FreeBSD Doc/articles_bsdl-gpl — Turkish (tr_TR) @ Weblate: [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html [2] http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/03/28/cyberpatrol.mirrors/ [3] Open Source: the Unauthorized White …

Translation

Content

Source string comment (itstool) path: sect1/programlisting

English

[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

[2] http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/03/28/cyberpatrol.mirrors/

[3] Open Source: the Unauthorized White Papers, Donald K. Rosenberg, IDG Books,
2000. Quotes are from page 114, ``Effects of the GNU GPL''.

[4] In the "What License to Use?" section of
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/brian.html

This whitepaper is a condensation of an original work available at
http://alumni.cse.ucsc.edu/~brucem/open_source_license.htm

Turkish (tr_TR)

500/5000

Needs editing

Context	English	Turkish (tr_TR)	State
	A BSD license is not simply a gift. The question <quote>why should we help our competitors or let them steal our work?</quote> comes up often in relation to a BSD license. Under a BSD license, if one company came to dominate a product niche that others considered strategic, the other companies can, with minimal effort, form a mini-consortium aimed at reestablishing parity by contributing to a competitive BSD variant that increases market competition and fairness. This permits each company to believe that it will be able to profit from some advantage it can provide, while also contributing to economic flexibility and efficiency. The more rapidly and easily the cooperating members can do this, the more successful they will be. A BSD license is essentially a minimally complicated license that enables such behavior.	BSD lisansı ile ilgili olarak <quote>Neden rakiplerimize yardım edelim veya çalışmamızı çalmalarına izin verelim ki?</quote> sorusu çok sık sorulsa da BSD lisansının buna olanak tanıdığı düşünülmemelidir. Bir şirketin, başkalarınca stratejik olduğu düşünülen, BSD lisansı altındaki ihtiyaç odaklı bir ürün (niş ürün) üzerinde hakimiyet kurması durumunda, diğer şirketler, asgari düzeyde bir çabayla, dengenin yeniden sağlanabilmesi için söz konusu BSD lisansı ile rekabet edebilecek farklı bir BSD lisansını destekleyip adil ve rekabetçi piyasa koşullarını oluşturabilecek küçük çaplı bir konsorsiyum oluşturabilir. Bu durum, bir yandan her bir şirketin bu durumun sağlayabileceği avantajlardan faydalanıp kar elde edebileceğine inanmasına olanak tanırken diğer yandan ekonomik esnekliğe ve verimliliğe katkıda bulunur. Ayrıca, işbirliği içerisinde olan üyeler bunu ne kadar hızlı ve kolay yaparsa o kadar başarılı olacaklardır. Bu açıdan bakıldığında BSD lisansı, karmaşıklığın asgari düzeyde tutulduğu ve yukarıda bahsedilenlere olanak sağlayan bir lisanstır.
	A key effect of the GPL, making a complete and competitive Open Source system widely available at cost of media, is a reasonable goal. A BSD style license, in conjunction with ad-hoc-consortiums of individuals, can achieve this goal without destroying the economic assumptions built around the deployment-end of the technology transfer pipeline.	Eksiksiz ve rekabetçi bir Açık Kaynak sistemin yalnızca dağıtım ortamı (CD/DVD vb.) maliyeti karşılığında yaygın kullanıma sunulması, Genel Kamu Lisansının da önemli çıktılarından biri olup oldukça makul bir hedeftir ve bu hedef, BSD lisansı kullanılarak, gereklilik halinde oluşturulan şahıs konsorsiyumlarının da işbirliğiyle, son kullanıcı tarafında oluşmuş ekonomik varsayımlar alt üst edilmeden gerçekleştirilebilir.
	Specific Recommendations for using a BSD license	BSD lisansının kullanılabileceği özel durumlara ilişkin tavsiyeler
	The BSD license is preferable for transferring research results in a way that will widely be deployed and most benefit an economy. As such, research funding agencies, such as the NSF, ONR and DARPA, should encourage in the earliest phases of funded research projects, the adoption of BSD style licenses for software, data, results, and open hardware. They should also encourage formation of standards based around implemented Open Source systems and ongoing Open Source projects.	BSD Lisansı, araştırma sonuçlarının yaygın şekilde kullanıma sunulabilecek ve ekonomiye en çok faydayı sağlayabilecek şekilde aktarımı için tercih edilebilir. Bu bakımdan, araştırmalara fon sağlayan NSF (Ulusal Bilim Vakfı), ONR (Birleşik Devletler Deniz Kuvvetleri Denizcilik Araştırmaları Ofisi) and DARPA (ABD Savunma Bakanlığı Savunma Araştırmaları Müsteşarlığı) gibi kuruluşlar fon sağladıkları araştırma projelerinin başlangıç safhaslarında, yazılım, veri ve sonuçlar için BSD lisansının ve açık kaynak donanımınların benimsenmesini ve bunların yanı sıra uyarlanmış Açık Kaynak sistemlere ve sürmekte olan Açık Kaynak projelere dayalı standartların oluşturulmasını teşvik etmelidir.
	Government policy should minimize the costs and difficulties in moving from research to deployment. When possible, grants should require results to be available under a commercialization friendly BSD style license.	Hükümet politikaları, araştırma aşamasından araştırma bulgularının kullanılabilir hale gelmesi aşamasına geçişteki masraf ve zorlukları asgari düzeyde tutmalı ve mümkün olduğu durumlarda, verilen hibelerde, araştırma sonuçlarının ticarileştirmeye imkan tanıyan bir BSD lisansı altında sunulması şartı yer almalıdır.
	In many cases, the long-term results of a BSD style license more accurately reflect the goals proclaimed in the research charter of universities than what occurs when results are copyrighted or patented and subject to proprietary university licensing. Anecdotal evidence exists that universities are financially better rewarded in the long run by releasing research results and then appealing to donations from commercially successful alumni.
	Companies have long recognized that the creation of de facto standards is a key marketing technique. The BSD license serves this role well, if a company really has a unique advantage in evolving the system. The license is legally attractive to the widest audience while the company's expertise ensures their control. There are times when the GPL may be the appropriate vehicle for an attempt to create such a standard, especially when attempting to undermine or co-opt others. The GPL, however, penalizes the evolution of that standard, because it promotes a suite rather than a commercially applicable standard. Use of such a suite constantly raises commercialization and legal issues. It may not be possible to mix standards when some are under the GPL and others are not. A true technical standard should not mandate exclusion of other standards for non-technical reasons.
	Companies interested in promoting an evolving standard, which can become the core of other companies' commercial products, should be wary of the GPL. Regardless of the license used, the resulting software will usually devolve to whoever actually makes the majority of the engineering changes and most understands the state of the system. The GPL simply adds more legal friction to the result.
	Large companies, in which Open Source code is developed, should be aware that programmers appreciate Open Source because it leaves the software available to the employee when they change employers. Some companies encourage this behavior as an employment perk, especially when the software involved is not directly strategic. It is, in effect, a front-loaded retirement benefit with potential lost opportunity costs but no direct costs. Encouraging employees to work for peer acclaim outside the company is a cheap portable benefit a company can sometimes provide with near zero downside.
	Small companies with software projects vulnerable to orphaning should attempt to use the BSD license when possible. Companies of all sizes should consider forming such Open Source projects when it is to their mutual advantage to maintain the minimal legal and organization overheads associated with a true BSD-style Open Source project.
	Non-profits should participate in Open Source projects when possible. To minimize software engineering problems, such as mixing code under different licenses, BSD-style licenses should be encouraged. Being leery of the GPL should particularly be the case with non-profits that interact with the developing world. In some locales where application of law becomes a costly exercise, the simplicity of the new BSD license, as compared to the GPL, may be of considerable advantage.
	Conclusion
	In contrast to the GPL, which is designed to prevent the proprietary commercialization of Open Source code, the BSD license places minimal restrictions on future behavior. This allows BSD code to remain Open Source or become integrated into commercial solutions, as a project's or company's needs change. In other words, the BSD license does not become a legal time-bomb at any point in the development process.
	In addition, since the BSD license does not come with the legal complexity of the GPL or LGPL licenses, it allows developers and companies to spend their time creating and promoting good code rather than worrying if that code violates licensing.
	Bibliographical References
	[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html [2] http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/03/28/cyberpatrol.mirrors/ [3] Open Source: the Unauthorized White Papers, Donald K. Rosenberg, IDG Books, 2000. Quotes are from page 114, ``Effects of the GNU GPL''. [4] In the "What License to Use?" section of http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/brian.html This whitepaper is a condensation of an original work available at http://alumni.cse.ucsc.edu/~brucem/open_source_license.htm	[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html [2] http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/03/28/cyberpatrol.mirrors/ [3] Open Source: the Unauthorized White Papers, Donald K. Rosenberg, IDG Books, 2000. Quotes are from page 114, ``Effects of the GNU GPL''. [4] In the "What License to Use?" section of http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/brian.html This whitepaper is a condensation of an original work available at http://alumni.cse.ucsc.edu/~brucem/open_source_license.htm

