1. Free Software Is Even More Important Now {#free-software-is-even-more-important-now .chapter}
===========================================

## 如今自由软件更加重要

@firstcopyingnotice{{@footnoterule @smallskip See
<http://gnu.org/help> for ways to help the free software movement.
@medskip @footnoterule @medskip Copyright © 2015 Richard Stallman\
 {A substantially edited version of this article was published on the
[Wired](Wired) web site as “Why Free Software Is More Important Now Than
Ever Before” (Wired, 28 September 2013,
[http://wired.com/opinion/2013/09/why-free-software-\
is-more-important-now-than-ever-before](http://wired.com/opinion/2013/09/why-free-software-%3Cbr%3Eis-more-important-now-than-ever-before)).
This version of this essay is part of @fsfsthreecite}

> Copyright © 2015 Richard Stallman。此文大幅修改后发表于[《连线》杂志](Wired)网站，标题是[Why Free Software Is More Important Now Than Ever Before”](http://wired.com/opinion/2013/09/why-free-software-%3Cbr%3Eis-more-important-now-than-ever-before)，2013年9月28日。

Since 1983, the Free Software Movement has campaigned for computer
users’ freedom—for users to control the software they use, rather than
vice versa. When a program respects users’ freedom and community, we
call it “free software.”

自1983年以来，自由软件运动一直在为计算机用户的自由而战——用户控制他们使用的软件，而不是相反。当一个程序尊重用户和社区的自由时，我们把它称为“自由软件”。

We also sometimes call it “libre software” to emphasize that we’re
talking about liberty, not price. Some proprietary (nonfree) programs,
such as Photoshop, are very expensive; others, such as Flash Player, are
available gratis—but that’s a minor detail. Either way, they give the
program’s developer power over the users, power that no one should have.

我们有时也称之为“libre software”以便澄清我们关注的是自由，而不是价格。一些专有（非自由）软件比如 Photoshop，非常昂贵；而其他比如 Flash 播放器则免费提供——所以价格并不是大问题。无论高价还是免费，它们都将程序开发者的权力凌驾于用户之上，而这种权力是不应该存在的。

Those two nonfree programs have something else in common: they are both
*malware.* That is, both have functionalities designed to mistreat the
user. Proprietary software nowadays is often malware because the
developers’ power corrupts them.[(1)](#FOOT1) With free software, the
users control the program, both individually and collectively. So they
control what their computers do (assuming those computers are loyal and
do what the users’ programs tell them to do).

同时这款软件还有个共同点：他们都是*恶意软件*。也就是说从功能上都是设计用来亏待用户的。今天的专有软件往往是恶意软件，因为开发者的权力腐化了他们[^1]。而自由软件，用户控制着程序，既是单独用户控制同时也是群体控制。这样他们就控制着计算机做的事情（假设这些程序都是忠实完成用户的指令）。

With proprietary software, the program controls the users, and some
other entity (the developer or “owner”) controls the program. So the
proprietary program gives its developer power over its users. That is
unjust in itself, and tempts the developer to mistreat the users in
other ways.

专有软件程序控制着用户，另一些（用户或“所有者”）则完全控制着程序。因此专有程序给了开发者凌驾用户的权力。而这本身就是不公平的，并且诱使开发者用其他方式亏待用户。

Freedom means having control over your own life. If you use a program to
carry out activities in your life, your freedom depends on your having
control over the program. You deserve to have control over the programs
you use, and all the more so when you use them for something important
in your life.

自由意味着你控制着自己的生活。如果你用的程序接管了你的生活，你的自由就取决于你如何控制着这些程序。你值得取得对程序的控制权，更何况这些程序控制着你生活中重要的事情。

Users’ control over the program requires four essential
freedoms.[(2)](#FOOT2) 

用户对程序的控制需要四个重要的自由[^2]。

1.  The freedom to run the program as you wish, for whatever purpose.

1. 基于任何目的，按你的意愿运行软件的自由。

2.  The freedom to study the program’s “source code,” and change it, so
    the program does your computing as you wish. Programs are written by
    programmers in a programming language—like English combined with
    algebra—and that form of the program is the “source code.” Anyone
    who knows programming, and has the program in source code form, can
    read the source code, understand its functioning, and change it too.
    When all you get is the executable form, a series of numbers that
    are efficient for the computer to run but extremely hard for a human
    being to understand, understanding and changing the program in that
    form are forbiddingly hard.

