1.0 - en to zh_CN translation catalogue (70 entries)

note: type: Content of: <title>
en: Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation
zh_CN: 为什么开源错失了自由软件的重点 - GNU 工程 - 自由软件基金会(FSF)

note: type: Content of: <div><h2>
en: Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software
zh_CN: 为什么开源错失了自由软件的重点

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

note: type: Content of: <div><div><p>
en: The terms &ldquo;free software&rdquo; and &ldquo;open source&rdquo; stand for almost the same range of programs.  However, they say deeply different things about those programs, based on different values.  The free software movement campaigns for freedom for the users of computing; it is a movement for freedom and justice.  By contrast, the open source idea values mainly practical advantage and does not campaign for principles.  This is why we do not agree with open source, and do not use that term.
zh_CN: &ldquo;自由软件&rdquo;和&ldquo;开源&rdquo;基本上指的是同一范围的程序。然而，出于不同的价值观，它们对这些程序的看法大相径庭。自由软件运动为用户的计算自由而战斗；这是一个为自由和公正而战的运动。相反，开源理念重视的是实用优势而不是原则利害。我们因此不赞同开源运动，也不使用开源这个词。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: When we call software &ldquo;free,&rdquo; we mean that it respects the <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">users' essential freedoms</a>: the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute copies with or without changes.  This is a matter of freedom, not price, so think of &ldquo;free speech,&rdquo; not &ldquo;free beer.&rdquo;
zh_CN: 要说一个软件是&ldquo;自由&rdquo;的，这意味着它尊重<a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">用户的基本自由</a>：自由地运行这个软件，学习和修改它，以及重新发布它的原版或修改版。这是个关于自由权利的问题，而非价格高低。我们讨论的自由是如同自由言论般的权利，不是免费赠饮一样的大派送。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: These freedoms are vitally important.  They are essential, not just for the individual users' sake, but for society as a whole because they promote social solidarity&mdash;that is, sharing and cooperation.  They become even more important as our culture and life activities are increasingly digitized. In a world of digital sounds, images, and words, free software becomes increasingly essential for freedom in general.
zh_CN: 这几样自由是至关重要的。之所以说它们重要，不仅仅因为它们可以讨好哪个用户，更是由于它们维系着整个社会的凝聚力&mdash;具体说来，就是分享与协作的精神。随着我们的生活与文化日渐数字化，这样的自由精神也随之越来越可贵。在一个充斥着数字化音像与文字的世界中，自由软件日益重要，它本身已经成为关乎着我们基本自由的因素之一。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Tens of millions of people around the world now use free software; the public schools of some regions of India and Spain now teach all students to use the free <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux operating system</a>.  Most of these users, however, have never heard of the ethical reasons for which we developed this system and built the free software community, because nowadays this system and community are more often spoken of as &ldquo;open source,&rdquo; attributing them to a different philosophy in which these freedoms are hardly mentioned.
zh_CN: 当今世界中，成百上千万的用户正在使用着自由软件；在印度和西班牙某些地区的公立学校里，全体学生都学习如何使用自由的<a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux操作系统</a>。然而，这些用户之中，大多数人却并不了解我们为何开发这个自由系统，又为何建立起整个自由软件社区，以及背后驱动这一切的道义上的逻辑。因为如今这个自由系统，乃至整个社区都被以&ldquo;开源&rdquo;一词以蔽之。顺着这个词，一切都被引入了一个完全不同的思维之中。在那里，自由这东西，甚少提及。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The free software movement has campaigned for computer users' freedom since 1983.  In 1984 we launched the development of the free operating system GNU, so that we could avoid the nonfree operating systems that deny freedom to their users.  During the 1980s, we developed most of the essential components of the system and designed the <a href="/licenses/gpl.html">GNU General Public License</a> (GNU GPL)  to release them under&mdash;a license designed specifically to protect freedom for all users of a program.
zh_CN: 从1983年起，我们以维护计算机用户自由之名兴起了自由软件运动。在1984年，我们发起了开发自由操作系统的计划，并将此系统命名为GNU。借此系统，我们就不必依赖非自由的操作系统，不再坐视它们肆意剥夺用户的自由。在二十世纪八十年代，我们开发了系统的绝大多数组件。为了保护用户的自由，我们设计了<a href="/licenses/gpl.html">GNU通用公共许可证</a>（GNU GPL），并以该许可证发行大部分组件。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Not all of the users and developers of free software agreed with the goals of the free software movement.  In 1998, a part of the free software community splintered off and began campaigning in the name of &ldquo;open source.&rdquo; The term was originally proposed to avoid a possible misunderstanding of the term &ldquo;free software,&rdquo; but it soon became associated with philosophical views quite different from those of the free software movement.
