open-source-misses-the-point.bg.po

Mismatched links: 13.

Mismatched ids: 0.

#text
10 | Some of the supporters of open source considered the term a
| “marketing campaign for free software,” which would appeal to
| business executives by highlighting the software's practical benefits,
| while not raising issues of right and wrong that they might not like to
| hear. Other supporters flatly rejected the free software movement's
| ethical and social values. Whichever their views, when campaigning for
| open source, they neither cited nor advocated those values. The term
| “open source” quickly became associated with ideas and
| arguments based only on practical values, such as making or having
| powerful, reliable software. Most of the supporters of open source have
| come to it since then, and they make the same association. {+Most
| discussion of “open source” pays no attention to right and
| wrong, only to popularity and success; here's a <a
| href="https://linuxinsider.com/story/Open-Source-Is-Woven-Into-the-Latest-Hottest-Trends-78937.html">
| typical example</a>. A minority of supporters of open source do nowadays
| say freedom is part of the issue, but they are not very visible among the
| many that don't.+} 
Some of the supporters of open source considered the term a &ldquo;marketing campaign for free software,&rdquo; which would appeal to business executives by highlighting the software's practical benefits, while not raising issues of right and wrong that they might not like to hear. Other supporters flatly rejected the free software movement's ethical and social values. Whichever their views, when campaigning for open source, they neither cited nor advocated those values. The term &ldquo;open source&rdquo; quickly became associated with ideas and arguments based only on practical values, such as making or having powerful, reliable software. Most of the supporters of open source have come to it since then, and they make the same association. Most discussion of &ldquo;open source&rdquo; pays no attention to right and wrong, only to popularity and success; here's a <a href="https://linuxinsider.com/story/Open-Source-Is-Woven-Into-the-Latest-Hottest-Trends-78937.html"> typical example</a>. A minority of supporters of open source do nowadays say freedom is part of the issue, but they are not very visible among the many that don't. 
Някои от привържениците на отворения код смятаха термина за „маркетингова кампания за свободен софтуер“, която да привлича хора с позиции в бизнеса чрез изтъкване на практическите ползи, като същевременно се премълчават идеите за „добро“ и „лошо“, които те не биха искали да чуят. Други привърженици решително отхвърлиха етичните и социални ценности на Движението за свободен софтуер. Каквито и да са били възгледите им, при воденето на кампания за отворен код те нито са цитирали, нито заставали зад тези ценности. Терминът „отворен код“ бързо се обвърза с идеи и аргументи, базирани само на практически ценности, като писането или притежаването на мощен и надежден софтуер. Повечето от поддръжниците на отворения код още оттогава имат това предвид и правят същата асоциация. 
13 | &ldquo;Free software.&rdquo; &ldquo;Open source.&rdquo; If it's the same
| [-software,-] {+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; 
&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; 
„Свободен софтуер“, софтуер с „отворен код“. Ако това е един и същ софтуер, има ли значение какво име използвате? Да, защото различните думи въплъщават различни идеи. Докато една свободна програма под каквото и да е име би ви предоставила същата свобода днес, затвърждаването на свободата в дългосрочен план зависи преди всичко от това — хората да се научат да ценят свободата. Ако искате да ни помогнете да направим това, крайно необходимо е да говорите за „свободен софтуер“. 
17  
Second, when a program's source code carries a weak license, one without copyleft, its executables can carry additional nonfree conditions. <a href="https://code.visualstudio.com/License/">Microsoft does this with Visual Studio Code</a>, for example. 
 
28 | The [-<i>New-] {+<cite>New+} York [-Times</i>-] {+Times</cite>+} <a
| href="http{+s+}://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-design-37415.html">
| ran an article that stretched the meaning of the term</a> to refer to user
| beta testing&mdash;letting a few users try an early version and give
| confidential feedback&mdash;which proprietary software developers have
| practiced for decades. 
The <cite>New York Times</cite> <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-design-37415.html"> ran an article that stretched the meaning of the term</a> to refer to user beta testing&mdash;letting a few users try an early version and give confidential feedback&mdash;which proprietary software developers have practiced for decades. 
<i>„Ню Йорк Таймс“</i> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-design-37415.html">публикуват статия, която извращава термина</a> да означава тестване на „бета“ версии от потребителите — позволяването на някои потребители да пробват ранна версия на програмата и да осигурят поверителна обратна връзка. Това се практикува от разработчиците на собственически софтуер вече десетилетия. 
29  
The term has even been stretched to include designs for equipment that are <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/aug/27/texas-teenager-water-purifier-toxic-e-waste-pollution">published without a patent</a>. Patent-free equipment designs can be laudable contributions to society, but the term &ldquo;source code&rdquo; does not pertain to them. 
 
31 | 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 [-equally-] {+both+} mistaken, since the GNU
| GPL [-is accepted-] {+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.+} 
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. 
Друго недоразумение на „отворен код“ е идеята, че означава „да не се ползва GNU GPL“. Изглежда това съпровожда друго погрешно разбиране, че „свободен софтуер“, означава „софтуер под GPL“. Те са еднакво погрешни, понеже GNU GPL е приет като лиценз за софтуер с отворен код, както и повечето от лицензите за отворен код отговарят на изиксванията за лицензи за свободен софтуер. 
32  
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>. 
 
43 | 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="http://defectivebydesign.org/">DefectiveByDesign.org</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. 
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. 
Под натиска на филмови и звукозаписни компании, софтуерът все по-често се проектира специално за да ограничава правата на ползващите го. Тази злонамерена технология е позната като „цифрово управление на ограниченията“ (DRM) (вижте <a href="http://defectivebydesign.org/">DefectiveByDesign.org</a>), и по дух е антитезата на свободата, която свободния софтуер се стреми да осигури. И не само по дух — понеже целта на DRM е да погази свободата ви, разработчиците на DRM се опитват да направят трудно, невъзможно и дори незаконно за вас да променяте софтуера, който реализира DRM. 
55  
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. 
 
62 | Lakhani and Wolf's <a
| href="http{+s+}://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. 
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. 
<a href="http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/lakhaniwolf.pdf"> Докладът за мотивацията на разработчиците на свободен софтуер</a> от Лахани и Улф твърди, че значителна част от тях са мотивирани от възгледа, че софтуерът трябва да е свободен. Това е въпреки факта, че те са изследвали разработчици от SourceForge, сайт, който не поддържа възгледа, че това е етичен въпрос. 
65 | Please see the <a
| href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
| README</a> for information on coordinating and [-submitting-]
| {+contributing+} translations of this article. 
Please see the <a href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations README</a> for information on coordinating and contributing translations of this article. 
Моля, докладвайте грешки и предложения относно българския превод чрез <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">&lt;web-translators@gnu.org&gt;</a>.</p> <p>Вижте <a href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Документацията за преводачи</a> за информация за координирането и подаването на преводи на тази статия.