en to zh_CN translation catalogue (166 entries)

note: type: Content of: <title>
en: A Free Digital Society - What Makes Digital Inclusion Good or Bad? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation
zh_CN: 自由数字社会 - 数字包容怎么是好，或者是坏？ - GNU 工程 - 自由软件基金会

note: type: Content of: <div><h2>
en: A Free Digital Society - What Makes Digital Inclusion Good or Bad?
zh_CN: 自由数字社会 - 数字包容怎么是好，或者是坏？

note: type: Content of: <div><address>
en: by Richard Stallman
zh_CN: Richard Stallman 著

note: type: Content of: <div><div><p>
en: Transcription of a lecture at Sciences Po Paris, October 19, 2011&nbsp; (<a href="//audio-video.gnu.org/video/stallman-sciencespo-freesociety.webm">video</a>)
zh_CN: 这是2011年10月19日在巴黎政治大学（Sciences Po Paris）讲座的笔录。&nbsp;（<a href="//audio-video.gnu.org/video/stallman-sciencespo-freesociety.webm">视频</a>）

note: type: Content of: <div><div><h3>
en: Table of Contents
zh_CN: 目录

note: type: Content of: <div><div><ul><li>
en: <a href="#intro">Introduction</a>
zh_CN: <a href="#intro">简介</a>

note: type: Content of: <div><div><ul><li>
en: <a href="#surveillance">Surveillance</a>
zh_CN: <a href="#surveillance">监控</a>

note: type: Content of: <div><div><ul><li>
en: <a href="#censorship">Censorship</a>
zh_CN: <a href="#censorship">审查</a>

note: type: Content of: <div><div><ul><li>
en: <a href="#formats">Restricted data formats</a>
zh_CN: <a href="#formats">受限制的数据格式</a>

note: type: Content of: <div><div><ul><li>
en: <a href="#proprietary">Software that isn't free</a>
zh_CN: <a href="#proprietary">非自由软件</a>

note: type: Content of: <div><div><ul><li>
en: <a href="#four-freedoms">The four freedoms of free software</a>
zh_CN: <a href="#four-freedoms">自由软件的四个自由</a>

note: type: Content of: <div><div><ul><li>
en: <a href="#gnu">The GNU Project and the Free Software movement</a>
zh_CN: <a href="#gnu">GNU 工程和自由软件运动</a>

note: type: Content of: <div><div><ul><li>
en: <a href="#education">Free software and education</a>
zh_CN: <a href="#education">自由软件和教育</a>

note: type: Content of: <div><div><ul><li>
en: <a href="#services">Internet services</a>
zh_CN: <a href="#services">互联网服务</a>

note: type: Content of: <div><div><ul><li>
en: <a href="#voting">Computers for voting</a>
zh_CN: <a href="#voting">用于投票的计算机</a>

note: type: Content of: <div><div><ul><li>
en: <a href="#sharing">The war on sharing</a>
zh_CN: <a href="#sharing">针对分享的战争</a>

note: type: Content of: <div><div><ul><li>
en: <a href="#arts">Supporting the arts</a>
zh_CN: <a href="#arts">支持艺术</a>

note: type: Content of: <div><div><ul><li>
en: <a href="#rights">Rights in cyberspace</a>
zh_CN: <a href="#rights">数字空间的权利</a>

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: Introduction
zh_CN: 简介

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Projects with the goal of digital inclusion are making a big assumption. They are assuming that participating in a digital society is good, but that's not necessarily true. Being in a digital society can be good or bad, depending on whether that digital society is just or unjust. There are many ways in which our freedom is being attacked by digital technology. Digital technology can make things worse, and it will, unless we fight to prevent it.
zh_CN: 以数字包容为目标的项目做了一个很大的假设。它们假设参与数字社会就是好事，但是这个假设并不一定对。数字社会可好可坏，要根据它是不是公正来决定。数字技术有很多方法来攻击我们的自由。数字技术可以让事情变坏，而且它一定会那么做，除非我们努力去阻止它。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Therefore, if we have an unjust digital society, we should cancel these projects for digital inclusion and launch projects for digital extraction. We have to extract people from digital society if it doesn't respect their freedom, or we have to make it respect their freedom.
zh_CN: 因此，如果数字社会将变得不公正，那么我们应该取消那些以数字包容为目的的项目，并开始以数字提取为目标的项目。如果数字社会不尊重人们的自由，那么我们只好从中把人提取出来，要么就得让它尊重自由。

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: Surveillance
zh_CN: 监控

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: What are the threats? First, surveillance. Computers are Stalin's dream: they are ideal tools for surveillance, because anything we do with computers, the computers can record. They can record the information in a perfectly indexed searchable form in a central database, ideal for any tyrant who wants to crush opposition.
zh_CN: 有什么威胁呢？首先是监控。计算机是斯大林梦寐以求的东西：它们是理想的监控工具，因为我们在计算机上所做的一切都能记录下来。它们能够把信息以完美的可检索方式记录在一个中央数据库中，这是暴君打击对手的理想武器。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Surveillance is sometimes done with our own computers. For instance, if you have a computer that's running Microsoft Windows, that system is doing surveillance. There are features in Windows that send data to some server, data about the use of the computer. A surveillance feature was discovered in the iPhone a few months ago, and people started calling it the &ldquo;spy-phone.&rdquo; Flash player has a surveillance feature too, and so does the Amazon &ldquo;Swindle.&rdquo; They call it the Kindle, but I call it &ldquo;<a href="/philosophy/why-call-it-the-swindle.html">the Swindle</a>,&rdquo; <em>l'escroc</em>, because it's meant to swindle users out of their freedom. It makes people identify themselves whenever they buy a book, and that means Amazon has a giant list of all the books each user has read. Such a list must not exist anywhere.
zh_CN: 监控有时发生在我们自己的电脑上。例如，如果你的电脑运行的是 Microsoft Windows，那么该系统在监控。Windows 会把数据发送到服务器，关于计算机使用的数据。iPhone 的一项监控功能也在数月之前被发现，人们开始称之为 &ldquo;间谍电话&rdquo;。Flash 播放器有监控功能，Amazon &ldquo;Swindle&rdquo; 也有。人们叫它 Kindle，但是我叫它 &ldquo;<a href="/philosophy/why-call-it-the-swindle.html">Swindle</a>&rdquo;，<em>l'escroc</em>，因为它就是要把用户自由骗走。它让人们买书时表明身份，这就意味着 Amazon 拥有每个读者所看书目的巨大名单。世上本不该有这样的名单。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Most portable phones will transmit their location, computed using GPS, on remote command. The phone company is accumulating a giant list of places that the user has been. A German MP in the Green Party [correction: Malte Spitz is on the staff of the Green Party, not an elected official] asked the phone company to give him the data it had about where he was. He had to sue, he had to go to court to get this information. And when he got it, he received forty-four thousand location points for a period of six months! That's more than two hundred per day! What that means is someone could form a very good picture of his activities just by looking at that data.
zh_CN: 大多数手机都会发送使用 GPS 计算的位置信息，通过远程命令。电话公司搜集着海量用户去过位置的列表。某个德国绿党议员 [订正：Malte Spitz 是绿党成员，不是官员] 要求电话公司交出他的位置记录。他得去打官司，他要对簿公堂才能拿到记录。他拿到后，收到的是6个月内得4400个位置点记录。每天超过200个！这意味着人们仅仅据此数据就可以画出他的活动路线。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: We can stop our own computers from doing surveillance on us if <em>we</em> have control of the software that they run. But the software these people are running, they don't have control over. It's nonfree software, and that's why it has malicious features such as surveillance. However, the surveillance is not always done with our own computers, it's also done at one remove. For instance ISPs in Europe are required to keep data about the user's Internet communications for a long time, in case the State decides to investigate that person later for whatever imaginable reason.
zh_CN: 如果 <em>我们</em> 对自己电脑的软件有控制权，那么我们可以让我们的电脑停止监控。但是这些人对电脑软件没有控制权。那些是非自由软件，这正是软件会有监控这种恶意功能的原因。不过，监控并不总在我们自己的电脑上发生，它也可以发生在远端。例如，欧洲的 ISP 需要长时间保留用户上网的记录，以备日后当局以某种理由调查某人。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: With a portable phone&hellip; even if you can stop the phone from transmitting your GPS location, the system can determine the phone's location approximately, by comparing the time when the signals arrive at different towers. So the phone system can do surveillance even without special cooperation from the phone itself.
zh_CN: 使用手机&hellip;&hellip;即使你可以关闭手机发送 GPS 位置信息的功能，监控系统还是可以通过比较不同基站收到信号的时间确定手机的大致位置。所以，电话系统即使不需要手机的特别配合也可以监控。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Likewise, the bicycles that people rent in Paris. Of course the system knows where you get the bicycle and it knows where you return the bicycle, and I've heard reports that it tracks the bicycles as they are moving around as well. So they are not something we can really trust.
zh_CN: 同样地，在巴黎租用自行车的人也被监控。系统当然知道你租车和还车的地点，但是我听说系统还会追踪自行车的行踪。因此，这个自行车也不是可信赖的自行车了。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: But there are also systems that have nothing to do with us that exist only for tracking. For instance, in the UK all car travel is monitored.  Every car's movements are being recorded in real time and can be tracked by the State in real time. This is done with cameras on the side of the road.
zh_CN: 但是还有些系统和我们毫无关系，只做监控。例如，在英国所有的汽车旅行都被监控。每辆车的运动都被实时记录，也能被英国政府实时追踪。这些监控由路边的摄像头完成。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Now, the only way we can prevent surveillance that's done at one remove or by unrelated systems is through political action against increased government power to track and monitor everyone, which means of course we have to reject whatever excuse they come up with. For doing such systems, no excuse is valid&mdash;to monitor everyone.
zh_CN: 现在，我们防止远端监控或者不相关监控的唯一方法就是通过政治活动反对扩大政府监控所有人的权力，这就是说我们必须理所当然地拒绝以任何理由进行全民监控。这样的监控系统，没有理由是站得住脚的&mdash;&mdash;不能监控所有人。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: In a free society, when you go out in public, you are not guaranteed anonymity. It's possible for someone to recognize you and remember. And later that person could say that he saw you at a certain place. But that information is diffuse. It's not conveniently assembled to track everybody and investigate what they did. To collect that information is a lot of work, so it's only done in special cases when it's necessary.
zh_CN: 在一个自由社会，当你走在大街上，我们不能保证你能保持匿名。因为有可能有人认识你并记得你。以后，这个人也可能会说他在什么地方见过你。但是这个信息是分散的。想要把这些信息汇总来追踪任何人并调查他们的活动不太方便。要搜集这些信息需要大量的工作，所以它只能在必要时对具体案例进行。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: But computerized surveillance makes it possible to centralize and index all this information so that an unjust regime can find it all, and find out all about everyone. If a dictator takes power, which could happen anywhere, people realize this and they recognize that they should not communicate with other dissidents in a way that the State could find out about. But if the dictator has several years of stored records of who talks with whom, it's too late to take any precautions then, because he already has everything he needs to realize: &ldquo;OK, this guy is a dissident, and he spoke with him. Maybe he is a dissident too. Maybe we should grab him and torture him.&rdquo;
zh_CN: 但是计算机监控让中心化成为可能，它能检索全部信息。这样不公正的政权就能够发现所有信息，发现每个人的所有信息。如果某个独裁者掌权，这会发生，人们意识到危险并开始不再用政府可能会发现的方法和持不同政见者沟通。但是独裁者已经有了多年的通话记录，现在采取谨慎的行动已经太晚了，因为独裁者已经掌握了他想知道的一切：&ldquo;好了，这家伙是个异见人士，他和这个人聊过。这个人也可能是异见人士。也许我们应该把这个人抓起来好好酷刑拷问下。&rdquo;