zh_CN: 并非全部的自由软件用户和开发者都赞同自由软件运动的目标。1998年，自由软件阵营中的部分成员分裂出来，并以&ldquo;开源&rdquo;为名继续开展活动。一开始，由于&ldquo;自由软件&rdquo;（free software）一词可能引起歧义，这才提出开源这个说法。但是很快开源这词便开始异化，使得其背后的逻辑与自由软件运动的初衷相去甚远。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Some of the supporters of open source considered the term a &ldquo;marketing campaign for free software,&rdquo; which would appeal to business executives by highlighting the software's practical benefits, while not raising issues of right and wrong that they might not like to hear.  Other supporters flatly rejected the free software movement's ethical and social values.  Whichever their views, when campaigning for open source, they neither cited nor advocated those values.  The term &ldquo;open source&rdquo; quickly became associated with ideas and arguments based only on practical values, such as making or having powerful, reliable software.  Most of the supporters of open source have come to it since then, and they make the same association.  Most discussion of &ldquo;open source&rdquo; pays no attention to right and wrong, only to popularity and success; here's a <a href="https://linuxinsider.com/story/Open-Source-Is-Woven-Into-the-Latest-Hottest-Trends-78937.html"> typical example</a>.  A minority of supporters of open source do nowadays say freedom is part of the issue, but they are not very visible among the many that don't.
zh_CN: 一些开源的支持者会认为，所谓开源，无非是用来&ldquo;为自由软件做市场营销&rdquo;的。具体说来，就是向那些商界人士展现自由软件的实际好处。同时避免谈及什么对错正误，因为商业大佬们普遍不太喜欢这调调。还有一些开源的支持者干脆就抛弃自由软件的道德观和社会价值。无论他们持哪种观点，一旦他们开始为开源营销的时候，自由软件运动所珍视的那些价值观就被抛诸脑后。于是，&ldquo;开源&rdquo;一词很快就单纯地和各种实用主义的价值观联系起来。比如说怎么能创造一个强大、稳定的软件。很多开源支持者从一开始就把这些价值观推崇至极，也难怪局外人会有如此联系了。大多数&ldquo;开源&rdquo;的讨论都绝口不谈是非对错，而只是讨论流行与成功；请看<a href="https://www.linuxinsider.com/story/Open-Source-Is-Woven-Into-the-Latest-Hottest-Trends-78937.html">一个具体的实例</a>。现在，少数开源的支持者也把自由作为一个问题来讨论，但是他们的影响好似沧海一粟。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The two now describe almost the same category of software, but they stand for views based on fundamentally different values.  For the free software movement, free software is an ethical imperative, essential respect for the users' freedom.  By contrast, the philosophy of open source considers issues in terms of how to make software &ldquo;better&rdquo;&mdash;in a practical sense only.  It says that nonfree software is an inferior solution to the practical problem at hand.
zh_CN: 开源软件和自由软件这两个词在很大程度上描述的是同一类软件，但是它们所基于的价值观却有着本质上的区别。对于自由软件运动而言，自由软件是一个道德底线，是对用户自由的基本尊重。开源软件则与此不同，开源哲学考虑的是怎么做把软件做得&ldquo;更好&rdquo;&mdash;仅仅从实用的角度。开源的哲学里，非自由软件之所以不好，是因为他们采用了一种劣等的开发方式。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: For the free software movement, however, nonfree software is a social problem, and the solution is to stop using it and move to free software.
zh_CN: 然而，对自由软件运动来说，非自由软件是一个社会问题，其解决方法是停止使用非自由软件并开始使用自由软件。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: &ldquo;Free software.&rdquo; &ldquo;Open source.&rdquo; If it's the same software (<a href="/philosophy/free-open-overlap.html">or nearly so</a>), does it matter which name you use? Yes, because different words convey different ideas.  While a free program by any other name would give you the same freedom today, establishing freedom in a lasting way depends above all on teaching people to value freedom.  If you want to help do this, it is essential to speak of &ldquo;free software.&rdquo;
zh_CN: &ldquo;自由软件&rdquo;，&ldquo;开源软件&rdquo;，既然都指的是同类软件（<a href="/philosophy/free-open-overlap.html">或基本是同类软件</a>），那何必在名字上这么较真呢？有这个必要的。因为不同的词汇传递着不同的思维。尽管现在看来，用另一个名字称呼自由软件可以给你同等的自由，但若要长期维护用户的自由，则必须让人们意识到自由的价值。倘若你想帮助人们做到这点，那么使用&ldquo;自由软件&rdquo;这一称呼则尤为重要。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: We in the free software movement don't think of the open source camp as an enemy; the enemy is proprietary (nonfree) software.  But we want people to know we stand for freedom, so we do not accept being mislabeled as open source supporters.  What we advocate is not &ldquo;open source,&rdquo; and what we oppose is not &ldquo;closed source.&rdquo; To make this clear, we avoid using those terms.
zh_CN: 作为自由软件运动的成员，我们并不将开源阵营视为敌人。我们的敌人是专有（非自由）软件。但我们希望人们至少应该知道，我们所捍卫的是用户的自由。所以我们不愿被开源支持者们贴错标签。我们倡导的并不是 &ldquo;开源&rdquo;，我们反对的也不是 &ldquo;闭源&rdquo;。为了清楚起见，我们要避免使用这些词汇。