Loading…

dbaio

Marked for edit

FreeBSD Doc / articles_bsdl-gpl — Turkish (tr_TR)

English

Turkish (tr_TR)

8 months ago

Browse all component changes

Things to check

Has been translated

Last translation was " [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html [2] http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/03/28/cyberpatrol.mirrors/ [3] Open Source: the Unauthorized White Papers, Donald K. Rosenberg, IDG Books, 2000. Quotes are from page 114, ``Effects of the GNU GPL''. [4] In the "What License to Use?" section of http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/brian.html This whitepaper is a condensation of an original work available at http://alumni.cse.ucsc.edu/~brucem/open_source_license.htm ".

Fix string

Reset

Glossary

English	Turkish (tr_TR)
manual page	el kitabı	FreeBSD Doc
Open source	açık kaynak	FreeBSD Doc
open source project	açık kaynak proje	FreeBSD Doc
Perpetual license	kalıcı lisans	FreeBSD Doc
source tree	source tree	FreeBSD Doc
ubiquitous computing	yaygın bilişim, her yerde bilişim	FreeBSD Doc
web page	web sayfası	FreeBSD Doc

Source information

Source string comment

(itstool) path: sect1/programlisting

Flags

ignore-same, no-wrap

Source string location

article.translate.xml:557

String age

10 months ago

Source string age

a year ago

Translation file

articles/tr-TR/bsdl-gpl.po, string 84