perro
/
perrotuerto.blog
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Corrección de erratas

This commit is contained in:
Nika Zhenya 2019-09-02 20:22:34 -05:00
parent 52b5e5684a
commit f84094c03a
5 changed files with 75 additions and 76 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

30
content/html/en/001_free-publishing.html
View File

@ -29,38 +29,38 @@
<blockquote class="published">
<p>Published: 2019/03/20, 13:00</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This blog is about “free publishing” but, what does that means? The term “free” it isn't only problematic in English. May be more than in others languages because of the confusion between “free as in beer” and “free as in speech.” But by itself the concept of freedom is so ambiguous than even in Philosophy we are very careful in its use. Even though it is a problem, I like that the term doesn't have a clear definition—at the end, how free could we be if freedom is well defined?</p>
<p>Some years ago, when I started to work hand-in-hand with Programando Libreros and Hacklib, I realized that we weren't just doing publishing with free software. We are doing free publishing. So I attempted to defined it in <a href="https://marianaeguaras.com/edicion-libre-mas-alla-creative-commons/">a post</a> but it doesn't convince me anymore.</p>
<p>The term was floating around until December, 2018. At Contracorriente—yearly fanzine fair celebrated in Xalapa, Mexico—Hacklib and me were invited to give a talk about publishing and free software. Between all of us we made a poster of everything we talked that day.</p>
<p>This blog is about “free publishing” but, what does that mean? The term “free” isn't only problematic in English. Maybe more in other languages because of the confusion between “free as in beer” and “free as in speech.” But by itself the concept of freedom is so ambiguous than even in Philosophy we are very careful in its use. Even though it is a problem, I like that the term doesn't have a clear definition—in the end, how free could we be if freedom is well defined?</p>
<p>Some years ago, when I started to work hand-in-hand with Programando Libreros and Hacklib, I realized that we weren't just doing publishing with free software. We are doing free publishing. So I attempted to define it in <a href="https://marianaeguaras.com/edicion-libre-mas-alla-creative-commons/">a post</a> but it doesn't convince me anymore.</p>
<p>The term was floating around until December, 2018. At Contracorriente—yearly fanzine fair celebrated in Xalapa, Mexico—Hacklib and I were invited to give a talk about publishing and free software. Between all of us we made a poster of everything we talked about that day.</p>
<figure>
<img src="../../../img/p001_i001.jpg" alt="Poster made at Contracorriente, nice, isn't it?"/>
<figcaption>
Poster made at Contracorriente, nice, isn't it?
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The poster was very helpful because in a simple Venn diagram we were able to distinguish several intersections of activities that involves our work. Here you have it more readable:</p>
<p>The poster was very helpful because in a simple Venn diagram we were able to distinguish several intersections of activities that involve our work. Here is a more readable version:</p>
<figure>
<img src="../../../img/p001_i002_en.png" alt="Venn diagram of publishing, free software and politics."/>
<figcaption>
Venn diagram of publishing, free software and politics.