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: Practical Differences between Free Software and Open Source
zh_CN: 实践中，开源与自由软件的区别

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: In practice, open source stands for criteria a little looser than those of free software.  As far as we know, all existing released free software source code would qualify as open source.  Nearly all open source software is free software, but there are exceptions.
zh_CN: 在实践中，开源的要求比自由软件宽松一些。据我们所知，迄今发布的自由软件源代码都是开源软件。尽管大多数开源软件也同样是自由软件，但会有一些例外。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: First, some open source licenses are too restrictive, so they do not qualify as free licenses.  For example, Open Watcom is nonfree because its license does not allow making a modified version and using it privately.  Fortunately, few programs use such licenses.
zh_CN: 首先，有些开源许可证对用户过于苛刻，它们就没有被列为自由软件。比如，Open Watcom 就非自由的，因为其许可证不允许修改该软件和私自使用该软件。幸运的是，很少软件会使用这些许可证。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Second, trademark requirements added on top of the code's copyright license can make a program nonfree.  For instance, the Rust compiler may be nonfree, because the trademark conditions forbid selling copies or distributing modified versions, unless you fully remove all <em>uses of the trademark</em>.  Just what that requires in practice is not clear.
zh_CN: 其次，在代码的许可证里添加了商标的要求就会把程序变成非自由软件。比如，Rust 的编译器可能是非自由的，因为其商标条款禁止销售或分发修改过的版本，除非你完全删除了所有的 <em>商标使用</em>。而仅仅是这要怎么做也不太清楚。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Third, the criteria for open source are concerned solely with the use of the source code.  Indeed, almost all the items in the <a href="https://opensource.org/osd">Open Source Definition</a> are formulated as conditions on the software's <em>source license</em> rather than on what users are <em>free to do</em>.  However, people often describe an executable as &ldquo;open source,&rdquo; because its source code is available that way.  That causes confusion in paradoxical situations where the source code is open source (and free)  but the executable itself is nonfree.
zh_CN: 第三，开源的标准只关心源代码的使用。确实，几乎所有 <a href="https://opensource.org/osd">开源定义</a> 中的条款都是关于软件 <em>源代码许可证</em> 的条款，而不是用户 <em>有自由做</em> 什么。不过，人们通常会把可执行文件也称为 &ldquo;开源&rdquo;，只因为其源代码就是那样。这就会导致某些自相矛盾的困惑，比如有时源代码是可得的（也是自由的），但是可执行文件本身却是非自由的。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The trivial case of this paradox is when a program's source code carries a weak free license, one without copyleft, but its executables carry additional nonfree conditions.  Supposing the executables correspond exactly to the released sources&mdash;which may or may not be so&mdash;users can compile the source code to make and distribute free executables.  That's why this case is trivial; it is no grave problem.
zh_CN: 这种矛盾情形的简单例子就是一个程序的源代码是弱自由许可证，即不是 copyleft 许可证，但是其可执行文件带有附加的非自由条款。假设可执行文件严格和发布的源代码对应&mdash;&mdash;这个可能成立也可能不成立&mdash;用户可以编译源代码来发布自由的可执行文件。这个就是简单的例子; 这个并不是一个严重的问题。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The nontrivial case is harmful and important.  Many products containing computers check signatures on their executable programs to block users from effectively using different executables; only one privileged company can make executables that can run in the device and use its full capabilities.  We call these devices &ldquo;tyrants,&rdquo; and the practice is called &ldquo;tivoization&rdquo; after the product (Tivo) where we first saw it.  Even if the executable is made from free source code, and nominally carries a free license, the users cannot usefully run modified versions of it, so the executable is de-facto nonfree.
zh_CN: 不简单的案例会是有害的而且很重要。很多产品带有检测可执行文件签名功能的计算机，它会禁止用户安装另外不同的可执行文件；而只有一家特权公司才能生产可执行文件或完全控制该产品。我们把这种设备称作&ldquo;tyrants&rdquo;，即&ldquo;专制暴君&rdquo;；把这种行为称为&ldquo;tivoization&rdquo;，该名称来自我们首先看到TiVo公司使用该方法发布产品。在这样的产品上运行的可执行软件，哪怕是以自由软件许可证的名义发布了源代码，但是用户却无法运行修改后的可执行文件，所以其可执行文件不是自由软件。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Many Android products contain nonfree tivoized executables of Linux, even though its source code is under GNU GPL version 2.  (We designed GNU GPL version 3 to prohibit this practice; too bad Linux did not adopt it.)  These executables, made from source code that is open source and free, are generally spoken of as &ldquo;open source,&rdquo; but they are <em>not</em> free software.
zh_CN: 许多 Android 产品就包含非自由 Linux 可执行文件（tivoization），即使其源代码是按照 GNU GPL 2 发布的。（我们设计了 GNU GPL 3 来防止这样做; Linux 没有采纳 GPLv3 真是太遗憾了。）

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: Common Misunderstandings of &ldquo;Free Software&rdquo; and &ldquo;Open Source&rdquo;
zh_CN: 关于&ldquo;自由软件&rdquo;和&ldquo;开源&rdquo;的常见误解

