path: root/docs/push-copyright-aside.md

---
Generator: 'texi2html 1.82'
description: Untitled Document
distribution: global
keywords: Untitled Document
resource-type: document
title: Untitled Document
...

1. Science Must Push Copyright Aside {#science-must-push-copyright-aside .chapter}
====================================

科学必须摆脱版权束缚
====================

> Many points that lead to a conclusion that software freedom must be
> universal often apply to other forms of expressive works, albeit in
> different ways. This essay concerns the application of principles
> related to software freedom to the area of literature. Generally, such
> issues are orthogonal to software freedom, but we include essays like
> this here since many people interested in Free Software want to know
> more about how the principles can be applied to areas other than
> software.

> 很多观点都指向这一结论：软件自由必须是普遍性的，这一结论通常同样适用于
> 其他形式的表达性的工作，尽管是以多种不同的方式。本文专注于讨论将这些软
> 件自由领域相关的原理应用于文献领域的情况。通常地，这些议题与软件自由相
> 正交，但我们仍然决定将与本文类似的几篇文章添加进来，由于诸多对自由软件
> 感兴趣的人们也想获知关于如何才能将这些原理应用于除了软件之外的其他领域
> 的细节。

@firstcopyingnotice{{ 著作权所有 (C) 2001, 2012 Richard Stallman\
 {本文最初于 2001 年六月 8 日发表于 Nature 杂志的 Web Debates 论坛。此版本是 @fsfsthreecite 的一部分。} 

It should be a
truism that the scientific literature exists to disseminate scientific
knowledge, and that scientific journals exist to facilitate the process.
It therefore follows that rules for use of the scientific literature
should be designed to help achieve that goal.

科学文献存在的理由应当是传播科学知识，并且科学期刊存在的理由应当是促进这
一进程，这应该是一种不言自明的真理。由此可以推论，使用这些科学文献的规则
应当被设计为有助于实现这一目标。

The rules we have now, known as copyright, were established in the age
of the printing press, an inherently centralized method of
mass-production copying. In a print environment, copyright on journal
articles restricted only journal publishers—requiring them to obtain
permission to publish an article—and would-be plagiarists. It helped
journals to operate and disseminate knowledge, without interfering with
the useful work of scientists or students, either as writers or readers
of articles. These rules fit that system well.

我们现在所拥有的规则，称之为版权，最初建立于印刷机的时代，这是一种从本质
上来说相对中心化的印刷量产方式。在这样一种印刷环境下，期刊文章的版权仅仅
约束期刊发行者——要求它们获得出版文章的许可——以及潜在的抄袭者。它有助于期
刊运营以及传播知识，而并未影响科学家们或者学生们的有用成果，不论对于文章
的作者还是读者。这种规则可以很好地适应这种体系。

The modern technology for scientific publishing, however, is the World
Wide Web. What rules would best ensure the maximum dissemination of
scientific articles, and knowledge, on the web? Articles should be
distributed in nonproprietary formats, with open access for all. And
everyone should have the right to “mirror” articles—that is, to
republish them verbatim with proper attribution.

但是，用于科学文献发表的现代技术是万维网。那么，什么样的规则才能确保在网
络上传播科学文献和知识的效果最大化呢？文献应当以非私有格式发布，并且对所
有人开放访问权限。而且每个人应当有权利为文献提供“镜像”，即在满足适当署名
的条件下逐字发表原文。

These rules should apply to past as well as future articles, when they
are distributed in electronic form. But there is no crucial need to
change the present copyright system as it applies to paper publication
of journals because the problem is not in that domain.

这些规则应当同样适用于过去与未来的文献，只要它们是以电子形式发布的。但是，
现在并不急迫需要改变当前的版权体系，由于它们仍然适合于纸版期刊，此处的问
题不属于那个领域。

Unfortunately, it seems that not everyone agrees with the truisms that
began this article. Many journal publishers appear to believe that the
purpose of scientific literature is to enable them to publish journals
so as to collect subscriptions from scientists and students. Such
thinking is known as “confusion of the means with the ends.”

不幸的是，看起来并非所有人都认可本文开头提出的那种不言自明的理念。很多期
刊发行者看起来所坚信的是，科学文献存在的目的是使它们能够出版期刊以便收取
科学家们和学生们的订阅费用。这种想法被称为“方法与目的的混淆”。

Their approach has been to restrict access even to read the scientific
literature to those who can and will pay for it. They use copyright law,
which is still in force despite its inappropriateness for computer
networks, as an excuse to stop scientists from choosing new rules.

它们采取的方式是仅仅允许那些能够并且愿意为之付费的人们访问，甚至只是允许
他们阅读科学文献。它们以版权法为理由禁止科学家们选择新的规则。尽管版权法
对于计算机网络时代有着诸多不妥，它们仍然具有法律效力。

For the sake of scientific cooperation and humanity’s future, we must
reject that approach at its root—not merely the obstructive systems that
have been instituted, but the mistaken priorities that inspired them.

以科研协作与人类未来之名，我们必须从根本上拒绝这种方式——不仅仅是在其上建
立起来的阻碍进步的体系，还有那些促成了这些体系形成的错误的前提。

Journal publishers sometimes claim that online access requires expensive
high-powered server machines, and that they must charge access fees to
pay for these servers. This “problem” is a consequence of its own
“solution.” Give everyone the freedom to mirror, and libraries around
the world will set up mirror sites to meet the demand. This
decentralized solution will reduce network bandwidth needs and provide
faster access, all the while protecting the scholarly record against
accidental loss.