2. 学习软件“源代码”并修改的自由，这样可以让程序执行你想做的事情。程序是由程序员使用编程语言编写的（比如结合英语和代数），这种形式称为“源代码”。任何熟悉编程，并能以源代码形式编程的人，都可以读源代码，懂得其逻辑，并可以修改之。当你只能得到可执行格式，也就是对计算机来说能理解，但对人类极难读懂的一系列数字时，读懂并修改该形式的程序难如登天。

3.  The freedom to make and distribute exact copies when you wish. (It
    is not an obligation; doing this is your choice. If the program is
    free, that doesn’t mean someone has an obligation to offer you a
    copy, or that you have an obligation to offer him a copy.
    Distributing a program to users without freedom mistreats them;
    however, choosing not to distribute the program—using it
    privately—does not mistreat anyone.)

3. 将当前副本重新分发的自由。不过这不是一种义务，这样做是你的选择。如果程序是自由的，并不意味着别人有义务提供给你一份副本，或者你有义务为其他人提供副本。如果没有自由的分发，会亏待用户。然而如果不分发软件（只是私下使用）则不会亏待任何人。

4.  The freedom to make and distribute copies of your modified versions,
when you wish.

4. 随时分发你修改过的版本的自由。

The first two freedoms mean each user can exercise individual control
over the program. With the other two freedoms, any group of users can
together exercise *collective control* over the program. With all four
freedoms, the users fully control the program. If any of them is missing
or inadequate, the program is proprietary (nonfree), and unjust.

前两个自由表示用户可以实际控制程序。而剩下的自由，表示任何用户团体都可以*集体控制*程序。具备这四个自由，用户就可以完全控制程序。这四个自由缺一不可，否则程序就是专有的（非自由的），并且不道德。

Other kinds of works are also used for practical activities, including
recipes for cooking, educational works such as textbooks, reference
works such as dictionaries and encyclopedias, fonts for displaying
paragraphs of text, circuit diagrams for hardware for people to build,
and patterns for making useful (not merely decorative) objects with a 3D
printer. Since these are not software, the free software movement
strictly speaking doesn’t cover them; but the same reasoning applies and
leads to the same conclusion: these works should carry the four
freedoms.

任何实践类的作品都可以适用，包括烹饪菜谱，教育作品比如教科书，参考书比如字典和百科全书，显示文章的字体，硬件设计的电路程序，3D 打印用的（不只是装饰品）模型文件。因为这些并不是软件，所以自由软件运动严格上来说并不包括它们，但同理可证：这些作品也需要符合上面这四项自由。

A free program allows you to tinker with it to make it do what you want
(or cease do to something you dislike). Tinkering with software may
sound ridiculous if you are accustomed to proprietary software as a
sealed box, but in the Free World it’s a common thing to do, and a good
way to learn programming. Even the traditional American pastime of
tinkering with cars is obstructed because cars now contain nonfree
software.

一个自由的程序允许你按照自己想法去改造。对于将专有软件看成密封盒子的人来说，改造软件看起来很荒谬，然而在自由的世界里则是非常普遍，并且对学习编程非常有利。传统美国消费者对汽车的改造并不顺畅，恰是因为汽车包含非自由的软件。

### The Injustice of Proprietariness {#the-injustice-of-proprietariness .subheading}

### 专有化的不公

If the users don’t control the program, the program controls the users.
With proprietary software, there is always some entity, the developer or
“owner” of the program, that controls the program—and through it,
exercises power over its users. A nonfree program is a yoke, an
instrument of unjust power.