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The term &ldquo;free software&rdquo; is prone to misinterpretation: an unintended meaning, &ldquo;software you can get for zero price,&rdquo; fits the term just as well as the intended meaning, &ldquo;software which gives the user certain freedoms.&rdquo; We address this problem by publishing the definition of free software, and by saying &ldquo;Think of &lsquo;free speech,&rsquo; not &lsquo;free beer.&rsquo;&rdquo; This is not a perfect solution; it cannot completely eliminate the problem. An unambiguous and correct term would be better, if it didn't present other problems.
zh_CN: 在英语中，&ldquo;自由软件&rdquo;，即Free Software，这个词很容易被误解：Free一词既有免费的意思，也有自由的意思。而我们所谓的自由软件，则是&ldquo;一类可以赋予用户指定自由的软件&rdquo;。要解决这个问题，我们发布了自由软件的定义。为了方便理解，我们解释自由软件中Free，是自由言论中所说的自由，而非免费赠饮中的免费。这显然不是个理想的解决方案，它无法完全杜绝这一问题。一个意思正确，又没有歧异的词显然更好些，不过前提是这词不会引起其他麻烦。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Unfortunately, all the alternatives in English have problems of their own.  We've looked at many that people have suggested, but none is so clearly &ldquo;right&rdquo; that switching to it would be a good idea.  (For instance, in some contexts the French and Spanish word &ldquo;libre&rdquo; works well, but people in India do not recognize it at all.)  Every proposed replacement for &ldquo;free software&rdquo; has some kind of semantic problem&mdash;and this includes &ldquo;open source software.&rdquo;
zh_CN: 可惜的是，在英语中，能替换Free的词都多少有点毛病。我们考量了许多别人的建议，然而没有哪个比其他的更&rdquo;正确&ldquo;点（比如说，在某些情况下，法语和西班牙语中的&ldquo;libre&rdquo;一词更好点。可是印度的人就根本不认识这个词）。每个可能替代&ldquo;Free Software&rdquo;的词多少都会有些语义方面的问题&mdash;这显然也包括&ldquo;开源软件&rdquo;（Open Source Software）。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The <a href="https://opensource.org/osd">official definition of open source software</a> (which is published by the Open Source Initiative and is too long to include here) was derived indirectly from our criteria for free software.  It is not the same; it is a little looser in some respects.  Nonetheless, their definition agrees with our definition in most cases.
zh_CN: <a href="https://opensource.org/osd">开源软件的官方定义</a>（它是由开源促进会发布的，鉴于这个定义过长，就不在本文中全部引用了）是直接从我们对于自由软件的界定衍生而来。不过二者也有不同，在某些方面，开源软件的定义比自由软件更宽松。不过总体而言，开源软件的定义和我们自由软件的定义在很多地方都是等价的。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: However, the obvious meaning for the expression &ldquo;open source software&rdquo; is &ldquo;You can look at the source code.&rdquo; Indeed, most people seem to misunderstand &ldquo;open source software&rdquo; that way.  (The clear term for that meaning is &ldquo;source available.&rdquo;) That criterion is much weaker than the free software definition, much weaker also than the official definition of open source.  It includes many programs that are neither free nor open source.
zh_CN: 可是，&ldquo;开源软件&rdquo;的字面意思&mdash;&mdash;同样也是人们普遍以为的意思&mdash;&mdash;是&ldquo;你可以看到源代码&rdquo;。这样的意思比起自由软件定义来说要宽松得多，也比开源软件的定义宽松得多。这样的字面意思囊括了很多既非自由也非开源的软件。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Why do people misunderstand it that way? Because that is the natural meaning of the words &ldquo;open source.&rdquo; But the concept for which the open source advocates sought another name was a variant of that of free software.
zh_CN: 为什么人们会有这种误解呢? 原因就是 &ldquo;开源&rdquo; 一词的字面意思。但是开源理念本来推广的就是自由软件的另外一种说法。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Since the obvious meaning for &ldquo;open source&rdquo; is not the meaning that its advocates intend, the result is that most people misunderstand the term.  According to writer Neal Stephenson, &ldquo;Linux is &lsquo;open source&rsquo; software meaning, simply, that anyone can get copies of its source code files.&rdquo; I don't think he deliberately sought to reject or dispute the official definition.  I think he simply applied the conventions of the English language to come up with a meaning for the term.  The <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20001011193422/http://da.state.ks.us/ITEC/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf">state of Kansas</a> published a similar definition: &ldquo;Make use of open-source software (OSS).  OSS is software for which the source code is freely and publicly available, though the specific licensing agreements vary as to what one is allowed to do with that code.&rdquo;
zh_CN: 由于&ldquo;开源&rdquo;一词的字面意思与开源支持者的本意不同，导致很多人误解了这个词。这里引用一段Neal Stephenson文章中的话，&ldquo;Linux是&lsquo;开源&rsquo;软件，意思很简单，就是任何人都可以获得它的源代码&rdquo;。我觉得Stephenson先生并非有意拒绝或者曲解开源软件的官方定义。恐怕他仅仅是望文生义，可惜误会了开源这词。<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20001011193422/http://da.state.ks.us/ITEC/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf">堪萨斯州政府</a>也曾发布了一份开源软件的简化定义：&ldquo;开源软件（OSS）即一类计算机软件，用户可以免费且公开地获得其源代码；用户可以对其源代码做哪些操作，则根据软件的许可证规定各有不同。&rdquo;

