why-free.html - en to hr translation catalogue (60 entries)

note: type: Content of: <title>
en: Why Software Should Not Have Owners - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation
hr: Zašto softver ne bi trebao imati vlasnike - GNU projekt - Zaklada za slobodan softver

note: type: Attribute 'content' of: <meta>
en: GNU, GNU Project, FSF, Free Software, Free Software Foundation, Why Software Should Not Have Owners
hr: GNU, GNU projekt, FSF, slobodan softver, Zaklada za slobodan softver, Zašto softver ne bi trebao imati vlasnike

note: type: Content of: <div><h2>
en: Why Software Should Not Have Owners
hr: Zašto softver ne bi trebao imati vlasnike

note: type: Content of: <div><address>
en: by <a href="https://www.stallman.org/">Richard Stallman</a>
hr: napisao <a href="https://www.stallman.org/">Richard Stallman</a>

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Digital information technology contributes to the world by making it easier to copy and modify information.  Computers promise to make this easier for all of us.
hr: Digitalna informacijska tehnologija pridonosi svijetu, čineći lakšima prepisivanje i preinačivanje informacija. Svima nama računala obećavaju lakše bavljenje svime time.

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Not everyone wants it to be easier.  The system of copyright gives software programs &ldquo;owners,&rdquo; most of whom aim to withhold software's potential benefit from the rest of the public.  They would like to be the only ones who can copy and modify the software that we use.
hr: Ne želi svatko da to bude lakše. Sustav autorskih prava softverskim programima dodjeljuje &ldquo;vlasnike&rdquo;, od kojih većina zadržavaju možebitnu blagodat od softvera nedostupnima ostatku javnosti. Oni žele biti jedini koji mogu kopirati i preinačavati softver kojeg mi rabimo.

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The copyright system grew up with printing&mdash;a technology for mass-production copying.  Copyright fit in well with this technology because it restricted only the mass producers of copies.  It did not take freedom away from readers of books.  An ordinary reader, who did not own a printing press, could copy books only with pen and ink, and few readers were sued for that.
hr: Sustav autorskih prava uzrastao je s tiskom&mdash;tehnologijom za masovnu proizvodnju prijepisa. Autorsko pravo se dobro slaže s tom tehnologijom zato što ono ograničava samo vele proizvođače prijepisa. Ono nije oduzelo slobodu čitateljima knjiga. Obični čitatelj, koji nije posjedovao tiskarski stroj, mogao je prepisati knjige samo perom i tintom, i rijetki su čitatelji bili tuženi zbog toga.

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Digital technology is more flexible than the printing press: when information has digital form, you can easily copy it to share it with others.  This very flexibility makes a bad fit with a system like copyright.  That's the reason for the increasingly nasty and draconian measures now used to enforce software copyright.  Consider these four practices of the Software Publishers Association (SPA):
hr: Digitalna tehnologija je okretnija od tiskarskoga stroja: kada je informacija u digitalnom obliku, možete je lako kopirati da biste je podijelili s drugima. Upravo se ova fleksibilnost loše slaže sa sustavom autorskih prava. To je jedan od razloga rastućih gadnih i drakonskih mjera, koje se sada koriste u nametanju autorskih prava nad softverom. Promislite o ovim četirima navadama Udruge softverskih izdavača (<i>Software Publishers Association</i>, SPA):

note: type: Content of: <div><ul><li>
en: Massive propaganda saying it is wrong to disobey the owners to help your friend.
hr: Raširena promidžba koja kaže da je zlo biti neposlušan prema vlasnicima, kako bi pomogli svojem prijatelju.

note: type: Content of: <div><ul><li>
en: Solicitation for stool pigeons to inform on their coworkers and colleagues.
hr: Poticanje provokatora na prokazivanje svojih suradnika i kolega.

note: type: Content of: <div><ul><li>
en: Raids (with police help) on offices and schools, in which people are told they must prove they are innocent of illegal copying.
hr: Upadi (uz pomoć policije) u urede i škole, u kojima se ljudima govori da moraju dokazati svoju nedužnost glede nezakonitog kopiranja.

