not-ipr.html - en to zh_CN translation catalogue (37 entries)

note: type: Content of: <title>
en: Did You Say &ldquo;Intellectual Property&rdquo;? It's a Seductive Mirage - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation
zh_CN: 还在用&ldquo;知识产权&rdquo;这词吗？它只是看上去很美 - GNU工程 - 自由软件基金会（FSF）

note: type: Content of: <div><h2>
en: Did You Say &ldquo;Intellectual Property&rdquo;? It's a Seductive Mirage
zh_CN: 还在用&ldquo;知识产权&rdquo;这词吗？它只是看上去很美

note: type: Content of: <div><address>
en: by <a href="https://www.stallman.org/">Richard Stallman</a>
zh_CN: <a href="https://www.stallman.org/">理查德·斯托曼</a> 著

note: type: Content of: <div><div><p>
en: It has become fashionable to toss copyright, patents, and trademarks&mdash;three separate and different entities involving three separate and different sets of laws&mdash;plus a dozen other laws into one pot and call it &ldquo;intellectual property.&rdquo; The distorting and confusing term did not become common by accident.  Companies that gain from the confusion promoted it.  The clearest way out of the confusion is to reject the term entirely.
zh_CN: 现在倒是流行起了这么一种做法：把版权、专利和商标这三个东西&mdash;本来是三个分立并且不同的概念，分别涉及了三组分立并且不同的法律条文&mdash;&mdash;一股脑儿地搅和着其他一些杂七杂八的法律扔在一起，然后把这么一锅大杂烩称做&ldquo;知识产权&rdquo;。这么一个概念扭曲又有误导性的词汇如今成了种时尚品。如此流行可不是纯属偶然，背后有着许多公司，就是靠着这种扭曲和误导来牟利。它们对这一概念的推广可谓不遗余力。要想彻底理清思路，解决疑惑，我们得先摒弃这个术语。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: According to Professor Mark Lemley, now of the Stanford Law School, the widespread use of the term &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; is a fashion that followed the 1967 founding of the World &ldquo;Intellectual Property&rdquo; Organization (WIPO), and only became really common in recent years. (WIPO is formally a UN organization, but in fact represents the interests of the holders of copyrights, patents, and trademarks.) Wide use dates from <a href="https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=intellectual+property&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=2008&amp;corpus=15&amp;smoothing=1&amp;share=&amp;direct_url=t1%3B%2Cintellectual%20property%3B%2Cc0">around 1990</a>. (<a href="/graphics/seductivemirage.png">Local image copy</a>)
zh_CN: 按照现任职于斯坦福大学法学院的 Mark Lemley 教授的说法，&ldquo;知识产权&rdquo;这一术语的流行始于 1967 年世界知识产权组织（WIPO）成立之后。最近几年对这个词汇的使用则越来越频繁。（世界知识产权组织从属于联合国，但实际上却是代表着版权、专利和商标持有者的利益。）广泛使用该词大约要追溯到<a href="https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=intellectual+property&amp;year_start=1800&amp;year_end=2008&amp;corpus=15&amp;smoothing=1&amp;share=&amp;direct_url=t1%3B%2Cintellectual%20property%3B%2Cc0">1990年左右</a>。（<a href="/graphics/seductivemirage.png">本地截图</a>）

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The term carries a bias that is not hard to see: it suggests thinking about copyright, patents and trademarks by analogy with property rights for physical objects. (This analogy is at odds with the legal philosophies of copyright law, of patent law, and of trademark law, but only specialists know that.) These laws are in fact not much like physical property law, but use of this term leads legislators to change them to be more so.  Since that is the change desired by the companies that exercise copyright, patent and trademark powers, the bias introduced by the term &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; suits them.
zh_CN: 这个词所体现的偏见是显而易见的：它暗示了人们，去利用类比的方法考虑版权法、专利法和商标法，把这些法律与针对物理实物的产权法类比起来。（这个类比本身与版权法、专利法以及商标法在法理上存在着不一致。但这往往只有专家能发现。）而这些法律实际上和实物的产权法相比是完全不同的。但是使用了&ldquo;产权&rdquo;这一称呼则引导着立法者们常常曲解本意。而这种曲解恰恰是那些拥有着各种版权、专利和商标的公司所期望的。由&ldquo;产权&rdquo;一词所带来的偏见，恰好符合了他们的心意。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The bias is reason enough to reject the term, and people have often asked me to propose some other name for the overall category&mdash;or have proposed their own alternatives (often humorous).  Suggestions include IMPs, for Imposed Monopoly Privileges, and GOLEMs, for Government-Originated Legally Enforced Monopolies.  Some speak of &ldquo;exclusive rights regimes,&rdquo; but referring to restrictions as &ldquo;rights&rdquo; is doublethink too.
