1. Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software {#why-open-source-misses-the-point-of-freesoftware .chapter} ==================================================== “开放源代码”为什么不符合自由软件的思想 ====== >> Copyright © 2007, 2008,2010, 2012–2015 Richard Stallman 此文最早于2007年发布于 When we call software “free,” we mean that it respects the users’ essential freedoms: the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute copies with or without changes.[(1)](#FOOT1) This is a matter of freedom, not price, so think of “free speech,” not “free beer.” 当我们说软件“自由”的时候，我们意指它尊重用户最根本的自由：即运行、学习和修改软件，或者重新发布软件副本（无论是否修改过）的自由[^1]。这是一个关于自由的问题，而非价格。因此我们应该理解为“言论自由”，而不是“免费啤酒“。 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—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. 这些自由极其重要。它们是必要的，不仅是因为它们满足用户的个体利益，更是因为它们促进社会的团结——也就是分享与协作。由于我们的文化和生活变得越来越数字化，因此这些自由就变得越来越重要了。在一个由数字化的声音、图像和文字组成的世界里，自由软件正在逐渐地趋近于通常意义上的自由。 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 GNU/Linux operating system.[(2)](#FOOT2) 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 “open source,” attributing them to a different philosophy in which these freedoms are hardly mentioned. 现在全世界有数以千万计的人使用自由软件；印度和西班牙的一些学校正在教授所有的学生使用自由的 GNU/Linux 操作系统[^2]。但是，大多数用户都没有听说过我们开发这个系统以及建立自由软件社区的伦理原因，因为现在这个系统和社区更多地被描述为“开放源代码”（简称“开源”），并将其归属为另一种不同的、几乎不提及自由的哲学。 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 GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) to release them under—a license designed specifically to protect freedom for all users of a program. 自 1983 年以来，自由软件运动为计算机用户的自由而战。1984 年，我们发起开发自由的操作系统 GNU，避免那些否定用户自由的非自由操作系统。在八十年代，我们开发出了这个系统的重要组件，还有 GNU 通用公共许可证（GNU GPL）——一个专门用于保护所有用户自由的许可证。 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 “open source.” The term was originally proposed to avoid a possible misunderstanding of the term “free software,” but it soon became associated with philosophical views quite different from those of the free software movement. 并不是所有的自由软件用户和开发人员都认同自由软件运动的目标。1998年，一部分人从自由软件社区中分裂出去，并且开始了以“开源”为旗号的运动。提出“开源”这个说法原本是为了避免“free software”可能产生的一些误解，但却很快就与自由软件运动哲学观点分道扬镳了。 Some of the supporters of open source considered the term a “marketing campaign for free software,” 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 “open source” 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. 一些“开源”的支持者认为它是“自由软件的商业市场运动”，因为突出现实利益能吸引商业执行部门，并且避免纠缠于他们不想听的是非观点。其他支持者甚至断然否定自由软件运动的伦理和社会价值观。不管他们的观点是哪一种，“开源”运动中都没有谈起或提倡这种价值观。“开源”这个说法很快便与一些现实想法和论点勾连在一起了，比如构建强大而稳定的软件。从那时起许多“开源”的支持者也因此而加入其中，并持同样观点。 The two terms describe almost the same category of software, but they stand for views based on fundamentally different values. Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement. 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 “better”—in a practical sense only. It says that nonfree software is an inferior solution to the practical problem at hand. Most discussion of “open source” pays no attention to right and wrong, only to popularity and success. [(3)](#FOOT3) 这两个说法其实说的几乎都是同一类软件，但是它们所秉持的价值观是根本不同的。