如果用户没有控制程序，那么程序就在控制用户。对专有软件，有一些实体比如开发者或者程序“所有者”，控制着程序，将权力凌驾于用户之上。一个非自由的程序就像个操纵杆，是一把操纵不公权力的工具。

In outrageous cases (though this outrage has become quite usual)
proprietary programs are designed to spy on the users, restrict them,
censor them, and abuse them.[(3)](#FOOT3) For instance, the operating
system of Apple iThings does all of these, and so does Windows on mobile
devices with ARM chips. Windows, mobile phone firmware, and Google
Chrome for Windows include a universal back door that allows some
company to change the program remotely without asking permission. The
Amazon Kindle has a back door that can erase books.

令人发指的是（这种情况很常见）专有程序设计用来窥视、限制、审查甚至虐待用户[^3]。例如苹果的 iThings 操作系统做了所有这些，同样的基于 ARM 芯片移动设备上的 Windows 系统也是如此。Windows 手机固件以及 Google Chrome 的 Windows 版包含了通用后门，可以让一些公司不经过用户同意就远程修改程序。亚马逊的 Kindle 则通过后门删除用户的电子书。

The use of nonfree software in the “internet of things” would turn it
into the “internet of telemarketers”[(4)](#FOOT4) as well as the
“internet of snoopers.”

“物联网”（internet of things）产品上使用的非自由程序会将物联网变成“骗联网”（internet of telemarketers）[^4]或“窥联网”（internet of snoopers）。

With the goal of ending the injustice of nonfree software, the free
software movement develops free programs so users can free themselves.
We began in 1984 by developing the free operating system GNU. Today,
millions of computers run GNU, mainly in the GNU/Linux
combination.[(5)](#FOOT5)

为了结束非自由程序的不公，自由软件运动的开发者开发了自由的程序，这样用户可以解放自己。我们首先在 1984 年开发了自由的操作系统 GNU。现在数以万计的计算机运行着 GNU，主要是 GNU/Linux 结合体[^5]。

Distributing a program to users without freedom mistreats those users;
however, choosing not to distribute the program does not mistreat
anyone. If you write a program and use it privately, that does no wrong
to others. (You do miss an opportunity to do good, but that’s not the
same as doing wrong.) Thus, when we say all software must be free, we
mean that every copy must come with the four freedoms, but we don’t mean
that someone has an obligation to offer you a copy.

分发非自由的程序给用户是残害用户的行为；然而如果不分发程序则不会伤害任何人。如果你写了一个程序并私下使用，不会伤害到任何人。你也许会失去做好事的机会，但这与做错事是不一样的。因此，我们说所有程序都应该自由，意思是所有副本都应该遵循这四个自由，但并不意味着别人有义务提供给你一份副本。

### Nonfree Software and SaaSS {#nonfree-software-and-saass .subheading}

### 非自由软件与 SaaSS

Nonfree software was the first way for companies to take control of
people’s computing. Nowadays, there is another way, called Service as a
Software Substitute, or SaaSS. That means letting someone else’s server
do your own computing tasks.

非自由软件是公司控制人们电脑的首选方案。今天，还有另外一种方式，称为“替代软件的服务”（SaaSS，Service as a Software Substitute）。这意思是让别人的服务器去做你自己的计算任务。

SaaSS doesn’t mean the programs on the server are nonfree (though they
often are). Rather, using SaaSS causes the same injustices as using a
nonfree program: they are two paths to the same bad place. Take the
example of a SaaSS translation service: The user sends text to the
server, and the server translates it (from English to Spanish, say) and
sends the translation back to the user. Now the job of translating is
under the control of the server operator rather than the user.

SaaSS 并不意味着运行在服务器上的程序是非自由的（虽然大多数确实是非自由的）。然而，使用 SaaSS 会导致与使用非自由程序一样的不公：殊途同归。就拿 SaaSS 翻译服务为例：用户发送文本到服务器，服务器将其翻译好的发给用户（比如从英文翻译为西班牙文）。那么翻译的工作是由服务器运营商控制的，而不是用户。

If you use SaaSS, the server operator controls your computing. It
requires entrusting all the pertinent data to the server operator, which
will be forced to show it to the state as well—who does that server
really serve, after all?[(6)](#FOOT6)

如果你使用 SaaSS，服务器运营商控制着你的计算过程。它需要委托所有数据到服务器运营商那里，而这些数据也可能会被迫出让给国家——毕竟谁是服务器真正服务的人[^6]？

### Primary and Secondary Injustices {#primary-and-secondary-injustices .subheading}

### 主要和次要的不公

When you use proprietary programs or SaaSS, first of all you do wrong to
yourself, because it gives some entity unjust power over you. For your
own sake, you should escape. It also wrongs others if you make a promise
not to share. It is evil to keep such a promise, and a lesser evil to
break it; to be truly upright, you should not make the promise at all.