zh_CN: 如此偏见给了我们足够的理由去抛弃这个词。很多人也曾提议让我给这类东西取个合适的名字&mdash;&mdash;或者每类找个替换的词（不过这多半是开玩笑）。比如有这么一些建议：&ldquo;强行垄断特权&rdquo;（Imposed Monopoly Priviledges，IMP）；&ldquo;政策性合法强制垄断&rdquo;（Government-Originated Legally Enforced Monopolies，GOLEM）。还有人建议说是&ldquo;排他性权利域&rdquo;（exclusive rights regimes），不过一说起限制&ldquo;权利&rdquo;这事儿，那就又得来个双重思想<sup><a href="#TransNote1">1</a></sup>了。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Some of these alternative names would be an improvement, but it is a mistake to replace &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; with any other term.  A different name will not address the term's deeper problem: overgeneralization.  There is no such unified thing as &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo;&mdash;it is a mirage.  The only reason people think it makes sense as a coherent category is that widespread use of the term has misled them about the laws in question.
zh_CN: 这些替代词往往比原词有了不小的改进。不过无论&ldquo;知识产权&rdquo;这词换成什么，都是个错误。单纯换个词，并不能解决深层次的问题：过度概括。这世界上压根就没有这么一种揉合在一起的，叫做&ldquo;知识产权&rdquo;的东西。那就是朵浮云。人们之所以觉得版权、专利、商标还有那些其他东西是一个有机的整体，恰恰是因为普遍地使用&ldquo;知识产权&rdquo;这词对相关法律造成了误导。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The term &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; is at best a catch-all to lump together disparate laws.  Nonlawyers who hear one term applied to these various laws tend to assume they are based on a common principle and function similarly.
zh_CN: &ldquo;知识产权&rdquo;这词，充其量就只能用来把各种不同法律揉合在一起，然后弄出个大杂烩。当非法律专业人士看到了这么一个词时，他们会倾向于认为这些法律是基于相同的原则，并且执行类似的功能。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Nothing could be further from the case.  These laws originated separately, evolved differently, cover different activities, have different rules, and raise different public policy issues.
zh_CN: 影响到这份上，那可真称得上是深远了。其实这些法律都是各自独立产生，有着不同的发展轨迹，管辖着不同的行为活动，基于不同的原则，并且提出着不同的公共政策问题。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: For instance, copyright law was designed to promote authorship and art, and covers the details of expression of a work.  Patent law was intended to promote the publication of useful ideas, at the price of giving the one who publishes an idea a temporary monopoly over it&mdash;a price that may be worth paying in some fields and not in others.
zh_CN: 比如，版权法被设计用以鼓励和推动创作和技术。它覆盖了整个创作实现的每个细节。专利法则意在推进实用创意的发布。通过在一定时期内，赋予创意者对该创意的垄断权，来达到此目的&mdash;这一垄断权在有些领域可能是值得给的，而有些领域中则不值得。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Trademark law, by contrast, was not intended to promote any particular way of acting, but simply to enable buyers to know what they are buying.  Legislators under the influence of the term &ldquo;intellectual property,&rdquo; however, have turned it into a scheme that provides incentives for advertising.  And these are just three out of many laws that the term refers to.
zh_CN: 相反，商标法则不是用以推动什么特殊活动。它只是用来让消费者们知道自己买了什么。而立法者们由于被&ldquo;知识产权&rdquo;这个词影响，认为商标法是用以推动广告宣传的。这些还只是该词所涉及的众多法律中的三个例子。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Since these laws developed independently, they are different in every detail, as well as in their basic purposes and methods.  Thus, if you learn some fact about copyright law, you'd be wise to assume that patent law is different.  You'll rarely go wrong!