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The <cite>New York Times</cite> <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-design-37415.html"> ran an article that stretched the meaning of the term</a> to refer to user beta testing&mdash;letting a few users try an early version and give confidential feedback&mdash;which proprietary software developers have practiced for decades.
zh_CN: 还有更糟糕的，<cite>纽约时报</cite>发表了<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-design-37415.html">一篇文章</a>，把开源这词的意思完全拧了，文中将开源软件解释为内测版软件&mdash;就是给一小撮用户做测试并获得内部反馈的抢先版软件&mdash;这东西专有软件开发者在几十年前就发布过了。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The term has even been stretched to include designs for equipment that are <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/aug/27/texas-teenager-water-purifier-toxic-e-waste-pollution">published without a patent</a>.  Patent-free equipment designs can be laudable contributions to society, but the term &ldquo;source code&rdquo; does not pertain to them.
zh_CN: 这个概念甚至被延伸到一个<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/aug/27/texas-teenager-water-purifier-toxic-e-waste-pollution">无需专利</a>的产品设计中。无需专利的产品设计对社会是一个很大的贡献，但是&ldquo;源代码&rdquo;一词和它们没有关系。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Open source supporters try to deal with this by pointing to their official definition, but that corrective approach is less effective for them than it is for us.  The term &ldquo;free software&rdquo; has two natural meanings, one of which is the intended meaning, so a person who has grasped the idea of &ldquo;free speech, not free beer&rdquo; will not get it wrong again.  But the term &ldquo;open source&rdquo; has only one natural meaning, which is different from the meaning its supporters intend.  So there is no succinct way to explain and justify its official definition.  That makes for worse confusion.
zh_CN: 开源的支持者们试图通过不断引用官方定义来解决这些误会。这方法显然没错，可直接引述定义对自由软件似乎更有效。&ldquo;Free Software&rdquo;一词字面上有两个意思，其中的自由之意是我们希望传达的。一个人如果能理解&ldquo;自由言论而非免费赠饮&rdquo;这句话，就不会再搞错该使用Free的哪个意项。然而，&ldquo;开源&rdquo;一词仅仅有一个字面意思，而这个意思与其本身要表达的意思又有所不同。结果就很难找一个简单的方法解释官方的定义。这就带来了更多的误解。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Another misunderstanding of &ldquo;open source&rdquo; is the idea that it means &ldquo;not using the GNU GPL.&rdquo; This tends to accompany another misunderstanding that &ldquo;free software&rdquo; means &ldquo;GPL-covered software.&rdquo; These are both mistaken, since the GNU GPL qualifies as an open source license and most of the open source licenses qualify as free software licenses.  There are <a href="/licenses/license-list.html"> many free software licenses</a> aside from the GNU GPL.
zh_CN: 另外一个关于&ldquo;开源&rdquo;的误解是：开源软件意味着&ldquo;不用GNU GPL许可证&rdquo;。这个误解又常常伴随着另外一个误解：&ldquo;自由软件就是使用GPL许可证的软件&rdquo;。这显然是扭曲了自由软件和开源软件。GNU GPL许可证也被认证为开源软件许可证。很多开源软件许可证也同时是自由软件许可证。除了GPL以外，还有<a href="/licenses/license-list.html">很多自由软件许可证</a>。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The term &ldquo;open source&rdquo; has been further stretched by its application to other activities, such as government, education, and science, where there is no such thing as source code, and where criteria for software licensing are simply not pertinent.  The only thing these activities have in common is that they somehow invite people to participate.  They stretch the term so far that it only means &ldquo;participatory&rdquo; or &ldquo;transparent,&rdquo; or less than that.  At worst, it has <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/opinion/sunday/morozov-open-and-closed.html"> become a vacuous buzzword</a>.
zh_CN: &ldquo;开源&rdquo;一词又一再地被引申到了各个领域，比如政府部门，教育，科学还有其他压根没有源代码的地方，以及和软件许可证根本扯不上关系的领域。它们唯一的共同点是：多多少少都是鼓励人们参与到某个活动中来。到头来，开源这词就被引申成了&ldquo;参与性&rdquo;，或者是&ldquo;透明性&rdquo;，或者还不如这些。最可悲的解释，则<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/opinion/sunday/morozov-open-and-closed.html">完全成了一个虚幻的商业流行词</a>。

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: Different Values Can Lead to Similar Conclusions&mdash;but Not Always
zh_CN: 不同的价值观可以得到类似的结论&mdash;&mdash;可惜总有例外

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Radical groups in the 1960s had a reputation for factionalism: some organizations split because of disagreements on details of strategy, and the two daughter groups treated each other as enemies despite having similar basic goals and values.  The right wing made much of this and used it to criticize the entire left.
zh_CN: 二十世纪六十年代，美国的极左派阵营曾由于意见分歧而党羽林立。尽管他们实际上有着相同的目的和价值观，但各个派别之间依旧水火不容，关系紧张。这使得右翼势力得以借力打力，进而攻击整个左派阵营。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Some try to disparage the free software movement by comparing our disagreement with open source to the disagreements of those radical groups.  They have it backwards.  We disagree with the open source camp on the basic goals and values, but their views and ours lead in many cases to the same practical behavior&mdash;such as developing free software.
zh_CN: 由于自由软件和开源阵营存在的这种分歧，有些人就用美国极左阵营的例子，来告诫或是诋毁自由软件运动。不过现在的情况和当初极左阵营的情况正好相反：我们和开源软件阵营有着不同的目的和价值观，不过不同的观点却导致了很多相同行为&mdash;比如说开发自由软件。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: As a result, people from the free software movement and the open source camp often work together on practical projects such as software development.  It is remarkable that such different philosophical views can so often motivate different people to participate in the same projects.  Nonetheless, there are situations where these fundamentally different views lead to very different actions.
zh_CN: 于是大家看到的结果就是：来自自由软件运动的人和来自开源阵营的人经常一起在同一个项目中一起工作，比如一起开发软件。这是值得一提的：尽管大家观点不同，但却可能在同一个项目中工作。当然，我们和开源阵营各自不同的观点有些时候也可能会导致不同的行为。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The idea of open source is that allowing users to change and redistribute the software will make it more powerful and reliable.  But this is not guaranteed.  Developers of proprietary software are not necessarily incompetent.  Sometimes they produce a program that is powerful and reliable, even though it does not respect the users' freedom.  Free software activists and open source enthusiasts will react very differently to that.
zh_CN: 开源的基本思路是：允许用户修改和再发布软件，是为了让软件更加强大和可靠。可惜这不是个必要条件。很多专有软件的开发者技术也很强。有些时候，哪怕专有软件不尊重用户的自由，依然可以开发出强大而可靠的软件。对于这个事实，自由软件支持者和开源阵营的人对此反应就会不同。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: A pure open source enthusiast, one that is not at all influenced by the ideals of free software, will say, &ldquo;I am surprised you were able to make the program work so well without using our development model, but you did.  How can I get a copy?&rdquo; This attitude will reward schemes that take away our freedom, leading to its loss.
zh_CN: 对于一个纯粹的开源狂热者来说&mdash;假设他没有被自由软件的理想所影响&mdash;可能会说，&ldquo;你们（专有软件开发者）竟然没用我们的开发模型，还能开发出这么好的软件。这太让我感到意外了。能给我拷一份你们的软件吗？&rdquo; 这样的态度会让专有软件的诡计得逞&mdash;剥夺我们的自由。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The free software activist will say, &ldquo;Your program is very attractive, but I value my freedom more.  So I reject your program.  I will get my work done some other way, and support a project to develop a free replacement.&rdquo; If we value our freedom, we can act to maintain and defend it.
zh_CN: 而自由软件支持者则会说，&ldquo;您的软件非常吸引人，不过我更看重我的自由。很遗憾，我不得不放弃使用您的软件。我会用其他的方法完成我的工作，并支持一个实现类似功能的自由软件项目。&rdquo;你若真心珍视你的自由，我们就可以用行动去捍卫它。