开源是一种开发方法论，自由软件是一场社会运动。对自由软件运动而言，自由软件是一种道义责任，尊重用户最根本的自由。而另一方面，开源的哲学更关注如何让软件“更好”——只关心实践意义。开源认为，非自由软件只是手边问题的欠妥解答，“开源”的大多数讨论不关注对与错，只有知名度和成功[^3]。 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. 然而自由软件运动中，非自由软件是一个社会问题，解决方案就是停止使用并转向自由软件。 “Free software.” “Open source.” If it’s the same software (or nearly so[(4)](#FOOT4)), 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 “free software.” “自由软件”，“开放源代码”，如果指代的是同样（或几乎相同[^4]）的软件，你用什么名字很重要吗？是的，因为不同的文字传达了不同的理念。虽然现在一个以其他方式命名的自由程序能给你同样的自由，但是可持续的构筑自由依赖于教育人们珍惜自由。如果你愿意帮助做这个，说出“自由软件”是很重要的。 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. 自由软件运动中我们并不把开源阵营看作敌人；敌人是专有（非自由）软件。但是我们希望人们知道我们代表自由，所以我们不能接受把我们和开源支持者混为一谈。 ### Practical Differences between Free Software and Open Source {#practical-differences-between-free-software-and-open-source .subheading} ### 自由软件和开放源代码的实际差别 In practice, open source stands for criteria a little weaker than those of free software. As far as we know, all existing free software would qualify as open source. Nearly all open source software is free software, but there are exceptions. 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. 实际上，开源的标准比自由软件要弱一些。据我们所知，目前所有的自由软件都算是开源软件。几乎所有开源软件也都是自由软件，但也有例外。首先是一些开源许可证过于严苛，因此不能认定为是自由许可证。比如“Open Watcom”的许可证就不是自由的，因为它不允许将修改后的软件私人使用。幸运的是，只有很少一些程序使用这样的许可证。 Second, and more important in practice, many products containing computers check signatures on their executable programs to block users from installing different executables; only one privileged company can make executables that can run in the device or can access its full capabilities. We call these devices “tyrants,” and the practice is called “tivoization” after the product (Tivo) where we first saw it. Even if the executable is made from free source code, the users cannot run modified versions of it, so the executable is nonfree. 其次，实践中更重要的一点是，很多产品包含了计算机可以检查可执行程序签名的方法，以便封锁用户安装其他版本的可执行程序。只有这个有特权的公司可以允许所有设备运行，或允许访问其全部兼容设备。这种设备我们称之为“暴君”（Tyrants），而这种行为称之为“tivo化（tivoization）”，以我们第一次看见这样做的产品（Tivo）得名。即使可执行文件是从自由的源代码构建出来，用户却无法运行修改版，所以这可执行文件也是非自由的。 The criteria for open source do not recognize this issue; they are concerned solely with the licensing of the source code. Thus, these unmodifiable executables, when made from source code such as Linux that is open source and free, are open source but not free. Many Android products contain nonfree tivoized executables of Linux. 开源标准并没有认识到这个问题。它只关注源代码的许可证问题。因此，从比如像 Linux 这种开源且自由的源代码构建的不可修改的可执行文件是开源但不自由的。很多 Android 产品包含了这种基于 Linux 的非自由的tivo化可执行文件。 ### Common Misunderstandings of “Free Software” and “Open Source” {#common-misunderstandings-of-free-software-and-open-source .subheading} ### 对“自由软件”和“开放源代码”的常见误解 The term “free software” is prone to misinterpretation: an unintended meaning, “software you can get for zero price,” fits the term just as well as the intended meaning, “software which gives the user certain freedoms.” We address this problem by publishing the definition of free software, and by saying “Think of ‘free speech,’ not ‘free beer.’” 