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: So we need to campaign to put an end to digital surveillance <em>now</em>. You can't wait until there is a dictator and it would really matter. And besides, it doesn't take an outright dictatorship to start attacking human rights.
zh_CN: 因此，我们<em>现在就</em>需要政治活动来终止数字监控。我们不能等到独裁者出现或者事情已经火烧眉毛了再行动。另外，攻击人权也不一定要一个完全的独裁者才干得出来。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: I wouldn't quite call the government of the UK a dictatorship. It's not very democratic, and one way it crushes democracy is using surveillance. A few years ago, people believed to be on their way to a protest, they were going to protest, they were arrested before they could get there because their car was tracked through this universal car tracking system.
zh_CN: 我不太会把英国政府称作独裁政府。它是不那么民主，它使用监控手段破坏民主就是例子。数年前，人们策划过一场抗议，抗议就要开始，但是人们在到达抗议地点之前就被逮捕了，因为他们的汽车被全国车辆监控系统追踪了。

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: Censorship
zh_CN: 审查

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The second threat is censorship. Censorship is not new, it existed long before computers. But 15 years ago, we thought that the Internet would protect us from censorship, that it would defeat censorship. Then, China and some other obvious tyrannies went to great lengths to impose censorship on the Internet, and we said: &ldquo;Well that's not surprising, what else would governments like that do?&rdquo;
zh_CN: 第二个威胁是审查。审查并不是新鲜事，远在有计算机之前就有了审查。但是在15年前，我们认为互联网会保护我们免受审查，我们认为它会击败审查。后来，中国和其他一些显而易见的暴政花了大力气对互联网强加了审查。我们说：&ldquo;这不奇怪，这些政府还会用它做什么呢？&rdquo;

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: But today we see censorship imposed in countries that are not normally thought of as dictatorships, such as for instance the UK, France, Spain, Italy, Denmark&hellip;
zh_CN: 但是今天我们看到许多我们通常认为不是独裁的政府也强加了审查，比如英国、法国、西班牙、意大利、丹麦&hellip;&hellip;

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: They all have systems of blocking access to some websites. Denmark established a system that blocks access to a long list of web pages, which was secret. The citizens were not supposed to know how the government was censoring them, but the list was leaked and posted on WikiLeaks. At that point, Denmark added the WikiLeaks page to its censorship list. So, the whole rest of the world can find out how Danes are being censored, but Danes are not supposed to know.
zh_CN: 这些国家都有屏蔽网站访问的系统。丹麦建立了一套屏蔽了一大批网站的系统，哪些网站被屏蔽还是秘密。公民竟然不应该知道政府是怎么审查他们的。但是网站名单已经被泄露，发布在 WikiLeaks 上了。就在那时，丹麦政府把 WikiLeaks 网站也加入到审查列表中。因此，全世界都能知道丹麦人是怎么被审查的，而丹麦人却不能知道。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: A few months ago, Turkey, which claims to respect some human rights, announced that every Internet user would have to choose between censorship and more censorship. Four different levels of censorship they get to choose! But freedom is not one of the options.
zh_CN: 数月前，号称尊重一些人权的土耳其宣称，所有网络用户只能选择审查或进一步审查。他们可以选择多达四个不同层级的审查！但是没有自由这个选项。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Australia wanted to impose filtering on the Internet, but that was blocked. However Australia has a different kind of censorship: it has censorship of links. That is, if a website in Australia has a link to some censored site outside Australia, the one in Australia can be punished. Electronic Frontiers Australia, that is an organization that defends human rights in the digital domain in Australia, posted a link to a foreign political website. It was ordered to delete the link or face a penalty of $11,000 a day. So they deleted it, what else could they do? This is a very harsh system of censorship.
zh_CN: 澳大利亚企图强加网络过滤器，但是被阻止了。不过，澳大利亚有一种别开生面的审查：它会审查链接。就是说，在澳大利亚，如果一个网站带有链接指向一个澳大利亚以外的被审查网站，那么澳大利亚境内的网站会受到处罚。澳大利亚电子前线（Electronic Frontiers Australia）是一个在澳大利亚捍卫数字领域人权的组织，它发布了一个指向外国政治网站的链接。它就被命令或者立即删除该链接，或者面临每天 $11,000 的罚款。所以他们删除了链接，他们还能怎么办呢？这是一个非常粗暴的审查系统。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: In Spain, the censorship that was adopted earlier this year allows officials to arbitrarily shut down an Internet site in Spain, or impose filtering to block access to a site outside of Spain. And they can do this without any kind of trial. This was one of the motivations for the <i>Indignados</i>, who have been protesting in the street.
zh_CN: 在西班牙，今年早期采纳的审查制度让政府可以任意关停西班牙境内的网站，也能够对境外网站强加过滤阻止人们访问。这些都不需要审判程序。这是发生 <i>Indignados</i> 活动的原因之一，这些人上街游行抗议。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: There were protests in the street in Turkey as well, after that announcement, but the government refused to change its policy.
zh_CN: 土耳其宣布审查制度后，也有人游行抗议，但是政府拒绝改变政策。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: We must recognize that a country that imposes censorship on the Internet is not a free country. And is not a legitimate government either.
zh_CN: 我们必须认定强加互联网审查的国家不是一个自由国家，其政府也不是一个合法政府。

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: Restricted data formats
zh_CN: 受限制的数据格式

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The next threat to our freedom comes from data formats that restrict users.
zh_CN: 下一个对我们自由的威胁来自限制用户的数据格式。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Sometimes it's because the format is secret. There are many application programs that save the user's data in a secret format, which is meant to prevent the user from taking that data and using it with some other program. The goal is to prevent interoperability.
zh_CN: 有时是因为其格式是个秘密。有许多应用使用秘密的格式保存用户数据，其目的就是防止用户把数据让别的应用使用。这是防止兼容性。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Now, evidently, if a program implements a secret format, that's because the program is not free software. So this is another kind of malicious feature. Surveillance is one kind of malicious feature that you find in some nonfree programs; using secret formats to restrict the users is another kind of malicious feature that you also find in some nonfree programs.
zh_CN: 现在，很明显，如果一个程序实现了某种秘密的格式，那么这是因为该程序是非自由软件。所以这是另外一种恶意功能。监控是某些非自由软件的一种恶意功能；限制用户的秘密格式是某些自由软件的另外一种恶意功能。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: But if you have a free program that handles a certain format, <em>ipso facto</em> that format is not secret. This kind of malicious feature can only exist in a nonfree program. Surveillance features, well, theoretically they could exist in a free program but you don't find them happening. Because the users would fix it, you see. The users wouldn't like this, so they would fix it.
zh_CN: 但是如果你的自由软件软件能处理某种格式，<em>当然</em> 这个格式就不是秘密。这种恶意功能只能存在于非自由程序中。监控功能，理论上也能在自由程序上存在，但是你却没见到过。因为用户会修复这种问题，你明白了吧？如果用户不喜欢监控功能，他们会把它解决掉。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: In any case, we also find secret data formats in use for publication of works. You find secret data formats in use for audio, such as music, for video, for books&hellip; And these secret formats are known as Digital Restrictions Management, or DRM, or digital handcuffs <em>(les menottes num&eacute;riques)</em>.
zh_CN: 不管什么情况，我们在出版作品中也发现有使用秘密数据格式。秘密数据格式在音频（如音乐）、视频、书籍&hellip;&hellip;都有使用。这种秘密数据格式叫做数字限制管理，简称 DRM，即数字枷锁 <em>（法语：数字手铐）</em>。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: So, the works are published in secret formats so that only proprietary programs can play them, so that these proprietary programs can have the malicious feature of restricting the users, stopping them from doing something that would be natural to do.
zh_CN: 这样，使用秘密格式出版的作品只能用专有程序播放；这样，这些专有程序就能使用恶意功能限制用户，防止他们做某些本来非常自然的事情。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: And this is used even by public entities to communicate with the people. For instance Italian public television makes its programs available on the net in a format called VC-1, which is a standard supposedly, but it's a secret standard. Now I can't imagine how any publicly supported entity could justify using a secret format to communicate with the public. This should be illegal. In fact I think all use of Digital Restrictions Management should be illegal. No company should be allowed to do this.
zh_CN: 而且即使公共机构也在使用秘密格式与人们沟通。比如，意大利公共电视台的网络格式叫做 VC-1，按理应该是一个标准，不过却是一个秘密标准。我无法想象公众资助的机构怎么能够辩解使用秘密格式和公众沟通。这是不应该是合法的。实际上，我认为所有对数字限制管理的使用都不应该合法。任何公司都不应该使用数字限制管理。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: There are also formats that are not secret but almost might as well be secret, for instance Flash. Flash is not actually secret but Adobe keeps making new versions, which are different, faster than anyone can keep up and make free software to play those files; so it has almost the same effect as being secret.
zh_CN: 还有一些格式不是秘密的，但和秘密也差不多，比如 Flash。Flash 实际上不是秘密，但是 Adobe 一直不断地更新版本，每个版本格式不一样，而且更新速度比任何人能够做好自由软件来支持快得多；这实际上和秘密格式一样了。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Then there are the patented formats, such as MP3<a href="#f1"><sup>1</sup></a> for audio. It's bad to distribute audio in MP3 format. There is free software to handle MP3 format, to play it and to generate it, but because it's patented in many countries, many distributors of free software don't dare include those programs; so if they distribute the GNU+Linux system, their system doesn't include a player for MP3. As a result if anyone distributes some music in MP3, that's putting pressure on people not to use GNU/Linux.  Sure, if you're an expert you can find a free software and install it, but there are lots of non experts, and they might see that they installed a version of GNU/Linux which doesn't have that software, and it won't play MP3 files, and they think it's the system's fault. They don't realize it's MP3's fault. But this is the fact.
zh_CN: 然后还有专利格式，比如音频的 MP3<a href="#f1"><sup>1</sup></a> 格式。使用 MP3 格式发布音频很糟糕。自由软件可以处理 MP3 格式，播放和制作都行，但是由于它在多个国家都是有专利的，许多自由软件发布者不敢包含这些自由程序；所以他们发布 GNU+Linux 系统时，系统不带 MP3 播放器。因此如果有人使用 MP3 发布了音乐，音乐用户就要考虑是否使用 GNU/Linux 系统了。是的，如果你是高手，你可以找到自由软件并安装好，但是还有许多普通人，他们看到自己安装的 GNU/Linux 系统没有播放 MP3 文件的程序，他们会认为是系统的问题。他们不会意识到这是 MP3 的问题。但事实就是如此。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Therefore, if you want to support freedom, don't distribute MP3 files. That's why I say if you're recording my speech and you want to distribute copies, don't do it in a patented format such as MPEG-2, or MPEG-4, or MP3. Use a format friendly to free software, such as the OGG formats or WebM. And by the way, if you are going to distribute copies of the recording, please put on it the Creative Commons, No Derivatives license. This is a statement of my personal views. If it were a lecture for a course, if it were didactic, then it ought to be free, but statements of opinion are different.
zh_CN: 因此，如果你想支持自由，请不要使用 MP3 发布文件。这就是为什么我说如果你要录制我的演讲并想发布，请不要使用 MPEG-2、MPEG-4 或 MP3 等专利格式。使用对自由软件友好的格式，比如 OGG 格式或 WebM。另外，如果你要发布，请使用 Creative Commons, No Derivatives 许可证。这是我个人的声明。如果是课堂讲义、教育演讲，那么它应该是自由的，但是如果是发表看法，那么有所不同。

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: Software that isn't free
zh_CN: 非自由软件