note: type: Content of: <div><ul><li>
en: Prosecution (by the US government, at the SPA's request) of people such as <abbr title="Massachusetts Institute of Technology">MIT</abbr>'s David LaMacchia, not for copying software (he is not accused of copying any), but merely for leaving copying facilities unguarded and failing to censor their use.<a href="#footnote1">[1]</a>
hr: Sudbeni progon (od strane Vlade SAD-a, na zahtjev od SPA) ljudi poput Davida LaMacchia-e iz <abbr title="Massachusetts Institute of Technology">MIT</abbr>-a, ne zbog kopiranja softvera (nije optužen ni zbog koje kopije), već samo zato što je uređaje za kopiranje ostavio nezaštićenima, i što nije cenzurirao uporabu istih.<a href="#footnote1">[1]</a>

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: All four practices resemble those used in the former Soviet Union, where every copying machine had a guard to prevent forbidden copying, and where individuals had to copy information secretly and pass it from hand to hand as samizdat.  There is of course a difference: the motive for information control in the Soviet Union was political; in the US the motive is profit.  But it is the actions that affect us, not the motive.  Any attempt to block the sharing of information, no matter why, leads to the same methods and the same harshness.
hr: Sve ove četiri navade podsjećaju na one provođene u bivšem Sovjetskom Savezu, gdje je svaki stroj za kopiranje bio pod stražom da bi se spriječilo zabranjeno kopiranje, i gdje je svaki individuum morao potajice presnimiti informacije i poslati ih iz ruke u ruku kao &ldquo;samizdat&rdquo;. Naravno, postoji razlika: povod za nadzor informacija u Sovjetskom Savezu bio je političke naravi; u SAD-u povod je dobit. Ali nas se dotiče samo čin, ne i povod. Svaki pokušaj sprječavanja dijeljenja informacija, bez obzira na razlog, vodi na jedne te iste metode i na istu grubost.

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Owners make several kinds of arguments for giving them the power to control how we use information:
hr: Vlasnici navode nekoliko vrsta argumenata koji im daju vlast da nadziru kako mi rabimo informacije:

note: type: Content of: <div><ul><li>
en: Name calling.
hr: Vrijeđanje.

note: type: Content of: <div><ul><li><p>
en: Owners use smear words such as &ldquo;piracy&rdquo; and &ldquo;theft,&rdquo; as well as expert terminology such as &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; and &ldquo;damage,&rdquo; to suggest a certain line of thinking to the public&mdash;a simplistic analogy between programs and physical objects.
hr: Vlasnici rabe klevetničke riječi poput &ldquo;piratstvo&rdquo; i &ldquo;krađa&rdquo;, kao i strukovnjačko nazivlje poput &ldquo;intelektualno vlasništvo&rdquo; i &ldquo;odšteta&rdquo;, da bi javnost naveli na stanovitu nit razmišljanja&mdash;pojednostavljena prispodoba između programa i fizičkih predmeta.

note: type: Content of: <div><ul><li><p>
en: Our ideas and intuitions about property for material objects are about whether it is right to <em>take an object away</em> from someone else.  They don't directly apply to <em>making a copy</em> of something.  But the owners ask us to apply them anyway.
hr: Naše zamisli i nagonsko poimanje vlasništva nad tvarnim predmetima su istovjetni s pravom ili ne-pravom <em>oduzimanja predmeta</em> od nekog drugog. Oni ne upućuju izravno na <em>tvorbu kopije</em> nečega. Pa ipak, vlasnici zahtijevaju od nas da to tako shvatimo.

note: type: Content of: <div><ul><li>
en: Exaggeration.
hr: Preuveličavanje.

note: type: Content of: <div><ul><li><p>
en: Owners say that they suffer &ldquo;harm&rdquo; or &ldquo;economic loss&rdquo; when users copy programs themselves.  But the copying has no direct effect on the owner, and it harms no one.  The owner can lose only if the person who made the copy would otherwise have paid for one from the owner.
hr: Vlasnici kažu da trpe &ldquo;štetu&rdquo; ili &ldquo;gospodarstveni gubitak&rdquo; kada korisnici sami kopiraju programe. Ali kopiranje nema izravnog učinka na vlasnika, i nikomu ne čini zlo. Vlasnik može trpiti štetu samo onda kada bi osoba koja je napravila kopiju i inače platila onu kopiju koja pripada samom vlasniku.

