1. Why Software Should Not Have Owners
|
1. ProΦ by software nem∞l mφt majitele
|
| Name calling. | SlovφΦka°enφ. |
| Exaggeration. | ZveliΦovßnφ. |
| The law. | Zßkon |
| Natural rights. | P°irozenß prßva. |
| Economics. | Ekonomie. |
|
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.
| Digitßlnφ informaΦnφ technologie usnadnily kopφrovßnφ a modifikace informacφ. S poΦφtaΦi to bude sna╛╣φ pro v╣echny.
|
|
Not everyone wants it to be easier. The system of copyright gives
software programs "owners", 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.
| Ne ka╛d² si v╣ak p°eje, aby to bylo sna╛╣φ. SystΘm vlastnick²ch prßv
dßvß softwaru vlastnφky, kte°φ se v∞t╣inou sna╛φ zφskat pro sebe
potencißlnφ u╛itek ze softwaru, na ·kor ostatnφ ve°ejnosti. Cht∞jφ b²t
jedinφ, kte°φ mohou kopφrovat a modifikovat software, kter² pou╛φvßme. |
|
The copyright system grew up with printing--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.
| SystΘm vlastnick²ch prßv (copyright) vznikl soub∞╛n∞ s tiskem
-- technologiφ pro masovΘ kopφrovßnφ. Pro tyto ·Φely byl velmi vhodn²,
nebo╗ omezoval pouze velkΘ producenty kopiφ. Nebral svobodu Φtenß°∙m
knih. Normßlnφ Φtenß°, kter² nevlastnil tiskßrnu, mohl kopφrovat knihy
pouze pomocφ pera a inkoustu, k Φemu╛ byli ochotni jen nemnozφ.
|
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):
-
Massive propaganda saying it is wrong to disobey the owners
to help your friend.
-
Solicitation for stool pigeons to inform on their coworkers and
colleagues.
-
Raids (with police help) on offices and schools, in which people are
told they must prove they are innocent of illegal copying.
-
Prosecution (by the US government, at the SPA's request) of people
such as MIT'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.
| Digitßlnφ technologie jsou pru╛n∞j╣φ ne╛ tiskßrna:
pokud je informace v digitßlnφ podob∞, lze jφ snadno kopφrovat a
sdφlet ji tak s ostatnφmi. Prßv∞ tato velkß pru╛nost se v∙bec nehodφ
do systΘmu copyrightu. A to je takΘ d∙vod pro neustßle nechutn∞j╣φ
opat°enφ vlastnφk∙, jak si vynutit vlastnickß prßva k softwaru. Vezm∞me nap°φklad
nßsledujφcφ Φty°i praktiky Asociace Softwarov²ch Vydavatel∙
(Software Publishers Association (SPA)):
-
Masivnφ propaganda, kterß tvrdφ, ╛e je ╣patnΘ poru╣it vlastnickß prßva
kdy╛ chcete pomoci sv²m p°ßtel∙m.
-
NalΘhßnφ, aby lidΘ donß╣eli na svΘ spolupracovnφky a kolegy.
-
Razie (s pomocφ policie) v kancelß°φch a ╣kolßch, p°i kter²ch jsou
lidΘ nuceni prokßzat svou nevinu stran nelegßlnφho
kopφrovßnφ.
-
Ob╛aloby (vlßdou spojen²ch stßt∙ na popud SPA) lidφ jako David
LaMacchia z MIT, ne za kopφrovßnφ softwaru (nenφ obvin∞n z kopφrovßnφ
Φehokoli), ale pouze za ponechßnφ stroj∙ pro kopφrovßnφ nest°e╛en²ch a
za nezvlßdnutφ cenzury jejich pou╛φvßnφ.
|
|
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.
