Add FSF against threats

diff --git a/hill-freedom_for_users.es.html b/hill-freedom_for_users.es.html
index a309a909f2adc798fe4c3e9a0495130d5fe108f1..4f93a39efcedf8a136e720a82dcf380a7fc0f2c7 100644 (file)
--- a/hill-freedom_for_users.es.html
+++ b/hill-freedom_for_users.es.html
@@ -69,7 +69,9 @@ También publicado en alemán en <strong>Commons: Für eine neue Politik Jenseit
 
 <p>El TiVo – el pionero grabador de vídeo digital – presentaba un reto diferente. Su software estaba basado en GNU/Linux y, de acuerdo con la licencia “copyleft” bajo la cual se distribuía la mayor parte del software libre, la empresa TiVo distribuía acceso total a su código fuente. Pero TiVo usaba cifrado para cerrar su dispositivo de tal manera que sólo funcionaría con sus versiones aprobadas de Linux. Los usuarios de TiVo podían estudiar y modificar el software TiVo, pero no podían usar el software modificado en su TiVo. El software era libre, pero los usuarios no.</p>
 
-<p>SaaS, Chrome OS and “TiVoization” are issues that continue to roil the free software and open source movements and expose philosophical fault-lines. It is unsurprising that open source advocates see no problem with SaaS, Chrome OS, and TiVoization; they are not committed to the freedom of users or software.  But each of these examples has been divisive even among people who believe that software should be free. The Free Software Foundation (FSF) has taken explicit stands against each of the issues above. But it has been slow to recognize each threat and has struggled to successfully communicate these messages to its constituency. Today, it seems likely that Google and its service-oriented business model represents a greater threat to future computer users’ freedom than does Microsoft’s. But because Google scrupulously complies with free software license terms and contributes enormous amounts of code and money to free software projects, free software advocacy has been very slow to recognize, and respond to, the threat that it poses.</p>
+<p>El software como servicio (SaaS), Chrome OS y la “TiVoización” son cuestiones que continúan agitando los movimientos del software libre y el código abierto y exponen fallas filosóficas. No es sorprendente que los partidarios del código abierto no vean problemas con el software como servicio, Chrome OS y la TiVoización: ellos no están comprometidos con la libertad de los usuarios de software. Pero cada uno de esos ejemlos ha sido divisor incluso entre personas que creen que el software debería ser libre. La Fundación del Software Libre (Free Software Foundation, FSF) ha tomado postura explícita contra cada uno de los temas anteriores. Pero ha sido lenta en reconocer cada amenaza y le ha costado comunicar exitosamente estos mensajes a sus seguidores.
+
+Today, it seems likely that Google and its service-oriented business model represents a greater threat to future computer users’ freedom than does Microsoft’s. But because Google scrupulously complies with free software license terms and contributes enormous amounts of code and money to free software projects, free software advocacy has been very slow to recognize, and respond to, the threat that it poses.</p>
 
 <p>Even the FSF continues to struggle with its own software-oriented mission. Stallman and the FSF have worked over the last several years to move non-free code that runs on what are essentially smaller sub-computers (e.g., a wireless interface or graphics device within a laptop) from the computer’s main hard drive into the sub-processors themselves. The point of these efforts is to eliminate non-free software by turning it into hardware. But are users of software more free if proprietary technology they cannot change exists in one form on their computer rather than another?</p>