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. 术语“free software”容易被误解：一个下意识的理解，“你可以零价格得到的软件”，与其真正含义“给予用户真正自由的软件”同样与其名称相符。我们通过广为散播自由软件的定义和强调“理解 free 为'自由的言论'，而并非'免费啤酒'”，来解决这个问题。这不是一个完美的解决方法；它不能完全排除这个问题。也许一个没有歧义且正确的说法能更好一些，如果它没有其它问题。 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 “right” that switching to it would be a good idea. (For instance, in some contexts the French and Spanish word “libre” works well, but people in India do not recognize it at all.) Every proposed replacement for “free software” has some kind of semantic problem—and this includes “open source software.” 然而很不幸，英语里所有可选的说法都存在各种问题。我们曾考虑过许多人被所建议的备选方案，但没有一个是明显“正确”的选择。每个提交的用来替代“自由软件”的词语都存在一些语义问题——这也包括“开源软件”。 The official definition of “open source software” (which is published by the Open Source Initiative and is too long to include here[(5)](#FOOT5)) 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. “开放源代码软件”的官方定义（由开放源代码促进会公布，这里引用太长了[^5]）是间接引述自我们的“自由软件”的标准。与自由软件不同；在一些方面稍微有点宽松。尽管如此，他们的定义大多数情况还是非常接近我们的定义的。 However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software”—and the one most people seem to think it means—is “You can look at the source code.” 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. 然而，“开源软件”这个概念表面的意思是“你可以看源代码”，因此多数人似乎都把这当作它的真正意义。这个标准比自由软件更脆弱，甚至比开源的官方定义都脆弱。这样就包括了很多即不自由也不开源的软件。 Since that obvious meaning for “open source” is not the meaning that its advocates intend, the result is that most people misunderstand the term. According to writer Neal Stephenson, “Linux is ‘open source’ software meaning, simply that anyone can get copies of its source code files.”[(6)](#FOOT6) 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 state of Kansas published a similar definition: “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.”[(7)](#FOOT7) 由于“开放源代码”的表面含义并非拥护者们所设想的，结果大多数人曲解了这个说法。以下是撰稿人 Neal Stephenson 所定义的“开源”：“Linux 是‘开源’软件的意思，简单地说，就是任何人都可以得到源代码的副本。[^6]”我并不认为他有意抵触或者争论官方的定义。我想他只是用了英语习俗来提出开源的含义。堪萨斯洲曾经发表过类似的定义：“使用开源软件(OSS)。开源软件是源代码可自由、公开使用的软件，但特定的许可证规定了人们可以用代码做些什么[^7]”。 The New York Times ran an article that stretched the meaning of the term to refer to user beta testing[(8)](#FOOT8)—letting a few users try an early version and give confidential feedback—which proprietary software developers have practiced for decades. 《纽约时报》的一篇文章引申了开源的意思，认为开源就是让用户做测试[^8]——让一小部分用户测试产品的早期版本并给出反馈——而这已经是专有软件数十年来就在做的事情。 The term has even been stretched to include designs for equipment that are published without a patent.[(9)](#FOOT9) Patent-free equipment designs can be laudable contributions to society, but the term “source code” does not pertain to them. 这个说法还被引申为设计和发布没有专利的产品[^9]。无专利的设备对社会而言确实值得称赞，但是“源代码”并不属于这些。 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 “free software” has two natural meanings, one of which is the intended meaning, so a person who has grasped the idea of “free speech, not free beer” will not get it wrong again. But the term “open source” 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. 开源的支持者们试图通过指出他们的官方定义来应对这个问题，但收效甚微，甚至还不如直接用“自由软件”。