当你使用专有软件或者 SaaSS，首先你对自己不好，因为这给了别的实体可以用不公的权力凌驾你。所以为你着想，你必须远离非自由的程序。即使你承诺不分享程序，而这个承诺本身就是罪恶，不那么罪恶的是打破承诺；最好的做法就是完全不作出承诺。

There are cases where using nonfree software puts pressure directly on
others to do likewise. Skype is a clear example: when one person uses
the nonfree Skype client software, it requires another person to use
that software too—thus both surrender their freedom. (Google Hangouts
have the same problem.) It is wrong even to suggest using such programs.
We should refuse to use them even briefly, even on someone else’s
computer.

有一些非自由的程序会直接给用户施压。Skype 就是一个例子：当用户使用了一个非自由的 Skype 客户端软件，它会要求其他人使用同样的软件——这样两个人都将自由放弃了（Google Hangouts 也有同样的问题）。建议使用这样的软件也是同样的错误。我们必须坚决拒绝他们，即使是使用别人的电脑。

Another harm of using nonfree programs and SaaSS is that it rewards the
perpetrator, encouraging further development of that program or
“service,” leading in turn to even more people falling under the
company’s thumb.

另一个使用非自由程序和 SaaSS 的害处是会嘉奖肇事者，鼓励他们开发更多这样的程序或“服务”，导致更多人掉入公司的陷阱。

All the forms of indirect harm are magnified when the user is a public
entity or a school.

所有这些间接伤害发生在公共实体或学校的时候会更加显著。

### Free Software and the State {#free-software-and-the-state .subheading}

### 自由软件与国家

Public agencies exist for the people, not for themselves. When they do
computing, they do it for the people. They have a duty to maintain full
control over that computing so that they can assure it is done properly
for the people. (This constitutes the computational sovereignty of the
state.) They must never allow control over the state’s computing to fall
into private hands.

公共机构是为人民服务的，而不是为他们自己。他们做计算机领域也是如此，有义务完全控制计算机以确保恰当地为人民服务（也就是所谓的国家主权计算）。他们决不能让计算机的控制权落入私人之手。

To maintain control of the people’s computing, public agencies must not
do it with proprietary software (software under the control of an entity
other than the state). And they must not entrust it to a service
programmed and run by an entity other than the state, since this would
be SaaSS.

为了维持对为人民服务的计算过程的控制，公共机构必须不能使用专有软件（一个由国家之外的实体掌控的软件），同时不能委托国家机构以外的实体编写或运行服务，因为这会是 SaaSS。

Proprietary software has no security at all in one crucial case—against
its developer. And the developer may help others attack. Microsoft shows
Windows bugs to the NSA[(7)](#FOOT7) (the US government digital spying
agency) before fixing them. We do not know whether Apple does likewise,
but it is under the same government pressure as Microsoft. If the
government of any other country uses such software, it endangers
national security.[(8)](#FOOT8) Do you want the NSA to break into your
government’s computers?

专有软件在非常时期是没有安全可言的——因为无力抵抗其开发者。甚至开发者会帮助其他人攻击。微软会在修复 Windows 的 bug 之前将其展示给 NSA[^7]（美国数字间谍机构）。我们不知道苹果是不是也这样做，但他们同样受到与微软一样的政府压力。如果其他国家政府使用这样的软件，会危害国家安全[^8]。你会希望 NSA 攻入你的政府计算机吗？

### Free Software and Education {#free-software-and-education .subheading}

### 自由软件与教育

Schools (and this includes all educational activities) influence the
future of society through what they teach. They should teach exclusively
free software, so as to use their influence for the good. To teach a
proprietary program is to implant dependence, which goes against the
mission of education. By training in use of free software, schools will
direct society’s future towards freedom, and help talented programmers
master the craft.