note: type: Content of: <div><ul><li><p>
en: A little thought shows that most such people would not have bought copies.  Yet the owners compute their &ldquo;losses&rdquo; as if each and every one would have bought a copy.  That is exaggeration&mdash;to put it kindly.
hr: Ponešto razmišljanja pokazuje da većina takvih ljudi ne bi kupila kopije. Ipak, vlasnici proračunavaju svoje &ldquo;gubitke&rdquo; kao da bi svi do jednoga kupili kopiju. Blago rečeno, to je preuveličavanje.

note: type: Content of: <div><ul><li>
en: The law.
hr: Zakon.

note: type: Content of: <div><ul><li><p>
en: Owners often describe the current state of the law, and the harsh penalties they can threaten us with.  Implicit in this approach is the suggestion that today's law reflects an unquestionable view of morality&mdash;yet at the same time, we are urged to regard these penalties as facts of nature that can't be blamed on anyone.
hr: Vlasnici često opisuju trenutno stanje zakona, i grube kazne kojima nam mogu prijetiti. U takvu pristupu prešutno je sadržana pretpostavka da današnji zakon odražava neupitni nazor o moralu&mdash;ipak, istodobno smo nagnati smatrati te kazne kao prirodne činjenice za koje nikoga ne možemo okriviti.

note: type: Content of: <div><ul><li><p>
en: This line of persuasion isn't designed to stand up to critical thinking; it's intended to reinforce a habitual mental pathway.
hr: Ovakva nit uvjeravanja nije osmišljena da bi hrabro stala nasuprot kritičkom razmišljanju; ona je usmjerena na pojačanje uobičajenog mentalnoga sklopa.

note: type: Content of: <div><ul><li><p>
en: It's elementary that laws don't decide right and wrong.  Every American should know that, in the 1950s, it was against the law in many states for a black person to sit in the front of a bus; but only racists would say sitting there was wrong.
hr: Jednostavna je činjenica da zakoni ne odlučuju što je dobro, a što zlo. Svaki Amerikanac bi to trebao znati, u 1950-ima, u mnogim američkim državama, svaka osoba crne boje kože činila protuzakonit čin ako je sjela na sjedalo u prednjem dijelu autobusa; no, samo bi rasisti rekli da je sjedenje na tim mjestima bilo zlo.

note: type: Content of: <div><ul><li>
en: Natural rights.
hr: Prirodna prava.

note: type: Content of: <div><ul><li><p>
en: Authors often claim a special connection with programs they have written, and go on to assert that, as a result, their desires and interests concerning the program simply outweigh those of anyone else&mdash;or even those of the whole rest of the world.  (Typically companies, not authors, hold the copyrights on software, but we are expected to ignore this discrepancy.)
hr: Autori često prisvajaju posebnu povezanost s programima koje su napisali, i nastavljaju tvrditi da, kao posljedica, njihove želje i interesi glede programa prevažu nad istima od bilo koga drugoga&mdash;ili čak i nad istima od sveukupnog ostatka svijeta. (Napose tvrtke, a ne autori, zadržavaju autorska prava nad softverom, no, od nas se očekuje da se ne osvrćemo na to protuslovlje.)

note: type: Content of: <div><ul><li><p>
en: To those who propose this as an ethical axiom&mdash;the author is more important than you&mdash;I can only say that I, a notable software author myself, call it bunk.
hr: Onima koji ovo predlažu kao etički poučak&mdash;autor je važniji od vas&mdash;mogu samo reći da ja, kao istaknuti autor softvera, nazivam to brbljarijom.

note: type: Content of: <div><ul><li><p>
en: But people in general are only likely to feel any sympathy with the natural rights claims for two reasons.
hr: Ali, ljudi općenito će suosjećati s tražbinom prirodnih prava samo iz dva razloga.

note: type: Content of: <div><ul><li><p>
en: One reason is an overstretched analogy with material objects.  When I cook spaghetti, I do object if someone else eats it, because then I cannot eat it.  His action hurts me exactly as much as it benefits him; only one of us can eat the spaghetti, so the question is, which one? The smallest distinction between us is enough to tip the ethical balance.
hr: Prvi razlog je prenapregnuta prispodoba s tvarnim predmetima. Kad kuham špagete, bunim se ako ih tko drugi pojede, zato što ih tada je ne mogu jesti. Njegov čin me povređuje isto koliko njemu čini dobro; samo jedan od nas može jesti špagete, pa je pitanje, koji? Najmanja razlika među nama je dovoljna za izvrtanje etičke ravnoteže.