“free software”这个说法天生就只有两种含义，其中一个是我们设想的含义，所以领会了“言论自由，而并非免费的啤酒”的人就不会曲解它。但是“开源”只有一个天然的含义，但是这个含义却和它的支持者们预想的不同。所以不存在一个一劳永逸的方法来解释和证明其官方定义。这就产生了更大的歧义。 Another misunderstanding of “open source” is the idea that it means “not using the GNU GPL.” This tends to accompany another misunderstanding that “free software” means “GPL-covered software.” 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 many free software licenses aside from the GNU GPL.[(10)](#FOOT10) 另外一个关于“开源”的误解认为它的意思是“不使用GNU GPL”。这还会产对一个对“自由软件”的误解，认为自由软件就是“GPL 许可证保护的软件”。这样都不对了，因为 GNU GPL 被当作是一个开源许可证，而大多数开源许可证被当作是自由软件许可证。而且还有很多不是 GNU GPL 的自由软件许可证[^10]。 The term “open source” 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 “participatory” or “transparent”, or less than that. At worst, it has become a vacuous buzzword.[(11)](#FOOT11) “开放源代码”更已经被引申和应用到了其他活动中，比如政府、教育和科学，那些没有源代码的，与软件的标准并不相关的领域。这些活动有唯一的共同点是他们只是以某种方式邀请人们参加。而目前为止这个概念只是被引申成了“参与”或“透明”而已，甚至更浅。最坏的情况，它已成为一个空洞的流行语[^11]。 ### Different Values Can Lead to Similar Conclusions…but Not Always {#different-values-can-lead-to-similar-conclusionsbut-notalways .subheading} ### 不同的价值观会得出类似的结论……但并非总是如此 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. 二十世纪六十年代，激进组织因为派别纷争而获得一些声誉：一些组织因为对策略上细节的分歧而导致分裂。尽管依然有着相似的基本目标和价值观，但是分裂出来的两个组织往往把对方当作敌人。右翼利用了这一点，来抨击整个左派。 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—such as developing free software. 有些人试图把我们和开源之间的分歧比作这些激进组织之间的分歧，以此来诋毁自由软件运动。但是他们完全错了。我们虽然和开源阵营在根本目标和价值观上无法达成共识，但是他们和我们的观点在许多情况下是一样的，都引领了实际行动——比如开发自由软件。 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. 结果是，来自自由软件运动和开源阵营的人们经常在一些诸如软件开发的实际项目中协同工作。不同的哲学观点能够如此频繁地激励不同人参与到相同的项目中，这是非同寻常的。不过因为这些观点相差很大，所以也存在导致行为相差很大的情况。 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. 开源的思想是允许用户修改和重新发布软件以使它更强大、更可靠。但是这些并不能得到保证。专有软件的开发者们并不一定就不称职。有时他们开发的程序是强大而且可靠的，尽管它并没有尊重用户的自由。自由软件积极分子和开源爱好者对此的反应是非常不同的。 A pure open source enthusiast, one that is not at all influenced by the ideals of free software, will say, “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?” This attitude will reward schemes that take away our freedom, leading to its loss. 一个从未受到自由软件思想影响的纯开源爱好者，会说：“我非常惊讶你们不使用我们的开发模式，居然能让程序工作得这么好，但是你们确实做到了。我怎样才能得到一份副本呢？”。这种态度会鼓励那些夺走我们自由，或有损自由的项目。 The free software activist will say, “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.” If we value our freedom, we can act to maintain and defend it. 自由软件积极拥护者会说：“你的程序很吸引人，但我更珍视我的自由。所以我抵制你的程序。我会以其他方式努力，支持一个开发自由替代品的项目。”如果我们珍视我们的自由，我们能行动起来保卫它。 ### Powerful, Reliable Software Can Be Bad {#powerful-reliable-software-can-be-bad .subheading} ### 强大而可靠的软件可能是件坏事 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. 我们想让软件变得强大、可靠的想法，来自软件被设计用于服务它的用户的假设。如果软件强大、可靠，这意味着它将更好地服务于用户。 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. 然而只有在软件尊重了用户的自由时，才能说它服务于用户。如果软件被设计的目的是使用户枷锁缠身会怎样呢？那样的话，强大仅仅意味着枷锁套得更紧，而可靠则使枷锁更难去除。恶意的功能，比如针对用户的间谍行为、限制用户、后门和在专有软件里很常见的强制性升级，甚至有些开源的支持者也想实现这些。 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 our campaign against it, at [DefectiveByDesign.org](DefectiveByDesign.org)) 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. 