学校（包括所有这类教育活动）通过他们的教学会影响社会的未来。为了做善事他们必须只教自由软件。教授专有程序会产生依赖性，这与教育的任务是相悖的。通过培训使用自由软件，学校会将社会的未来转向自由，并帮助天才的程序员掌握这门手艺。

They will also teach students the habit of cooperating, helping other
people. Each class should have this rule: “Students, this class is a
place where we share our knowledge. If you bring software to class, you
may not keep it for yourself. Rather, you must share copies with the
rest of the class—including the program’s source code, in case someone
else wants to learn. Therefore, bringing proprietary software to class
is not permitted except to reverse engineer it.”

他们同时也教育了学生协作的习惯，帮助其他人。没个班级都要有这样的规则：“对学生而言，这个班级是分享知识的地方，如果你将一个软件带来，不仅仅是你自己用，同时你必须将副本分享给班里其他人——包括源代码——当某个人想要学习时。因此，不允许将专有软件带到课堂，除非学习逆向工程。”

Proprietary developers would have us punish students who are good enough
at heart to share software and thwart those curious enough to want to
change it. This means a bad education.[(9)](#FOOT9)

专有软件的开发者会惩罚那些好心分享软件的学生，并阻挠学生修改的好奇心。这是很烂的教育[^9]。

### Free Software: More Than “Advantages” {#free-software-more-than-advantages .subheading}

### 自由软件：不止“优势”

I’m often asked to describe the “advantages” of free software. But the
word “advantages” is too weak when it comes to freedom. Life without
freedom is oppression, and that applies to computing as well as every
other activity in our lives. We must refuse to give the developers of
the programs or computing services control over the computing we do.
This is the right thing to do, for selfish reasons; but not solely for
selfish reasons.

经常有人让我描述自由软件的“优势”。然而“优势”这个词对自由而言太弱了。没有自由的生活是一种压迫，无论是我们平时的生活还是计算机领域。我们必须拒绝让软件或计算机服务的开发者控制我们的计算机。这才是我们要做的事情，虽然有自私的因素；但不仅仅是自私的考量。

Freedom includes the freedom to cooperate with others. Denying people
that freedom means keeping them divided, which is the start of a scheme
to oppress them. In the free software community, we are very much aware
of the importance of the freedom to cooperate because our work consists
of organized cooperation. If your friend comes to visit and sees you use
a program, she might ask for a copy. A program which stops you from
redistributing it, or says you’re “not supposed to,” is antisocial.

自由包括与其他人协作的自由。拒绝人们的这项自由意味着让人孤立，会成为对人压迫的开始。在自由软件社群，我们深刻的意识到与他人协作的重要性因为我们的工作正是有组织的协作。如果一个朋友看到你在用一个程序，她也许会要一份副本。而禁止人们再分发，或者说你“不应该”这么做的程序，是反社会的。

In computing, cooperation includes redistributing exact copies of a
program to other users. It also includes distributing your changed
versions to them. Free software encourages these forms of cooperation,
while proprietary software forbids them. It forbids redistribution of
copies, and by denying users the source code, it blocks them from making
changes. SaaSS has the same effects: if your computing is done over the
web in someone else’s server, by someone else’s copy of a program, you
can’t see it or touch the software that does your computing, so you
can’t redistribute it or change it.

在计算机领域，协作包括向用户再分发原始副本，也包括分发你修改过的版本。自由软件鼓励所有这些协作，而专有软件禁止这些。专有软件禁止再分发副本，并拒绝提供给用户源代码，封锁人们对软件的修改。SaaSS 也有同样的效果：如果你的计算过程是由互联网上其他人的服务器，其他人的程序副本做出的，你不能看到或碰触到这些计算用的软件，因此你就不能再分发或修改了。

### Conclusion {#conclusion .subheading}

### 结论

We deserve to have control of our own computing; how can we win this
control? By rejecting nonfree software on the computers we own or
regularly use, and rejecting SaaSS. By developing free
software[(10)](#FOOT10) (for those of us who are programmers). By
refusing to develop or promote nonfree software or SaaSS. By spreading
these ideas to others.[(11)](#FOOT11)