note: type: Content of: <div><ul><li><p>
en: But whether you run or change a program I wrote affects you directly and me only indirectly.  Whether you give a copy to your friend affects you and your friend much more than it affects me.  I shouldn't have the power to tell you not to do these things.  No one should.
hr: Ali, bilo da pokrećete ili mijenjate program koji sam ja napisao, vas se dotiče izravno, a mene samo neizravno. Date li kopiju vašem prijatelju, to se dotiče vas i vašeg prijatelja znatno više nego mene. Ja ne bih trebao imati moć reći vam da ne činite te stvari. Nitko ne bi trebao.

note: type: Content of: <div><ul><li><p>
en: The second reason is that people have been told that natural rights for authors is the accepted and unquestioned tradition of our society.
hr: Drugi razlog je to što je ljudima bilo rečeno da su prirodna prava autora prihvaćena i neupitna tradicija našega društva.

note: type: Content of: <div><ul><li><p>
en: As a matter of history, the opposite is true.  The idea of natural rights of authors was proposed and decisively rejected when the US Constitution was drawn up.  That's why the Constitution only <em>permits</em> a system of copyright and does not <em>require</em> one; that's why it says that copyright must be temporary.  It also states that the purpose of copyright is to promote progress&mdash;not to reward authors.  Copyright does reward authors somewhat, and publishers more, but that is intended as a means of modifying their behavior.
hr: Kad je već o povijesti riječ, suprotno je istinito. Zamisao o prirodnim pravima autora bila je predložena i odlučno odbijena pri donošenju Ustava SAD-a. Zbog toga Ustav samo <em>dopušta</em> sustav autorskih prava i ne <em>zahtijeva</em> ga; zbog toga se u njemu kaže da autorsko pravo mora biti privremeno. U njemu se također kaže da je svrha autorskoga prava promicanje napretka&mdash;ne nagrađivanje autora. Autorsko pravo ponešto nagrađuje autore, izdavače više, ali to je usmjereno na promjenu njihova ponašanja.

note: type: Content of: <div><ul><li><p>
en: The real established tradition of our society is that copyright cuts into the natural rights of the public&mdash;and that this can only be justified for the public's sake.
hr: Zbiljski uspostavljena tradicija našega društva je zadiranje autorskoga prava u prirodna prava javnosti&mdash;i da se to može opravdati samo zbog javnosti.

note: type: Content of: <div><ul><li>
en: Economics.
hr: Gospodarstvo.

note: type: Content of: <div><ul><li><p>
en: The final argument made for having owners of software is that this leads to production of more software.
hr: Konačni argument za postojanje vlasnika softvera je da to vodi u proizvodnju još više softvera.

note: type: Content of: <div><ul><li><p>
en: Unlike the others, this argument at least takes a legitimate approach to the subject.  It is based on a valid goal&mdash;satisfying the users of software.  And it is empirically clear that people will produce more of something if they are well paid for doing so.
hr: Za razliku od ostalih, ovaj argument barem zakonski pristupa predmetu spora. Zasnovani je na vrijednomu cilju&mdash;zadovoljstvu korisnika softvera. Jasno je iz iskustva da će ljudi proizvoditi više nečega ako su za to dobro plaćeni.

note: type: Content of: <div><ul><li><p>
en: But the economic argument has a flaw: it is based on the assumption that the difference is only a matter of how much money we have to pay.  It assumes that <em>production of software</em> is what we want, whether the software has owners or not.
hr: Ali gospodarstveni argument ima nedostatak: zasnovani je na pretpostavci da se razlika svodi na to kolikom svotom novca moramo platiti. Također podrazumijeva da je <em>proizvodnja softvera</em> ono što želimo, bilo da softver ima vlasnike ili ih nema.