在电影和唱片公司的压力下，个人使用的软件逐渐被有意地设计成能够限制用户的软件。这种恶意的特征被称为 DRM 或者数字限制管理（Digital Restrictions Management，参见[DefectiveByDesign.org](DefectiveByDesign.org)），而这正是与自由软件所要提倡的自由精神相对立的。并且不仅仅在精神上：因为 DRM 的目标是践踏你们的自由，DRM 的开发者们试图使你修改实现了 DRM 的软件变得困难、或者不可能，甚至非法。 Yet some open source supporters have proposed “open source DRM” 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. 然而，一些开源支持者提出了所谓“开源 DRM”软件。他们的想法是，通过公开并允许人们修改那些被设计成用来限制你访问加密媒体的程序的源代码，生产更加强大、可靠的软件来限制像你这样的用户。然后，再将这些程序放到那些不允许你修改的设备中发布。 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. 这种软件或许是开放源代码的，而且使用了开源的开发模式，但它并不是自由软件，因为并没有尊重实际运行它的用户的自由。如果开源开发模式通过开发更强大和更可靠的软件来限制用户而获得了成功，这将使它变得更糟糕。 ### Fear of Freedom {#fear-of-freedom .subheading} ### 对自由的敬畏 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. 起初，开源阵营从自由软件运动中分裂出来，是因为“自由软件”的伦理观念使一些人不安。这的确是事实：谈论关于自由、道义问题、可靠性和方便性，提醒人们去考虑那些可能被他们忽略的问题，比如他们的行为是否是道德的。这会引起不舒服，而且一些人甚至会回避它。但这并不意味着我们应该停止讨论这些事情。 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 “sell” the software more effectively to certain users, especially business. 然而，这正是开源的引领者决定要做的。他们希望停止对伦理规范的和自由问题的讨论，而仅仅关注某个自由软件直接的实际利润，这样，他们或许就能更有效地将软件“卖”给某些用户，特别是商业用户。 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—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. 用他们自己的话说，这种方法已经被证实是有效的。开源的修辞方式已经吸引了许多商业和个人用户来使用，甚至开发这些壮大我们社区的自由软件——但仅仅是在表面的、实用上的。开源哲学，和它纯粹的实用主义价值观，阻碍了人们对自由软件更深层观点的理解；它将许多人带进了我们的社区，但却没有教他们去捍卫社区。就目前的现状来看还是不错的，但是它不足以捍卫自由。要吸引自由软件用户，需要让他们成为个体自由的捍卫者。 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 “keep quiet” 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. 迟早这些用户会因为一些实际利益而转向专有软件。无数的公司试图提供这种诱惑，有些甚至提供免费副本。为什么用户会减少？只有他们领悟了自由软件所赋予用户的自由，去珍惜自由的价值，而不只关心特定自由软件在技术上和实用性上的方便性价值，他们就会明白了。为了传播这种思想，我们必须谈论自由。对商业采取一定的沉默方式对于社区来说是有益的，但是，如果大家普遍地把对自由的向往看作是一种怪癖，那将是很危险的。 That dangerous situation is exactly what we have. Most people involved with free software, especially its distributors, say little about freedom—usually because they seek to be “more acceptable to business.” 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. 这种危险确实已经发生。大多数投入自由软件的人，特别是发行者，很少谈论“自由”——通常是因为他们追求“更容易被商业接受”。几乎所有的 GNU/Linux 操作系统发行版都在基本的自由系统上加入了专有软件包，而且他们让用户认为这是优点，而不是与“自由”思想背道而驰的。 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 “open source” 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. 加入专有版权的软件和部分非自由的 GNU/linux 发行版之所以找到了孕育的温床，是因为我们的许多社区没有在他们的软件上贯彻自由。这并非巧合。大多数 GNU/Linux 的用户是通过讨论“开源”而引入到这个系统的，这些讨却并没有将“自由”作为目标。那些不支持自由的行为和不谈讨自由的言论并肩而行，相互促进。为了避免这种趋势，我们需要更多地，而不是更少地，来谈论“自由”。 ### “FLOSS” and “FOSS” {#floss-and-foss .subheading} ### “FLOSS” 和 “FOSS” The terms “FLOSS” and “FOSS”[(12)](#FOOT12) are used to be neutral between free software and open source. If neutrality is your goal, “FLOSS” 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. 为了在自由软件和开源之间保持中立，常用“FLOSS” 和 “FOSS”[^12]这种说法。如果你的目标是中立性，那么“FLOSS”更好，因为这真的很中立。如果你更想表达自由，那么用中立的说法并不好。站在自由的一边，让人们看到你对自由的支持。 ### Rivals for Mindshare {#rivals-for-mindshare .subheading} ### 对立的传播 “Free” and “open” 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 “open source,” 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 “open,” we may need to shock them intellectually before they recognize that we stand for something *else.* Any activity that promotes the word “open” tends to extend the curtain that hides the ideas of the free software movement. “自由”和“开放”是一对传播上对立概念。“自由软件”和“开源”虽然是不同的思想，大多数人认为这两个在概念上是相同的。当人们变得习惯于说和思考“开源”，这对他们获取自由软件运动的理念和思考是一个障碍。如果他们已经将“开放”和我们联系起来，在他们认识到我们代表*其他事情*之前，也许需要冲击他们的理性。任何推广“开放”的活动实际上都会更深的让自由软件运动隐藏在幕后。 Thus, free software activists are well advised to decline to work on an activity that calls itself “open.” Even if the activity is good in and of itself, each contribution you make does a little harm on the side. There are plenty of other good activities which call themselves “free” or “libre.” 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? 因此，自由软件的活跃者经过深思熟虑以后决定拒绝参加那些标榜自己是“开放”的活动。即使活动本身并不错，每次为“开放”多做的贡献，都会对另一方作出伤害。也有很多很好的活动是“自由”或“解放”的。而参与这些活动，会对这些项目有小小的额外好出。既然有这么多有益的项目可选，为什么不选能更有好处的呢？ ### Conclusion {#conclusion .subheading} ### 结论 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, “It’s free software and it gives you freedom!”—more and louder than ever. Every time you say “free software” rather than “open source,” you help our cause. 开源的拥护者把新用户引入我们的社区，我们这些自由软件支持者必须做更多地工作来让这些新用户关注自由的问题。我们必须大声且更大声的高呼：“是自由软件给予了你们自由！” 每当你说“自由软件”，而不是说“开源”的时候，你就是在为我们助阵。 #### Note {#note .subsubheading} #### 备注 Karim R. Lakhani and Robert G. Wolf’s paper on the motivation of free software developers (“Why Hackers Do What They Do: Understanding Motivation and Effort in Free/Open Source Software Projects,” in Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software, edited by J. Feller and others (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2005), [http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/\ lakhaniwolf.pdf](http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/%3Cbr%3Elakhaniwolf.pdf)) 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. Karim R. Lakhani 和 Robert G. Wolf的论文[“Why Hackers Do What They Do: Understanding Motivation and Effort in Free/Open Source Software Projects,” （剑桥: MIT 出版社, 2005）](http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/%3Cbr%3Elakhaniwolf.pdf)在探讨自由软件开发者动机时，指出相当一部分人被“软件必须是自由的”的观点所鼓舞。这里忽略了他们调查的调查对象是 SourceFourge 的开发人员这一事实，而该站点并不支持这是个伦理问题的观点。 ### [(1)](#DOCF1) @raggedright See @pageref{Definition} for the full definition of free software. @end raggedright [^1]: 有关自由软件的完整定义，参见《自由软件定义》一文。 ### [(2)](#DOCF2) @raggedright See “Linux and the GNU System” (@pageref{Linux and GNU}) for more on the operating system. @end raggedright [^2]: 关于操作系统可参见《Linux 和 GNU 系统》一文 ### [(3)](#DOCF3) @raggedright For a typical example, see, for instance, Jay Lyman’s article\ “Open Source Is Woven Into the Latest, Hottest Trends”\ (12 September 2013, [http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/\ Open-Source-Is-Woven-Into-the-Latest-Hottest-Trends-78937.html](http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/%3Cbr%3EOpen-Source-Is-Woven-Into-the-Latest-Hottest-Trends-78937.html)). @end