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So I'm not gonna define what is publishing, free software or politics—it is my fucking blog so I can write whatever I want xD and you can <a href="https://duckduckgo.com/?q=I+dislike+google">duckduckgo</a> it without a satisfactory answer. As you can see, there are at least two very familiar intersections: cultural policies and hacktivism. I dunno how it is in your country, but in Mexico we have very strong cultural policies for publishing—or at least that is what publishers <i>think</i> and are comfortable with it, not matter that most of the times they go against open access and readers rights.</p>
<p>“Hacktivism” is a fuzzy term, but it could be clear if we realized that code as property is not the only way we can define it. Actually it is very problematic because property isn't a natural right, but one that is produced by our societies and protected by our states—yeah, individuality isn't the foundation of rights and laws, but a construction of the self produced society. So, do I have to mention that property rights isn't as fair as we would want?</p>
<p>Between publishing and free software we get “publishing with free software.” What does that implies? It is the activity of publishing using software that accomplish the famous—infamous?—<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition">four freedoms</a>. For people that use software as a tool, this means that, firstly, we aren't force to pay anything in order to use software. Secondly, we have access to the code and do whatever we want with it. Thirdly—and for me the most important—we can be part of a community, instead of be treated as a consumer.</p>
<p>It sounds great, isn't it? But we have a little problem: the freedom only applies to software. As publisher you can benefit from free software and that doesn't mean you have to free your work. Penguin Random House—the Google of publishing—one day could decided to use TeX or Pandoc, saving tons of money at the same time they keep the monopoly of publishing.</p>
<p>Stallman saw that problem with the manuals published by O'Reilly and he proposed the <span class="smallcap">GNU</span> Free Documentation License. But by doing so he trickly distinguished <a href="https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.en.html">different kinds of works</a>. It is interesting see texts as functionality, matter of opinion or aesthetics but in the publishing industry nobody cares a fuck about that. The distinctions works great between writers and readers, but it doesn't problematize the fact that publishers are the ones who decide the path of almost all our text-centered culture.</p>
<p>In my opinion, that's dangerous at least. So I prefer other tricky distinction. Big publishers and their mimetic branch—the so called “indie” publishing—only cares about two things: sales and reputation. They want to live <i>well</i> and get social recognition from the <i>good</i> books they publish. If one day the software communities develop some desktop publishing or typesetting easy-to-use and suitable for all their <i>professional</i> needs, we would see how “suddenly” publishing industry embraces free software.</p>
<p>So, why don't we distinguish published works by their funding and sense of community? If what you publishing has public funding—for your knowledge, in Mexico practically all publishing has this kind of funding—it would be fair to release the files and leave hard copies for sell: we already paid for that. This is a very common argument among supporters of open access in science, but we can go beyond that. Not matter if the work relies on functionality, matter of opinion or aesthetics; if is a science paper, a philosophy essay or a novel and it has public funding, we have paid for access, come on!</p>
<p>You can still sell publications and go to Messe Frankfurt, Guadalajara International Book Fair or Beijing Book Fair: it is just doing business with the <i>bare minium</i> of social and political awareness. Why do you want more money from us if we already gave it to you?—and you get almost all the profits, leaving the authors with just the satisfaction of seeing her work published…</p>
<p>So I'm not gonna define publishing, free software or politics—it is my fucking blog so I can write whatever I want xD and you can <a href="https://duckduckgo.com/?q=I+dislike+google">duckduckgo</a> it without a satisfactory answer. As you can see, there are at least two very familiar intersections: cultural policies and hacktivism. I dunno how it is in your country, but in Mexico we have very strong cultural policies for publishing—or at least that is what publishers <i>think</i> and are comfortable with it, no matter that most of the time they go against open access and readers rights.</p>
