CVSROOT: /cvsroot/www-bg
Module name: www-bg
Changes by: Yavor Doganov <yavor> 08/03/02 17:57:06
Modified files:
philosophy : open-source-misses-the-point.bg.html
open-source-misses-the-point.html
Log message:
ÐбновÑване.
CVSWeb URLs:
http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www-bg/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.bg.html?cvsroot=www-bg&r1=1.9&r2=1.10
http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www-bg/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html?cvsroot=www-bg&r1=1.5&r2=1.6
Patches:
Index: open-source-misses-the-point.bg.html
===================================================================
RCS file:
/cvsroot/www-bg/www-bg/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.bg.html,v
retrieving revision 1.9
retrieving revision 1.10
diff -u -b -r1.9 -r1.10
--- open-source-misses-the-point.bg.html 19 Feb 2008 21:45:57 -0000
1.9
+++ open-source-misses-the-point.bg.html 2 Mar 2008 17:57:06 -0000
1.10
@@ -147,6 +147,12 @@
кÑаÑÑк и ÑÑен наÑин да Ñе обÑÑни
оÑиÑиалноÑо знаÑение на âоÑвоÑен кодâ.
Това води до задÑлбоÑаване на
обÑÑкванеÑо.</p>
+<p>ÐÑÑго недоÑазÑмение на âоÑвоÑен кодâ е
идеÑÑа, Ñе ознаÑава âда не Ñе ползва
+GNU GPLâ. Ðзглежда Ñова ÑÑпÑовожда и
погÑеÑноÑо ÑазбиÑане за âÑвободен
+ÑоÑÑÑеÑâ, пÑиÑавнÑвайки го кÑм âÑоÑÑÑеÑ
под GPLâ. Те Ñа еднакво погÑеÑни,
+понеже GNU GPL Ñе ÑÑиÑа за лиÑенз за ÑоÑÑÑÐµÑ Ñ
оÑвоÑен код, какÑо и повеÑеÑо
+Ð¾Ñ Ð»Ð¸ÑензиÑе за оÑвоÑен код Ñе ÑÑиÑÐ°Ñ Ð·Ð°
лиÑензи за Ñвободен ÑоÑÑÑеÑ.</p>
+
<h3>РазлиÑниÑе ÑенноÑÑи Ð¼Ð¾Ð³Ð°Ñ Ð´Ð° Ð´Ð¾Ð²ÐµÐ´Ð°Ñ Ð´Ð¾
поÑÑи едни и ÑÑÑи изводи…но
не винаги</h3>
@@ -312,7 +318,10 @@
еÑиÑен вÑпÑоÑ.</p>
-<div style="font-size: small;"><b>Ðележки на пÑеводаÑа</b>:
+<div style="font-size: small;">
+
+<!--TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't have notes.-->
+<b>Ðележки на пÑеводаÑа</b>:
<ol>
<li id="TransNote1">РоÑигинал âfree speech, not free beerâ
(англ.) â
двеÑе ÑазлиÑни знаÑÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ Ð¸Ð·Ð¿ÑÐºÐ²Ð°Ñ ÑÑно в
Ñози изÑаз. Ðа англ. език
@@ -346,7 +355,10 @@
</p>
-<div class="translators-credits"><b>ÐÑевод</b>: Ð¯Ð²Ð¾Ñ Ðоганов
<a
+<div class="translators-credits">
+
+<!--TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't want credits.-->
+<b>ÐÑевод</b>: Ð¯Ð²Ð¾Ñ Ðоганов <a
href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]"><[EMAIL PROTECTED]></a>, 2007 г.</div>
<p>ÐолÑ, докладвайÑе гÑеÑки и пÑедложениÑ
оÑноÑно бÑлгаÑÑÐºÐ¸Ñ Ð¿Ñевод
ÑÑез
@@ -358,7 +370,7 @@
<!-- timestamp start -->
ÐоÑледно обновÑване:
-$Date: 2008/02/19 21:45:57 $
+$Date: 2008/03/02 17:57:06 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
Index: open-source-misses-the-point.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/www-bg/www-bg/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html,v
retrieving revision 1.5
retrieving revision 1.6
diff -u -b -r1.5 -r1.6
--- open-source-misses-the-point.html 21 Mar 2007 16:19:05 -0000 1.5
+++ open-source-misses-the-point.html 2 Mar 2008 17:57:06 -0000 1.6
@@ -6,56 +6,60 @@
<h2>Why “Open Source” misses the point of Free Software</h2>
-<p>by Richard Stallman</p>
+<p>by <strong>Richard Stallman</strong></p>
-<p>When we call software “free,” we mean that it respects the <a
href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">users'
-essential freedoms</a>: the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and
-to redistribute copies with or without changes. This is a matter of
-freedom, not price, so think of “free speech,”, not “free
beer.”</p>
+<p>When we call software “free,” we mean that it respects
+the <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">users' essential freedoms</a>:
+the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute
+copies with or without changes. This is a matter of freedom, not
+price, so think of “free speech,” not “free
+beer.”</p>
<p>These freedoms are vitally important. They are essential, not just
for the individual users' sake, but because they promote social
-solidarity--that is, sharing and cooperation. They become even more
-important as more and more of our culture and life activities are
+solidarity—that is, sharing and cooperation. They become even
+more important as more and more of our culture and life activities are