|
V╣echny Φty°i uvedenΘ praktiky se podobajφ praktikßm pou╛φvan²m v
b²valΘm Sov∞tskΘm Svazu, kde ka╛dß kopφrka m∞la hlφdaΦe, kter²
zabra≥oval nelegßlnφmu kopφrovßnφ, a kde si lidΘ museli informace
kopφrovat tajn∞ a ╣φ°it je "z ruky do ruky" jako samizdat. Je tu
samoz°ejm∞ rozdφl: motivy pro kontrolu informacφ v Sov∞tskΘm Svazu
byly politickΘ; v USA je motivem zisk. Ale jsou to skutky, kterΘ nßs
ovliv≥ujφ, ne motivy. Jak²koli pokus o omezenφ sdφlenφ informacφ,
jedno z jakΘho d∙vodu se tak d∞je, vede ke stejn²m metodßm a
stejnΘ bezohlednosti. |
|
Owners make several kinds of arguments for giving them the power
to control how we use information:
|
Vlastnφci pou╛φvajφ n∞kolik druh∙ praktik, kter²mi se sna╛φ obhßjit
svΘ prßvo na kontrolu na╣eho pou╛φvßnφ informacφ:
|
Name calling.
|
SlovφΦka°enφ.
|
|
Owners use smear words such as "piracy" and "theft", as well as expert
terminology such as "intellectual property" and "damage", to suggest a
certain line of thinking to the public--a simplistic analogy between
programs and physical objects.
| Vlastnφci pou╛φvajφ silnß slova jako "pirßtstvφ" a
"krßde╛", stejn∞ jako odbornou terminologii jako "intelektußlnφ
vlastnictvφ" a "·jma", aby ve°ejnosti vsugerovali zjednodu╣enou
analogii mezi programy a fyzick²mi objekty. |
|
Our ideas and intuitions about property for material objects are about
whether it is right to take an object away from someone else. They
don't directly apply to making a copy of something. But the owners
ask us to apply them anyway.
|
Na╣e zku╣enosti a intuice o vlastnictvφ materißlnφch objekt∙ se t²kajφ
problΘmu, zda je sprßvnΘ vzφt dan² objekt n∞komu. Net²kajφ se
p°φmo zkopφrovßnφ n∞Φeho. Vlastnφci se nßs v╣ak sna╛φ
p°esv∞dΦit, abychom pro kopφrovßnφ pou╛φvali stejnß m∞°φtka. |
Exaggeration.
|
ZveliΦovßnφ.
|
|
Owners say that they suffer "harm" or "economic loss" 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.
| Vlastnφci tvrdφ, ╛e trpφ "·jmu" nebo "ekonomickou
ztrßtu", pokud si u╛ivatelΘ sami kopφrujφ programy. Ale kopφrovßnφ nemß
╛ßdn² p°φm² efekt na vlastnφka a nepo╣kozuje nikoho. Vlastnφk m∙╛e
p°ijφt o penφze pouze pokud by si Φlov∞k, kter² si ud∞lal kopii, od
n∞j jinak program koupil. |
|
A little thought shows that most such people would not have bought
copies. Yet the owners compute their "losses" as if each and every
one would have bought a copy. That is exaggeration--to put it kindly.
| Trocha p°em²╣lenφ nßs dovede k tomu, ╛e v∞t╣ina
takov²ch lidφ by si kopii nekoupila. I p°esto vlastnφci poΦφtajφ svΘ
"ztrßty" jako kdyby si ka╛d² takov² Φlov∞k cht∞l kopii skuteΦn∞
koupit. To je -- mφrn∞ °eΦeno -- p°ehßn∞nφ. |
The law.
|
Zßkon
|
|
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--yet at the same time, we are urged to regard these penalties
as facts of nature that can't be blamed on anyone.
| Vlastnφci Φasto popisujφ souΦasnΘ zßkony a tvrdΘ
postihy, kterΘ nßm hrozφ. Za samoz°ejm² se v tomto
p°φpad∞ pova╛uje p°edpoklad, ╛e souΦasnΘ prßvo odrß╛φ nezpochybniteln²
obraz morßlky -- zßrove≥ nßm toti╛ vnucujφ nßzor, ╛e je nutno brßt tyto
postihy jako n∞co p°irozen∞ danΘho, za co nikdo nem∙╛e. |
|
This line of persuasion isn't designed to stand up to critical
thinking; it's intended to reinforce a habitual mental pathway.
