From 1ae0306a3cf2ea27f60b2d205789994d260c2cce Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Christian Grothoff Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2020 13:29:45 +0200 Subject: add i18n FSFS --- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_12.html | 304 ------------------------ 1 file changed, 304 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_12.html (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_12.html') diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_12.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_12.html deleted file mode 100644 index d482bac..0000000 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_12.html +++ /dev/null @@ -1,304 +0,0 @@ - - - - - -

- 12. What’s in a Name? -

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

- Names convey meanings; our choice of names determines the meaning of -what we say. An inappropriate name gives people the wrong idea. A -rose by any other name would smell as sweet—but if you call it a pen, -people will be rather disappointed when they try to write with it. -And if you call pens “roses,” people may not realize what -they are good for. If you call our operating system -Linux, that conveys a mistaken idea of the system’s -origin, history, and purpose. If you call -it GNU/Linux, that conveys (though not in detail) an accurate idea. -

-

- Does this really matter for our community? Is it important whether people -know the system’s origin, history, and purpose? Yes—because people -who forget history are often condemned to repeat it. The Free World -that has developed around GNU/Linux -is not guaranteed to survive; the problems that -led us to develop GNU are not completely eradicated, and they threaten -to come back. -

-

- When I explain why it’s appropriate to call the operating system -GNU/Linux rather than Linux, people -sometimes respond this way: -

-
-

- Granted that the GNU Project deserves credit for this work, is - it really worth a fuss when people don’t give credit? Isn’t the - important thing that the job was done, not who did it? You - ought to relax, take pride in the job well done, and not worry - about the credit. -

-
-

- This would be wise advice, if only the situation were like that—if -the job were done and it were time to relax. If only that were true! -But challenges abound, and this is no time to take the future for -granted. Our community’s strength rests on commitment to freedom and -cooperation. Using the name GNU/Linux is a way for people to remind -themselves and inform others of these goals. -

-

- It is possible to write good free software without thinking of GNU; -much good work has been done in the name of Linux also. But the term -“Linux” has been associated ever since it was first coined -with a philosophy that does not make a commitment to the freedom to -cooperate. As the name is increasingly used by business, we will -have even more trouble making it connect with community spirit. -

- - - - - - -

- A great challenge to the future of free software comes from the -tendency of the “Linux” distribution companies to add -nonfree software to GNU/Linux -in the name of convenience and power. All the major commercial -distribution developers do this; none limits itself to free software. -Most of them do not clearly identify the nonfree -packages in their distributions. Many even develop nonfree software -and add it to the system. Some outrageously advertise -“Linux” systems that are “licensed per seat,” -which give the user as much freedom as Microsoft - - - Windows. -

-

- People try to justify adding nonfree software in the name of the -“popularity of Linux”—in effect, valuing popularity above -freedom. Sometimes this is openly admitted. For instance, - - - - Wired - - magazine said that - - - Robert McMillan, editor of - - - - Linux Magazine - - , “feels -that the move toward open source software should be fueled by -technical, rather than political, decisions.” - - (28) - - And - - - Caldera’s -CEO openly urged -users to drop the goal of freedom and work instead for the -“popularity of Linux.” -

- - -

- Adding nonfree software to the GNU/Linux system may increase the -popularity, if by popularity we mean the number of people using some -of GNU/Linux in combination with -nonfree software. But at the same time, it implicitly encourages the -community to accept nonfree software as a good thing, and forget the -goal of freedom. It is not good to drive faster if you can’t stay on the -road. -

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

- When the nonfree “add-on” is a library or programming -tool, it can become a trap for free software developers. When they -write free software that depends on the nonfree package, their -software cannot be part of a completely free system. Motif and - - - Qt trapped large amounts of free software in this way in the past, -creating problems whose solutions took years. Motif remained somewhat -of a problem until it became obsolete and was no longer used. Later, - - - Sun’s nonfree - - - Java implementation had a similar effect: the Java Trap, -fortunately now mostly corrected. -

-

- If our community keeps moving in this direction, it could redirect the -future of GNU/Linux into a mosaic of free and nonfree components. -Five years from now, we will surely still have plenty of free -software; but if we are not careful, it will hardly be usable without -the nonfree software that users expect to find with it. If this -happens, our campaign for freedom will have failed. -

-

- If releasing free alternatives were simply a matter of programming, -solving future problems might become easier as our community’s -development resources increase. But we face obstacles that threaten to -make this harder: laws that prohibit free software. As software patents -mount up, and as laws like the - - - Digital Millennium Copyright Act are used to prohibit the development of free software -for important jobs such as viewing a DVD or listening to a - - - RealAudio -stream, we will find ourselves with no clear way to fight the patented -and secret data formats except to - - reject the nonfree programs -that use them. - -

- - -

- Meeting these challenges will require many different kinds of effort. -But what we need above all, to confront any kind of challenge, is to -remember the goal of freedom to cooperate. We can’t expect a mere -desire for powerful, reliable software to motivate people to make -great efforts. We need the kind of determination that people have -when they fight for their freedom and their community—determination -to keep on for years and not give up. -

-

- In our community, this goal and this determination emanate mainly from -the - - - GNU Project. We’re the ones who talk about freedom and community -as something to stand firm for; the organizations that speak of -“Linux” normally don’t say this. The magazines about -“Linux” are typically full of ads for nonfree software; -the companies that package “Linux” add nonfree software -to the system; other companies “support Linux” by -developing nonfree applications to run on GNU/Linux; the user groups -for “Linux” typically invite salesmen to present those -applications. The main place people in our community are likely to -come across the idea of freedom and determination is in the GNU -Project. -

-

- But when people come across it, will they feel it relates to them? -

-

- People who know they are using a system that came out of the GNU -Project can see a direct relationship between themselves and GNU. -They won’t automatically agree with our philosophy, but at least they -will see a reason to think seriously about it. In contrast, people -who consider themselves “Linux users,” and believe that -the GNU Project “developed tools which proved to be useful in -Linux,” typically perceive only an indirect relationship between -GNU and themselves. They may just ignore the GNU philosophy when they -come across it. -

-

- The GNU Project is idealistic, and anyone encouraging idealism today -faces a great obstacle: the prevailing ideology encourages people to -dismiss idealism as “impractical.” Our idealism has been -extremely practical: it is the reason we have a -free GNU/Linux operating system. -People who love this system ought to know that it is our idealism made -real. -

- - -

- If “the job” really were done, if there were nothing at -stake except credit, perhaps it would be wiser to let the matter drop. -But we are not in that position. To inspire people to do the work -that needs to be done, we need to be recognized for what we have -already done. Please help us, by calling the operating -system GNU/Linux. - - - - - - - - - - -

-
-
-

- Footnotes -

-

- - (28) - -

-

- Michelle Finley, “French Pols Say, ‘Open It Up,’” 24 April 2000, - - http://wired.com/politics/law/news/2000/04/35862 - - . -

- -
-
- -- cgit v1.2.3