digitized. In a world of digital sounds, images and words, free
software comes increasingly to equate with freedom in general.</p>
-<p>Tens of millions of people around the world now use free software; the
-schools of regions of India and Spain now teach all students to use
-the free <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux operating system</a>.
But most of these users have
-never heard of the ethical reasons for which we developed this system
-and built the free software community, because today this system and
-community are more often described as “open source,” and attributed
-to a different philosophy in which these freedoms are hardly
-mentioned.</p>
-
-<p>The free software movement has campaigned for computer users' freedom
-since 1983. In 1984 we launched the development of the free operating
-system GNU, so we could avoid the non-free operating systems that deny
-freedom to their users. During the 80s, we developed most of the
-essential components of such a system, as well as the <a
href="/licenses/gpl.html">GNU General
-Public License</a>, a license designed specifically to protect freedom for
-all users of a program.</p>
-
-<p>However, not all of the users and developers of free software agreed
-with the goals of the free software movement. In 1998, a part of the
-free software community splintered off and began campaigning in the
-name of “open source.” The term was originally proposed to avoid a
-possible misunderstanding of the term “free software,” but it soon
-became associated with philosophical views quite different from those
-of the free software movement.</p>
-
-<p>Some of the proponents of “open source” considered it a
“marketing
-campaign for free software,” which would appeal to business
-executives by citing practical benefits, while avoiding ideas of right
-and wrong that they might not like to hear. Other proponents flatly
-rejected the free software movement's ethical and social values.
-Whichever their views, when campaigning for “open source” they did
-not cite or advocate those values. The term “open source” quickly
-became associated with the practice of citing only practical values,
-such as making powerful, reliable software. Most of the supporters of
-“open source” have come to it since then, and that practice is
-what they take it to mean.</p>
+<p>Tens of millions of people around the world now use free software;
+the schools of regions of India and Spain now teach all students to
+use the free <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux operating
+system</a>. But most of these users have never heard of the ethical
+reasons for which we developed this system and built the free software
+community, because today this system and community are more often
+described as “open source,” and attributed to a different
+philosophy in which these freedoms are hardly mentioned.</p>
+
+<p>The free software movement has campaigned for computer users'
+freedom since 1983. In 1984 we launched the development of the free
+operating system GNU, so we could avoid the non-free operating systems
+that deny freedom to their users. During the 80s, we developed most
+of the essential components of such a system, as well as
+the <a href="/licenses/gpl.html">GNU General Public License</a>, a
+license designed specifically to protect freedom for all users of a
+program.</p>
+
+<p>However, not all of the users and developers of free software
+agreed with the goals of the free software movement. In 1998, a part
+of the free software community splintered off and began campaigning in
+the name of “open source.” The term was originally
+proposed to avoid a possible misunderstanding of the term “free
+software,” but it soon became associated with philosophical
+views quite different from those of the free software movement.</p>
+
+<p>Some of the proponents of “open source” considered it a
+“marketing campaign for free software,” which would appeal
+to business executives by citing practical benefits, while avoiding
+ideas of right and wrong that they might not like to hear. Other
+proponents flatly rejected the free software movement's ethical and
+social values. Whichever their views, when campaigning for
+“open source” they did not cite or advocate those values.
+The term “open source” quickly became associated with the
+practice of citing only practical values, such as making powerful,
+reliable software. Most of the supporters of “open
+source” have come to it since then, and that practice is what
+they take it to mean.</p>
<p>Nearly all open source software is free software; the two terms
describe almost the same category of software. But they stand for
@@ -64,41 +68,46 @@
free software movement, free software is an ethical imperative,
because only free software respects the users' freedom. By contrast,
the philosophy of open source considers issues in terms of how to make
-software “better”--in a practical sense only. It says that
non-free
-software is a suboptimal solution. For the free software movement,
-however, non-free software is a social problem, and moving to free
-software is the solution.</p>
+software “better”—in a practical sense only. It
+says that non-free software is a suboptimal solution. For the free
+software movement, however, non-free software is a social problem, and
+moving to free software is the solution.</p>
<p>Free software. Open source. If it's the same software, 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 about “free software.”</p>
+help do this, it is essential to speak about “free
+software.”</p>
-<p>We in the free software movement don't think of the open source camp
-as an enemy; the enemy is proprietary software. But we want people to
-know we stand for freedom, so we do not accept being misidentified as
-open source supporters.</p>
-
-<h3>Common misunderstandings of “free software” and “open
source”</h3>
-
-<p>The term “free software” has a problem of misinterpretation: an
-unintended meaning, “Software you can get for zero price,” fits the
-term just as well as the intended meaning, “software which gives the
-user certain freedoms.” We address this problem by publishing the
-definition of free software, and by saying “Think of free speech, not
-free beer.” This is not a perfect solution; it cannot completely
-eliminate the problem. An unambiguous, correct term would be better,
-if it didn't have other problems.</p>
-
-<p>Unfortunately, all the alternatives in English have problems of their
-own. We've looked at many alternatives that people have suggested,
-but none is so clearly “right” that switching to it would be a good
-idea. Every proposed replacement for “free software” has some kind
-of semantic problem--and this includes “open source software.”</p>
+<p>We in the free software movement don't think of the open source
+camp as an enemy; the enemy is proprietary (non-free) software. But
+we want people to know we stand for freedom, so we do not accept being
+misidentified as open source supporters.</p>
+
+<h3>Common misunderstandings of “free software” and
+“open source”</h3>
+
+<p>The term “free software” has a problem of
+misinterpretation: an unintended meaning, “software you can get
+for zero price,” fits the term just as well as the intended
+meaning, “software which gives the user certain freedoms.”
+We address this problem by publishing the definition of free software,
+and by saying “Think of free speech, not free beer.” This
+is not a perfect solution; it cannot completely eliminate the problem.
+An unambiguous, correct term would be better, if it didn't have other
+problems.</p>
+
+<p>Unfortunately, all the alternatives in English have problems of
+their own. We've looked at many alternatives that people have
+suggested, but none is so clearly “right” that switching
+to it would be a good idea. Every proposed replacement for
+“free software” has some kind of semantic
+problem—and this includes “open source
+software.”</p>
-<p>The <a href="http://opensource.org/docs/def_print.php";>official
+<p>The <a href="http://opensource.org/docs/osd";>official
definition of “open source software”</a> (which is
published by the Open Source Initiative and too long to cite here) was
derived indirectly from our criteria for free software. It is not the
@@ -108,40 +117,50 @@
definition in practice.</p>
<p>However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source
-software” is “You can look at the source code,” and most
people
-seem to think that's what it means. That is a much weaker criterion
-than free software, and much weaker than the official definition of
-open source. It includes many programs that are neither free nor open
-source.</p>
-
-<p>Since that obvious meaning for “open source” is not the meaning
that
-its advocates intend, the result is that most people misunderstand the
-term. Here is how writer Neal Stephenson defined “open
source”:</p>
-
- <blockquote><p>Linux is “open source” software meaning, simply,
that anyone can
- get copies of its source code files.</p></blockquote>
+software” is “You can look at the source code,” and
+most people seem to think that's what it means. That is a much weaker
+criterion than free software, and much weaker than the official
+definition of open source. It includes many programs that are neither
+free nor open source.</p>
+
+<p>Since that obvious meaning for “open source” is not the
+meaning that its advocates intend, the result is that most people
+misunderstand the term. Here is how writer Neal Stephenson defined
+“open source”:</p>
+
+ <blockquote><p>Linux is “open source” software meaning,
+ simply, that anyone can get copies of its source code
+ files.</p></blockquote>
<p>I don't think he deliberately sought to reject or dispute the
-“official” definition. I think he simply applied the conventions
of
-the English language to come up with a meaning for the term. The state
-of Kansas published a similar definition:</p>
-
- <blockquote><p>Make use of open-source software (OSS). OSS is software for
which
- the source code is freely and publicly available, though the
- specific licensing agreements vary as to what one is allowed to do
- with that code.</p></blockquote>
+“official” definition. I think he simply applied the
+conventions of the English language to come up with a meaning for the
+term. The state of Kansas published a similar definition:</p>
+
+ <blockquote><p>Make use of open-source software (OSS). OSS is
+ software for which the source code is freely and publicly available,
+ though the specific licensing agreements vary as to what one is
+ allowed to do with that code.</p></blockquote>
<p>The open source people try to deal with this by pointing to their
official definition, but that corrective approach is less effective
-for them than it is for us. The term “free software” has two
-natural meanings, one of which is the intended meaning, so a person
-who has grasped the idea of “free speech, not free beer” will not
-get it wrong again. But “open source” has only one natural
meaning,
-which is different from the meaning its supporters intend. So there
-is no succinct way to explain and justify the official definition of
-“open source.” That makes for worse confusion.</p>
+for them than it is for us. The term “free software” has
+two natural meanings, one of which is the intended meaning, so a
+person who has grasped the idea of “free speech, not free
+beer” will not get it wrong again. But “open
+source” has only one natural meaning, which is different from
+the meaning its supporters intend. So there is no succinct way to
+explain and justify the official definition of “open
+source.” That makes for worse confusion.</p>
+
+<p>Another misunderstanding of “open source” is the idea
+that it means “not using the GNU GPL”. It tends to
+accompany a misundertanding of “free software”, equating
+it to “GPL-covered software”. These are equally mistaken,
+since the GNU GPL is considered an open source license, and most of
+the open source licenses are considered free software licenses.</p>
-<h3>Different values can lead to similar conclusions...but not always</h3>
+<h3>Different values can lead to similar conclusions…but not always</h3>
<p>Radical groups in the 1960s had a reputation for factionalism: some
organizations split because of disagreements on details of strategy,
@@ -153,8 +172,8 @@
disagreement with open source to the disagreements of those radical
groups. They have it backwards. We disagree with the open source
camp on the basic goals and values, but their views and ours lead in
-many cases to the same practical behavior--such as developing free
-software.</p>
+many cases to the same practical behavior—such as developing
+free software.</p>
<p>As a result, people from the free software movement and the open
source camp often work together on practical projects such as software
@@ -185,13 +204,17 @@
<h3>Powerful, reliable software can be bad</h3>
-<p>The idea that we want software to be powerful and reliable comes from
-the supposition that software is meant to serve its users. If it is
-powerful and reliable, it serves them better.</p>
-
-<p>But software can only be said to serve its users if it respects their
-freedom. What if the software is designed to put chains on its users?
-Then reliability only means the chains are harder to remove.</p>
+<p>The idea that we want software to be powerful and reliable comes
+from the supposition that the software is designed to serve its users.
+If it is powerful and reliable, that means it serves them better.</p>
+
+<p>But software can only be said to serve its users if it respects
+their freedom. What if the software is designed to put chains on its
+users? Then powerfulness only means the chains are more constricting,
+and reliability that they are harder to remove. Malicious features,
+such as spying on the users, restricting the users, back doors, and
+imposed upgrades are common in proprietary software, and some open
+source supporters want to do likewise.</p>
<p>Under the pressure of the movie and record companies, software for
individuals to use is increasingly designed specifically to restrict
@@ -203,47 +226,47 @@
trample your freedom, DRM developers try to make it hard, impossible,
or even illegal for you to change the software that implements the DRM.</p>
-<p>Yet some open source supporters have proposed “open source DRM”
-software. Their idea is that by publishing the source code of
-programs designed to restrict your access to encrypted media, and
+<p>Yet some open source supporters have proposed “open source
+DRM” software. Their idea is that by publishing the source code
+of programs designed to restrict your access to encrypted media, and
allowing others to change it, they will produce more powerful and
reliable software for restricting users like you. Then it will be
delivered to you in devices that do not allow you to change it.</p>
-<p>This software might be “open source,” and use the open source
-development model; but it won't be free software, since it won't
-respect the freedom of the users that actually run it. If the open
-source development model succeeds in making this software more
+<p>This software might be “open source,” and use the open
+source development model; but it won't be free software, since it
+won't respect the freedom of the users that actually run it. If the
+open source development model succeeds in making this software more
powerful and reliable for restricting you, that will make it even
worse.</p>
<h3>Fear of freedom</h3>
-<p>The main initial motivation for the term “open source software”
is
-that the ethical ideas of “free software” make some people uneasy.
-That's true: talking about freedom, about ethical issues, about
-responsibilities as well as convenience, is asking people to think
-about things they might prefer to ignore, such as whether their
-conduct is ethical. This can trigger discomfort, and some people may
-simply close their minds to it. It does not follow that we ought to
-stop talking about these things.</p>
-
-<p>However, that is what the leaders of “open source” decided to
do.
-They figured that by keeping quiet about ethics and freedom, and
-talking only about the immediate practical benefits of certain free
-software, they might be able to “sell” the software more
effectively
-to certain users, especially business.</p>
-
-<p>This approach has proved effective, in its own terms. The rhetoric of
-open source has convinced many businesses and individuals to use, and
-even develop, free software, which has extended our community--but only
-at the superficial, practical level. The philosophy of open source,
-with its purely practical values, impedes understanding of the deeper
-ideas of free software; it brings many people into our community, but
-does not teach them to defend it. That is good, as far as it goes,
-but it is not enough to make freedom secure. Attracting users to free
-software takes them just part of the way to becoming defenders of
-their own freedom.</p>
+<p>The main initial motivation for the term “open source
+software” is that the ethical ideas of “free
+software” make some people uneasy. That's true: talking about
+freedom, about ethical issues, about responsibilities as well as
+convenience, is asking people to think about things they might prefer
+to ignore, such as whether their conduct is ethical. This can trigger
+discomfort, and some people may simply close their minds to it. It
+does not follow that we ought to stop talking about these things.</p>
+
+<p>However, that is what the leaders of “open source”
+decided to do. They figured that by keeping quiet about ethics and
+freedom, and talking only about the immediate practical benefits of
+certain free software, they might be able to “sell” the
+software more effectively to certain users, especially business.</p>
+
+<p>This approach has proved effective, in its own terms. The rhetoric
+of open source has convinced many businesses and individuals to use,
+and even develop, free software, which has extended our
+community—but only at the superficial, practical level. The
+philosophy of open source, with its purely practical values, impedes
+understanding of the deeper ideas of free software; it brings many
+people into our community, but does not teach them to defend it. That
+is good, as far as it goes, but it is not enough to make freedom
+secure. Attracting users to free software takes them just part of the
+way to becoming defenders of their own freedom.</p>
<p>Sooner or later these users will be invited to switch back to
proprietary software for some practical advantage. Countless
@@ -257,30 +280,30 @@
that the love of freedom comes to seem like an eccentricity.</p>
<p>That dangerous situation is exactly what we have. Most people
-involved with free software say little about freedom--usually because
-they seek to be “more acceptable to business.” Software
-distributors especially show this pattern. Nearly all GNU/Linux
-operating system distributions add proprietary packages to the basic
-free system, and they invite users to consider this an advantage,
-rather than a step backwards from freedom.</p>
+involved with free software say little about freedom—usually
+because they seek to be “more acceptable to business.”