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: Powerful, Reliable Software Can Be Bad
zh_CN: 强大而可靠的软件，未必是个好东西

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The idea that we want software to be powerful and reliable comes from the supposition that the software is designed to serve its users.  If it is powerful and reliable, that means it serves them better.
zh_CN: 大家都希望软件强大而可靠，因为我们都觉得软件是为用户服务的。既然是为用户服务的，那强大而可靠的软件显然可以更好地服务用户。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: But software can be said to serve its users only if it respects their freedom.  What if the software is designed to put chains on its users? Then powerfulness means the chains are more constricting, and reliability that they are harder to remove.  Malicious features, such as spying on the users, restricting the users, back doors, and imposed upgrades are common in proprietary software, and some open source supporters want to implement them in open source programs.
zh_CN: 但是必须要明确，只有当软件尊重用户的自由时，我们才说软件是在为用户服务。倘若软件本身就有意剥夺用户自由，为其设置各种障碍，那么如此的软件更强大仅仅意味着更多的羁绊，更可靠也就意味着这些障碍难以克服。现实生活中，恶意流氓的功能在专有软件中比比皆是：监视用户，限制用户，后门，强制升级等等。而一些开源软件支持者们竟希望在他们的开源软件中实现类似功能。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Under pressure from the movie and record companies, software for individuals to use is increasingly designed specifically to restrict them.  This malicious feature is known as Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) (see <a href="https://defectivebydesign.org">DefectiveByDesign.org</a>) and is the antithesis in spirit of the freedom that free software aims to provide.  And not just in spirit: since the goal of DRM is to trample your freedom, DRM developers try to make it hard, impossible, or even illegal for you to change the software that implements the DRM.
zh_CN: 迫于电影和唱片公司的压力，越来越多的个人软件被设计得有意限制用户的行为。这种恶意功能的官方讲法是<em>数字版权管理</em>（参见<a href="https://defectivebydesign.org/">DefectiveByDesign.org</a>）。这种功能与自由软件的核心精神完全背道而驰。说起来，这已然不仅是精神层面背道而驰了，在实际操作上，DRM 的开发者们试图让用户无法修改软件，甚至将此视为违法行为。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Yet some open source supporters have proposed &ldquo;open source DRM&rdquo; software.  Their idea is that, by publishing the source code of programs designed to restrict your access to encrypted media and by allowing others to change it, they will produce more powerful and reliable software for restricting users like you.  The software would then be delivered to you in devices that do not allow you to change it.
zh_CN: 尽管如此，一些开源软件的支持者们依然提议开发所谓&ldquo;开源DRM&rdquo;软件。这背后的逻辑是：发布这些限制用户自由的软件的源代码，并且允许用户修改它，就可以造出更强大可靠的软件，来继续限制用户的自由。然后，这些软件会被拷贝到某个设备上一并卖到你手里，而那个设备则禁止你修改运行其上的软件。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: This software might be open source and use the open source development model, but it won't be free software since it won't respect the freedom of the users that actually run it.  If the open source development model succeeds in making this software more powerful and reliable for restricting you, that will make it even worse.
zh_CN: 这样的软件也许称得上是开源软件，并且也的确用的是开源的开发模式。但是它不可能成为自由软件，因为它根本没有尊重用户的自由。倘若说开源的开发模式可以成功地制造如此软件，并且让这些软件更强大更可靠，进而限制你我的自由，那只能说这次开源把一切变得更糟了。

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: Fear of Freedom
zh_CN: 令人生畏的自由