我们应该控制我们自己的计算机，如何赢回控制权？可以通过拒绝我们自己或平时所用计算机上的非自由软件，拒绝 SaaSS。对于我们这些程序员而言，可以通过开发自由软件[^10]。还可以通过拒绝开发或者推广非自由软件或 SaaSS，散布这些理念给其他人[^11]。

We and thousands of users have done this since 1984, which is how we now
have the free GNU/Linux operating system that anyone—programmer or
not—can use. Join our cause, as a programmer or an activist. Let’s make
all computer users free.

我们以及上千用户从1984年开始就这么做，这样才有了现在我们使用的自由的 GNU/Linux 操作系统，所有人——无论是否是程序员——都可以使用。加入我们的事业，以一个程序员或活动家的身份。让我们一起解放所有计算机用户吧。

### [(1)](#DOCF1)

@raggedright See <http://gnu.org/proprietary/proprietary.html> for an
evolving list of these threats. @end raggedright

[^1]: 参见<http://gnu.org/proprietary/proprietary.html>可知这些不断增加的威胁。

### [(2)](#DOCF2)

@raggedright See @pageref{Definition} for the full definition of free
software. @end raggedright

[^2]: 自由软件的完整定义可参见《自由软件的定义》一文。

### [(3)](#DOCF3)

@raggedright See footnote 1, on @pageref{Proprietary Software}. @end
raggedright

[^3]: 参见《专有软件》一文的脚注1

### [(4)](#DOCF4)

@raggedright Marcelo Rinesi, “The Telemarketer Singularity,”
6 August 2015, <http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/rinesi20150806>.
@end raggedright

[^4]: 参见 Marcelo Rinesi 于2015年8月6日发表的文章"The Telemarketer Singularity"<http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/rinesi20150806>

### [(5)](#DOCF5)

@raggedright See “The GNU Project” (@pageref{GNU Project}), for more on
the history of the GNU operating system, and
<http://gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html>, for the “GNU/Linux FAQ.” @end
raggedright

[^5]: 关于 GNU 操作系统的历史可参见《GNU 工程》一文，以及“GNU/Linux FAQ”<http://gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html>。

### [(6)](#DOCF6)

@raggedright See “Who Does That Server Really Serve?” (@pageref{Server})
for more on this issue. @end raggedright

[^6]: 参见《服务器》一文的相关章节“服务器真正为谁服务？”

### [(7)](#DOCF7)

@raggedright Sean Gallagher, “NSA Gets Early Access to Zero-Day Data
from Microsoft, Others,” 14 June 2013,
[http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/06/nsa-gets-\
early-access-to-zero-day-data-from-microsoft-others/](http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/06/nsa-gets-%3Cbr%3Eearly-access-to-zero-day-data-from-microsoft-others/).
@end raggedright

[^7]: 参见 Sean Gallagher 于2013年6月14日发表的文章“NSA Gets Early Access to Zero-Day Data from Microsoft, Others”<http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/06/nsa-gets-%3Cbr%3Eearly-access-to-zero-day-data-from-microsoft-others/>

### [(8)](#DOCF8)

@raggedright See “Measures Governments Can User to Promote Free
Software” (@pageref{Government}) for our suggested policies. @end
raggedright

[^8]: 关于我们建议的政策可参见《政府推动自由软件的措施》一文

### [(9)](#DOCF9)

@raggedright See <http://gnu.org/education> for more discussion of the
use of free software in schools. @end raggedright

[^9]: 有关自由软件在学校的讨论可参见 <http://gnu.org/education>

### [(10)](#DOCF10)

@raggedright See “How to Choose a License for Your Own Work”
(@pageref{License Recommendations}) for our licensing recommendations.
@end raggedright

[^10]: 关于许可证的建议可参见《推荐许可证》一文中的“如何为你自己的作品选择许可证”

### [(11)](#DOCF11)

@raggedright See <http://gnu.org/help> for the various ways you could
help. @end raggedright

[^11]: 各种帮助的方式可参见 <http://gnu.org/help>