<p>“Hacktivism” is a fuzzy term, but it could be clear if we realized that code as property is not the only way we can define it. Actually it is very problematic because property isn't a natural right, but one that is produced by our societies and protected by our states—yeah, individuality isn't the foundation of rights and laws, but a construction of the self produced society. So, do I have to mention that property rights isn't as fair as we would like?</p>
<p>Between publishing and free software we get “publishing with free software.” What does that imply? It is the act of publishing using software that accomplishes the famous—infamous?—<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition">four freedoms</a>. For people that use software as a tool, this means that, first, we aren't forced to pay anything in order to use software. Second, we have access to the code and do whatever we want with it. Third—and for me the most important—we can be part of a community, instead of treated as a consumer.</p>
<p>It sounds great, doesn't it? But we have a little problem: the freedom only applies to software. As a publisher you can benefit from free software and that doesn't mean you have to free your work. Penguin Random House—the Google of publishing—one day could decide to use TeX or Pandoc, saving tons of money and at the same time keep the monopoly of publishing.</p>
<p>Stallman saw the problem with manuals published by O'Reilly and he proposed the <span class="smallcap">GNU</span> Free Documentation License. But by doing so he trickly distinguished <a href="https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.en.html">different kinds of works</a>. It is interesting to see texts as functional works, matter of opinion or aesthetics but in the publishing industry nobody gives a fuck about that. The distinctions work great between writers and readers, but it doesn't problematize the fact that publishers are the ones who decide the path of almost all of our text-centered culture.</p>
<p>In my opinion, that's dangerous at least. So I prefer another tricky distinction. Big publishers and their mimetic branch—the so called “indie” publishing—only cares about two things: sales and reputation. They want to live <i>well</i> and get social recognition from the <i>good</i> books they publish. If one day software communities develop some desktop publishing or typesetting easy-to-use and suitable for all their <i>professional</i> needs, we would see how “suddenly” the publishing industry embraces free software.</p>
<p>So, why don't we distinguish published works by their funding and sense of community? If what you publish has public funding—for your knowledge, in Mexico practically all publishing has this kind of funding—it would be fair to release the files and leave hard copies for sale: we already paid for that. This is a very common argument among supporters of open access in science, but we can go beyond that. No matter if the work relies on functionality, matter of opinion or aesthetics; whether its a scientific paper, a philosophy essay or a novel and it has public funding, we have already paid for access, come on!</p>
<p>You can still sell publications and go to Messe Frankfurt, Guadalajara International Book Fair or Beijing Book Fair: it is just doing business with the <i>bare minium</i> of social and political awareness. Why do you want more money from us if we've already given it to you?—and you receive almost all of the profits, leaving the authors with just the satisfaction of seeing her work published…</p>
<p>The sense of community goes here. In a world where one of the main problems is artificial scarcity—paywalls instead of actual walls—we need to apply <a href="https://www.gnu.org/licenses/copyleft.en.html">copyleft</a> or, even better, <a href="http://telekommunisten.net/the-telekommunist-manifesto/">copyfarleft</a> licenses in our published works. They aren't the solution, but they are a support to maintain the freedom and the access in publishing.</p>
<p>As it goes, we need free tools but also free works. I already have the tools but I lack from permission to publish some books that I really like. I don't want that happen to you with my work. So we need a publishing ecosystem where we have access to all files of a particular edition—our “source code” and “binary files”—and also to the tools—the free software—so we can improve, as a community, the quality and the access of works and its required skills. Who doesn't want that?</p>
<p>With these politics strains, free software tools and publishing as a way of living as a publisher, writer and reader, free publishing is a pathway. With Programando Libreros and Hacklib we use free software, we invest time in activism and we work in publishing: <i>we do free publishing, what about you?</i></p>