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Now this leads me to the next threat which comes from software that the users don't have control over. In other words, software that isn't free, that is not <i>libre</i>. In this particular point French is clearer than English. The English word &ldquo;free&rdquo; means <i>libre</i> and <i>gratuit</i>, but what I mean when I say &ldquo;free software&rdquo; is <i>logiciel libre</i>. I don't mean <i>gratuit</i>. I'm not talking about price. Price is a side issue, just a detail, because it doesn't matter ethically. You know, if I have a copy of a program and I sell it to you for one euro or a hundred euros, who cares? Right? Why should anyone think that's good or bad? Or suppose I gave it to you <i>gratuitement</i>&hellip; Still, who cares? But whether this program respects your freedom, that's important!
zh_CN: 现在就引出了用户没有控制权的软件带来的下一个威胁。换句话说，软件不 free（自由），就是说软件不 <i>libre（自由）</i>。在这个方面，法语比英语更清晰。英语单词 &ldquo;free&rdquo; 有 <i>自由（libre）</i>的意思，也有 <i>免费（gratuit）</i>的意思，不过我说的 &ldquo;free software（英语：自由软件）&rdquo; 是指 <i>logiciel libre（法语：自由软件）</i>。我并不是指 <i>gratuit（法语：免费）</i>。我不是在讨论价格。价格是次要问题，只是一个细节，因为价格不会影响道德。如果我有一个程序，我一块钱卖给你，还是一百块卖给你，有特别的关系吗？对不对？为什么会有人对此说三道四呢？如果我 <i>免费</i> 给你呢&hellip;&hellip;也没有关系吧？但是这个程序是否尊重你的自由就非常重要！

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: So free software is software that respects users' freedom. What does this mean? Ultimately there are just two possibilities with software: either the users control the program or the program controls the users.  If the users have certain essential freedoms, then <em>they</em> control the program, and those freedoms are the criterion for free software. But if the users <em>don't</em> fully have the essential freedoms, then the program controls the users. But somebody controls that program and, through it, has <em>power</em> over the users.
zh_CN: 自由软件是尊重用户自由的软件。什么意思呢？从根本来看，软件只有两种可能：不是用户控制程序，就是软件控制用户。如果用户拥有某些重要的自由，那么 <em>他们</em> 就控制程序，而这些自由就是自由软件的准则。但是如果用户 <em>不能</em> 全部拥有这些重要的自由，那么程序就控制着用户。而控制那些程序的人就通过程序拥有控制用户的 <em>权力</em>。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: So, a nonfree program is an instrument to give somebody <em>power</em> over a lot of other people, and this is unjust power that nobody should ever have. This is why nonfree software <i>(les logiciels privateurs, qui privent de la libert&eacute;)</i>, why proprietary software is an injustice and should not exist; because it leaves the users without freedom.
zh_CN: 因此，非自由软件是让某人有凌驾于很多人之上的 <em>权力</em> 的一种手段，而这种不公正权力任何人任何时候都不该拥有。这就是为什么非自由软件<i>（专有软件剥夺自由）</i>，即专有软件是不公正的并且不应存在；因为它剥夺了用户的自由。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Now, the developer who has control of the program often feels tempted to introduce malicious features to <em>further</em> exploit or abuse those users. He feels a temptation because he knows he can get away with it. Because his program controls the users and the users do not have control of the program, if he puts in a malicious feature, the users can't fix it; they can't remove the malicious feature.
zh_CN: 控制程序的开发者通常会想要加入恶意功能来 <em>进一步</em> 剥削或虐待用户。他感到诱惑，因为他知道他可以免受惩罚。因为他的程序控制用户，而用户不能控制程序，如果他添加了恶意功能，用户不能修改；用户就不能移除这些恶意功能。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: I've already told you about two kinds of malicious features: surveillance features, such as are found in Windows and the iPhone and Flash player and the Swindle, sort of. And there are also features to restrict users, which work with secret data formats, and those are found in Windows, Macintosh, the iPhone, Flash player, the Amazon Swindle, the Playstation 3 and lots and lots of other programs.
zh_CN: 我已经讲到了两种恶意功能：监控功能，就像 Windows、iPhone 和 Flash 播放器以及 Swindle 的例子。还有限制用户的功能，秘密数据格式，比如在 Windows、Macintosh、iPhone、Flash 播放器、Amazon Swindle、Playstation 3 以及很多很多的其他程序发现的那样。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The other kind of malicious feature is the backdoor. That means something in that program is listening for remote commands and obeying them, and those commands can mistreat the user. We know of backdoors in Windows, in the iPhone, in the Amazon Swindle. The Amazon Swindle has a backdoor that can delete books, remotely delete books. We know this by observation, because Amazon did it: in 2009 Amazon remotely deleted thousands of copies of a particular book. Those were authorized copies, people had obtained them directly from Amazon, and thus Amazon knew exactly where they were, which is how Amazon knew where to send the commands to delete those books. You know which book Amazon deleted? <em>1984</em> by George Orwell. [laughter] It's a book everyone should read, because it discusses a totalitarian state that did things like delete books it didn't like. Everybody should read it, but not on the Amazon Swindle. [laughter]
zh_CN: 另外一种恶意功能是后门。它的意思是程序会接受远程命令并执行，而这些命令会伤害用户。我们知道 Windows、iPhone、Amazon Swindle 都有后门。Amazon Swindle 有一个可以删除书籍、远程删除书籍的后门。我们是通过观察知道这些后门的，因为 Amazon 用了后门：在 2009 年，Amazon 远程删除了一本书的数千个复本。它们都是合法复本，人们都是直接从 Amazon 获取的，因此 Amazon 知道这些书的复本在哪里，这就是 Amazon 怎么知道向哪里发送远程命令来删除书籍的原因。你知道 Amazon 删除的是哪本书吗？George Orwell 的 <em>1984</em>。[笑声]这是每个人都应该读一读的书，因为它讨论的是一个集权政府如何像删除它不喜欢的书那样控制人民。每个人都应该看此书，不过不要使用 Amazon Swindle 来看。[更多笑声]

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Anyway, malicious features are present in the most widely used nonfree programs, but they are rare in free software, because with free software the users have control. They can read the source code and they can change it. So, if there were a malicious feature, somebody would sooner or later spot it and fix it. This means that somebody who is considering introducing a malicious feature does not find it so tempting, because he knows he might get away with it for a while but somebody will spot it, will fix it, and everybody will loose trust in the perpetrator. It's not so tempting when you know you're going to fail. And that's why we find that malicious features are rare in free software, and common in proprietary software.
zh_CN: 不管怎样，最广泛使用的非自由软件都带有恶意功能，但是自由软件却很少有恶意功能，因为用户可以掌控自由软件。他们可以阅读自由软件的源代码，可以修改。因此，如果自由软件带有恶意功能，那么迟早会有人发现并改掉它。这就意味着想要给自由软件添加恶意功能的人不会觉得这个很有吸引力，因为他知道自己或许在短时间内可以逃避惩罚，但是一旦有人发现，人们不但会修复问题，而且也会失去对作恶者的信任。如果你知道事情终将败露，那么事情就没有诱惑力。这就是为什么自由软件少有恶意功能，而专有软件常带恶意功能的原因。

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: The four freedoms of free software
zh_CN: 自由软件的四项自由

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The essential freedoms are four:
zh_CN: 四项基本自由是：

note: type: Content of: <div><ul><li>
en: Freedom 0 is the freedom to run the program as you wish.
zh_CN: 自由之零是有自由按自己的意愿运行程序。

note: type: Content of: <div><ul><li>
en: Freedom 1 is the freedom to study the source code and change it, so the program does your computing the way you wish.
zh_CN: 自由之一是有自由学习和修改程序源代码，这样程序就能按照自己的意愿运行。

note: type: Content of: <div><ul><li>
en: Freedom 2 is the freedom to help others. That's the freedom to make exact copies and redistribute them when you wish.
zh_CN: 自由之二是有自由帮助别人，就是有自由原样复制和分发程序。

note: type: Content of: <div><ul><li>
en: Freedom 3 is the freedom to contribute to your community. That's the freedom to make copies of your modified versions, if you have made any, and then distribute them to others when you wish.
zh_CN: 自由之三是有自由为社区做贡献，就是有自由复制和分发修改后的程序版本。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: These freedoms, in order to be adequate, must apply to all activities of life. For instance if it says &ldquo;this is free for academic use,&rdquo; it's not free. Because that's too limited. It doesn't apply to all areas of life. In particular, if a program is free, that means it can be modified and distributed commercially, because commerce is an area of life, an activity in life. And this freedom has to apply to all activities.
zh_CN: 这些自由，若要完全有效，必须适用于生活的方方面面。举例来说，如果这些自由 &ldquo;是学术使用的自由，&rdquo;那么它不是自由。因为太局限了。它并不能用于生活的所有领域。特别要指出，如果一个程序是自由的，那么也意味着它可以用于商业修改和分发，因为商业也是生活的一个方面，是我们的一个活动。这种自由必须可以用于我们所有的活动。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: However, it's not obligatory to do any of these things. The point is you're free to do them if you wish, when you wish. But you never have to do them. You don't have to do any of them. You don't have to run the program. You don't have to study or change the source code. You don't have to make any copies. You don't have to distribute your modified versions. The point is you should be free to do those things <em>if you wish</em>.
zh_CN: 不过，我们并不强制人们这么做。重点是如果你愿意，你有自由这么做。但是你不是必须要这么做，你也不必做其中的任何一件事。你不必运行程序。你不必学习或修改源代码。你不必复制软件。你也不必分发修改后的版本。重点是<em>如果你愿意，</em>你应该有自由这么做。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Now, freedom number 1, the freedom to study and change the source code to make the program do your computing as you wish, includes something that might not be obvious at first. If the program comes in a product, and the developer can provide an upgrade that will run, then you have to be able to make your version run in that product. If the product will only run the developer's versions, and refuses to run yours, the executable in that product is not free software. Even if it was compiled from free source code, it's not free because you don't have the freedom to make the program do your computing the way you wish. So, freedom 1 has to be real, not just theoretical. It has to include the freedom to use <em>your</em> version, not just the freedom to make some source code that won't run.
zh_CN: 对于自由之一，有自由学习和修改源代码来让程序按照自己的意愿执行计算，这里包含了一些并不太显而易见的问题。如果一个产品带有程序，而其开发者能够升级程序并运行，那么你也必须能够制作自己的版本并在该产品上运行。如果该产品只能运行其开发者的版本，而拒绝运行你的版本，那么该产品的可执行程序不是自由软件。即使它由自由的源代码编译而成，它也不是自由软件，因为你没有自由让程序按照你的意愿运行。因此，自由之一必须是可实践的，而不只是理论上的。它必须包括使用 <em>你自己</em> 版本的自由，而不只是有自由修改代码而不能运行。

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: The GNU Project and the Free Software movement
zh_CN: GNU 工程和自由软件运动