note: type: Content of: <div><ul><li><p>
en: People readily accept this assumption because it accords with our experiences with material objects.  Consider a sandwich, for instance.  You might well be able to get an equivalent sandwich either gratis or for a price.  If so, the amount you pay is the only difference.  Whether or not you have to buy it, the sandwich has the same taste, the same nutritional value, and in either case you can only eat it once.  Whether you get the sandwich from an owner or not cannot directly affect anything but the amount of money you have afterwards.
hr: Ljudi spremno prihvaćaju ovu pretpostavku zato što je ona u suglasju s našim iskustvom tvarnih predmeta. Razmotrite sendvič, na primjer. Možete biti podjednako u stanju dobiti istovjetni sendvič za badava ili za neku cijenu. Ako je tako, svota kojom platite je jedina razlika. Bilo da ga morate platiti ili ne, sendvič ima jednaki okus, prehrambenu vrijednost, i u svakom slučaju vi ga možete pojesti samo jedanput. Bilo da dobijete sendvič od vlasnika ili ne, to se ne može izravno doticati ničega drugog do li svote novaca koju imate nakon toga.

note: type: Content of: <div><ul><li><p>
en: This is true for any kind of material object&mdash;whether or not it has an owner does not directly affect what it <em>is</em>, or what you can do with it if you acquire it.
hr: Ovo je istina za bilo koji tvarni predmet&mdash;bilo da on ima vlasnika ili ga nema, to ne utječe izravno na to što predmet <em>jest</em>, ili na to što vi njime možete učiniti nakon što ga dobijete.

note: type: Content of: <div><ul><li><p>
en: But if a program has an owner, this very much affects what it is, and what you can do with a copy if you buy one.  The difference is not just a matter of money.  The system of owners of software encourages software owners to produce something&mdash;but not what society really needs.  And it causes intangible ethical pollution that affects us all.
hr: Međutim, ako program ima vlasnika, to znatno utječe na to što program jest, i što vi možete učiniti njegovom kopijom ako je kupite. Razlika nije samo stvar novca. Sustav vlasnika softvera ohrabruje vlasnike softvera da proizvedu nešto&mdash;ali ne ono što je društvu zaista prijeko potrebno. I prouzrokuje neizmjerno etično onečišćenje koje utječe na sve nas.

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: What does society need? It needs information that is truly available to its citizens&mdash;for example, programs that people can read, fix, adapt, and improve, not just operate.  But what software owners typically deliver is a black box that we can't study or change.
hr: Što je društvu uistinu potrebno? Ono treba informaciju koja je istinski dostupna svim njegovim građanima&mdash;na primjer, programe koje ljudi mogu čitati, popravljati, prilagođavati, i poboljšavati, a ne samo izvršavati. Ali ono što vlasnici softvera u pravilu isporučuju je crna kutija koju ne možemo ni proučavati ni mijenjati.

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Society also needs freedom.  When a program has an owner, the users lose freedom to control part of their own lives.
hr: Društvu je također potrebna sloboda. Kad program ima vlasnika, korisnici gube slobodu ravnanja jednim dijelom njihovih vlastitih života.

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: And, above all, society needs to encourage the spirit of voluntary cooperation in its citizens.  When software owners tell us that helping our neighbors in a natural way is &ldquo;piracy,&rdquo; they pollute our society's civic spirit.
hr: A iznad svega, društvo treba ohrabrivati duh dobrovoljne suradnje u svojih građana. Kada nam vlasnici softvera kažu da je pomaganje našima bližnjima na prirodni način &ldquo;piratstvo&rdquo;, oni onečišćuju građanski duh našega društva.

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: This is why we say that <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">free software</a> is a matter of freedom, not price.
hr: Iz toga razloga kažemo da je <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">slobodan softver</a> stvar slobode, a ne cijene.

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The economic argument for owners is erroneous, but the economic issue is real.  Some people write useful software for the pleasure of writing it or for admiration and love; but if we want more software than those people write, we need to raise funds.
hr: Gospodarstveni argument za vlasnike je pogrešan, ali je gospodarstvo stvarno. Neki ljudi pišu korisni softver iz zadovoljstva pisanja ili za divljenje i ljubav; ali ako želimo više softvera nego što ga ti ljudi pišu, moramo nabaviti kapital.

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Since the 1980s, free software developers have tried various methods of finding funds, with some success.  There's no need to make anyone rich; a typical income is plenty of incentive to do many jobs that are less satisfying than programming.
hr: Još od 1980-ih, developeri slobodnog softvera su iskušali razne metode nalaženja kapitala, s ponešto uspjeha. Nema potrebe da se ikoga učini bogatim; prosječni dohodak je dovoljno poticajan za mnoge poslove koji su manje zadovoljavajući nego programiranje.