<p>As it goes, we need free tools but also free works. I already have the tools but lack the permission to publish some books that I really like. I don't want that happen to you with my work. So we need a publishing ecosystem where we have access to all files of a particular edition—our “source code” and “binary files”—and also to the tools—the free software—so we can improve, as a community, the quality and the access of works and its required skills. Who doesn't want that?</p>
<p>With these political strains, free software tools and publishing as a way of living as a publisher, writer and reader, free publishing is a pathway. With Programando Libreros and Hacklib we use free software, we invest time in activism and we work in publishing: <i>we do free publishing, what about you?</i></p>
<script type="text/javascript" src="../../../hashover/comments.php"></script>
</section>
<footer>
<p class="left no-indent">All content is under <a href="../../../content/html/en/_fork.html">Open and Free Publishing License (<span class="smallcap">LEAL</span>)</a>.</p>
<p class="left no-indent">Last build of this page: 2019/07/01, 09:57.</p>
<p class="left no-indent">Last build of this page: 2019/09/02, 20:21.</p>
<p class="left no-indent"><a target="_blank" href="https://hosted.weblate.org/engage/publishing-is-coding-change-my-mind/?utm_source=widget"><img class="auto-width" style="margin:0;" src="https://hosted.weblate.org/widgets/publishing-is-coding-change-my-mind/-/svg-badge.svg" /></a></p>
<p class="left no-indent"><span class="smallcap"><a target="_blank" href="https://perrotuerto.blog/feed/en/rss.xml">RSS</a></span> | <a href="../../../content/html/en/001_free-publishing.html"><span class="versalita">EN</span></a> | <a href="../../../content/html/es/001_free-publishing.html"><span class="versalita">ES</span></a> | <a href="../../../content/html/nb/001_free-publishing.html"><span class="versalita">NB</span></a></p>
</footer>

4
content/html/es/001_free-publishing.html
View File

@ -31,7 +31,7 @@
</blockquote>
<p>Este <i>blog</i> es acerca de «edición libre» pero ¿qué quiere decir eso? El término «libre» no es tan problemático en nuestra lengua como en el inglés. En ese idioma existe una confusión entre «<i>free</i>» como «barra libre» y como «libre discurso». Sin embargo, eso no elimina el hecho de que el concepto de libertad es tan ambiguo que incluso en Filosofía tratamos de usarlo con cuidado. Aunque sea un problema, prefiero que el término no tenga una definición clara; al final, ¿qué tan libres podríamos ser si la libertad estuviese bien definida?</p>
<p>Hace unos años, cuando empecé a trabajar codo a codo con Programando Libreros y Hacklib, me di cuenta que no solo estábamos editando con <i>software</i> libre. Estamos haciendo edición libre. Así que intenté definirla en <a href="https://marianaeguaras.com/edicion-libre-mas-alla-creative-commons/">una publicación</a> pero ya no me convence.</p>
<p>El término siguió flotando alrededor hasta diciembre del 2018. Durante el Contracorriente —feria anual de <i>fanzine</i> celebrado en Xalapa, México— Hackblib y yo fuimos invitados a dar una charla sobre edición y <i>software</i> libre. Entre todos hicimos una cartulina de lo que hablamos aquel día.</p>
<p>El término siguió flotando alrededor hasta diciembre del 2018. Durante el Contracorriente —feria anual de <i>fanzine</i> celebrado en Xalapa, México— Hacklib y yo fuimos invitados a dar una charla sobre edición y <i>software</i> libre. Entre todos hicimos una cartulina de lo que hablamos aquel día.</p>
<figure>
<img src="../../../img/p001_i001.jpg" alt="Cartulina hecha en el Contracorriente, ¿chigona, cierto?"/>
<figcaption>
@ -60,7 +60,7 @@
</section>
<footer>
<p class="left no-indent">Todo el contenido está bajo <a href="../../../content/html/es/_fork.html">Licencia Editorial Abierta y Libre (<span class="smallcap">LEAL</span>)</a>.</p>
<p class="left no-indent">Última modificación de esta página: 2019/07/01, 09:57.</p>
<p class="left no-indent">Última modificación de esta página: 2019/09/02, 20:21.</p>
<p class="left no-indent"><a target="_blank" href="https://hosted.weblate.org/engage/publishing-is-coding-change-my-mind/?utm_source=widget"><img class="auto-width" style="margin:0;" src="https://hosted.weblate.org/widgets/publishing-is-coding-change-my-mind/-/svg-badge.svg" /></a></p>
<p class="left no-indent"><span class="smallcap"><a target="_blank" href="https://perrotuerto.blog/feed/es/rss.xml">RSS</a></span> | <a href="../../../content/html/en/001_free-publishing.html"><span class="versalita">EN</span></a> | <a href="../../../content/html/es/001_free-publishing.html"><span class="versalita">ES</span></a> | <a href="../../../content/html/nb/001_free-publishing.html"><span class="versalita">NB</span></a></p>
</footer>

2
content/html/nb/001_free-publishing.html
View File

@ -29,7 +29,7 @@
</section>
<footer>
