Re: [Trad Gnu] Nouvel article de RMS : Why call it the Swindle. Qui veut traduire ?

[Thérèse Godefroy <godef.th AT free.fr>]

Le mercredi 25 septembre 2013 à 07:58 +0200, Thérèse Godefroy a écrit :
> Bonjour à tous,
> 
> Tout est dans le titre. L'article n'est pas très long, 847 mots.
> Le lien :
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-call-it-the-swindle.html
> 
> Le pot n'est pas encore sorti, ça devrait être:
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/why-call-it-the-swindle.pot
> 
> Merci aux éventuels traducteurs.
> 
> Have fun!
> Thérèse

Re,
Je viens de créer le pad avec un script (en pj), juste le temps de
copier le code source, de le coller dans un dossier et de démarrer le
script. 
Translation of http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-call-it-the-swindle.html

This pad was generated from the original article by a script. Once 
translated, it can be converted to HTML by another script. This is 
experimental. Please give your feedback. If this method works, it will be 
really useful for big translations.

Special features:
1. <em>Long paragraphs</em> may be split manually. The split markers will be 
removed in the final translation.
2. <em>Footnotes</em> are listed the traditional way, with the text at the 
bottom of the pad and a reference in the article, like so: (N). The <fn></fn> 
tags (Drupal's standard)  will be restored in the final translation.
3. Each of the paragraphs is on one line, with its identifiction just above 
it and the translation just underneath. Footnotes are treated like any other 
string. In fact, they may contain several paragraphs.

<em>Please note:</em>
The format is important and will have to be checked carefully:
- Lines 1 (id), 2 (original) and 3 (translation) should stay together as a 
"set", without any blank line in between.
- The id line is the only way to identify the paragraphs and the footnotes. 
It should not be modified.
- Translators' notes should be on a separate line, between sets or just below 
the pad header.
- <strong>Do not leave any extra linefeed within paragraphs!</strong> The 
rest would not make it to the final document. If you'd like to add a linefeed 
in the translation, please use a <br /> tag.

Thank you.

Thérèse

================== Pad header ends here ==================

Title:
<title of the original article>


#1~<h2>
Why call it the Swindle


#2~<p>
by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/";><strong>Richard 
Stallman</strong></a></p>


#3~<p>
I go out of my way to call nasty things by names that criticize them. I call 
Apple's user-subjugating computers the "iThings," and Amazon's abusive 
e-reader the "Swindle." Sometimes I refer to Microsoft's operating system as 
"Losedows"; I referred to Microsoft's first operating system as 
"MS-Dog."<sup>1</sup> Of course, I do this to vent my feelings and have fun. 
But this fun is more than personal; it serves an important purpose. Mocking 
our enemies recruits the power of humor into our cause.


#4~<p>
Twisting a name is disrespectful. If we respected the makers of these 
products, we would use the names that they chose … and that's exactly the 
point. These noxious products deserve our contempt, not our respect. Every 
proprietary program subjects its users to some entity's power, but nowadays 
most of them go beyond that to spy on users, restrict them and even push them 
around: the trend is for products to get nastier. These products deserve to 
be wiped out. Those with DRM ought to be illegal.


#5~<p>
When we mention them, we should show that we condemn them, and what easier 
way than by twisting their names? If we don't do that, it is all too easy to 
mention them and fail to present the condemnation. When the product comes up 
in the middle of some other topic, for instance, explaining at greater length 
that the product is bad might seem like a long digression.


#6~<p>
To mention these products by name and fail to condemn them has the effect of 
legitimizing them, which is the opposite of what they call for.


#7~<p>
Companies choose names for products as part of a marketing plan. They choose 
names they think people will be likely to repeat, then invest millions of 
dollars in marketing campaigns to make people repeat and think about those 
names -- usually these marketing campaigns are intended to convince people to 
admire the products based on their superficial attractions and overlook the 
harm they do.


#8~<p>
Every time we call these products by the names the companies use, we 
contribute to their marketing campaigns. Repeating those names is active 
support for the products; twisting them denies the products our support.


#9~<p>
Other terminology besides product names can raise a similar issue. For 
instance, DRM refers to building technology products to restrict their users 
for the benefit of someone else. This inexcusable practice deserves our 
burning hatred until we wipe it out. Naturally, those responsible gave it a 
name that frames the issue from their point of view: "Digital Rights 
Management." This name is the basis of a public relations campaign that aims 
to win support from entities ranging from governments to the 
W3C.<sup>2</sup></p>


#10~<p>
To use their term is to take their side. If that's not the side you're on, 
why give it your implicit support?


#11~<p>
We take the users' side, and from the users' point of view, what these 
malfeatures manage are not rights but restrictions. So we call them "Digital 
Restrictions Management."


#12~<p>
Neither of those terms is neutral: choose a term, and you choose a side. 
Please choose the users' side and please let it show.


#13~<p>
Once, a man in the audience at my speech claimed that the name "Digital 
Rights Management" was the official name of "DRM," the only possible correct 
name, because it was the first name. He argued that as a consequence it was 
wrong for us to say "Digital Restrictions Management."


#14~<p>
Those who make a product or carry out a business practice typically choose a 
name for it before we even know it exists. If their temporal precedence 
obligated us to use their name, they would have an additional automatic 
advantage, on top of their money, their media influence and their 
technological position. We would have to fight them with our mouths tied 
behind our backs.


#15~<p>
Some people feel a distaste for twisting names and say it sounds "juvenile" 
or "unprofessional." What they mean is, it doesn't sound humorless and stodgy 
-- and that's a good thing, because we would not have laughter on our side if 
we tried to sound "professional." Fighting oppression is far more serious 
than professional work, so we've got to add comic relief. It calls for real 
maturity, which includes some childishness, not "acting like an adult."


#16~<p>
If you don't like our choice of name parodies, you can invent your own. The 
more, the merrier. Of course, there are other ways to express condemnation. 
If you want to sound "professional," you can show it in other ways. They can 
get the point across, but they require more time and effort, especially if 
you don't make use of mockery. Take care this does not this lead you to 
skimp; don't let the pressure against such "digression" push you into 
insufficiently criticizing the nasty things you mention, because that would 
have the effect of legitimizing them.
</p><sup>1</sup> Take action against these products: <a 
href="u.fsf.org/ithings">u.fsf.org/ithings</a>, <a 
href="u.fsf.org/swindle">u.fsf.org/swindle</a>,


#17~
<br><a href="u.fsf.org/ebookslist">u.fsf.org/ebookslist</a>


#18~
<br><a href="upgradefromwindows.org">upgradefromwindows.org</a>


#19~
<br><sup>2</sup><a href="u.fsf.org/drm">u.fsf.org/drm</a>