+Software distributors especially show this pattern. Nearly all
+GNU/Linux operating system distributions add proprietary packages to
+the basic free system, and they invite users to consider this an
+advantage, rather than a step backwards from freedom.</p>
<p>Proprietary add-on software and partially non-free GNU/Linux
distributions find fertile ground because most of our community does
not insist on freedom with its software. This is no coincidence.
-Most GNU/Linux users were introduced to the system by “open source”
-discussion which doesn't say that freedom is a goal. The practices
-that don't uphold freedom and the words that don't talk about freedom
-go hand in hand, each promoting the other. To overcome this tendency,
-we need more, not less, talk about freedom.</p>
+Most GNU/Linux users were introduced to the system by “open
+source” discussion which doesn't say that freedom is a goal.
+The practices that don't uphold freedom and the words that don't talk
+about freedom go hand in hand, each promoting the other. To overcome
+this tendency, we need more, not less, talk about freedom.</p>
<h3>Conclusion</h3>
-<p>As the advocates of open source draw new users into our community, we
-free software activists have to work even more to bring the issue of
-freedom to those new users' attention. We have to say, “It's free
-software and it gives you freedom!”--more and louder than ever.
-Every time you say “free software” rather than “open
source,” you
-help our campaign.</p>
+<p>As the advocates of open source draw new users into our community,
+we free software activists have to work even more to bring the issue
+of freedom to those new users' attention. We have to say, “It's
+free software and it gives you freedom!”—more and louder
+than ever. Every time you say “free software” rather than
+“open source,” you help our campaign.</p>
<h4>Footnotes</h4>
@@ -305,22 +328,23 @@
<p>
Please send FSF & GNU inquiries to
<a href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]"><em>[EMAIL PROTECTED]</em></a>.
-There are also <a href="http://www.fsf.org/about/contact.html";>other ways to
contact</a>
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
the FSF.
<br />
-Please send broken links and other corrections (or suggestions) to
+Please send broken links and other corrections or suggestions to
<a href="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]"><em>[EMAIL PROTECTED]</em></a>.
</p>
-<p>Copyright © 2007 Richard Stallman</p>
-<p>Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is
-permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
+<p>Copyright © 2007 Richard Stallman
+<br />
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted
+in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
</p>
<p>
Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2007/03/21 16:19:05 $ $Author: yavor $
+$Date: 2008/03/02 17:57:06 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
@@ -333,10 +357,22 @@
<h4>Translations of this page</h4>
<ul class="translations-list">
- <li><a hreflang="bg"
href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.bg.html">български</a></li>
<!-- Bulgarian -->
- <li><a hreflang="en-US"
href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">English</a></li>
- <li><a hreflang="it"
href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.it.html">Italiano</a></li> <!--
Italian -->
- <li><a hreflang="nl"
href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.nl.html">Nederlands</a></li>
<!-- Dutch -->
+<!-- Bulgarian -->
+<li><a hreflang="bg"
href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.bg.html">български</a> [bg]</li>
+<!-- German -->
+<li><a hreflang="de"
href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.de.html">Deutsch</a> [de]</li>
+<!-- Greek -->
+<li><a hreflang="el"
href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.el.html">Ελληνικά</a> [el]</li>
+<!-- English -->
+<li><a hreflang="en-US"
href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">English</a> [en]</li>
+<!-- French -->
+<li><a hreflang="fr-FR"
href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.fr.html">French</a> [fr]</li>
+<!-- Italian -->
+<li><a hreflang="it"
href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.it.html">Italiano</a> [it]</li>
+<!-- Dutch -->
+<li><a hreflang="nl"
href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.nl.html">Nederlands</a> [nl]</li>
+<!-- Tamil -->
+<li><a hreflang="ta"
href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.ta.html">தமிழ்</a> [ta]</li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________
Dict-notifications mailing list
[email protected]
http://zver.fsa-bg.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dict-notifications