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: I launched the Free Software movement in 1983, when I announced the plan to develop a free software operating system whose name is GNU. Now GNU, the name GNU, is a joke; because part of the hacker's spirit is to have fun even when you're doing something <em>very</em> serious. Now I can't think of anything more seriously important than defending freedom.
zh_CN: 1983年当我宣布我要开发一个叫做 GNU 的自由软件操作系统的计划之时，我发起了自由软件运动。GNU 这个名字，是一个幽默；因为黑客精神有时就体现在对 <em>十分</em> 严肃的事情也能开玩笑。我无法想象比捍卫自由更严肃的事情了。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: But that didn't mean I couldn't give my system a name that's a joke.  So GNU is a joke because it's a recursive acronym, it stands for &ldquo;GNU's Not Unix,&rdquo; so G.N.U.: GNU's Not Unix. So the G in GNU stands for GNU.
zh_CN: 但是这并不意味着我不能拿我要完成的系统的名字开个玩笑。GNU 是一个无限递归的玩笑，它代表 &ldquo;GNU's Not Unix（GNU 不是 UNIX）&rdquo;，所以 G.N.U.：GNU's Not Unix。GNU 中的 G 就是指 GNU。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: In fact this was a tradition at the time. The tradition was: if there was an existing program and you wrote something similar to it, inspired by it, you could give credit by giving your program a name that's a recursive acronym saying it's not the other one. So I gave credit to Unix for the technical ideas of Unix, but with the name GNU, because I decided to make GNU a Unix-like system, with the same commands, the same system calls, so that it would be compatible, so that people who used Unix could switch over easily.
zh_CN: 实际上，这是当时的一个传统：如果有一个现有的系统，而你编写的系统受它启发、和它很类似，那么你可以在你程序的名字上递归地说出原来系统的名字以示感谢，并作区别。所以我感谢 Unix 的技术理念，而使用 GNU 这个名字是因为我决定把 GNU 做成一个类似 Unix 的系统，一样的命令、一样的系统调用，这样它们就是兼容的，原本使用 Unix 的人就能够轻松地切换过来。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: But the reason for developing GNU, that was unique. GNU is the only operating system, as far as I know, ever developed for the purpose of freedom. Not for technical motivations, not for commercial motivations. GNU was written for <em>your</em> freedom. Because without a free operating system, it's impossible to have freedom and use a computer. And there were none, and I wanted people to have freedom, so it was up to me to write one.
zh_CN: 开发 GNU 的原因是独特的。据我所知，GNU 是唯一的操作系统，其开发的目的是为了自由。不是为了技术动机，不是为了商业动机。GNU 是为了 <em>你们的</em> 自由而开发。因为如果没有一个自由的操作系统，那么就没有可能在使用计算机时拥有自由。当时没有这样的系统，而我又希望人们有自由，所以我就应当开发一个自由的系统。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Nowadays there are millions of users of the GNU operating system and most of them don't <em>know</em> they are using the GNU operating system, because there is a widespread practice which is not nice. People call the system &ldquo;Linux.&rdquo; Many do, but some people don't, and I hope you'll be one of them. Please, since we started this, since we wrote the biggest piece of the code, please give us equal mention, please call the system &ldquo;GNU+Linux,&rdquo; or &ldquo;GNU/Linux.&rdquo; It's not much to ask.
zh_CN: 如今有数百万的用户使用着 GNU 操作系统，而他们大多数人并不 <em>知道</em> 自己使用的是 GNU 操作系统，因为一个广为传播的说法不是那么友善。人们把这个系统叫做 &ldquo;Linux&rdquo;。许多人这么说，但也有人不这么说，我希望你成为不这么说的人。因为我们开始了这个系统，因为我们编写了其中最多的代码，请你们给予我们公平的份额，请把这个系统叫做 &ldquo;GNU+Linux&rdquo; 或者 &ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;。这个要求并不多。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: But there is another reason to do this. It turns out that the person who wrote Linux, which is one component of the system as we use it today, he doesn't agree with the Free Software movement. And so if you call the whole system Linux, in effect you're steering people towards his ideas, and away from our ideas. Because he's not gonna say to them that they deserve freedom. He's going to say to them that he likes convenient, reliable, powerful software. He's going to tell people that those are the important values.
zh_CN: 但是这么做还有另外一个原因。事实表明编写作为现在我们系统中使用的一个组件——Linux——的人，他并不赞同自由软件运动。所以如果你把整个系统叫做 Linux，那么实际上你在把人们引向他的理念，而偏离我们的理念。因为他不会对用户说你们值得拥有自由。他会对用户说我喜欢便利、可靠、强大的软件。他会告诉人们这些才是重要的价值。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: But if you tell them the system is GNU+Linux&mdash;it's the GNU operating system plus Linux the kernel&mdash;then they'll know about us, and then they might listen to what we say: you deserve freedom. And since freedom will be lost if we don't defend it&mdash;there's always going to be a Sarkozy to take it away&mdash;we need above all to teach people to demand freedom, to be ready to stand up for their freedom the next time someone threatens to take it away.
zh_CN: 但是如果你告诉用户这个系统是 GNU+Linux&mdash;&mdash;是 GNU 操作系统加上 Linux 内核&mdash;&mdash;然后他们就知道了我们。因为如果我们不去捍卫的话，我们就会失去自由&mdash;&mdash;总会有某个萨科齐<sup><a href="#TransNote1">1</a></sup>会来剥夺你的自由&mdash;&mdash;重要的是我们要教育人们去要求自由，在下次有人威胁要剥夺自由的时候能够起来捍卫自由。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Nowadays, you can tell who doesn't want to discuss these ideas of freedom because they don't say <i>logiciel libre</i>. They don't say <i>libre</i>, they say &ldquo;open source.&rdquo; That term was coined by the people like Mr Torvalds who would prefer that these ethical issues don't get raised. And so the way you can help us raise them is by saying <i>libre</i>. You know, it's up to you where you stand, you're free to say what you think. If you agree with them, you can say open source. If you agree with us, show it, say <i>libre</i>!
zh_CN: 现在，你可以分辨出哪些人不愿意讨论自由的理念，因为这些人不会说 <i>自由软件（原文为法语）</i>。他们不会说 <i>自由</i>，他们说的是 &ldquo;开源&rdquo;。这个术语是由像 Torvalds 先生这样的人发明的，他们不愿意提及道德问题。所以你说 <i>自由</i> 就是帮助在我们。你要明白，这是需要你自己站出来的地方，你有自由说出你的想法。如果你同意他们，那么你也可以说开源。如果你赞同我们，那么请说 <i>自由</i>！

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: Free software and education
zh_CN: 自由软件和教育

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The most important point about free software is that schools <em>must</em> teach exclusively free software. All levels of schools from kindergarten to university, it's their moral responsibility to teach only free software in their education, and all other educational activities as well, including those that say that they're spreading digital literacy. A lot of those activities teach Windows, which means they're teaching <em>dependence</em>. To teach people the use of proprietary software is to teach dependence, and educational activities must never do that because it's the opposite of their mission.  Educational activities have a social mission to educate good citizens of a strong, capable, cooperating, independent and free society. And in the area of computing, that means: teach free software; never teach a proprietary program because that's inculcating dependence.
zh_CN: 自由软件最重要的一点就是学校 <em>必须</em> 只教授自由软件。所有的学校，从幼儿园到大学，它们的道德义务就是在教育中只教授自由软件，其他的教育活动也是如此。许多活动在教 Windows，这就是在教 <em>依赖</em>。教授人们使用专有软件就是教授依赖，教育活动永远不应该这样做，因为这和它们的使命背道而驰。教育活动有一个社会使命就是培养强大、能干、合作、独立和自由的社会。就计算领域来说，这意味着：教授自由软件；永远不教授专有软件，因为那是培养依赖。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Why do you think some proprietary developers offer gratis copies to schools? They want the schools to make the children dependent. And then, when they graduate, they're still dependent and, you know, the company is not going to offer them gratis copies. And some of them get jobs and go to work for companies. Not many of them anymore, but some of them.  And those companies are not going to be offered gratis copies. Oh no! The idea is: if the school directs the students down the path of permanent dependence, they can drag the rest of society with them into dependence. That's the plan! It's just like giving the school gratis needles full of addicting drugs, saying: &ldquo;Inject this into your students, the first dose is gratis. Once you're dependent, then you have to pay.&rdquo; Well, the school would reject the drugs because it isn't right to teach the students to use addictive drugs, and it's got to reject the proprietary software also.
zh_CN: 你觉得为什么专有软件开发者会送给学校免费软件呢？它们想让学校教育孩子们有依赖。然后，孩子们毕业之后，他们带着依赖，这时公司不会再有免费的软件。有的毕业生会到公司去工作。不是很多人，有些人。这些公司不会再提供免费软件。是啊！其背后的想法是：如果学校让学生走上有永久依赖的道路，那么他们就会把整个社会拖到有依赖的社会。这就是他们的企图！就像给学校提供免费毒品一样：&ldquo;给学生打一针，第一针免费。一旦你产生依赖，你就不得不付钱了。&rdquo;学校当然会拒绝，因为教学生使用毒品是不对的；它也应当拒绝专有软件。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Some people say: &ldquo;Let's have the school teach both proprietary software and free software, so the students become familiar with both.&rdquo; That's like saying: &ldquo;For the lunch let's give the kids spinach and tobacco, so that they become accustomed to both.&rdquo; No! The schools are only supposed to teach good habits, not bad ones! So there should be no Windows in a school, no Macintosh, nothing proprietary in the education.
zh_CN: 有人会说：&ldquo;让学校既教授专有软件也教授自由软件，学生对两个都了解了。&rdquo;这像是在说：&ldquo;孩子们的午餐既有菠菜也有烟草，他们对两个都会习惯。&rdquo;不行！学校理应只教好的习惯，而不是坏习惯！因此，学校中不能有 Windows，不能有 Macintosh，不能教授专有软件。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: But also, for the sake of educating the programmers. You see, some people have a talent for programming. At ten to thirteen years old, typically, they're fascinated, and if they use a program, they want to know: &ldquo;How does it do this?&rdquo; But when they ask the teacher, if it's proprietary, the teacher has to say: &ldquo;I'm sorry, it's a secret, we can't find out.&rdquo; Which means education is forbidden. A proprietary program is the enemy of the spirit of education. It's knowledge withheld, so it should not be tolerated in a school, even though there may be plenty of people in the school who don't care about programming, don't want to learn this. Still, because it's the enemy of the spirit of education, it shouldn't be there in the school.
zh_CN: 对教育程序员来说，也是一样。有些人对编程有天赋。通常是10岁到13岁，他们对编程很着迷，如果他们使用一个程序，他们想知道：&ldquo;这是怎么做到的？&rdquo;但是他们去问老师时，如果程序是专有软件，老师只能说：&ldquo;对不起，这是一个秘密，我们无法知道。&rdquo;这意味着教育被禁止。专有程序是教育精神的敌人。其中的知识被收起，学校不应当容忍这样的事，即使学校有许多人并不关心编程、也不想学编程。因为这是教育精神的敌人，所以不应该出现在学校。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: But if the program is free, the teacher can explain what he knows, and then give out copies of the source code, saying: &ldquo;Read it and you'll understand everything.&rdquo; And those who are really fascinated, they will read it! And this gives them an opportunity to start to learn how to be good programmers.
zh_CN: 如果程序是自由软件，那么老师可以解释他所知，并把源代码交给学生，说：&ldquo;阅读代码，你会了解一切。&rdquo;这些着迷的孩子会去读的！他们就获得了学习成为优秀程序员的机会。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: To learn to be a good programmer, you'll need to recognize that certain ways of writing code, even if they make sense to you and they are correct, they're not good because other people will have trouble understanding them. Good code is clear code that others will have an easy time working on when they need to make further changes.
zh_CN: 要学习成为一个优秀的程序员，你需要了解编写代码的某些方法虽然正确也有道理，但是由于其他人很难理解就不是好的代码。好的代码非常清晰，其他人在需要修改时会觉得轻松。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: How do you learn to write good clear code? You do it by reading lots of code, and writing lots of code. Well, only free software offers the chance to read the code of large programs that we really use. And then you have to write lots of code, which means you have to write changes in large programs.
zh_CN: 如何学习编写清晰优质的代码呢？通过大量阅读代码，大量编写代码。只有自由软件提供了阅读我们在使用的大型程序的机会。然后你要编写大量代码，就是大量修改大型程序的代码。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: How do you learn to write good code for the large programs? You have to start small, which does <em>not</em> mean small program, oh no! The challenges of the code for large programs don't even begin to appear in small programs. So the way you start small at writing code for large programs is by writing small changes in large programs. And only free software gives you the chance to do that.
zh_CN: 如何学习为大型程序编写优质代码呢？你要从点滴做起，并 <em>不是</em> 说从小程序做起。不是！小程序里很难有大型程序面对的挑战。因此，从点滴做起意味着你编写大型程序的小更新。而只有自由软件给你这样的机会。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: So, if a school wants to offer the possibility of learning to be a good programmer, it needs to be a free software school.
zh_CN: 所以，如果学校要提供学习成为优秀程序员的机会，就应该是教授自由软件的学校。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: But there is an even deeper reason, and that is for the sake of moral education, education in citizenship. It's not enough for a school to teach facts and skills, it has to teach the spirit of goodwill, the habit of helping others. Therefore, every class should have this rule: &ldquo;Students, if you bring software to class, you may not keep it for yourself, you must share copies with the rest of the class, including the source code in case anyone here wants to learn. Because this class is a place where we share our knowledge. Therefore, bringing a proprietary program to class is not permitted.&rdquo; The school must follow its own rule to set a good example. Therefore, the school must bring only free software to class, and share copies, including the source code, with anyone in the class that wants copies.
zh_CN: 但是还有更深层的原因，就是为了道德教育，为了公民教育。学校只教授事实和技术是不够的，学校还得教授善良，教授助人为乐的习惯。因此，所有的课堂应该有一条规章：&ldquo;学生们，如果你要带软件来课堂，那么你不能只自己用，你必须和全班分享软件，包括有人想学的话，也要分享源代码。因为课堂是我们分享知识的地方，所以禁止带专有软件到课堂。&rdquo;学校必须自己也按照规章作出好榜样。所以，学校必须只能自由软件到课堂、和每个愿意学习的人分享带源代码的软件。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Those of you who have a connection with a school, it's <em>your</em> duty to campaign and pressure that school to move to free software. And you have to be firm. It may take years, but you can succeed as long as you never give up. Keep seeking more allies among the students, the faculty, the staff, the parents, anyone! And always bring it up as an ethical issue. If someone else wants to sidetrack the discussion into this practical advantage and this practical disadvantage, which means they're ignoring the most important question, then you have to say: &ldquo;This is not about how to do the best job of educating, this is about how to do a good education instead of an evil one. It's how to do education right instead of wrong, not just how to make it a little more effective, or less.&rdquo; So don't get distracted with those secondary issues, and ignore what really matters!
zh_CN: 如果你有学校的联系，那么 <em>你</em> 有责任组织活动给学校压力来使用自由软件。你必须坚定。这可能要花费许多年，但是只要你永不放弃，你终将成功。请不断寻找更多的同盟，包括学生、教师、员工、家长等等。坚持把它作为一个道德问题来谈。如果有人想把讨论引到实用方面的优势或不足，那么他们忽略了最重要的问题，这时你必须说：&ldquo;我们不是讨论如何做最好的教育工作，我们讨论的是如何做一个好的教育而不是坏的教育。事关教善还是教恶，而不仅仅是提高或降低一些效率。&rdquo;所以，请不要被次要因素干扰，而忽略了真正的问题！