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The main initial motivation of those who split off the open source camp from the free software movement was that the ethical ideas of free software made some people uneasy.  That's true: raising ethical issues such as freedom, talking about responsibilities as well as convenience, is asking people to think about things they might prefer to ignore, such as whether their conduct is ethical.  This can trigger discomfort, and some people may simply close their minds to it.  It does not follow that we ought to stop talking about these issues.
zh_CN: 当年那些人之所以从自由软件运动中分裂出来，发起开源软件运动，主要原因就是因为自由软件的道德基础让不少人如坐针毡。的确如此，倘若说起道德，比如用户的自由，开发者的责任等等，往往会迫使人们去思考一些常被忽视的问题，好比说某些行为是否符合道德规范。这种说教确实会让人心生不快，有些人则因此把它们抛诸脑后，从此不闻不问。但这并非意味着，每当论及道德，我们就该退避三舍，闭口不谈。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: That is, however, what the leaders of open source decided to do.  They figured that by keeping quiet about ethics and freedom, and talking only about the immediate practical benefits of certain free software, they might be able to &ldquo;sell&rdquo; the software more effectively to certain users, especially business.
zh_CN: 遗憾的是，开源的领导者们恰恰是选择忽视了这些问题。他们意识到，只要在道德和自由方面装聋作哑，转而只讨论某些自由软件当下可以创收多少效益，就没准能让他们更高效地&ldquo;卖&rdquo;软件给一些特定用户，尤其是商业用户。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: When open source proponents talk about anything deeper than that, it is usually the idea of making a &ldquo;gift&rdquo; of source code to humanity.  Presenting this as a special good deed, beyond what is morally required, presumes that distributing proprietary software without source code is morally legitimate.
zh_CN: 当开源支持者讨论到这些更深层次的问题时，他们通常的想法就是把源代码作为人类的&ldquo;礼物&rdquo;。假定专有软件不发布源代码在道义上是合法的，那么开源是一件好事，它超出了道义的要求。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: This approach has proved effective, in its own terms.  The rhetoric of open source has convinced many businesses and individuals to use, and even develop, free software, which has extended our community&mdash;but only at the superficial, practical level.  The philosophy of open source, with its purely practical values, impedes understanding of the deeper ideas of free software; it brings many people into our community, but does not teach them to defend it.  That is good, as far as it goes, but it is not enough to make freedom secure.  Attracting users to free software takes them just part of the way to becoming defenders of their own freedom.
zh_CN: 从这套理论的观点看，这方法倒也真算行之有效了。开源这词说服了众多商业和个人用户，使得他们开始使用，甚至开发自由软件，由此扩大了我们的社区。然而如此的扩张仅仅是表面上的，停留在仅仅关注实用的层次上。由于开源的哲学仅仅停留在实用层面，进而阻碍了人们理解自由软件更深层次的含义。它为我们的社区添加了新鲜血液，却没能教会那些新人如何维持这样一个社区。至此为止，倒也还好，但它还不足以捍卫自由。把用户吸引到自由软件社区来，仅仅是万里长征的第一步，他们还需要懂得去成为自己自由的维护者。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Sooner or later these users will be invited to switch back to proprietary software for some practical advantage.  Countless companies seek to offer such temptation, some even offering copies gratis.  Why would users decline? Only if they have learned to value the freedom free software gives them, to value freedom in and of itself rather than the technical and practical convenience of specific free software.  To spread this idea, we have to talk about freedom.  A certain amount of the &ldquo;keep quiet&rdquo; approach to business can be useful for the community, but it is dangerous if it becomes so common that the love of freedom comes to seem like an eccentricity.
zh_CN: 这些没能理解自由软件含义的用户，早晚会出于某些实用角度的考虑，再转投专有软件。无数的软件公司已经开始做出这样的尝试吸引用户使用专有软件，哪怕是发行免费的专有软件。用户只有在懂得珍视自由软件赋予他们的自由之后，才会拒绝如此诱惑。所以，我们必须反复强调自由，才能渐渐扩散自由的理念。&ldquo;保持沉默&rdquo;的信条在商业化的过程中可能会有用，但过分强调它，让热爱自由被视为自私，则会害了整个社区。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: That dangerous situation is exactly what we have.  Most people involved with free software, especially its distributors, say little about freedom&mdash;usually because they seek to be &ldquo;more acceptable to business.&rdquo; Nearly all GNU/Linux operating system distributions add proprietary packages to the basic free system, and they invite users to consider this an advantage rather than a flaw.
zh_CN: 如此的危机恰恰是我们当前面临的。众多参与自由软件社区的人们，尤其是自由软件的发行商们，对于自由总是闭口不谈&mdash;往往是因为他们想要&ldquo;在商业上被认可&rdquo;。几乎所有GNU/Linux的发行版都会在其基础版中搀入专有软件。它们甚至将此宣传为一种优势，而非缺陷。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Proprietary add-on software and partially nonfree GNU/Linux distributions find fertile ground because most of our community does not insist on freedom with its software.  This is no coincidence.  Most GNU/Linux users were introduced to the system through &ldquo;open source&rdquo; discussion, which doesn't say that freedom is a goal.  The practices that don't uphold freedom and the words that don't talk about freedom go hand in hand, each promoting the other.  To overcome this tendency, we need more, not less, talk about freedom.
zh_CN: 带有专有插件的软件，和含有专有软件的GNU/Linux发行版之所以有生存和发展的空间，就是因为我们社区中大多数人并没有坚守自己的自由。这并非巧合。大多数GNU/Linux用户是被&ldquo;开源&rdquo;一词吸引而来，而开源则没有把维护用户自由作为其目标。无视自由的言论口口相传，漠视自由的态度比比皆是。人人如此，互相影响。要扭转这样的局势，我们唯一能做的，就是更多地谈论自由，而非把它搁置一边。

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: &ldquo;FLOSS&rdquo; and &ldquo;FOSS&rdquo;
zh_CN: &ldquo;FLOSS&rdquo;和&ldquo;FOSS&rdquo;