zh_CN: 由于这些法律是独立地发展起来的，因此它们在各个细节上都有所不同，在它们的根本目的和方法上也是不一样的。所以，在你学了一些版权法的知识之后，能够区分对待专利法，那你就很少犯错了。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: In practice, nearly all general statements you encounter that are formulated using &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; will be false.  For instance, you'll see claims that &ldquo;its&rdquo; purpose is to &ldquo;promote innovation,&rdquo; but that only fits patent law and perhaps plant variety monopolies.  Copyright law is not concerned with innovation; a pop song or novel is copyrighted even if there is nothing innovative about it.  Trademark law is not concerned with innovation; if I start a tea store and call it &ldquo;rms tea,&rdquo; that would be a solid trademark even if I sell the same teas in the same way as everyone else.  Trade secret law is not concerned with innovation, except tangentially; my list of tea customers would be a trade secret with nothing to do with innovation.
zh_CN: 实际上，几乎你看到的所有使用&ldquo;知识产权&rdquo;的一般性陈述都是错误的。比如，你会看到声称&ldquo;该词&rdquo;的目的是&ldquo;推动创新&rdquo;的说法，但是创新仅适用于专利法，或许还适用于植物品种垄断法<sup><a href="#TransNote2">2</a></sup>。版权法无关创新；即使没有任何创新元素，流行歌曲或畅销书也具有版权。商标法也无关创新；如果我开了一个叫做&ldquo;rms tea&rdquo;的茶店，那么该名字是商标，无论我是否和别人一样卖茶。贸易秘密法也无关创新，至多也只是沾边；我的茶店客户名单也算贸易秘密，但这和创新毫无关系。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: You will also see assertions that &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; is concerned with &ldquo;creativity,&rdquo; but really that only fits copyright law.  More than creativity is needed to make a patentable invention.  Trademark law and trade secret law have nothing to do with creativity; the name &ldquo;rms tea&rdquo; isn't creative at all, and neither is my secret list of tea customers.
zh_CN: 你还会看到声称&ldquo;知识产权&rdquo;关乎&ldquo;创造力&rdquo;的说法，但实际上创造力仅适用于版权法。专利发明的要求不仅仅是创造力。商标法和贸易秘密法也无关创造力；&ldquo;rms tea&rdquo;这个名字根本不需要创造力，我的茶店客户名单也不需要创造力。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: People often say &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; when they really mean some larger or smaller set of laws.  For instance, rich countries often impose unjust laws on poor countries to squeeze money out of them.  Some of these laws are among those called &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; laws, and others are not; nonetheless, critics of the practice often grab for that label because it has become familiar to them.  By using it, they misrepresent the nature of the issue.  It would be better to use an accurate term, such as &ldquo;legislative colonization,&rdquo; that gets to the heart of the matter.
zh_CN: 人们说&ldquo;知识产权&rdquo;的时候，往往是指代着一些更大或者更小类别的法律。比如说，一些富强的国家往往给贫困国家强加一些不平等的法律，从中榨取利益。这其中有些就是所谓的&ldquo;知识产权&rdquo;法，还有一些则不是。可是批评人士总是喜欢抓着&ldquo;知识产权&rdquo;的标签到处乱贴，因为他们更熟悉这些内容。在使用的过程中，他们往往错误地解读了这些问题的实质。这时候就需要些更准确的词，比如&ldquo;法律殖民&rdquo;，这才算是说到点子上。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Laymen are not alone in being confused by this term.  Even law professors who teach these laws are lured and distracted by the seductiveness of the term &ldquo;intellectual property,&rdquo; and make general statements that conflict with facts they know.  For example, one professor wrote in 2006:
zh_CN: 可不止是外行们对&ldquo;知识产权&rdquo;这一词汇迷迷糊糊，就连教这些法律的法律系教授也常常被&ldquo;知识产权&rdquo;这词迷得头脑混乱。然后做出些泛泛的结论，甚至和他们已知的事实相违背。比如说，有个教授在2006年就这样写道：

note: type: Content of: <div><blockquote><p>
en: Unlike their descendants who now work the floor at WIPO, the framers of the US constitution had a principled, procompetitive attitude to intellectual property.  They knew rights might be necessary, but&hellip;they tied congress's hands, restricting its power in multiple ways.
zh_CN: 当年美国宪法的起草者们，虽然他们没端坐在WIPO的大厦中，但对于知识产权，他们有着坚定并且先进态度。他们知道（赋予创作者）一定的权利是必须的，但是&hellip;他们却力图通过宪法牵住国会的双手，以多种方式，制约它的权利。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: That statement refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution, which authorizes copyright law and patent law.  That clause, though, has nothing to do with trademark law, trade secret law, or various others.  The term &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; led that professor to make a false generalization.