raggedright [^3]: 一个典型的领子，比如 Jay Lyman 的文章[“Open Source Is Woven Into the Latest, Hottest Trends” (12 September 2013)](http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/%3Cbr%3EOpen-Source-Is-Woven-Into-the-Latest-Hottest-Trends-78937.html) ### [(4)](#DOCF4) @raggedright See “How Free Software and Open Source Relate as Categories of Programs,” at . @end raggedright [^4]: 参见[“How Free Software and Open Source Relate as Categories of Programs”](http://gnu.org/philosophy/free-open-overlap.html)一文 ### [(5)](#DOCF5) @raggedright See for the full definition. @end raggedright [^5]: 全部定义可参见 ### [(6)](#DOCF6) @raggedright Neal Stephenson, In the Beginning...Was the Command Line (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1999), p. 94. @end raggedright [^6]: Neal Stephenson, In the Beginning...Was the Command Line（纽约，HarperCollins出版，1999年），p 49。 ### [(7)](#DOCF7) @raggedright Kansas Statewide Technology Architecture, “Information Architecture,” version 8.0, 20.3.8, accessed 11 October 2001, [https://web.archive.org/web/\ 20001011193422/http://da.state.ks.us/ITEC/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf](https://web.archive.org/web/%3Cbr%3E20001011193422/http://da.state.ks.us/ITEC/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf). @end raggedright [^7]: 堪萨斯州全州技术架构，“信息架构”，version 8.0, 20.3.8, 2011年10月11日。 ### [(8)](#DOCF8) @raggedright Mary Jane Irwin, “The Brave New World of Open-Source Game Design,” New York Times, online ed., 7 February 2009, [http://www.nytimes.com/external/\ gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-\ design-37415.html](http://www.nytimes.com/external/%3Cbr%3Egigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-%3Cbr%3Edesign-37415.html). @end raggedright [^8]: Mary Jane Irwin，“The Brave New World of Open-Source Game Design”（开源游戏设计的勇敢新世界），纽约时报，在线版，2009年2月7日。 ### [(9)](#DOCF9) @raggedright Karl Mathiesen and Tess Riley, “Texas Teenager Creates \$20 Water Purifier to Tackle Toxic E-Waste Pollution,” 27 August 2015, [http://theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/aug/27/texas-teenager-water-purifier-\ toxic-e-waste-pollution](http://theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/aug/27/texas-teenager-water-purifier-%3Cbr%3Etoxic-e-waste-pollution). @end raggedright [^9]: Karl Mathiesen 和 Tess Riley，“Texas Teenager Creates $20 Water Purifier to Tackle Toxic E-Waste Pollution”（德州青少年创建 $20 水净化器，以解决有毒电子废物污染环境），2015年8月27日。 ### [(10)](#DOCF10) @raggedright See “Various Licenses and Comments about Them,” at\ . @end raggedright [^10]: 参见“Various Licenses and Comments about Them” ” ### [(11)](#DOCF11) @raggedright Evgeny Morozov, “Open and Closed,” 16 March 2013, . @end raggedright [^11]: Evgeny Morozov，“Open and Closed”（开放和封闭），2013年3月16日， ### [(12)](#DOCF12) @raggedright See both @pageref{FLOSS} and the article “FLOSS and FOSS,” at , for more on this issue. @end raggedright [^12]: 可参见本文或文章”FLOSS 和 FOSS“