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The terms &ldquo;FLOSS&rdquo; and &ldquo;FOSS&rdquo; are used to be <a href="/philosophy/floss-and-foss.html"> neutral between free software and open source</a>.  If neutrality is your goal, &ldquo;FLOSS&rdquo; is the better of the two, since it really is neutral.  But if you want to stand up for freedom, using a neutral term isn't the way.  Standing up for freedom entails showing people your support for freedom.
zh_CN: &ldquo;FLOSS&rdquo;和&ldquo;FOSS&rdquo;作为<a href="/philosophy/floss-and-foss.html">中立于自由软件和开源</a>的术语使用。如果你希望中立，&ldquo;FLOSS&rdquo;更好些，因为它确实中立。但是你如果支持自由，使用中立的术语是不对的。捍卫自由需要你向人们展示你对自由的支持。

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: Rivals for Mindshare
zh_CN: 思想的对手

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: &ldquo;Free&rdquo; and &ldquo;open&rdquo; are rivals for mindshare.  Free software and open source are different ideas but, in most people's way of looking at software, they compete for the same conceptual slot.  When people become habituated to saying and thinking &ldquo;open source,&rdquo; that is an obstacle to their grasping the free software movement's philosophy and thinking about it.  If they have already come to associate us and our software with the word &ldquo;open,&rdquo; we may need to shock them intellectually before they recognize that we stand for something <em>else</em>.  Any activity that promotes the word &ldquo;open&rdquo; tends to extend the curtain that hides the ideas of the free software movement.
zh_CN: &ldquo;自由&rdquo;和&ldquo;开放&rdquo;是一对思想的对手。;自由软件和开源却是不同的概念，虽然从大多数人看待软件的眼光来看，它们讨论的是同一个概念。当人们习惯于用&ldquo;开源&rdquo;表达和思考时，他们对自由软件运动哲学的理解和思考就受到了阻碍。如果他们已经把我们以及我们的软件和&ldquo;开放&rdquo;一词关联起来，那么在他们意识到我们的立场<em>有所不同</em>之前，我们就应该在思想上为他们敲响警钟。一切宣传&ldquo;开放&rdquo;一词的活动都会倾向于遮掩自由软件运动的意义。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Thus, free software activists are well advised to decline to work on an activity that calls itself &ldquo;open.&rdquo; Even if the activity is good in and of itself, each contribution you make does a little harm on the side by promoting the open source idea.  There are plenty of other good activities which call themselves &ldquo;free&rdquo; or &ldquo;libre.&rdquo; Each contribution to those projects does a little extra good on the side.  With so many useful projects to choose from, why not choose one which does extra good?
zh_CN: 所以，自由软件活动家都会被建议不要参与自称&ldquo;开放&rdquo;的活动。即使该活动本身是好的，你的每次参与都会由于推动了开源的概念而伤害到自由软件运动。有许多活动是&ldquo;自由&rdquo;或&ldquo;libre。&rdquo;你的每次参与都会对自由软件运动是正面的支持。有这么多项目可选，为什么不选那些多些正面支持的呢？

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: Conclusion
zh_CN: 总结

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: As the advocates of open source draw new users into our community, we free software activists must shoulder the task of bringing the issue of freedom to their attention.  We have to say, &ldquo;It's free software and it gives you freedom!&rdquo;&mdash;more and louder than ever.  Every time you say &ldquo;free software&rdquo; rather than &ldquo;open source,&rdquo; you help our cause.
zh_CN: 开源的支持者们把一个个用户拉入他们的阵营，而提醒用户维护自由的任务，则落到了我们自由软件支持者们的肩膀上。我们要敢于用比以往更大的声音说&ldquo;这是自由软件，它才是真正尊重你的自由的软件！&rdquo;&mdash;每当你把&ldquo;开源软件&rdquo;一词替换成&ldquo;自由软件&rdquo;的时候，你就是在支持我们的理念。

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: Notes
zh_CN: 注

note: type: Content of: <div><ul><li>
en: Joe Barr wrote an article called <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20010618050431/itworld.com/AppDev/350/LWD010523vcontrol4/pfindex.html"> Live and let license</a> that gives his perspective on this issue.
zh_CN: Joe Barr 曾写了一篇叫 <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20010618050431/itworld.com/AppDev/350/LWD010523vcontrol4/pfindex.html">Live and let license</a> 的文章展示自己对此问题的观点。

note: type: Content of: <div><ul><li>
en: Lakhani and Wolf's <a href="https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/lakhaniwolf.pdf"> paper on the motivation of free software developers</a> says that a considerable fraction are motivated by the view that software should be free. This is despite the fact that they surveyed the developers on SourceForge, a site that does not support the view that this is an ethical issue.
zh_CN: Lakhani和Wolf在关于自由软件开发者动机的<a href="https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/lakhaniwolf.pdf">论文</a>中提到，很大一部分开发者都认为软件本该自由，由此才参与开发自由软件的。可惜他们的调查的是SourceForge上的开发者，而SourceForge网站本身则并不认为软件自由是个伦理问题。

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）。请将无效链接，其他错误或建议发送给<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（Nan Deng）<br></br>
    <b>审校</b>: 李凡希<br></br>
    <b>翻译团队</b>：<a rel="team" href="https://savannah.gnu.org/projects/www-zh-cn/">&lt;CTT&gt;</a>，2017-2023。

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