BBS水木清华站∶精华区
发信人: yuhj (勇 梦回唐朝), 信区: Linux
标 题: 为什么软件不应被任何人私有--R. Stallman
发信站: BBS 水木清华站 (Fri Aug 14 00:13:33 1998)
Why Software Should Not Have Owners
为什么软件不应被任何人私有
by Richard Stallman
里查得.斯德曼
中文译者:勇(yuhj)
Digital information technology contributes to the world by making it
easier to copy and modify information. Computers promise to make this
easier for all of us.
当今世界的数字信息科技使信息能被方便的复制和修改。计算机技术更加速了
这一趋势的发展。
Not everyone wants it to be easier. The system of copyright gives
software programs ``owners'', most of whom aim to withhold software's
potential benefit from the rest of the public. They would like to be the
only ones who can copy and modify the software that we use.
但这样的事情并不是每个人都喜欢看到的。所谓的版权制度给了软件制做者该软
件“私有者”的权力。而大多数这些人都是利用这样的权力来控制软件进而从社
会中获得利润。
The copyright system grew up with printing---a technology for mass
production copying. Copyright fit in well with this technology because it
restricted only the mass producers of copies. It did not take freedom away
from readers of books. An ordinary reader, who did not own a printing
press, could copy books only with pen and ink, and few readers were sued
for that.
最早的版权是随着印刷术而出现的。版权制度很适合印刷术，因为其仅限制了大
量的复制。另一方面，它并没有剥夺书籍拥有者对所购书籍的自由。既一个与出
版社毫无关系的普通读者可以用纸和笔把书籍复制下来，实际上也没有人因为这
样做而被起诉过。
Digital technology is more flexible than the printing press: when
information has digital form, you can easily copy it to share
it with others. This very flexibility makes a bad fit with a system like
copyright. That's the reason for the increasingly nasty
and draconian measures now used to enforce software copyright. Consider
these four practices of the Software Publishers Association (SPA):
数字技术据有比印刷术更大的灵活性：当信息以数字形式存在的时侯，人们可以
非常方便的拷贝和分享。这种特性使的它与版权制度显的格格不入。这一点导致
了我们现在所能看到的日益增长在版权实施上的丑事。看一下这些个出版协会的
发：
Massive propaganda saying it is wrong to disobey the owners to help
your friend.
大量的宣传声称违反(软件)“拥有者”的意愿去帮助你的朋友是不对的。
Solicitation for stool pigeons to inform on their coworkers and
colleagues.
Raids (with police help) on offices and schools, in which people are
told they must prove they are innocent of illegal copying.
侵入办公室和学校，要求人们证明他们没有使用非法使用软件。
Prosecution (by the US government, at the SPA's request) of people
such as MIT's David LaMacchia, not for copying software (he is not accused
of copying any), but merely for leaving copying facilities unguarded and
failing to censor their use.
(在出版商协会的要求下，美国政府)起诉如MIT的David LaMacchia这样的人，并非
因为他自己复制软件(他也并不是以该原因被控)，而仅仅因为没有管理好自己的
复制设备和没有及时进行删除。
All four practices resemble those used in the former Soviet Union, where
every copying machine had a guard to prevent forbidden copying, and where
individuals had to copy information secretly and pass it from hand to hand
as ``samizdat''. There is of course a difference: the motive for
information control in the Soviet Union was political; in the US the
motive is profit. But it is the actions that affect us, not the motive.
Any attempt to block the sharing of information, no matter why, leads to
the same methods and the same harshness.
上述这四种做法完全翻版了在前苏联的做法，在那里每个复印机都有警卫看守以
防止非法复印，其结果是人们不得不私下里交流信息，这被称作“samizdat”。
当然这里是有区别的：前苏联对信息的控制是处于政治的考虑，在美国则是为了
利润。问题是这些行为本身损害到我们，而非其动机。任何阻碍信息交流的企图，
无论处于何种目的，都必将导致同样的方法和其损害性的后果。
Owners make several kinds of arguments for giving them the power to
control how we use information:
拥有者有各种各样的理由来证明他们有权力控制我们如何使用信息：
Name calling.
贬低性语言
Owners use smear words such as ``piracy'' and ``theft'', as well as
expert terminology such as ``intellectual property'' and ``damage'', to
suggest a certain line of thinking to the public---a simplistic analogy
between programs and physical objects.
拥有者使用各种具有贬低性的词语，如“盗版“，”偷窃“，还有同类但比较专业
的如”知识财产“，”损害“，来引导公众的舆论，其原理是简单的将程序和普通
物体进行了类比。
Our ideas and intuitions about property for material objects are about
whether it is right to take an object away from someone else. They don't
directly apply to making a copy of something. But the owners ask us to
apply them anyway.
我们直观概念中的“财物”，或者说“实物”是从它们是否能被从一个人那里夺走
而判断的。这并不直接适用于某种东西的复制。不管我们怎么想，那些所谓“拥有
者”们非要用这样的逻辑。
Exaggeration.
夸大其辞
Owners say that they suffer ``harm'' or ``economic loss'' when users
copy programs themselves. But the copying has no direct effect on the
owner, and it harms no one. The owner can lose only if the person who made
the copy would otherwise have paid for one from the owner.
“拥有者”们声称当软件软件使用者自己拷贝软件时他们遭受了“损伤”，或者“经济
损失”。奇怪的是这样的拷贝本身对于软件拥有者并没有任何直接作用，并且也看不
出伤害了谁。至于经济损失，只有当该用户在如果得不到拷贝的版本会去掏钱买的
情况下拷贝才使软件商才会有这样的损失。
A little thought shows that most such people would not have bought
copies. Yet the owners compute their ``losses'' as if each and every one
would have bought a copy. That is exaggeration---to put it kindly.
不需要太多思考就能明白，绝大多数那些做拷贝的人怎么也是不会真的去买那个
软件的。在这样的情况下，那些软件商作出“经济损失”的假设 - 如果不能拷
贝人人都会去买那个软件 - 至少也是夸大其辞了的。
The law.
法律
Owners often describe the current state of the law, and the harsh
penalties they can threaten us with. Implicit in this approach is the
suggestion that today's law reflects an unquestionable view of
morality---yet at the same time, we are urged to regard these penalties as
facts of nature that can't be blamed on anyone.
This line of persuasion isn't designed to stand up to critical
thinking; it's intended to reinforce a habitual mental pathway.
It's elementary that laws don't decide right and wrong. Every American
should know that, forty years ago, it was against the law in many states
for a black person to sit in the front of a bus; but only racists would
say sitting there was wrong.
一个最基本的事实是：法律并不判断什么是正确或者错误。每个美国人都应当知道，
四十年以前，在很多州一个黑人坐在公共汽车的前面是违法的，而现在除了种族主
义者没有人还有这样的想法。
Natural rights.
天赐的权力。
Authors often claim a special connection with programs they have
written, and go on to assert that, as a result, their desires and
interests concerning the program simply outweigh those of anyone else---or
even those of the whole rest of the world. (Typically companies, not
authors, hold the copyrights on software, but we are expected to ignore
this discrepancy.)
软件作者喜欢声称他们与其所写的程序具有某种特殊的关系，作为结论，他们
认为他们在这些程序上所有的利益和期望简单的就超过了任何人 - 甚至整个世
界的。(尽管通常是软件公司，而并非软件作者拥有软件的版权，但他们总是希望
我们忽略这个区别的)。
To those who propose this as an ethical axiom---the author is more
important than you---I can only say that I, a notable software author
myself, call it bunk.
But people in general are only likely to feel any sympathy with the
natural rights claims for two reasons.
One reason is an overstretched analogy with material objects. When I
cook spaghetti, I do object if someone else eats it, because then I cannot
eat it. His action hurts me exactly as much as it benefits him; only one
of us can eat the spaghetti, so the question is, which? The smallest
distinction between us is enough to tip the ethical balance.
No one should.
The second reason is that people have been told that natural rights
for authors is the accepted and unquestioned tradition of our society.
As a matter of history, the opposite is true. The idea of natural
rights of authors was proposed and decisively rejected when the US
Constitution was drawn up. That's why the Constitution only permits a
system of copyright and does not require one; that's why it says that
copyright must be temporary. It also states that the purpose of copyright
is to promote progress---not to reward authors. Copyright does reward
authors somewhat, and publishers more, but that is intended as a means of
modifying their behavior.
The real established tradition of our society is that copyright cuts
into the natural rights of the public---and that this can only be
justified for the public's sake.
Economics.
The final argument made for having owners of software is that this
leads to production of more software.
Unlike the others, this argument at least takes a legitimate approach
to the subject. It is based on a valid goal---satisfying the users of
software. And it is empirically clear that people will produce more of
something if they are well paid for doing so.
But the economic argument has a flaw: it is based on the assumption
that the difference is only a matter of how much money we have to pay. It
assumes that ``production of software'' is what we want, whether the
software has owners or not.
People readily accept this assumption because it accords with our
experiences with material objects. Consider a sandwich, for instance. You
might well be able to get an equivalent
sandwich either free or for a price. If so, the
amount you pay is the only difference. Whether or not you have to buy
it, the sandwich has the same taste, the same
nutritional value, and in either case you can only eat it once.
Whether you get the sandwich from an owner or not cannot
directly affect anything but the amount of money you have afterwards.
This is true for any kind of material object---whether or not it has
an owner does not directly affect what it is, or what
you can do with it if you acquire it.
But if a program has an owner, this very much affects what it is, and
what you can do with a copy if you buy one. The
difference is not just a matter of money. The system of owners of
software encourages software owners to produce
something---but not what society really needs. And it causes
intangible ethical pollution that affects us all.
What does society need? It needs information that is truly available
to its citizens---for example, programs that people
can read, fix, adapt, and improve, not just operate. But what software
owners typically deliver is a black box that we
can't study or change.
Society also needs freedom. When a program has an owner, the users
lose freedom to control part of their own lives.
And above all society needs to encourage the spirit of voluntary
cooperation in its citizens. When software owners tell
us that helping our neighbors in a natural way is ``piracy'', they
pollute our society's civic spirit.
This is why we say that free software is a matter of freedom, not
price.
The economic argument for owners is erroneous, but the economic issue
is real. Some people write useful software for
the pleasure of writing it or for admiration and love; but if we want
more software than those people write, we need to
raise funds.
For ten years now, free software developers have tried various methods
of finding funds, with some success. There's no
need to make anyone rich; the median US family income, around $35k,
proves to be enough incentive for many jobs that
are less satisfying than programming.
For years, until a fellowship made it unnecessary, I made a living
from custom enhancements of the free software I had
written. Each enhancement was added to the standard released version
and thus eventually became available to the
general public. Clients paid me so that I would work on the
enhancements they wanted, rather than on the features I
would otherwise have considered highest priority.
The Free Software Foundation (FSF), a tax-exempt charity for free
software development, raises funds by selling GNU
CD-ROMs, T-shirts, manuals, and deluxe distributions, (all of which
users are free to copy and change), as well as
from donations. It now has a staff of five programmers, plus three
employees who handle mail orders.
Some free software developers make money by selling support services.
Cygnus Solutions, with around 50 employees
[now 100 in 1997], estimates that about 15 per cent of its staff
activity is free software development---a respectable
percentage for a software company.
Companies including Intel, Motorola, Texas Instruments and Analog
Devices have combined to fund the continued
development of the free GNU compiler for the language C. Meanwhile,
the GNU compiler for the Ada language is
being funded by the US Air Force, which believes this is the most
cost-effective way to get a high quality compiler.
[Air Force funding ended some time ago; the GNU Ada Compiler is now in
service, and its maintenance is funded
commercially.]
All these examples are small; the free software movement is still
small, and still young. But the example of
listener-supported radio in this country [the US] shows it's possible
to support a large activity without forcing each user
to pay.
As a computer user today, you may find yourself using a proprietary (18k
characters) program. If your friend asks to make a
copy, it would be wrong to refuse. Cooperation is more important than
copyright. But underground, closet cooperation does
not make for a good society. A person should aspire to live an upright
life openly with pride, and this means saying ``No'' to
proprietary software.
You deserve to be able to cooperate openly and freely with other people
who use software. You deserve to be able to learn
how the software works, and to teach your students with it. You deserve to
be able to hire your favorite programmer to fix it
when it breaks.
You deserve free software.
Other Texts to Read
This first group of articles directly address the philosophy of the GNU
project and free software:
What is Free Software?
Why Software Should Not Have Owners
Selling Free Software Can Be Ok!
Categories of Free Software (18k characters)
Free software is more reliable!
What is the Free Software Foundation?
What is Copyleft?
Confusing Words which You Might Want to Avoid
History of the GNU Project
The GNU Manifesto (31k characters)
Why there are no GIF files on GNU web pages
This second group of articles deal with related topics but are not
directly about the GNU project:
How to Protect the Right to Write Software (independent of whether
it's free or not)
Where the Copyright System and Government Plans are Leading Us
The Right Way to Tax DAT (22k characters)
Studies Find Reward Often No Motivator
A speech that Richard Stallman gave in 1986 at the Royal Institute of
Technology in Sweden
How to Protect the Freedoms of Speech, Press, and Association on the
Internet
--
信言不美，美言不信。
善者不辩，辩者不善。
知者不博，博者不知。
<<老子.道德经>>八十一章
※ 修改:·yuhj 於 Aug 14 00:15:18 修改本文·[FROM: 166.111.68.120]
※ 来源:·BBS 水木清华站 bbs.net.tsinghua.edu.cn·[FROM: 166.111.68.120]
BBS水木清华站∶精华区