<p class="left no-indent">Alt innholdet er lisensiert <a href="../../../content/html/nb/_fork.html">Licencia Editorial Abierta y Libre (<span class="smallcap">LEAL</span>)</a>.</p>
<p class="left no-indent">Siste endring av denne siden: 2019/07/01, 09:57.</p>
<p class="left no-indent">Siste endring av denne siden: 2019/09/02, 20:21.</p>
<p class="left no-indent"><a target="_blank" href="https://hosted.weblate.org/engage/publishing-is-coding-change-my-mind/?utm_source=widget"><img class="auto-width" style="margin:0;" src="https://hosted.weblate.org/widgets/publishing-is-coding-change-my-mind/-/svg-badge.svg" /></a></p>
<p class="left no-indent"><span class="smallcap"><a target="_blank" href="https://perrotuerto.blog/feed/nb/rss.xml">RSS</a></span> | <a href="../../../content/html/en/001_free-publishing.html"><span class="versalita">EN</span></a> | <a href="../../../content/html/es/001_free-publishing.html"><span class="versalita">ES</span></a> | <a href="../../../content/html/nb/001_free-publishing.html"><span class="versalita">NB</span></a></p>
</footer>

111
content/po/en/001_free-publishing.po
View File

@ -3,16 +3,16 @@ msgstr ""
"Project-Id-Version: 001_free-publishing 1.0\n"
"Report-Msgid-Bugs-To: Nika Zhenya <nika.zhenya@cliteratu.re>\n"
"POT-Creation-Date: 2019-03-20 13:30-0600\n"
"PO-Revision-Date: 2019-07-01 14:25+0000\n"
"PO-Revision-Date: 2019-09-02 20:20-0500\n"
"Last-Translator: Nika Zhenya <nika.zhenya@cliteratu.re>\n"
"Language-Team: English <https://hosted.weblate.org/projects/"
"publishing-is-coding-change-my-mind/001_free-publishing/en/>\n"
"Language-Team: English <https://hosted.weblate.org/projects/publishing-is-"
"coding-change-my-mind/001_free-publishing/en/>\n"
"Language: en\n"
"MIME-Version: 1.0\n"
"Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8\n"
"Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit\n"
"Plural-Forms: nplurals=2; plural=n != 1;\n"
"X-Generator: Weblate 3.7.1\n"
"X-Generator: Poedit 2.2.1\n"
#: content/md/001_free-publishing.js:1
msgid "# From publishing with free software to free publishing"
@ -31,13 +31,13 @@ msgid ""
"like that the term doesn't have a clear definition---at the end, how free "
"could we be if freedom is well defined?"
msgstr ""
"This blog is about “free publishing” but, what does that means? The term "
"“free” it isn't only problematic in English. May be more than in others "
"languages because of the confusion between “free as in beer” and “free as in "
"speech.” But by itself the concept of freedom is so ambiguous than even in "
"Philosophy we are very careful in its use. Even though it is a problem, I "
"like that the term doesn't have a clear definition---at the end, how free "
"could we be if freedom is well defined?"
"This blog is about “free publishing” but, what does that mean? The term "
"“free” isn't only problematic in English. Maybe more in other languages "
"because of the confusion between “free as in beer” and “free as in speech.” "
"But by itself the concept of freedom is so ambiguous than even in Philosophy "
"we are very careful in its use. Even though it is a problem, I like that the "
"term doesn't have a clear definition---in the end, how free could we be if "
"freedom is well defined?"
#: content/md/001_free-publishing.js:9
msgid ""
@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ msgid ""
msgstr ""
"Some years ago, when I started to work hand-in-hand with Programando "
"Libreros and Hacklib, I realized that we weren't just doing publishing with "
"free software. We are doing free publishing. So I attempted to defined it in "
"free software. We are doing free publishing. So I attempted to define it in "
"[a post](https://marianaeguaras.com/edicion-libre-mas-alla-creative-"
"commons/) but it doesn't convince me anymore."
@ -61,9 +61,9 @@ msgid ""
"we made a poster of everything we talked that day."
msgstr ""
"The term was floating around until December, 2018. At Contracorriente---"
"yearly fanzine fair celebrated in Xalapa, Mexico---Hacklib and me were "
"yearly fanzine fair celebrated in Xalapa, Mexico---Hacklib and I were "
"invited to give a talk about publishing and free software. Between all of us "
"we made a poster of everything we talked that day."
"we made a poster of everything we talked about that day."
#: content/md/001_free-publishing.js:18
msgid ""
@ -80,8 +80,8 @@ msgid ""
"you have it more readable:"
msgstr ""
"The poster was very helpful because in a simple Venn diagram we were able to "
"distinguish several intersections of activities that involves our work. Here "
"you have it more readable:"
"distinguish several intersections of activities that involve our work. Here "
"is a more readable version:"
#: content/md/001_free-publishing.js:22
msgid ""
@ -109,14 +109,14 @@ msgid ""
"the self produced society. So, do I have to mention that property rights "
"isn't as fair as we would want?"