| Tento zp∙sob p°esv∞dΦovßnφ v╣ak nem∙╛e obstßt p°ed
kritick²m my╣lenφm; je urΦen pouze pro posφlenφ navykl²ch mentßlnφch
pochod∙.
|
|
It's elemental that laws don't decide right and wrong. Every American
should know that, forty years ago, 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.
| Je elementßrnφ, ╛e prßvo nerozhoduje o dobrΘm a
╣patnΘm. Ka╛d² AmeriΦan by m∞l v∞d∞t, ╛e p°ed Φty°iceti lety bylo v
mnoha stßtech protiprßvnφ, aby Φern² Φlov∞k sed∞l vp°edu v autobusu;
ale pouze rasista by °ekl, ╛e sezenφ tam je ╣patnΘ. |
Natural rights.
|
P°irozenß prßva.
|
| 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--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.)
| Auto°i si Φasto nßrokujφ specißlnφ spojenφ s
programy, kterΘ napsali, a prohla╣ujφ pak, ╛e jako v²sledek tohoto spojenφ
jsou jejich touhy a zßjmy ohledn∞ programu d∙le╛it∞j╣φ ne╛ zßjmy
ostatnφch -- nebo dokonce zßjmy celΘho zbytku sv∞ta. (V∞t╣inou
spoleΦnosti, ne auto°i, vlastnφ copyrighty na software, ale tento
rozdφl m∙╛eme zanedbat.) |
|
To those who propose this as an ethical axiom--the author is more
important than you--I can only say that I, a notable software author
myself, call it bunk.
| T∞m kdo toto pova╛ujφ za etick² axiom -- autor je
d∙le╛it∞j╣φ ne╛ vy -- mohu pouze °φct, ╛e jß, velmi znßm² autor
softwaru, to pova╛uji za hloupost. |
|
But people in general are only likely to feel any sympathy with the
natural rights claims for two reasons.
| Pokud lidΘ v∙bec cφtφ n∞jakΘ sympatie k my╣lence
p°irozen²ch prßv, pak pouze ze dvou d∙vod∙. |
|
One reason is an overstretched analogy with material objects. When I
cook spaghetti, I do object if someone else takes it and stops me from
eating it. In this case, that person and I have the same material
interests at stake, and it's a zero-sum game. The smallest
distinction between us is enough to tip the ethical balance.
| Prvnφm d∙vodem je p°ehnanß analogie s materißlnφmi
objekty. Pokud si uva°φm ╣pagety, pak mi bude vadit, pokud mi je n∞kdo
jin² vezme a zabrßnφ mi tak v jejich sn∞zenφ. V tomto p°φpad∞ mßme jß
i ta druhß osoba stejn² zßjem na p°edm∞tu sporu, v²slednice sil je
nulovß. Minimßlnφ rozdφl mezi nßmi staΦφ k rozhodnutφ o etickΘ
rovnovßze. |
|
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.
| Pokud ale pou╛φvßte nebo upravφte program, kter² jsem
napsal, pak se vßs to dot²kß p°φmo, zatφmco m∞ pouze nep°φmo. Kdy╛ dßte kopii
p°φteli, ovlivnφ to vßs a va╣eho p°φtele daleko vφce ne╛ to ovlivnφ
m∞. Nem∞l bych mφt moc na to, °φkat vßm abyste tyto v∞ci
ned∞lali. Nikdo by nem∞l. |
|
The second reason is that people have been told that natural rights
for authors is the accepted and unquestioned tradition of our society.
| Druh² d∙vod je, ╛e lidΘ jsou p°esv∞dΦovßni, ╛e p°irozenß
prßva autor∙ jsou p°ijφmanou a nezpochybnitelnou tradicφ na╣φ
spoleΦnosti.
|
|
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 *permits*
a system of copyright and does not *require* one; that's why it says
that copyright must be temporary. It also states that the purpose of
copyright is to promote progress--not to reward authors. Copyright
does reward authors somewhat, and publishers more, but that is
intended as a means of modifying their behavior.