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: Internet services
zh_CN: 互联网服务

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: So, moving on to the next menace. There are two issues that arise from the use of Internet services. One of them is that the server could abuse your data, and another is that it could take control of your computing.
zh_CN: 现在，我们看看下一个威胁。使用互联网服务引发两个问题。一个是服务器会滥用你的数据，另一个是服务器会控制你的计算。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The first issue, people already know about. They are aware that, if you upload data to an Internet service, there is a question of what it will do with that data. It might do things that mistreat you. What could it do? It could lose the data, it could change the data, it could refuse to let you get the data back. And it could also show the data to someone else you don't want to show it to. Four different possible things.
zh_CN: 第一个问题，人们已经有所了解。他们知道，如果提供互联网服务上传数据，那么服务器如何处理数据就是个问题。它可能会做伤害你的事。它能做什么呢？它可能弄丢你的数据，它可能更改你的数据，它可能会拒绝让你拿回数据。它也可能把数据给你不愿意给的人看。四种不同可能性的事情。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Now, here, I'm talking about the data that you <em>knowingly</em> gave to that site. Of course, many of those services do <em>surveillance</em> as well.
zh_CN: 这里，我说的是你 <em>了解</em> 自己交给网站的数据。当然，许多服务还会 <em>监控</em>。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: For instance, consider Facebook. Users send lots of data to Facebook, and one of the bad things about Facebook is that it shows a lot of that data to lots of other people, and even if it offers them a setting to say &ldquo;no,&rdquo; that may not really work. After all, if you say &ldquo;some other people can see this piece of information,&rdquo; one of them might publish it. Now, that's not Facebook's fault, there is nothing they could do to prevent that, but it ought to warn people. Instead of saying &ldquo;mark this as only to your so-called friends,&rdquo; it should say &ldquo;keep in mind that your so-called friends are not really your friends, and if they want to make trouble for you, they could publish this.&rdquo; Every time, it should say that, if they want to deal with people ethically.
zh_CN: 例如，想想脸书。用户发给脸书很多数据，脸书做的一件不好的事情就是它会把这些数据展示给很多人看，即使有 &ldquo;不看&rdquo; 的设置也不太行。毕竟，如果你设置 &ldquo;有些人可以看到这些信息，&rdquo;而他们中可能会有人再公开这些信息。这不是脸书的问题，他们没办法阻止这事，但是它应该警告人们。它不应该说 &ldquo;把信息标记为仅朋友可见，&rdquo;它应该说 &ldquo;请注意你的所谓朋友其实不是真正的朋友，如果人们要给你惹麻烦，他们会公开这些信息。&rdquo;如果他们想对人讲道德，那么每次都应该这么说。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: As well as all the data users of Facebook voluntarily give to Facebook, Facebook is collecting data about people's activities on the net through various methods of surveillance. But that's the first menace. For now I am talking about the data that people <em>know</em> they are giving to these sites.
zh_CN: 脸书的用户是自愿把数据给脸书，脸书在网上通过各种监控手段收集人们的活动。但这是第一种威胁。现在我谈的是人们 <em>知道</em> 他们要给网站的数据。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Now, losing data is something that could always happen by accident.  That possibility is always there, no matter how careful someone is.  Therefore, you need to keep multiple copies of data that matters. If you do that, then, even if someone decided to delete your data intentionally, it wouldn't hurt you that much, because you'd have other copies of it.
zh_CN: 意外丢失数据总是会发生。无论你多小心，丢失的可能性总在。因此，你需要重要数据的多个备份。有了备份，即使有人有意删除你的数据，你也不会受到太大的伤害，因为你还有其他备份。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: So, as long as you are maintaining multiple copies, you don't have to worry too much about someone's losing your data. What about whether you can get it back. Well, some services make it possible to get back all the data that you sent, and some don't. Google services will let the user get back the data the user has put into them. Facebook, famously, does not.
zh_CN: 所以，只要你有多个备份，你不必担心被人弄丢你的数据。那么你是否可以拿回你的数据又该怎么看呢？对有些服务，你能够拿回所有发送的数据，有些不行。谷歌允许用户拿回自己提交的数据，而脸书——众所周知——不行。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Of course in the case of Google, this only applies to the data the user <em>knows</em> Google has. Google does lots of surveillance, too, and that data is not included. But in any case, if you can get the data back, then you could track whether they have altered it. And they're not very likely to start altering people's data if the people can tell. So maybe we can keep a track on that particular kind of abuse.
zh_CN: 当然就谷歌的案例来说，这些数据仅限于用户 <em>知道</em> 谷歌拿到的。谷歌还进行很多监控，这些数据就不包括在内。不过无论如何，如果你可以拿回数据，你就可以追踪他们是否改变了数据。如果你还能查看数据是否改变，那么他们很可能还没有开始改变数据。也许我们还能追踪此类数据滥用。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: But the abuse of showing the data to someone you don't want it to be shown to is very common and almost impossible for you to prevent, especially if it's a US company. You see, the most hypocritically named law in US history, the so-called USA Patriot Act, says that Big Brother's police can collect just about all the data that companies maintain about individuals. Not just companies, but other organizations too, like public libraries. The police can get this massively, without even going to court. Now, in a country that was founded on an idea of freedom, there's nothing more unpatriotic than this. But this is what they did. So you mustn't ever trust any of your data to a US company.  And they say that foreign subsidiaries of US companies are subject to this as well. So the company you're directly dealing with may be in Europe, but if it's owned by a US company, you've got the same problem to deal with.
zh_CN: 但是把数据给你不想让看的人看这种滥用非常普遍，并且你也无法阻止，尤其当对方是美国公司的时候。在美国历史上最虚伪的法律名叫美国爱国者法，它说国家可以收集所有私人公司保有的个人数据。不只是公司，也包括其他组织。警察可以不通过法庭就大量获取此类数据。在一个以自由理想建立的国家，再也没有比这件事更不爱国了。但这就是他们的所作所为。因此，你不能把自己的数据托付给美国公司。他们还说美国公司的海外分支也受制于该法律。因此，如果你直接应对的公司在欧洲，但是被美国公司所有，那么你面临同样的问题。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: However, this is mainly of concern when the data you're sending to the service is not for publication. There are some services where you publish things. Of course, if you publish something, you know everybody is gonna be able to see it. So, there is no way they can hurt you by showing it to somebody who wasn't supposed to see it. There is nobody who wasn't supposed to see it, if you published it. So in that case the problem doesn't exist.
zh_CN: 不过，这主要是关于你交给服务的数据不是用来发布的情况。有些服务是你发布数据的服务。当然，如果你发布某事，那么你知道人人都能看到。所以，不应该看到的人也会看到这件事不再对你构成伤害。如果你发布，那么就不应该有人不该看。因此刚才的问题不存在。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: So these are four sub-issues of this one threat of abusing our data.  The idea of the Freedom Box project is you have your own server in your own home, and when you want to do something remotely, you do it with your own server, and the police have to get a court order in order to search your server. So you have the same rights this way that you would have traditionally in the physical world.
zh_CN: 因此滥用数据的威胁包括四个子问题。Freedom Box 项目的想法是你在自己家有自己的服务器，当你想远程办事时，你使用自己的服务器，而警察必须有法庭令才能搜查你的服务器。这样你就有了和传统物理世界一样的权利。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The point here and in so many other issues is: as we start doing things digitally instead of physically, we shouldn't lose any of our rights; because the general tendency is that we do lose rights.
zh_CN: 此处和很多其他问题的重点是：当我们不在物理世界，而开始在数据世界行事时，我们不应该失去任何权利；而普遍的趋势是我们确实失去了权利。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Basically, Stallman's law says that, in an epoch when governments work for the mega-corporations instead of reporting to their citizens, every technological change can be taken advantage of to reduce our freedom. Because reducing our freedom is what these governments want to do. So the question is: when do they get an opportunity? Well, any change that happens for some other reason is a possible opportunity, and they will take advantage of it if that's their general desire.
zh_CN: 基本上，Stallman 定律说，在一个政府为超级企业工作而不向其公民汇报的时代，每项技术改变都会被利用来减少人们的自由。因为减少自由是这些政府想做的事。所以问题是：他们的机会在哪里？一切由其他原因发生的变化都是一个可能的机会，如果他们总想，他们会利用这些变化。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: But the other issue with Internet services is that they can take control of your computing, and that's not so commonly known. But it's becoming more common. There are services that offer to do computing for you on data supplied by you&mdash;things that you should do in your own computer but they invite you to let somebody else's computer do that computing work for you. And the result is you lose control over it. It's just as if you used a nonfree program.
zh_CN: 但是网络服务的另一个问题是它们会控制你的计算，这个问题并不为人熟知。不过，问题正变得更普遍。有些网络服务为你提供的数据做计算&mdash;&mdash;你本应该用自己的计算机做计算，但是它们邀请你用其他人的计算机来为你做计算。结果就是你失去对计算的控制。这和使用非自由软件一样。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Two different scenarios, but they lead to the same problem. If you do your computing with a nonfree program&hellip; well, the users don't control the nonfree program, it controls the users, which would include you. So you've lost control of the computing that's being done. But if you do your computing in his server&hellip; well, the programs that are doing it are the ones he chose. You can't touch them or see them, so you have no control over them. He has control over them, maybe.
zh_CN: 两个不同的场景，但是它们导致同样的问题。如果你使用非自由软件做计算&hellip;&hellip;用户无法控制非自由程序，是程序控制包括你在内的用户。因此，你失去了对计算的控制。但是如果你使用服务做计算&hellip;&hellip;别人选择做计算的程序。你即看不见也摸不着，因此你也控制不了。也许，别人在控制它们。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: If they are free software and he installs them, then he has control over them. But even he might not have control. He might be running a proprietary program in his server, in which case it's somebody else who has control of the computing being done in his server. He doesn't control it and you don't.
zh_CN: 如果程序是自由软件，别人安装了它们，那么他门控制这些程序。不过，别人也可能没有控制权。如果服务器运行的是专有软件，那么就有另外的人控制着服务器做的计算。别人和你都没有控制权。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: But suppose he installs a free program, then he has control over the computing being done in his computer, but you don't. So, either way, <em>you don't!</em> So the only way to have control over your computing is to do it with <em>your copy</em> of a free program.
zh_CN: 假设别人安装的是自由软件，那么他们有对你计算的控制，而你没有。因此，无论怎样，<em>你都没有控制权！</em>你控制自己计算的唯一方法就是使用 <em>一份自己的</em> 自由软件在自己的电脑上做计算。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: This practice is called &ldquo;Software as a Service.&rdquo; It means doing your computing with your data in somebody else's server. And I don't know of anything that can make this acceptable. It's always something that takes away your freedom, and the only solution I know of is to refuse. For instance, there are servers that will do translation or voice recognition, and you are letting them have control over this computing activity, which we shouldn't ever do.
zh_CN: 上面所说的活动叫做 &ldquo;服务代替软件&rdquo;。它指在其他人的服务器上对自己的数据做计算。我还不知道有什么事情能够让这种计算变得可以接受。它一定是剥夺你自由的计算，唯一的解决方法就是拒绝。例如，有一些做语音识别或翻译的服务，这些服务就是要控制你的计算，你永远也不要接受。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Of course, we are also giving them data about ourselves which they shouldn't have. Imagine if you had a conversation with somebody through a voice-recognition translation system that was Software as a Service and it's really running on a server belonging to some company. Well, that company also gets to know what was said in the conversation, and if it's a US company that means Big Brother also gets to know. This is no good.
zh_CN: 当然，我们也把他们不应该拥有的数据给了他们。假想，你通过语音识别和翻译系统和某人对话，这个系统是一个服务代替软件系统，它的服务器属于一个公司。那么这个公司也知道了对话的内容，如果它是美国公司，那么就意味着政府也知道了对话内容。很糟糕。

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: Computers for voting
zh_CN: 选举计算机

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The next threat to our freedom in a digital society is using computers for voting. You can't trust computers for voting. Whoever controls the software in those computers has the power to commit undetectable fraud.
zh_CN: 对数字社会自由的下一个威胁是使用电脑投票。你不能相信电脑投票。控制这些电脑软件的人有能力植入无法被检测的骗局。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Elections are special, because there's nobody involved that we dare trust fully. Everybody has to be checked, crosschecked by others, so that nobody is in a position to falsify the results by himself. Because if anybody is in a position to do that, he might do it. So our traditional systems for voting were designed so that nobody was fully trusted, everybody was being checked by others. So that nobody could easily commit fraud. But once you introduce a program, this is impossible.
zh_CN: 选举很特殊，因为我们不能完全相信任何人。我们要核实每个人的投票，而且投票还要被另外的人再核实，这样来保证没人能够作弊。因为如果有人能作弊，那么他肯定会作弊。因此，在传统投票系统的设计中，没人获得完全信任，每个人都被其他人监督。这样就没人能够轻易作弊。但是如果使用了程序，这个设计就无法实现了。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: How can you tell if a voting machine will honestly count the votes? You'd have to study the program that's running in it during the election, which of course nobody can do, and most people wouldn't even know how to do. But even the experts who might theoretically be capable of studying the program, they can't do it while people are voting.  They'd have to do it in advance, and then how do they know that the program they studied is the one that's running while people vote? Maybe it's been changed.
zh_CN: 我们如何才能分辨计票机器是否如实计票呢？你得在选举进行时研究机器运行的程序，这个当然没人能做到，大多数人根本不知道该怎么做。即使有专家在理论上有可能研究投票程序，他们也无法在大家投票时再做研究。他们要提前研究，那么他们又怎么能知道投票时的程序就是他们研究过的程序呢？它有可能被改过了。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Now, if this program is proprietary, that means some company controls it. The election authority can't even tell what that program is doing. Well, this company then could rig the election.  And there are accusations that this was done in the US within the past ten years, that election results were falsified this way.
zh_CN: 如果程序是专有软件，那么某个公司控制着程序。选举机构竟也无法知道程序如何运行。那么这个公司就可能操控选举。在过去10年中，美国已经有类似的起诉：选举的结果被程序作弊。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: But what if the program is free software? That means the election authority who owns this voting machine has control over the software in it, so the election authority could rig the election. You can't trust them either. You don't dare trust <em>anybody</em> in voting, and the reason is, there's no way that the voters can verify for themselves that their votes were correctly counted, nor that false votes were not added.
zh_CN: 如果程序是自由软件呢？这时，拥有投票机器的选举机构控制着软件，因此选举机构可能会操控选举。你也不能相信他们。选举中你不敢相信 <em>任何人</em>，原因是选举人既没有办法确定自己的选票被正确计数，也没有办法验证有伪造选票加入。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: In other activities of life, you can usually tell if somebody is trying to cheat you. Consider for instance buying something from a store. You order something, maybe you give a credit card number. If the product doesn't come, you can complain and you can&hellip; of course if you've got a good enough memory you'll notice if that product doesn't come. You're not just giving total blind trust to the store, because you can check. But in elections you can't check.
zh_CN: 在其他日常活动时，你通常可以判断是否有人在骗你。比如你在商店购买东西。你订购了东西，可能用信用卡付款。如果没有收到货，那么你可以投诉，可以&hellip;&hellip;当然你的记忆力要好，你要记得你的订货没有到。你不会盲目相信商店，因为你可以验货。但是选举时，你没法检查。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: I saw once a paper where someone described a theoretical system for voting which used some sophisticated mathematics so that people could check that their votes had been counted, even though everybody's vote was secret, and they could also verify that false votes hadn't been added. It was very exciting, powerful mathematics; but even if that mathematics is correct, that doesn't mean the system would be acceptable to use in practice, because the vulnerabilities of a real system might be outside of that mathematics. For instance, suppose you're voting over the Internet and suppose you're using a machine that's a zombie. It might tell you that the vote was sent for A while actually sending a vote for B. Who knows whether you'd ever find out? So, in practice the only way to see if these systems work and are honest is through years, in fact decades, of trying them and checking in other ways what happened.
zh_CN: 我曾经看到过一篇论文，它讲述了一个理论上的投票系统。这个系统使用了复杂的数学，这样即使投票是秘密的，人们也可以检查他们的投票被统计了，而且人们也可以验证是否有伪造的投票。这是令人激动的、强大的数学；不过即使数学是对的，也不意味着该系统可以用于实践，因为实际系统的弱点可能不是数学可以解决的范畴。例如，假设你通过网络投票，假设你使用的投票机器是一个僵尸机器。它可能告诉你你投票给 A，但实际把票计给了 B。天知道你会不会发现？因此，要实际看这些系统是否能够正确和诚实地工作需要很多年、几十年的不断试用，并用其他手段进行验证。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: I wouldn't want my country to be the pioneer in this. So, use paper for voting. Make sure there are ballots that can be recounted.
zh_CN: 我不希望我的国家在这方面做第一个吃螃蟹的人。所以，还是使用纸质选票。保证我们有纸质的选票可以重新计票。

note: type: Content of: <div><h4>
en: Speaker's note, added subsequently
zh_CN: 演讲者后来添加的注释

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Remote voting by internet has an inherent social danger, that your boss might tell you, &ldquo;I want you to vote for candidate C, and do it from the computer in my office while I watch you.&rdquo; He does not need to say out loud that you might be fired if you do not comply. This danger is not based on a technical flaw, so it can't be fixed by fixing the technology.
zh_CN: 使用网络的远程投票有一个天然的社会危险，你的老板可能会对你说，&ldquo;我想让你投给 C，来我的电脑投票吧。&rdquo;他不用明说如果你不这么投，他就开除你。这个危险不是基于技术漏洞，也无法用技术修复。

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: The war on sharing
zh_CN: 分享的战争

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The next threat to our freedom in a digital society comes from the war on sharing.
zh_CN: 对数字社会自由的下一个威胁来自分享的战争。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: One of the tremendous benefits of digital technology is that it is easy to copy published works and share these copies with others. Sharing is good, and with digital technology, sharing is easy. So, millions of people share. Those who profit by having power over the distribution of these works don't want us to share. And since they are businesses, governments which have betrayed their people and work for the Empire of mega-corporations try to serve those businesses, they are against their own people, they are for the businesses, for the publishers.
zh_CN: 数字技术的一项重大好处就是复制和分享公开的作品变得容易。分享是好事，使用数字技术分享很容易。因此，千百万的人都在分享。通过掌控作品分发权而获利的人不想让我们分享。这是他们的生意，而背叛了人民并为超级企业帝国服务的政府企图为这些生意服务，他们支持的是生意和出版商，反对的是人民。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Well, that's not good. And with the help of these governments, the companies have been waging <em>war</em> on sharing, and they've proposed a series of cruel draconian measures. Why do they propose cruel draconian measures? Because nothing less has a chance of success: when something is good and easy, people do it, and the only way to stop them is by being very nasty. So of course, what they propose is nasty, nasty, and the next one is nastier. So they tried suing teenagers for hundreds of thousands of dollars. That was pretty nasty. And they tried turning our technology against us, Digital Restrictions Management that means, digital handcuffs.
zh_CN: 这很糟糕。有了政府助力，这些公司发动了针对分享的 <em>战争</em>，并且提出了一系列严苛的手段。他们为什么要提出严苛的手段？因为其他方法不太可能奏效：如果有些事情美好而且容易办到，那么人们就会去做。所以，这些公司当然要提出恶劣的建议，接下来还要更恶劣。他们要控告年轻人数万美元。这已经很烂了。他们又要使用这些技术来针对我们，数字限制管理就是数字枷锁。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: But among the people there were clever programmers too and they found ways to break the handcuffs. So for instance, DVDs were designed to have encrypted movies in a secret encryption format, and the idea was that all the programs to decrypt the video would be proprietary with digital handcuffs. They would all be designed to restrict the users. And their scheme worked OK for a while. But some people in Europe figured out the encryption and they released a free program that could actually play the video on a DVD.
zh_CN: 不过，人民中也有聪明的程序员，他们找到了破解数字枷锁的方法。例如，DVD 电影设计有秘密格式的加密手段，其想法是所有要解密电影的程序都带有专有的数字枷锁。他们是用来限制用户的。这个方法一度可以成功。但是有人在欧洲搞明白其加密的道理并发布了可以播放 DVD 电影的自由软件。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Well, the movie companies didn't leave it there. They went to the US congress and bought a law making that software illegal. The United States invented censorship of software in 1998, with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). So the distribution of that free program was forbidden in the United States. Unfortunately it didn't stop with the United States. The European Union adopted a directive, in 2003 I believe, requiring such laws. The directive only says that commercial distribution has to be banned, but just about every country in the European Union has adopted a nastier law. In France, the mere possession of a copy of that program is an offense punished by imprisonment, thanks to Sarkozy. I believe that was done by the law DADVSI. I guess he hoped that with an unpronounceable name, people wouldn't be able to criticize it. [laughter]
zh_CN: 当然，这些电影公司不会坐视不管。他们跑到美国国会并买到一个让这个软件非法的法律。美国在1998年发明了软件审查，这就是数字千禧年版权法案 (DMCA)。因此，美国禁止分发 DVD 解密软件。不幸的是，事情并不是到美国为止。欧盟大约在2003通过了一项法令，有类似的要求。该法令只是说禁止商业分发，但是几乎每个欧洲国家都采纳了更严格的法律。在法国，只是拥有该程序就会坐牢，感谢萨科齐！我理解这个法律是 DADVSI<sup><a href="#TransNote2">2</a></sup>。我猜他们使用了一个无法发音的名字的目的是让人们不能批评这个法律。[笑声]

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: So, elections are coming. Ask the candidates in the parties: will you repeal the DADVSI? And if not, don't support them. You mustn't give up lost moral territory forever. You've got to fight to win it back.
zh_CN: 现在选举来了。你们问一下候选人：是否会废弃 DADVSI？如果不会，不要支持他们。我们不能永远失去已经失去的道德领地。我们应该为夺回它们而战斗。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: So, we still are fighting against digital handcuffs. The Amazon Swindle has digital handcuffs to take away the traditional freedoms of readers to do things such as: give a book to someone else, or lend a book to someone else. That's a vitally important social act. That is what builds society among people who read, lending books. Amazon doesn't want to let people lend books freely. And then there is also selling a book, perhaps to a used bookstore. You can't do that either.
zh_CN: 我们还在为反对数字枷锁而战斗。亚马逊的 Swindle 产品带有数字枷锁，它剥夺了读者传统的自由，比如：把书送给其他人或者把书借给其他人。这时一个至关重要的社会活动。人们因此而建立了阅读和借书的社会。亚马逊不想让人们自由借书。还包括卖书，比如把书卖给旧书店。你也不能再卖了。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: It looked for a while as if DRM had disappeared on music, but now they're bringing it back with streaming services such as Spotify. These services all require proprietary client software, and the reason is so they can put digital handcuffs on the users. So, reject them! They already showed quite openly that you can't trust them, because first they said: &ldquo;You can listen as much as you like.&rdquo; And then they said: &ldquo;Oh, no! You can only listen a certain number of hours a month.&rdquo; The issue is not whether that particular change was good or bad, just or unjust; the point is, they have the power to impose any change in policies. So don't let them have that power. You should have your <em>own</em> copy of any music you want to listen to.
zh_CN: 看起来 DRM 似乎有一阵子离开了音乐界，但是现在诸如 Spotify 之类的流媒体服务又把它带回来了。这些服务都需要专有的客户端软件，原因是这样他们就可以给用户带上数字枷锁。所以要拒绝他们！他们已经相当公开地向你展示不能相信他们，因为他们先是说：&ldquo;你可以随便听。&rdquo;然后他们又说：&ldquo;奥，不！你只能每月听几个小时。&rdquo;问题不在于这些改变的好坏、正当或不正当；问题在于他们有权任意更改政策。所以，不要让他们有这种特权。你应当拥有自己想听的音乐的 <em>你自己的</em> 备份。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: And then came the next assault on our freedom: HADOPI, basically punishment on accusation. It was started in France but it's been exported to many other countries. The United States now demand such unjust policies in its free exploitation treaties. A few months ago, Colombia adopted such a law under orders from its masters in Washington.  Of course, the ones in Washington are not the real masters, they're just the ones who control the United States on behalf of the Empire. But they're the ones who also dictate to Colombia on behalf of the Empire.
zh_CN: 接着就是下一个对我们自由的攻击：HADOPI<sup><a href="#TransNote3">3</a></sup>，基本上就是未经审判的惩罚。它从法国开始，现在出口到了许多国家。美国现在也在其自由剥削条约里要求类似的不公正政策。几个月之前，哥伦比亚也根据华盛顿主子的命令采纳了同样的法律。当然，华盛顿的人不是真正的主子，他们只是统治美国的帝国代理人。他们也是统治哥伦比亚的帝国代理人。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: In France, since the Constitutional Council objected to explicitly giving people punishment without trial, they invented a kind of trial which is not a real trial, it's just a form of a trial, so they can <em>pretend</em> that people have a trial before they're punished. But in other countries they don't bother with that, it's explicit punishment on accusation only. Which means that for the sake of their war on sharing, they're prepared to abolish the basic principles of justice. It shows how thoroughly anti-freedom anti-justice they are. These are not legitimate governments.
zh_CN: 在法国，由于宪法监督委员会反对未经审判的直接处罚，他们发明了一种非真实的形式审判，因此他们就能 <em>假装</em> 人们是经过审判才受到惩罚。不过，其他国家不担心这个，他们就是未经审判而惩罚。这意味着为了针对分享的战争，他们准备废止法律公正的基本原则。这说明他们是多么反对自由、反对公正。他们不是合法的政府。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: And I'm sure they'll come up with more nasty ideas because they're paid to defeat the people no matter what it takes. Now, when they do this, they always say that it's for the sake of the artists, that they have to &ldquo;protect&rdquo; the &ldquo;creators.&rdquo; Now those are both propaganda terms. I am convinced that the reason they love the word &ldquo;creators&rdquo; is because it is a comparison with a deity. They want us to think of artists as super-human, and thus deserving special privileges and power over us, which is something I disagree with.
zh_CN: 我确信他们还会拿出更恶劣的点子，因为他们受雇于人——无论如何也要搞定人民的。他们总是说这样做是为了艺术家，说他们要 &ldquo;保护&rdquo; 这些 &ldquo;创作者。&rdquo;这些都是宣传辞令。我知道他们喜欢 &ldquo;创作者&rdquo; 一词的原因是这个词很像创世者。想让我们把艺术家想象成超人，他们因而拥有特权，我不同意这点。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: In fact though, the only artists that benefit very much from this system are the big stars. The other artists are getting crushed into the ground by the heels of these same companies. But they treat the stars very well, because the stars have a lot of clout. If a star threatens to move to another company, the company says: &ldquo;Oh, we'll give you what you want.&rdquo; But for any other artist they say: &ldquo;You don't matter, we can treat you any way we like.&rdquo;
zh_CN: 实际上，仅有那些超级明星在这个系统中大量获利，而其他艺术家被同一批公司无情地踩在脚下。他们对明星很好，因为明星有很大的影响力。如果一个明星要跳槽，公司就会说：&ldquo;好了，我们满足你的需求。&rdquo;但是他们会对另外的艺术家说：&ldquo;你不重要，我们可以随意对待你。&rdquo;

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: So the superstars have been corrupted by the millions of dollars or euros that they get, to the point where they'll do almost anything for more money. For instance, J. K. Rowling is a good example. J. K. Rowling, a few years ago, went to court in Canada and obtained an order that people who had bought her books must not read them. She got an order telling people not to read her books!
zh_CN: 这些超级明星被金元给腐败了，以至于他们为了钱会做任何事情。比如，J. K. Rowling<sup><a href="#TransNote4">4</a></sup> 就是一个很好的例子。几年前，J. K. Rowling 在加拿大法庭打官司，法庭给她判决：买她的书的人不能读。她要去告诉购书人不要读她的书！

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Here's what happened. A bookstore put the books on display for sale too early, before the date they were supposed to go on sale. And people came into the store and said: &ldquo;Oh, I want that!&rdquo; And they bought it and took away their copies. And then, they discovered the mistake, so they took the copies off of display. But Rowling wanted to crush any circulation of any information from those books, so she went to court, and the court ordered those people not to read the books that they now owned.
zh_CN: 事情是这样的。一个书店过早把书上架到显示屏上销售，预定的开售日期还没到。到店的人们说：&ldquo;我买这个！&rdquo;他们买了并带走了。书店后来发现了错误，他们赶紧在显示屏上下架。但是 Rowling 希望能防止传播书籍的内容，所以上了法庭。法庭就命令这些买了书的人不能看书。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: In response, I call for a total boycott of Harry Potter. But I don't say you shouldn't read those books or watch the movies, I only say you shouldn't buy the books or pay for the movies. [laughter] I leave it to Rowling to tell people not to read the books. As far as I am concerned, if you borrow the book and read it, that's OK. [laughter] Just don't give her any money! But this happened with paper books. The court could make this order but it couldn't get the books back from the people who had bought them.  Imagine if they were ebooks. Imagine if they were ebooks on the Swindle. Amazon could send commands to erase them.
zh_CN: 作为回应，我发起了一个全面抵制哈利·波特的活动。不过，我没说你不要看这些书或电影，我只是说你不要购买这些书或电影。[笑声]我把告诉人们不要读书的话留给 Rowling 去说。对我来说，你借了书来读，没什么问题。[笑声]只说不要为她花钱。但是，这些都事关纸质书。法庭可以判决不许读书，但是它不能再从购书人手里把书拿回去。如果是电子书，如果这些书是 Swindle 上的电子书，那么亚马逊可能会发出删除书籍的指令。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: So, I don't have much respect for stars who will go to such lengths for more money. But most artists aren't like that, they never got enough money to be corrupted. Because the current system of copyright supports most artists very badly. And so, when these companies demand to expand the war on sharing, supposedly for the sake of the artists, I'm against what they want but I would like to support the artists better. I appreciate their work and I realize if we want them to do more work we should support them.
zh_CN: 因此，我不会看重这些为了更多金钱而做这些事的明星。但是，大多数艺术家不是那样的，他们从没有挣到足以腐败的钱。因为现有的版权系统对大多数艺术家的支持很糟糕。所以，当这些公司以艺术家的名义要求扩展分享的战争时，我反对他们，但是我要更好地支持艺术家。我感谢他们的作品，我知道如果要让他们创作更多的作品，我们应该支持他们。

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: Supporting the arts
zh_CN: 支持艺术

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: I have two proposals for how to support artists, methods that are compatible with sharing, that would allow us to end the war on sharing and still support artists.
zh_CN: 我有两个如何支持艺术家的建议，这两个方法和分享兼容，让我们能够结束分享的战争而仍然可以支持艺术家。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: One method uses tax money. We get a certain amount of public funds to distribute among artists. But, how much should each artist get? Well, we have to measure popularity. You see, the current system supposedly supports artists based on their popularity. So I'm saying: let's keep that, let's continue in this system to support them based on their popularity. We can measure the popularity of all the artists with some kind of polling or sampling, so that we don't have to do surveillance.  We can respect people's anonymity.
zh_CN: 一个方法时使用税收。我们在艺术家中分配某种来自公众的资金。但是，如何分配到每个艺术家呢？我们要考量受欢迎程度。你知道，现有的系统假设也是基于受欢迎程度来支持艺术家的。所以我说：保留这个特点，继续使用基于受欢迎程度的支持系统。我们可以使用问卷和采样的方法测量所有艺术家的受欢迎程度，因此我们不需要监控。我们能尊重人们的匿名权。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: OK, we get a raw popularity figure for each artist, how do we convert that into an amount of money? Well, the obvious way is: distribute the money in proportion to popularity. So if A is a thousand times as popular as B, A will get a thousand times as much money as B. That's not efficient distribution of the money. It's not putting the money to good use. You see, it's easy for a star A to be a thousand times as popular as a fairly successful artist B. And if we use linear proportion, we'll give A a thousand times as much money as we give B. And that means that, either we have to make A tremendously rich, or we are not supporting B enough.
zh_CN: 我们有了每个艺术家的受欢迎数据，如何把它们变成金钱呢？显而易见的方法是：根据受欢迎程度等比分配金钱。如果艺术家甲比艺术家乙受欢迎一千倍，甲获得的金额就是乙的一千倍。这并不是一个有效的分配方式。它没有把钱用好。明星甲的受欢迎程度可以轻易是普通艺术家乙的一千倍。如果我们使用的是线性比例，甲得到的钱就会是乙的一千倍。这意味着，我们要不就是让甲非常富有，要不就是没有很好地支持乙。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Well, the money we use to make A tremendously rich is failing to do an effective job of supporting the arts; so, it's inefficient. Therefore I say: let's use the cube root. Cube root looks sort of like this. The point is: if A is a thousand times as popular as B, with the cube root A will get ten times as much as B, not a thousand times as much, just ten times as much. So the use of the cube root shifts a lot of the money from the stars to the artists of moderate popularity. And that means, with less money we can adequately support a much larger number of artists.
zh_CN: 我们让甲变得超级富有就是没有做好支持艺术这件事；所以这个方法效率不好。因此我说：我们要用三次方根。三次方根像这样。重点是：如果甲比乙受欢迎一千倍，使用三次方根的话，甲获得的金钱是乙的十倍，而不是一千倍。所以使用三次方根把很多钱从明星移动到了中等受欢迎的艺术家。这意味着，用较少的钱可以足够支持更多的艺术家。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: There are two reasons why this system would use less money than we pay now. First of all because it would be supporting artists but not companies, second because it would shift the money from the stars to the artists of moderate popularity. Now, it would remain the case that the more popular you are, the more money you get. And so the star A would still get more than B, but not astronomically more.
zh_CN: 这个系统比现有系统省钱的原因有两个。第一因为它支持的是艺术家而不是公司，第二因为它把钱从明星处移动到了中等受欢迎的艺术家。情况还是一样，如果你更受欢迎，你就获得更多钱。所以明星甲得到的还是比艺术家乙多，但不是天文数字那么多。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: That's one method, and because it won't be so much money it doesn't matter so much how we get the money. It could be from a special tax on Internet connectivity, it could just be some of the general budget that gets allocated to this purpose. We won't care because it won't be so much money, much less than we're paying now.
zh_CN: 这是一个方法。因为它用到的钱不会太多，所以我们怎么弄到这些钱不是特别重要。可以是针对网络连接的一种特别税收，也可以是从整体预算中专门为此拨款。我们不会担心这个，因为钱不会太多，远少于我们现在花出去的钱。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The other method I've proposed is voluntary payments. Suppose each player had a button you could use to send one euro. A lot of people would send it; after all it's not that much money. I think a lot of you might push that button every day, to give one euro to some artist who had made a work that you liked. But nothing would demand this, you wouldn't be required or ordered or pressured to send the money; you would do it because you felt like it. But there are some people who wouldn't do it because they're poor and they can't afford to give one euro. And it's good that they won't give it, we don't have to squeeze money out of poor people to support the artists. There are enough non-poor people who'll be happy to do it. Why wouldn't you give one euro to some artists today, if you appreciated their work? It's too inconvenient to give it to them. So my proposal is to remove the inconvenience. If the only reason not to give that euro is you would have one euro less, you would do it fairly often.
zh_CN: 我提议的另一个方法是自愿付款。设想每个播放器都有一个付一欧元的按钮。许多人会付一欧元；毕竟不是太多钱。我觉得你们很多人就会每天都点击那个按钮，付给你们喜欢的艺术家一欧元。但是并不强制，没人要求你或给你压力必须付款；你是因为喜欢才付钱。但是也会有人不付钱，因为他们贫穷，负担不起一欧元。他们不付钱也没问题，我们不是要从穷人手里压榨钱财来支持艺术家。很多不是穷人的人很高兴付这个钱。如果你欣赏他们的作品，为什么你今天不能付给他们一欧元呢？因为付钱太不方便了。所以我的建议是去除这种不方便。如果不付钱的原因只剩下你会少一欧元的话，那么你会经常付钱的。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: So these are my two proposals for how to support artists, while encouraging sharing because sharing is good. Let's put an end to the war on sharing, laws like DADVSI and HADOPI, it's not just the methods that they propose that are evil, their purpose is evil. That's why they propose cruel and draconian measures. They're trying to do something that's nasty by nature. So let's support artists in other ways.
zh_CN: 这就是我为如何支持艺术家提出的两个建议，它们鼓励分享。因为分享很美好。让我们结束针对分享的战争，像 DADVSI 和 HADOPI 这样的法律。不只是他们提出的方法邪恶，他们目的就是邪恶。这就是他们提出残酷而严苛手段的原因。他们天生就是要做恶毒的事情。所以让我们用其他方法来支持艺术家。

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: Rights in cyberspace
zh_CN: 数字空间的权利

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The last threat to our freedom in digital society is the fact that we don't have a firm right to do the things we do, in cyberspace. In the physical world, if you have certain views and you want to give people copies of a text that defends those views, you're free to do so. You could even buy a printer to print them, and you're free to hand them out on the street, or you're free to rent a store and hand them out there.  If you want to collect money to support your cause, you can just have a can and people could put money into the can. You don't need to get somebody else's approval or cooperation to do these things.
zh_CN: 对数字社会自由的最后一个威胁是在数字空间我们没有稳固的权利做事这一事实。在物理世界，如果你有某种观点并且你想通过分发文字来捍卫你的观点，那么你有自由那么做。你甚至可以购买打印机，把它们打印出来，并在大街上自由分发，或者你也有自由租用一个场地来分发。如果你想为此筹款，你可以直接拿一个盒子让人们为你捐钱。你不必获得他人的同意或合作来做这些事情。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: But, in the Internet, you <em>do</em> need that. For instance if want to distribute a text on the Internet, you need companies to help you do it.  You can't do it by yourself. So if you want to have a website, you need the support of an ISP or a hosting company, and you need a domain name registrar. You need them to continue to let you do what you're doing. So you're doing it effectively on sufferance, not by right.
zh_CN: 但是，在互联网，你 <em>确实</em> 需要同意和合作。比如，如果你要在网上发布一篇文章，那么你需要公司帮你。你无法自己做到。如果你要一个网站，你需要 ISP 或托管公司的帮助，你需要注册域名。你需要他们持续不断的支持你做这些事情。所以你是经同意做某事，而不是有权利做某事。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: And if you want to receive money, you can't just hold out a can. You need the cooperation of a payment company. And we saw that this makes all of our digital activities vulnerable to suppression. We learned this when the United States government launched a &ldquo;distributed denial of service attack&rdquo; (DDoS) against WikiLeaks. Now I'm making a bit of joke because the words &ldquo;distributed denial of service attack&rdquo; usually refer to a different kind of attack. But they fit perfectly with what the United States did. The United States went to the various kinds of network services that WikiLeaks depended on, and told them to cut off service to WikiLeaks. And they did!
zh_CN: 如果你想筹款，你也不能简单的拿出盒子。你需要支付公司的合作。我们看到这些都让我们的数字活动容易受到强权的侵害。当美国政府对 Wikileaks 使用 &ldquo;分布式拒绝服务攻击&rdquo; (DDoS) 时，我们已经领教了。我使用 &ldquo;分布式拒绝服务攻击&rdquo; 一词是开个玩笑，它通常是指另一种不同的攻击。但是它完美诠释了美国政府的所作所为。美国政府找到 WikiLeaks 依赖的各种网络服务商，告诉他们切断 WikiLeaks 服务。他们照办了！

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: For instance, WikiLeaks had rented a virtual Amazon server, and the US government told Amazon: &ldquo;Cut off service for WikiLeaks.&rdquo; And it did, arbitrarily. And then, Amazon had certain domain names such as wikileaks.org. The US government tried to get all those domains shut off. But it didn't succeed, some of them were outside its control and were not shut off.
zh_CN: 例如，WikiLeaks 租用了一个亚马逊的虚拟服务器，美国政府就告诉亚马逊：&ldquo;关停 WikiLeaks 服务。&rdquo;亚马逊就随意关了。然后，亚马逊还有诸如 wikileaks.org 之类的域名。美国政府也试着关掉所有这些域名。但是没能成功，有些域名不在他们的控制范围，没法关停。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Then, there were the payment companies. The US went to PayPal and said: &ldquo;Stop transferring money to WikiLeaks or we'll make life difficult for you.&rdquo; And PayPal shut off payments to WikiLeaks. And then it went to Visa and Mastercard and got them to shut off payments to WikiLeaks.  Others started collecting money on WikiLeaks' behalf and their accounts were shut off too. But in this case, maybe something can be done.  There's a company in Iceland which began collecting money on behalf of WikiLeaks, and so Visa and Mastercard shut off its account; it couldn't receive money from its customers either. And now, that business is suing Visa and Mastercard apparently, under European Union law, because Visa and Mastercard together have a near-monopoly. They're not allowed to arbitrarily deny service to anyone.
zh_CN: 然后，还有支付公司。美国找到 PayPal 说：&ldquo;停止向 WikiLeaks 转账，否则我们要你好看。&rdquo;PayPal 就停止向 WikiLeaks 支付。他们又到 Visa 和 Mastercard，让它们也停止对 WikiLeaks 的支付。其他以 WikiLeaks 名义筹款的账户也被关停。不过，这种情况可以作出某些回应。有一个爱尔兰公司曾以 WikiLeaks 的名义收钱，然后 Visa 和 Mastercard 关停了它的账户；该公司也无法从其他客户收钱。现在，这个公司根据欧盟法律起诉了 Visa 和 Mastercard，因为 Visa 和 Mastercard 一起几乎就是垄断。他们不能任意拒绝服务。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Well, this is an example of how things need to be for all kinds of services that we use in the Internet. If you rented a store to hand out statements of what you think, or any other kind of information that you can lawfully distribute, the landlord couldn't kick you out just because he didn't like what you were saying. As long as you keep paying the rent, you have a right to continue in that store for a certain agreed-on period of time that you signed. So you have some rights that you can enforce. And they couldn't shut off your telephone line because the phone company doesn't like what you said, or because some powerful entity didn't like what you said and threatened the phone company. No! As long as you pay the bills and obey certain basic rules, they can't shut off your phone line. This is what it's like to have some rights!
zh_CN: 这是一个例子，它展示了我们在互联网上使用的所有服务需要怎么做。如果你租了商铺分发你的声明或其他合法信息，出租方不能仅仅因为他不喜欢你的言论就把你赶出去。只要你付了租金，你就有权继续在商定的租赁期使用商铺。因此，你有权坚持。电话公司也不能因为它们不喜欢你的言论或者有强权威胁它们而切掉你的电话线。不行！只要你付了钱并遵守了基本规则，它们不能切断你的电话线。这正像我们有某种权利！

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Well, if we move our activities from the physical world to the virtual world, then either we have the same rights in the virtual world, or we have been harmed. So, the precarity of all our Internet activities is the last of the menaces I wanted to mention.
zh_CN: 如果我们把物理世界的权利放到虚拟世界，那么我们不是还有同样的权利就是被伤害。因此，互联网活动的不稳定性是我想说的最后一个威胁。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Now I'd like to say that for more information about free software, look at gnu.org. Also look at fsf.org, which is the website of the Free Software Foundation. You can go there and find many ways you can help us, for instance. You can also become a member of the Free Software Foundation through that site. [&hellip;] There is also the Free Software Foundation of Europe fsfe.org. You can join FSF Europe also. [&hellip;]
zh_CN: 现在，我想说关于自由软件的更多信息，请看一下 gnu.org 和 fsf.org，这是自由软件基金会的网站。你们可以在那里看到许多帮助我们的方法。你们还可以通过网站成为自由软件基金会的会员。[&hellip;]还有欧洲自由软件基金会 fsfe.org，你们也可以加入它们[&hellip;]

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: Footnote
zh_CN: 脚注

note: type: Content of: <div><ol><li>
en: As of 2017 the patents on playing MP3 files have reportedly expired.
zh_CN: 播放 MP3 文件的专利据报导在2017年已经期满失效。

note: TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't have notes. type: Content of: <div>
en: *GNUN-SLOT: TRANSLATOR'S NOTES*
zh_CN: <h3>译注</h3>
    <ol>
    <li id="TransNote1">Sarkozy，法国前总统，此处举例指代惯于剥夺人们的自由。</li>
    <li id="TransNote2">DADVSI，信息社会著作权，法国根据欧盟版权条例通过的法律。</li>
    <li id="TransNote3">HADOPI，法国通过的互联网知识产权保护法，意在打击网络非法下载行为。</li>
    <li id="TransNote4">J. K. Rowling，罗琳，英国作家，创作了哈利·波特。</li>
    </ol>

note: type: Content of: <div><div><p>
en: Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to <a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org">&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;</a>.  There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> the FSF.  Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org">&lt;webmasters@gnu.org&gt;</a>.
zh_CN: 请将对FSF&amp;GNU的一般询问发送到<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org">&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;</a>。还有一些其他联系FSF的<a href="/contact/">方式</a>。关于链接错误和&rdquo;其他更正或建议&ldquo;请发信到<a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">&lt;web-translators@gnu.org&gt;</a>。

note: TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph, replace it with the translation of these two: We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality translations.  However, we are not exempt from imperfection. Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard to <a hr
en: Please see the <a href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations README</a> for information on coordinating and contributing translations of this article.
zh_CN: 我们尽最大努力来提供精准和高质量的翻译，但难免会存在错误和不足。如果您在这方面有评论或一般性的建议，请发送至 <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">&lt;web-translators@gnu.org&gt;</a>。</p><p>关于进行协调与提交翻译的更多信息参见 <a href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">《译者指南》</a>。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: This page is licensed under a <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.
zh_CN: 本页面使用 <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a> 授权。

note: TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't want credits. type: Content of: <div><div>
en: *GNUN-SLOT: TRANSLATOR'S CREDITS*
zh_CN: <b>翻译团队</b>：<a rel="team" href="//savannah.gnu.org/projects/www-zh-cn/">&lt;CTT&gt;</a>，2024。

note: timestamp start type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Updated:
zh_CN: 最后更新：
