to create functional, flexible software " "that serves its users well. But doing so is not the only way to make steps " "toward solving what is both an easier and a much more profoundly important " "goal: respecting and protecting their freedom." msgstr "" #. type: Content of: <div><p> msgid "" "Of course, we do not need to reject arguments that collaboration can play an " "important role in creating high-quality software. In many of the most " "successful free software projects, it clearly has done exactly that. The " "benefits of collaboration become something to understand, support, and work " "towards, rather than something to take for granted in the face of evidence " "that refuses to conform to ideology." msgstr "" #. TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't have notes. #. type: Content of: <div> msgid "*GNUN-SLOT: TRANSLATOR'S NOTES*" msgstr "" #. type: Content of: <div><div><p> msgid "" "Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to <a " "href=\"mailto:gnu@gnu.org\"><gnu@gnu.org></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\"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>." msgstr "" #. TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph, #. replace it with the translation of these two: # #. We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality #. translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection. #. Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard #. to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"> # #. <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p> # #. <p>For information on coordinating and contributing translations of #. our web pages, see <a #. href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations #. README</a>. #. type: Content of: <div><div><p> msgid "" "Please see the <a " "href=\"/server/standards/README.translations.html\">Translations README</a> " "for information on coordinating and contributing translations of this " "article." msgstr "" #. type: Content of: <div><p> msgid "Copyright © 1999-2011 Benjamin Mako Hill" msgstr "" #. type: Content of: <div><p> msgid "" "This page is licensed under a <a rel=\"license\" " "href=\"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/\">Creative Commons " "Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License</a>." msgstr "" #. TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't want credits. #. type: Content of: <div><div> msgid "*GNUN-SLOT: TRANSLATOR'S CREDITS*" msgstr "" #. timestamp start #. type: Content of: <div><p> msgid "Updated:" msgstr ""