msgstr ""
"So I'm not gonna define what is publishing, free software or politics---it "
"is my fucking blog so I can write whatever I want xD and you can [duckduckgo]"
"So I'm not gonna define publishing, free software or politics---it is my "
"fucking blog so I can write whatever I want xD and you can [duckduckgo]"
"(https://duckduckgo.com/?q=I+dislike+google) it without a satisfactory "
"answer. As you can see, there are at least two very familiar intersections: "
"cultural policies and hacktivism. I dunno how it is in your country, but in "
"Mexico we have very strong cultural policies for publishing---or at least "
"that is what publishers _think_ and are comfortable with it, not matter that "
"most of the times they go against open access and readers rights.\n"
"that is what publishers _think_ and are comfortable with it, no matter that "
"most of the time they go against open access and readers rights.\n"
"\n"
"“Hacktivism” is a fuzzy term, but it could be clear if we realized that code "
"as property is not the only way we can define it. Actually it is very "
@ -124,7 +124,7 @@ msgstr ""
"by our societies and protected by our states---yeah, individuality isn't the "
"foundation of rights and laws, but a construction of the self produced "
"society. So, do I have to mention that property rights isn't as fair as we "
"would want?"
"would like?"
#: content/md/001_free-publishing.js:37
msgid ""
@ -138,13 +138,13 @@ msgid ""
"instead of be treated as a consumer."
msgstr ""
"Between publishing and free software we get “publishing with free software.” "
"What does that implies? It is the activity of publishing using software that "
"accomplish the famous---infamous?---[four freedoms](https://en.wikipedia.org/"
"wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition). For people that use software as a tool, "
"this means that, firstly, we aren't force to pay anything in order to use "
"software. Secondly, we have access to the code and do whatever we want with "
"it. Thirdly---and for me the most important---we can be part of a community, "
"instead of be treated as a consumer."
"What does that imply? It is the act of publishing using software that "
"accomplishes the famous---infamous?---[four freedoms](https://en.wikipedia."
"org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition). For people that use software as a "
"tool, this means that, first, we aren't forced to pay anything in order to "
"use software. Second, we have access to the code and do whatever we want "
"with it. Third---and for me the most important---we can be part of a "
"community, instead of treated as a consumer."
#: content/md/001_free-publishing.js:44
msgid ""
@ -154,11 +154,11 @@ msgid ""
"Google of publishing---one day could decided to use TeX or Pandoc, saving "
"tons of money at the same time they keep the monopoly of publishing."
msgstr ""
"It sounds great, isn't it? But we have a little problem: the freedom only "
"applies to software. As publisher you can benefit from free software and "
"It sounds great, doesn't it? But we have a little problem: the freedom only "
"applies to software. As a publisher you can benefit from free software and "
"that doesn't mean you have to free your work. Penguin Random House---the "
"Google of publishing---one day could decided to use TeX or Pandoc, saving "
"tons of money at the same time they keep the monopoly of publishing."
"Google of publishing---one day could decide to use TeX or Pandoc, saving "
"tons of money and at the same time keep the monopoly of publishing."
#: content/md/001_free-publishing.js:49
msgid ""
@ -172,15 +172,14 @@ msgid ""
"publishers are the ones who decide the path of almost all our text-centered "
"culture."
msgstr ""
"Stallman saw that problem with the manuals published by O'Reilly and he "
"proposed the +++GNU+++ Free Documentation License. But by doing so he "
"trickly distinguished [different kinds of works](https://www.gnu.org/"
"philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.en.html). It is interesting see texts "
"as functionality, matter of opinion or aesthetics but in the publishing "
"industry nobody cares a fuck about that. The distinctions works great "
"between writers and readers, but it doesn't problematize the fact that "
"publishers are the ones who decide the path of almost all our text-centered "
"culture."
"Stallman saw the problem with manuals published by O'Reilly and he proposed "
"the +++GNU+++ Free Documentation License. But by doing so he trickly "
"distinguished [different kinds of works](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/"
"copyright-and-globalization.en.html). It is interesting to see texts as "
"functional works, matter of opinion or aesthetics but in the publishing "
"industry nobody gives a fuck about that. The distinctions work great between "
"writers and readers, but it doesn't problematize the fact that publishers "
"are the ones who decide the path of almost all of our text-centered culture."