|
Historie ale ukazuje, ╛e spφ╣e opak je pravdou. My╣lenka p°irozen²ch
prßv autor∙ byla posuzovßna a rozhodn∞ zamφtnuta v AmerickΘ ustav∞. To
je d∙vod, proΦ ustava pouze *povoluje* systΘm copyrightu, ale
*nevy╛aduje* ho; to je d∙vod proΦ °φkß, ╛e copyright musφ b²t
doΦasn². Za ·Φel copyrightu takΘ pova╛uje podporu v²voje -- nikoli
odm∞nu autor∙. Copyright ΦßsteΦn∞ odm∞≥uje autory, a vφce pak vydavatele,
je to v╣ak pouze mφn∞no jako zp∙sob, jak ovlivnit jejich chovßnφ.
(pozn. p°ekl. - americk² systΘm copyrightu p°edpoklßdß se, ╛e odm∞na
motivuje autora a je tedy prosp∞╣nß.) |
|
The real established tradition of our society is that copyright cuts
into the natural rights of the public--and that this can only be
justified for the public's sake.
| Opravdu zavedenß tradice na╣φ spoleΦnosti je, ╛e
copyright zasahuje do p°irozen²ch prßv ve°ejnosti -- a ╛e to je obhajitelnΘ
pouze v zßjmu ve°ejnosti. |
Economics.
|
Ekonomie.
|
|
The final argument made for having owners of software is that this
leads to production of more software.
| Poslednφ argument, kter² se pou╛φvß pro ospravedln∞nφ
vlastnictvφ softwaru je ten, ╛e to vede k v∞t╣φ produkci software.
|
|
Unlike the others, this argument at least takes a legitimate approach
to the subject. It is based on a valid goal--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.
|
Narozdφl od ostatnφch argument∙ mß tenhle alespo≥ legitimnφ p°φstup k
v∞ci. Je zalo╛en na platnΘm cφli -- uspokojenφ u╛ivatel∙ softwaru. A
je empiricky jasnΘ, ╛e lidΘ vytvo°φ vφce n∞Φeho, pokud je jim za to
dob°e zaplaceno. |
|
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 "production of software" is what we want, whether the
software has owners or not.
|
Ekonomick² argument mß ale chybu : je zalo╛en na p°edpokladu, ╛e
rozdφl je jen otßzkou mno╛stvφ pen∞z, kterΘ musφme
zaplatit. P°edpoklßdß, ╛e "produkce softwaru" je to co chceme, bez
ohledu na to zda vznikl² software mß, Φi nemß vlastnφka. |
|
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 free 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.
|
LidΘ tento p°edpoklad Φasto p°ijφmajφ, proto╛e souhlasφ s na╣φ
zku╣enostφ s fyzick²mi objekty. Vezm∞me nap°φklad sandwich.
╪ekn∞me, ╛e byste mohl snadno zφskat stejn² sandwich bu∩ za penφze, nebo zadarmo. Pokud
ano, pak jedin² rozdφl je cena, kterou zaplatφte. A╗ u╛ ho musφte
zaplatit nebo ne, mß sandwich stejnou chu╗, stejnou nutriΦnφ hodnotu,
a v obou p°φpadech ho m∙╛ete snφst pouze jednou. Jestli jste zφskali
sandwich od vlastnφka, nebo ne, nem∙╛e ovlivnit nic, jenom mno╛stvφ
pen∞z, kterΘ potom mßte. |
|
This is true for any kind of material object--whether or not it has an
owner does not directly affect what it *is*, or what you can do with
it if you acquire it.
|
To platφ pro jak²koli materißlnφ objekt -- to zda mß Φi nemß vlastnφka
neovliv≥uje p°φmo co to *je*, nebo co s tφm m∙╛ete d∞lat pokud to
zφskßte. |
|
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--but not what society really
needs. And it causes intangible ethical pollution that affects us
all.