期刊发行商有时宣称在线访问需要昂贵并且耗能的服务器，于是它们必须收取订阅
访问费用以维持其服务器开销。这个“问题”是其自身的“解决方案”所造成的。如果
赋予每个人镜像的自由，世界各地的图书馆将会建立其自己的镜像站点以满足此要
求。这种去中心化的解决方案将会减少网络带宽开销并且提供更快速的访问，还能
防止学术记录意外丢失。

Publishers also argue that paying the editors requires charging for
access. Let us accept the assumption that editors must be paid; this
tail need not wag the dog. The cost of editing for a typical paper is
between 1 percent and 3 percent of the cost of funding the research to
produce it. Such a small percentage of the cost can hardly justify
obstructing the use of the results.

出版商还会争论它们需要收取订阅访问费用以支付编辑的薪酬。我们姑且接受这一
假设，即编辑必须得到薪酬；然而这是本末倒置的。编辑一篇普通论文的成本大约
是产出它们的科研项目经费支出的 1% 到 3%。这样小的支出比例很难使得以此为
理由阻碍对其结果的使用的行为合理化。

Instead, the cost of editing could be recovered, for example, through
page charges to the authors, who can pass these on to the research
sponsors. The sponsors should not mind, given that they currently pay
for publication in a more cumbersome way, through overhead fees for the
university library’s subscription to the journal. By changing the
economic model to charge editing costs to the research sponsors, we can
eliminate the apparent need to restrict access. The occasional author
who is not affiliated with an institution or company, and who has no
research sponsor, could be exempted from page charges, with costs levied
on institution-based authors.

与之相反，编辑的成本可以通过诸如按版面向作者收费的方式得到补偿，作者则可
以从科研项目赞助者那里得到补偿。赞助者应当不会介意，即使它们当前不得不以
一种繁杂的方式支付论文发表费用，例如通过大学图书馆订阅期刊产生的间接费用。
通过改为向科研赞助者征收编辑费用，我们可以消除以此支持限制访问的表面理由。
对于作者不属于某一科研机构或公司，以及作者没有科研赞助的少数情形，可免除
其版面费用，这部分成本改为向附属于科研机构的作者征收。

Another justification for access fees to online publications is to fund
conversion of the print archives of a journal into online form. That
work needs to be done, but we should seek alternative ways of funding it
that do not involve obstructing access to the result. The work itself
will not be any more difficult, or cost any more. It is self-defeating
to digitize the archives and waste the results by restricting access.

另一种支持征收在线出版物访问费用的理由是需要资金支持以便将期刊的印刷归档
转换为在线形式。这项工作需要完成，但我们需要寻找其他的资金支持方式，使其
不会造成阻碍访问的结果。这项工作本身将不再是困难并且耗资巨大的。将印刷归
档数字化但又通过限制访问使其成果被浪费的做法是自相矛盾的。

The US Constitution says that copyright exists “to promote the Progress
of Science.” When copyright impedes the progress of science, science
must push copyright out of the way.

美国宪法宣称版权存在的理由是“促进科学进步”。而当版权阻碍了科学进步的时候，
科学必须摆脱版权的束缚。

### Later Developments {#later-developments .subheading}

### 后期的发展

Some universities—MIT for instance[(1)](#FOOT1)—have adopted policies to
thwart the journal publishers’ power. Stronger policies are needed,
however, as ones like MIT’s permit individual authors to “opt out”
(i.e., cave in).

某些大学——例如麻省理工学院（MIT）[(1)](#FOOT1)——已经采纳了某些政策以限制
出版者的权力。然而，更加强有力的政策是必需的，就像 MIT 允许个人作者“退出”
（屈服）。

The US government has imposed a requirement known as “public access” on
some funded research. This requires publication within a certain period
in a site that allows anyone to view the article. This requirement is a
positive step, but inadequate because it does not include freedom to
redistribute the article.

美国政府对某些受资金支持的科研项目提出了称为“公共访问”的要求。这要求在一
定时期内的出版物发表在某个允许任何人查看论文的网站上。这种要求是积极的一
步，但并不足够，由于它并不包含再分发该论文的自由。

Curiously, the concept of “open access” in the 2002 Budapest Open Access
Initiative did include freedom to redistribute. I signed that
declaration, despite my distaste for the word “open,” because the
substance of the position was right.

有趣的是，2002 年布达佩斯开放存取倡议（BOAI）所提出的“开放访问”确实包含了
再分发的自由。我还是签署了该声明，尽管我对“开放”一词极其厌恶，但其立场是
正确的。

However, the word “open” had the last laugh: influential campaigners for
“open access” subsequently dropped freedom to redistribute from their
goals. I stand by the position of the BOAI,[(2)](#FOOT2) but now that
“open access” means something else, I refer to it as “redistributable
publication” or “free-to-mirror publication.”

然而，关于“开放”一词还有一个笑话。具有影响力的“开放访问”运动的支持者后来
在其目标中放弃了再分发的自由。我站在 BOAI [(2)](#FOOT2)的立场上，但现在
“开放访问”已经是其他意思了。我将其称为“可再分发出版物”或“自由镜像出版物”。

<div class="footnote">

------------------------------------------------------------------------

### Footnotes

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

@raggedright “MIT Faculty Open Access Policy,” 于 2009 年三月 18 日经教学科研人员无记名投票通过。
[http://libraries.mit.edu/scholarly/mit-open-access/\
open-access-at-mit/mit-open-access-policy/](http://libraries.mit.edu/scholarly/mit-open-access/%3Cbr%3Eopen-access-at-mit/mit-open-access-policy/).
@end raggedright

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

@raggedright 参见 <http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/> 以获知 BOAI 指导思想。 @end raggedright

</div>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using
[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\

汉化：Nadebula