removed untranslated files

CVS version numbers

arabic/intro/cooperation.wml: 1.1 -> 1.2(DEAD) 
arabic/intro/free.wml: 1.1 -> 1.2(DEAD) 
arabic/intro/index.wml: 1.3 -> 1.4 
arabic/intro/license_disc.wml: 1.2 -> 1.3(DEAD) 
arabic/intro/organization.wml: 1.1 -> 1.2(DEAD) 
arabic/intro/search.wml: 1.1 -> 1.2(DEAD) 
arabic/intro/why_debian.wml: 1.1 -> 1.2(DEAD)
parent 636618df
#use wml::debian::template title="Cooperation with the FSF"
<STRONG>From:</STRONG> <TT> (Bruce Perens)</TT><BR>
<STRONG>Date:</STRONG> <TT>Sun, 21 Jul 96 18:04 PDT</TT><BR>
<STRONG>Subject:</STRONG> <TT>Debian and FSF Cooperate</TT><BR>
<P> Some time ago, the Debian group decided to decline continued FSF
sponsorship. This was followed by some well-meaning but very poorly
stated messages that enraged many Linux participants.
<P>After an interval of broken communications, Debian and FSF have resumed
cordial relations and are cooperating, even though FSF no longer has
the control over the project that came with their former sponsorship of
Debian, and Debian will _not_ ask for a resumption of sponsorship. Both
groups have decided that this should not keep us from working together,
and we are confident that we can mend any remaining Linux-FSF schism.
<P>What will come of this? An end to the annoying and useless "FSF vs.
Linux" net discussion. More support for Linux in GNU software, and more
support for FSF's goals in Linux software.
<P>To commemorate our decision that GNU and Linux should be partners,
we will resume use of the name "Debian GNU/Linux" for our system.
<P>Bruce Perens
<BR>Debian Project Leader
#use wml::debian::template title="What Does Free Mean?" NOHEADER="yes"
<H1>What Does Free Mean? <tt>or</tt> What do you mean by Free Software?</H1>
<P><strong>Note:</strong> In February 1998 a group moved to replace the term
"<a href="">Free Software</a>"
with "<a href="">Open Source
Software</a>". As will become clear in the
discussion below, they both refer to essentially the same thing.
<P>Many people new to free software find themselves confused because
the word "free" in the term "free software" is not used the way they expect.
To them free means "at no cost".
An English dictionary lists almost twenty different meanings for "free".
Only one of them is "at no cost". The rest refer to liberty
and lack of constraint. When we speak of <em>Free Software</em>,
we mean freedom, not price.
<P>Software that is free only in the sense that you don't need to pay
to use it is hardly free at all. You may be forbidden to pass it on,
and you are almost certainly prevented from improving it. Software
licensed at no cost is usually a weapon in a marketing campaign to
promote a related product or to drive a smaller competitor out of
business. There is no guarantee that it will stay free.
<P>Truly free software is always free. Software that is placed in the
public domain can be snapped up and put into non-free programs. Any
improvements then made are lost to society.
To stay free, software must be copyrighted and licensed.
<P>To the uninitiated, either a piece of software is free or it isn't. Real life
is much more complicated than that. To understand what kinds of things people
are implying when they call software free we must take a little detour into
the world of software licenses.
<P>Copyrights are a method of protecting the rights of the creator of
certain types of works.
In most countries, software you write is automatically copyrighted.
A license is the authors way of allowing use of his creation (software in this case),
by others, in ways that are acceptable to him.
It is up to the author to include a license which declares in what ways the software may be used.
For a proper discussion of copyright see
<A HREF=""></A>.
<P>Of course, different circumstances call for different licenses.
Software companies are looking to protect their assets so they only release compiled code
(which isn't human readable) and put many restrictions on the use of the software.
Authors of free software on the other hand are generally looking for some combination of the following:
<LI>Not allowing use of their code in proprietary software. Since they are releasing
their code for all to use, they don't want to see others steal it.
In this case, use of the code is seen as a trust: you may use it, as
long as you play by the same rules.
<LI>Protecting identity of authorship of the code. People take great pride in their work
and do not want someone else to come along and remove their name from it or claim that
they wrote it.
<LI>Distribution of source code. One of the problems with most commercial code is that you
can't fix bugs or customize it since the source code is not available. Also, the company
may decide to stop supporting the hardware you use. Many free licenses
force the distribution of the source code. This protects the user by allowing them to
customize the software for their needs. This also has other
ramifications which will be discussed later.
<LI>Forcing any work that includes part of their work (such works are called <em>derived
works</em> in copyright discussions) to use the same license.
<P>Many people write their own license. This is frowned upon as writing a
license that does what you want involves subtle issues. Too often the wording used is
either ambiguous or people create conditions that conflict with each other.