|
Ale pokud mß program vlastnφka, pak to velmi siln∞ ovliv≥uje, co to je
a co m∙╛ete d∞lat s kopiφ, pokud si jφ koupφte. Rozdφl nenφ jen
otßzkou pen∞z. SystΘm vlastnictvφ software podn∞cuje vlastnφky
software k produkci n∞Φeho -- ne v╣ak k produkci toho, co spoleΦnost
skuteΦn∞ pot°ebuje. A to zp∙sobuje nehmotnΘ etickΘ zneΦi╣t∞nφ, kterΘ
postihuje nßs v╣echny. |
|
What does society need? It needs information that is truly available
to its citizens--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.
|
Co spoleΦnost pot°ebuje? Pot°ebuje informace, kterΘ jsou skuteΦn∞
p°φstupnΘ ve°ejnosti -- nap°. programy, kterΘ mohou lidΘ Φφst,
opravovat, p°izp∙sobovat a zlep╣ovat, nejen pou╛φvat. Ale softwarovφ
vlastnφci v∞t╣inou dodßvajφ ΦernΘ sk°φ≥ky, kterΘ nem∙╛eme studovat
nebo upravovat. |
|
Society also needs freedom. When a program has an owner, the users
lose freedom to control part of their own lives.
|
SpoleΦnost pot°ebuje takΘ svobodu. Pokud mß software vlastnφka,
u╛ivatelΘ ztrßcejφ svobodu kontrolovat Φßst svΘho vlastnφho ╛ivota.
|
|
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 "piracy", they pollute our
society's civic spirit.
|
A nejvφce ze v╣eho spoleΦnost pot°ebuje posilovat ducha dobrovolnΘ
spoluprßce mezi obΦany. Kdy╛ nßm softwarovφ vlastnφci tvrdφ, ╛e
p°irozen∞ pomßhat sv²m soused∙m je "pirßtstvφ", ╣pinφ tak obΦanskΘho
ducha na╣φ spoleΦnosti. |
|
This is why we say that free software is a matter of freedom, not
price.
|
To je d∙vod proΦ °φkßme, ╛e free software je otßzkou svobody, ne ceny.
|
|
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.
|
Ekonomick² argument pro vlastnictvφ je klamn², ale ekonomickß otßzka
je reßlnß. N∞kte°φ lidΘ pφ╣φ u╛iteΦn² software pro pot∞╣enφ z jeho
psanφ, nebo pro obdiv a lßsku; pokud ale chceme vφce softwaru ne╛
produkujφ tito lidΘ, musφme zvednout v²daje. |
|
For ten years now, free software developers have tried various methods
of finding funds, with some success. There's no need to make anyone
rich; the median US family income, around $35k, proves to be enough
incentive for many jobs that are less satisfying than programming.
|
Deset let ji╛ auto°i free software zkou╣ejφ, s ΦßsteΦn²mi ·sp∞chy,
r∙znΘ metody jak najφt finanΦnφ
zdroje. Nejde o to d∞lat z n∞koho bohßΦe;
pr∙m∞rn² p°φjem americkΘ rodiny, okolo $35,000, se ukazuje jako
dostateΦnß motivace pro mnoho zam∞stnßnφ, kterß nejsou tak zajφmavß
jako programovßnφ. |
|
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.
|
Po lΘta, ne╛ to p°estalo b²t dφky souΦasnΘ podpo°e nezbytnΘ,
jsem se ╛ivil zakßzkov²m roz╣i°ovßnφm free software, kter² jsem
napsal. Ka╛dΘ takovΘ roz╣φ°enφ bylo zahrnuto do standardnφho vydßnφ a
stalo se tak dostupn²m celΘ ve°ejnosti. Klienti mi platili za to, ╛e
jsem pracoval na roz╣φ°enφch, kterß cht∞li, mφsto abych pracoval na
v∞cech, kter²m jsem p°iklßdal nejvy╣╣φ prioritu jß. |
|
The Free Software Foundation, a tax-exempt charity for free software
development, raises funds by selling CD-ROMs, tapes and manuals (all
of which users are free to copy and change), as well as from
donations. It now has a staff of five programmers, plus three
employees who handle mail orders.
|
Free Software Foundation ("nadace pro free software"), charitativnφ
organizace pro v²voj software, vyd∞lßvß na prodeji CD-ROM∙, pßsek a
manußl∙ (kterΘ mohou u╛ivatelΘ voln∞ kopφrovat a upravovat), a takΘ z
p°φsp∞vk∙. Nynφ mß personßl slo╛en² z p∞ti programßtor∙ a t°φ lidφ,
kte°φ vy°izujφ po╣tovnφ objednßvky. |
|
Some free software developers make money by selling support services.
Cygnus Support, with around 50 employees, estimates that about 15 per
cent of its staff activity is free software development--a respectable
percentage for a software company.
|
N∞kte°φ auto°i free software vyd∞lßvajφ prodejem podpory sv²ch
produkt∙. Cygnus Support, se sv²mi p°ibli╛n∞ 50 zam∞stnanci, odhaduje,
╛e p°ibli╛n∞ 15 procent aktivit jeho pracovnφk∙ je v²voj free software
-- slu╣n² podφl pro softwarovou firmu. |
|
Companies including Intel, Motorola, Texas Instruments and Analog
Devices have combined to fund the continued development of the free
GNU compiler for the language C. Meanwhile, the GNU compiler for the
Ada language is being funded by the US Air Force, which believes this
is the most cost-effective way to get a high quality compiler.
|
SpoleΦnosti vΦetn∞ Intelu, Motoroly, Texas Instruments a Analog
Devices se spojili, aby podpo°ily pokraΦujφcφ v²voj free GNU kompileru
pro jazyk C. GNU p°ekladaΦ pro jazyk Ada je prozm∞nu podporovßn US Air
Force, kterß v∞°φ, ╛e je to nejlevn∞j╣φ cesta jak zφskat vysoce
kvalitnφ kompiler. |
|
All these examples are small; the free software movement is still
small, and still young. But the example of listener-supported radio
in this country shows it's possible to support a large activity
without forcing each user to pay.
|
V╣echno to jsou jen malΘ p°φklady; free software hnutφ je zatφm stßle malΘ
a mladΘ. Ale p°φklad posluchaΦi podporovanΘho rßdia v tΘto zemi
ukazuje, ╛e je mo╛nΘ podporovat rozsßhlou aktivitu bez pot°eby nutit
ka╛dΘho k placenφ. |
|
As a computer user today, you may find yourself using a proprietary
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.
|
Jako poΦφtaΦov² u╛ivatel, m∙╛ete zjistit, ╛e pou╛φvßte vlastnick²
program. Pokud vßs p°ßtelΘ po╛ßdajφ o jeho kopii, bude ╣patnΘ je
odmφtnout. Spoluprßce je d∙le╛it∞j╣φ ne╛ copyright. Ale podzemnφ,
tajnß spoluprßce netvo°φ dobrou spoleΦnost. ╚lov∞k by se m∞l sna╛it
╛φt poctiv² ╛ivot s neskr²vanou hrdostφ, a to znamenß °φci "Ne"
vlastnickΘmu softwaru. |
|
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.
| Zaslou╛φte si b²t schopni otev°en∞ a svobodn∞
spolupracovat s ostatnφmi u╛ivateli softwaru. Zaslou╛φte si mo╛nost
uΦit se jak vß╣ software pracuje, a vyuΦovat tak svΘ studenty. Zaslou╛φte
si mo╛nost najmout si va╣eho oblφbenΘho programßtora na opravu pokud
se program po╣kodφ. |
|
You deserve free software.
|
Zaslou╛φte si free software. |
- Copyright 1994 Richard Stallman
- Verbatim copying and redistribution is permitted without royalty as
long as this notice is preserved;
- alteration is not permitted.
|
- Copyright 1994 Richard Stallman
- Po°izovßnφ doslovn²ch kopiφ a redistribuce jsou povoleny bez poplatk∙
dokud je uvedena tato zmφnka;
- ·pravy nejsou povoleny.
|