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: For years, until a fellowship made it unnecessary, I made a living from custom enhancements of the free software I had written.  Each enhancement was added to the standard released version and thus eventually became available to the general public.  Clients paid me so that I would work on the enhancements they wanted, rather than on the features I would otherwise have considered highest priority.
hr: Godinama, sve dok uzajamna povezanost to nije učinila nepotrebnim, živio sam od unaprjeđivanja slobodnog softvera kojeg sam bio napisao. Svako unaprjeđenje bilo je dodano na standardnu objavljenu inačicu te je tako konačno postalo dostupno svekolikoj javnosti. Mušterije su mi platile tako da bih ja radio na unaprjeđenju kojeg su željeli, radije nego na privlačnim i značajnim stvarima u programu, koje bih ja inače bio smatrao najvišim prioritetom.

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Some free software developers make money by selling support services.  In 1994, Cygnus Support, with around 50 employees, estimated that about 15 percent of its staff activity was free software development&mdash;a respectable percentage for a software company.
hr: Neki razvijatelji slobodnog softvera zarađuju novac prodavajući usluge podrške. U 1994., Cygnus Support, s oko 50 uposlenika, procjenjuje da je oko 15% aktivnosti njegova osoblja usmjereno na razvoj slobodnog softvera&mdash;prilični postotak za softversku tvrtku.

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: In the early 1990s, companies including Intel, Motorola, Texas Instruments and Analog Devices combined to fund the continued development of the GNU C compiler.  Most GCC development is still done by paid developers.  The GNU compiler for the Ada language was funded in the 90s by the US Air Force, and continued since then by a company formed specifically for the purpose.
hr: U ranim 1990-im, tvrtke, uključujući Intel, Motorolu, Texas Instruments i Analog Devices, su sjedinile kapital za stalni razvoj slobodnog GNU kompilatora za C jezik. Većina GCC razvoja se još uvijek radi od strane plaćenih developera. GNU kompilator za Ada jezik je financirani u 90-ima od strane Zračnih snaga SAD-a, i nastavljeni je od tada od strane tvrtke posebno osnovane za tu svrhu.

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The free software movement is still small, but the example of listener-supported radio in the US shows it's possible to support a large activity without forcing each user to pay.
hr: Sve su ovo mali primjeri; pokret slobodnog softvera je još uvijek mali, i još uvijek mlad. Međutim, primjer radija podržavanoga od slušateljstva u ovoj zemlji [SAD] pokazuje da se može podržavati veliki poduhvat bez tjeranja svakog korisnika da plati.

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: As a computer user today, you may find yourself using a <a href="/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware">proprietary</a> program.  If your friend asks to make a copy, it would be wrong to refuse.  Cooperation is more important than copyright.  But underground, closet cooperation does not make for a good society.  A person should aspire to live an upright life openly with pride, and this means saying no to proprietary software.
hr: Kao korisnik računala danas, možete se naći kako koristite <a href="/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware">vlasnički</a> program. Ako vas prijatelj zatraži da načinite kopiju, bilo bi loše odbiti ga. Suradnja je važnija od autorskoga prava. Međutim, potajna suradnja ne čini dobro društvu. Osoba treba težiti uspravnu i otvorenu životu s ponosom, a to znači reći "Ne" vlasničkom softveru.

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: You deserve to be able to cooperate openly and freely with other people who use software.  You deserve to be able to learn how the software works, and to teach your students with it.  You deserve to be able to hire your favorite programmer to fix it when it breaks.
hr: Vi zaslužujete biti kadrima surađivati otvoreno i slobodno s drugim ljudima koji rabe softver. Vi zaslužujete biti kadrima učiti kako softver radi, i poučavati vaše učenike njime. Vi zaslužujete biti kadrima uposliti vašega omiljenoga programera da vam popravi program kada se pokvari.

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: You deserve free software.
hr: Vi zaslužujete slobodni softver.

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: Footnote
hr: Bilješka

note: type: Content of: <div><ol><li>
en: The charges were subsequently dismissed.
hr: Optužbe su naknadno bile odbačene.

note: type: Content of: <div><div><p>
en: This essay is published in <a href="https://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman</cite></a>.
hr: Ovaj esej je objavljen u <a href="https://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/"><cite>Free Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman</cite></a>.

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>.
hr: 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>.
hr: 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*
hr: <b>Prijevod</b>: Vladimir Dananic, 2001. Marin Rameša, 2013.

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