Writing a license that would hold up in court is even harder.
Luckily, there are a number of licenses already written that probably
do what you want.
<P>Three of the most widely found licenses are:
<LI>The <A HREF="">GNU General Public
License (GPL)</A>. Some good background information on software licenses
and a copy of the license can be found at
<A HREF="">the GNU web site</A>.
This is the most common free license in use in the world.
<LI><A HREF="">Artistic License</A>.
<LI><A HREF="../misc/bsd.license">BSD style license</A>.
Clearly, no single license will fit everyone's needs. To help people select
the license that is most appropriate for them, you might like to look at
our <A HREF="license_disc">comparison of common Free Software licenses</A>.
<P>Some of the features these licenses have in common.
<LI>You can install the software on as many machines as you want.
<LI>Any number of people may use the software at one time.
<LI>You can make as many copies of the software as you want and give them
to whomever you want (free or open redistribution).
<LI>There are no restrictions on modifying the software (except for keeping certain
notices intact).
<LI>There is no restriction on distributing, or even selling, the software.
<P>This last point, which allows the software to be sold for money seems to go
against the whole idea of free software. It is actually one of its strengths.
Since the license allows free redistribution, once one person gets a copy
they can distribute it themselves. They can even try to sell it.
In practice, it costs essentially no money to make electronic
copies of software. Supply and demand will keep the cost down. If it
is convenient for a large piece of software or an aggregate of software
to be distributed by some media, such as CD, the vendor is free to charge
what they like. If the profit margin is too high, however, new vendors will
enter the market and competition will drive the price down.
As a result, you can buy a Debian release on several CDs for a just few USD.
<P>While free software is not totally free of constraints (only putting something
in the public domain does that) it gives the user the flexibility
to do what they need in order to get work done. At the same time, it protects
the rights of the author. Now that's freedom.
<P>Debian GNU/Linux is a strong supporter of free software. Since many different
licenses are used on software, a set of guidelines, the
<A HREF="../social_contract#guidelines">Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG)</A>
were developed to come up with a reasonable definition of what
constitutes free software. Only software that complies with the DFSG is allowed
in the main distribution of Debian.
#use wml::debian::template title="Introduction to Debian"
#use wml::debian::translation-check translation="1.3"
#use wml::debian::template title="مقدّمة لدبيان"
#use wml::debian::translation-check translation="1.3" translation_maintainer="Mohammed Adnène Trojette"
<div class="bidi">
<p><a href="about">حول ديبيان</a>.
<p><a href="free">ما معنى حر؟</a>.
<p><a href="free">ما معنى حر؟</a>
# <p><a href="license_disc">مقارنه بين رخص البرامج</a>.
......@@ -15,4 +16,5 @@
<p><a href="search">معلومات حول كيفية البحث في ديبيان</a>.
<p><a href="cn">معلومات في صفحات بلغات متعددة</a>.
\ No newline at end of file
<p><a href="cn">معلومات في صفحات بلغات متعددة</a>.
#use wml::debian::template title="Comparison of Software Licenses"
<P><STRONG>******This document is under development*******</STRONG>
<P>People who have been around Open Software tend to develop very strong
opinions about licenses. Beginners don't worry about them as much
since they are more concerned with finishing the task at hand and
don't understand the long term implications of choosing software with
one license over another (it is doubtful that there
many people who understand the nuances of licensing that don't have
strong opinions on the matter).
<P>Over the years a number of licenses have gained prominence as they
give software authors the type of control over their creations that
most developers desire. It is still common to find software that has
no copyright visible or contains a unique license developer by the
author. The last can be quite annoying to distributors of software
(both on-line and people who create CDs) as many of these licenses
contain <A HREF="#mistakes">common mistakes</A> which make the software
difficult to distribute.
<P>What follows is a list of common Free (Open) software licenses and
some good and bad points of each.
Only the points in the license relevant to the discussion are shown.
Also, many points are listed under the heading "GOOD/BAD".
These are points that can be either good or bad, depending on your point of view.
<LI>The <A HREF="">GNU General Public License (GPL)</A>.
<B>SUMMARY:</B> source code must be made available; software may be sold;
derived works must use the same license
<B>GOOD:</B> There is good reason this is the most used license for Free (Open)
software. It does a good job of protecting the rights of software developers
and the availability of source code guarantees that users won't have to worry
about losing support in the future.
<B>GOOD/BAD:</B> Software released using the GPL cannot be incorporated into
commercial software.
Whether this is actually a bad thing depends on your
point of view. People developing commercial software often feel frustrated
when there is a solution available that can't be used because of conflicts in
licensing. Of course, there is nothing stopping them from
contacting the author and seeing if they can buy a version using a different
Most people who release software using the GPL do not consider these restrictions
bad, because it allows others to use and improve the software while it prevents
(for all practical purposes) others from making money off of their hard work
without his permission.