zh_CN: 这一限制是指美国宪法第一条第八款中的陈述。版权法和专利法则直接授权于该款。不过宪法中的这一款可没提到商标或者其他东西。而这位教授使用了&ldquo;知识产权&rdquo;这一术语，一下子把范围就扩大了，导致了错误地泛化。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The term &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; also leads to simplistic thinking.  It leads people to focus on the meager commonality in form that these disparate laws have&mdash;that they create artificial privileges for certain parties&mdash;and to disregard the details which form their substance: the specific restrictions each law places on the public, and the consequences that result.  This simplistic focus on the form encourages an &ldquo;economistic&rdquo; approach to all these issues.
zh_CN: &ldquo;知识产权&rdquo;这一说法还导致了思维的简化。它引导着人们把精力都集中在这些不同的法律条文之间仅有的那么点共性上&mdash;他们都需要人为地为某人或组织创造一些特权&mdash;进而让人们忽视了实质上的细节：每组不同的法律对于公众的特定约束，及其后果。单纯地把精力集中在形式上，造就了一种分析这类问题的&ldquo;经济学的&rdquo;方法。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Economics operates here, as it often does, as a vehicle for unexamined assumptions.  These include assumptions about values, such as that amount of production matters while freedom and way of life do not, and factual assumptions which are mostly false, such as that copyrights on music supports musicians, or that patents on drugs support life-saving research.
zh_CN: 经济学在这里开始发挥作用了。它再一次被人们挟持，依然被用在一些未被检验的前提假设上。这些假设包括一系列的价值观，比如：产品数量是重点，而自由以及生活方式则被无视；还有一些错误的对事实的判断，比如说：认为对音乐作品的版权保护可以保护并支持音乐家；或是认为对药品专利的保护可以促进医药领域的研究。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Another problem is that, at the broad scale implicit in the term &ldquo;intellectual property,&rdquo; the specific issues raised by the various laws become nearly invisible.  These issues arise from the specifics of each law&mdash;precisely what the term &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; encourages people to ignore.  For instance, one issue relating to copyright law is whether music sharing should be allowed; patent law has nothing to do with this.  Patent law raises issues such as whether poor countries should be allowed to produce life-saving drugs and sell them cheaply to save lives; copyright law has nothing to do with such matters.
zh_CN: 由此带来了另外一个问题：由于&ldquo;知识产权&rdquo;这个词本身过于泛泛，从而使得特定法律所针对的问题变得模糊。这些问题分属于不同法律&mdash;&mdash;而&ldquo;知识产权&rdquo;这词则恰恰是用来鼓励人们忽视其中的不同。比如说，其中一个与版权法相关的问题：分享音乐本身是否应该被禁止；专利法则压根不会涉及到这问题。专利法倒是会涉及到另外的问题，比如是否应该允许贫困国家生产关乎性命的药物，并能够以低价出售救人一命；而这又不关版权法什么事了。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Neither of these issues is solely economic in nature, and their noneconomic aspects are very different; using the shallow economic overgeneralization as the basis for considering them means ignoring the differences.  Putting the two laws in the &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; pot obstructs clear thinking about each one.
zh_CN: 这里没有一个问题是单纯的经济问题。而它们非经济的一面则各有不同。肤浅地用经济学理论作为基础对它们进行过度地概括，意味着无视它们的不同。把这两套法律放在&ldquo;知识产权&rdquo;这一个锅里乱搅和，只能让人们对这两套法律越来越模糊。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Thus, any opinions about &ldquo;the issue of intellectual property&rdquo; and any generalizations about this supposed category are almost surely foolish.  If you think all those laws are one issue, you will tend to choose your opinions from a selection of sweeping overgeneralizations, none of which is any good.
zh_CN: 因此，任何关于所谓的&ldquo;知识产权方面的问题&rdquo;，或是任何对于这个根本不存在的领域的结论概括，都是愚蠢的。如果你试图把这些所有的法律当作一个问题来对待，那么你就会倾向于从众多过度概括的意见中选择一个，而这些意见一个也不怎么样。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Rejection of &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; is not mere philosophical recreation.  The term does real harm.  Apple used it to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/11/nebraska-farmers-right-to-repair-bill-stalls-apple">warp debate about Nebraska's &ldquo;right to repair&rdquo; bill</a>.  The bogus concept gave Apple a way to dress up its preference for secrecy, which conflicts with its customers' rights, as a supposed principle that customers and the state must yield to.
zh_CN: 拒绝&ldquo;知识产权&rdquo;不仅仅是哲学式的消遣。这个词着实有害。Apple使用它来<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/11/nebraska-farmers-right-to-repair-bill-stalls-apple">歪曲关于Nebraska的&ldquo;维修权利&rdquo;法案</a>。这个虚假的概念使得Apple能够在和客户发生权益冲突时，装扮成更愿意保守商业秘密的样子，而迫使客户和政府屈服。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: If you want to think clearly about the issues raised by patents, or copyrights, or trademarks, or various other different laws, the first step is to forget the idea of lumping them together, and treat them as separate topics.  The second step is to reject the narrow perspectives and simplistic picture the term &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; suggests.  Consider each of these issues separately, in its fullness, and you have a chance of considering them well.
zh_CN: 假如你希望清晰地思考专利问题、版权问题、商标问题或是其他法律相关的问题，那么第一步要做的，就是尝试不要把它们搅和在一起，应该把它们当作不同的问题，分开对待。第二步，则是要拒绝接受由&ldquo;知识产权&rdquo;这词描述的那个狭隘单纯的世界。不同问题区分对待，每一点都考虑到，这样你才有可能对它们有更深刻的认识。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: And when it comes to reforming WIPO, here is <a href="https://fsfe.org/activities/wipo/wiwo.en.html">one proposal for changing the name and substance of WIPO</a>.
zh_CN: 另外，这也是时候去改变世界知识产权组织（WIPO）了，这里有<a href="https://fsfe.org/activities/wipo/wiwo.en.html">一份要求他们更名的提案</a>。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: See also <a href="/philosophy/komongistan.html">The Curious History of Komongistan (Busting the term &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo;)</a>.
zh_CN: 还可以参阅<a href="/philosophy/komongistan.html">Komongistan的奇特历史（打破&ldquo;知识产权&rdquo;的概念)</a>。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Countries in Africa are a lot more similar than these laws, and &ldquo;Africa&rdquo; is a coherent geographical concept; nonetheless, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/24/africa-clinton"> talking about &ldquo;Africa&rdquo; instead of a specific country causes lots of confusion</a>.
zh_CN: 非洲的国家更象这些法律，并且&ldquo;非洲&rdquo;也是一个清晰的地理概念；尽管如此，<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/24/africa-clinton">谈论&ldquo;非洲&rdquo;而不是特指某个非洲国家还是会导致许多困惑</a>。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: <a href="https://torrentfreak.com/language-matters-framing-the-copyright-monopoly-so-we-can-keep-our-liberties-130714/"> Rickard Falkvinge supports rejection of this term</a>.
zh_CN: <a href="https://torrentfreak.com/language-matters-framing-the-copyright-monopoly-so-we-can-keep-our-liberties-130714/">Rickard Falkvinge支持废除该术语</a>。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: <a href="http://www.locusmag.com/Perspectives/2016/11/cory-doctorow-sole-and-despotic-dominion/"> Cory Doctorow also condemns</a> the term &ldquo;intellectual property.&rdquo;
zh_CN: <a href="http://www.locusmag.com/Perspectives/2016/11/cory-doctorow-sole-and-despotic-dominion/">Cory Doctorow也认为知识产权</a>这一术语&ldquo;不当。&rdquo;

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">双重思想，doublethink。源自乔治·奥维尔的小说《一九八四》。特指同时接受了两种相互矛盾的思想。</li>
    <li id="TransNote2">植物品种垄断法，Plant Variety Monopoly。用来保护育种专利和种植专利的法律。</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: 请将有关自由软件基金会（FSF）&amp;GNU的一般性问题发送到<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org">&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;</a>。也可以通过<a href="/contact/">其他联系方法</a>联系自由软件基金会（FSF）。有关失效链接或其他错误和建议，请发送邮件到<a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org">&lt;webmasters@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</b>：邓楠，2010。
    <b>审校</b>：李凡希，2010。
    <b>翻译团队</b>：<a rel="team" href="https://savannah.gnu.org/projects/www-zh-cn/">&lt;CTT&gt;</a>，2017，2018，2021。

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