#: content/md/001_free-publishing.js:57
msgid ""
@ -192,13 +191,13 @@ msgid ""
"typesetting easy-to-use and suitable for all their _professional_ needs, we "
"would see how “suddenly” publishing industry embraces free software."
msgstr ""
"In my opinion, that's dangerous at least. So I prefer other tricky "
"In my opinion, that's dangerous at least. So I prefer another tricky "
"distinction. Big publishers and their mimetic branch---the so called “indie” "
"publishing---only cares about two things: sales and reputation. They want to "
"live _well_ and get social recognition from the _good_ books they publish. "
"If one day the software communities develop some desktop publishing or "
"If one day software communities develop some desktop publishing or "
"typesetting easy-to-use and suitable for all their _professional_ needs, we "
"would see how “suddenly” publishing industry embraces free software."
"would see how “suddenly” the publishing industry embraces free software."
#: content/md/001_free-publishing.js:64
msgid ""
@ -213,14 +212,14 @@ msgid ""
"access, come on!"
msgstr ""
"So, why don't we distinguish published works by their funding and sense of "
"community? If what you publishing has public funding---for your knowledge, "
"in Mexico practically all publishing has this kind of funding---it would be "
"fair to release the files and leave hard copies for sell: we already paid "
"community? If what you publish has public funding---for your knowledge, in "
"Mexico practically all publishing has this kind of funding---it would be "
"fair to release the files and leave hard copies for sale: we already paid "
"for that. This is a very common argument among supporters of open access in "
"science, but we can go beyond that. Not matter if the work relies on "
"functionality, matter of opinion or aesthetics; if is a science paper, a "
"philosophy essay or a novel and it has public funding, we have paid for "
"access, come on!"
"science, but we can go beyond that. No matter if the work relies on "
"functionality, matter of opinion or aesthetics; whether its a scientific "
"paper, a philosophy essay or a novel and it has public funding, we have "
"already paid for access, come on!"
#: content/md/001_free-publishing.js:72
msgid ""
@ -234,9 +233,9 @@ msgstr ""
"You can still sell publications and go to Messe Frankfurt, Guadalajara "
"International Book Fair or Beijing Book Fair: it is just doing business with "
"the _bare minium_ of social and political awareness. Why do you want more "
"money from us if we already gave it to you?---and you get almost all the "
"profits, leaving the authors with just the satisfaction of seeing her work "
"published…"
"money from us if we've already given it to you?---and you receive almost all "
"of the profits, leaving the authors with just the satisfaction of seeing her "
"work published…"
#: content/md/001_free-publishing.js:77
msgid ""
@ -265,7 +264,7 @@ msgid ""
"want that?"
msgstr ""
"As it goes, we need free tools but also free works. I already have the tools "
"but I lack from permission to publish some books that I really like. I don't "
"but lack the permission to publish some books that I really like. I don't "
"want that happen to you with my work. So we need a publishing ecosystem "
"where we have access to all files of a particular edition---our “source "
"code” and “binary files”---and also to the tools---the free software---so we "
@ -279,7 +278,7 @@ msgid ""
"Programando Libreros and Hacklib we use free software, we invest time in "
"activism and we work in publishing: _we do free publishing, what about you?_ "
msgstr ""
"With these politics strains, free software tools and publishing as a way of "
"With these political strains, free software tools and publishing as a way of "
"living as a publisher, writer and reader, free publishing is a pathway. With "
"Programando Libreros and Hacklib we use free software, we invest time in "
"activism and we work in publishing: _we do free publishing, what about you?_ "

4
content/po/es/001_free-publishing.po
View File

@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ msgstr ""
"MIME-Version: 1.0\n"
"Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8\n"
"Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit\n"
"PO-Revision-Date: 2019-04-15 10:59-0500\n"
"PO-Revision-Date: 2019-09-01 16:23-0500\n"
"Language-Team: none\n"
"Language: es\n"
"Plural-Forms: nplurals=2; plural=(n != 1);\n"
@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ msgid ""
msgstr ""
"El término siguió flotando alrededor hasta diciembre del 2018. Durante el "
"Contracorriente ---feria anual de _fanzine_ celebrado en Xalapa, México--- "
"Hackblib y yo fuimos invitados a dar una charla sobre edición y _software_ "
"Hacklib y yo fuimos invitados a dar una charla sobre edición y _software_ "
"libre. Entre todos hicimos una cartulina de lo que hablamos aquel día."
#: content/md/001_free-publishing.js:18