<LI>Artistic License
<A HREF=""></A>.
<LI><A HREF="../misc/bsd.license">BSD style license</A>.
<B>SUMMARY:</B> Binaries and source code must contain the license;
advertising must acknowledge the developers listed in the license
<B>GOOD/BAD:</B> Companies that want an executable to be generally available
(possibly for free) without releasing the source code often like
this license. A good example is a company that wants to release a driver
for a graphics card. Open Source advocates would prefer that the company
release hardware specifications anyway. If the development of drivers
for XFree86 is indicative, the best drivers are those written with
source available. Companies are only making their products look bad by
releasing proprietary drivers that are slow and buggy. They can also
save development costs by letting others develop the driver for them.
<B>GOOD/BAD:</B> Anyone may take the source, modify it, and release the
result without releasing the changes. Whether you think this is good or
bad is a personal preference.
<P><A NAME="mistakes">Some common mistakes in self-written licenses</A>:
<LI>Either not allowing, or restricting for-profit sale of the software.
This makes it difficult to distribute the software on CD. People often
make the mistake of using terms that are not well defined, such as 'reasonable cost'.
It is better to simply use one of the licenses mentioned above as they accomplish
the same thing without resorting to such phrases.
For example, by allowing anyone to distribute the software, the GPL keeps the
costs down by the usual market forces. If someone is selling a CD with a high
profit margin it won't be long before competitors enter the market and sell
for a lower price.
<BR>Note: the Artistic License does use the term `Reasonable copying fee', but
qualifies the term in an attempt to make it less vague.
<LI>Not allowing distribution of modified versions of the software.
This hinders distribution of the software by certain groups. For example, since
Debian distributes compiled software, it is often necessary to modify the source
to get it to compile or to make it comply with the
But by doing this, we are then not allowed to distribute it.
<LI>Requiring that all changes to the software be reported to the author. While it is
a good idea to report changes/improvements to the author so they can be more widely
distributed, making it a requirement can cause problems. How many people know
where they will be in 5 years?
Simply change it to 'Any changes to the software should be reported to the author'.
Most people will.
<BR>This clause is usually included to prevent branch projects from developing.
History has shown that, as long as development on the original code doesn't stall,
branches will only succeed if some other force drives the split.
<LI>Stating that the software is public domain, but then adding constraints (such as
not allowing sale for profit). Either something is public domain or it isn't - there
is no middle ground. Such licenses are meaningless and it is likely that the extra
conditions would not be upheld in court.
#use wml::debian::template title="Debian's Organizational Structure"
<P>Occasionally people need to contact someone about a particular aspect of
Debian. The following is a list of different jobs and the e-mail addresses
to use in order to contact the people responsible for those tasks.
#include "$(ENGLISHDIR)/intro/"
<P>This list can become outdated since it isn't updated automatically after
things change. If you find anything missing or incorrect, please
<A HREF="">send us corrections</A>.
#use wml::debian::template title="Information on how to use the Debian search engine"
<P>The Debian search engine at <a href=""></a>
will allow for different types of searching, depending on what you would like
to do.
<H3>Simple Search</H3>
<P>The simplest way of all is to enter a single word in the search box, and
hit enter (or click the <em>Search</em> button). The search engine will then
return all pages on the website that have that word in it. This will give
you good results quite often.
<P>The next level up is to search for more than one word. You have a
<dl compact>
<dt><em>search for all words</em>
<dd>which will return pages that have all the words you typed
<dt><em>search for any words</em>
<dd>which will return pages that have any of the words you typed
<H3>Boolean Search</H3>
<P>If a simple search is not enough, then
<a href="">boolean</a>
may do the job for you. You have a choice of <em>and</em>, <em>or</em>,
<em>not</em> and a combination of these three.
<P><B>&amp; - logical AND</B> will return results where both words are in
the page. For example "gcc &amp; patch" will find any URLs have contain both
"gcc" and "patch".
<P><B>| - logical OR</B> will return results where either word is in the
page. For example "gcc | patch" will find any URLs that have either "gcc"
or "patch".
<P><B>~ - logical NOT</B> excludes a word from the results. You will usually
use this with logical AND ( &amp; ) as it removes results from a list.
For example "gcc &amp; ~patch" will find all URLs that contain "gcc" that do
not also contain "patch". Searching for just "~patch" will not return
anything because you were searching for nothing, which returns nothing, and
then removing pages that contain the word "patch" from the empty list, which
of course still returns nothing.
<P><B>() - grouping</B> adds even more complexity as you can now group
logical blocks together. For example "(gcc | make) &amp; ~patch" will find
all URLs that contain either "gcc" or "make" but do not contain "patch".
This diff is collapsed.
Markdown is supported
0% or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment