发信人: syc@cc.ntu (Shiau Yong-Ching), 信区: Unix
标 题: 介绍一个单字:GNU,非洲的大羚羊(draft)
没事，经历了我一曝十寒的惨淡经营，总算大致完成了：
有一些地方实在不会翻，请大加多多帮忙，标^^^^^与?????
的地方可能语意与原文不合。
-------------------------------------------------------------
The GNU Manifesto
GNU 宣言 ?!
Copyright (C) 1985 Richard M. Stallman
(Copying permission notice at the end.)
本文版权由Richard M. Stallman 所有
（版权声明在文末）
What's GNU? Gnu's Not Unix!
什麽是GNU ? GNU 就是不是UNIX ！[Gnu's Not Unix]
GNU, which stands for Gnu's Not Unix, is the name for the complete
Unix-compatible software system which I am writing so that I can give it
away free to everyone who can use it. Several other volunteers are helping
me. Contributions of time, money, programs and equipment are greatly
needed.
GNU,Gnu's Not Unix的缩写，是我正在写的一个UNIX相容的软体系统，
目的在於我能够自由的把此系统给想要用它的人。有好几个自愿者在帮
我的忙。我们非常的需要（希望）您能够贡献时间、金钱、程式或者是
机器。
So far we have an Emacs text editor with Lisp for writing editor commands,
a source level debugger, a yacc-compatible parser generator, a linker, and
around 35 utilities. A shell (command interpreter) is nearly completed. A
new portable optimizing C compiler has compiled itself and may be released
^^^^^^?
this year. An initial kernel exists but many more features are needed to
emulate Unix. When the kernel and compiler are finished, it will be
possible to distribute a GNU system suitable for program development. We
^^^^^
will use @TeX{} as our text formatter, but an nroff is being worked on. We
will use the free, portable X window system as well. After this we will
add a portable Common Lisp, an Empire game, a spreadsheet, and hundreds of
other things, plus on-line documentation. We hope to supply, eventually,
everything useful that normally comes with a Unix system, and more.
到目前为止我们已经有了一个利用Lisp当巨集命令的编辑器，一个原始
码层次的除错器，一个yacc相容的语法分析程式产生器，一个联结器，
和大概35个公用程式。有一个Shell （命令解译器）已经几乎完成了。
一个新的、具可携性的、有最佳化功能的Ｃ编译器已经可以自我编译而
可以在今年发表了。有一个初期的核心但是需要更多的特性以模拟UNIX
。当核心和编译器都结束後，我们就能够传播一个稳定的，适合程式设
计的GNU 系统。我们会使用@TeX{}当我们的文字排版器，但是也正在撰
写一个nroff 。我们也会用免费的、具可携性的Ｘ视窗系统。之後我们
会加一个有可携性的Common Lisp 、一个Empire游戏、一个试算表、和
其他各式各样的东西，以及线上的文件。我们希望最後能提供普通UNIX
系统所能提供的每一件有用的东西，甚至要更多。
GNU will be able to run Unix programs, but will not be identical to Unix.
We will make all improvements that are convenient, based on our experience
with other operating systems. In particular, we plan to have longer
filenames, file version numbers, a crashproof file system, filename
completion perhaps, terminal-independent display support, and perhaps
eventually a Lisp-based window system through which several Lisp programs
and ordinary Unix programs can share a screen. Both C and Lisp will be
available as system programming languages. We will try to support UUCP,
MIT Chaosnet, and Internet protocols for communication.
GNU 一定能够执行Unix的程式，但是不会和Unix完全一样。我们会根据
我们在其它作业系统的经验来改进所有可以增加便利性的地方。特别是
我们计划拥有较长的档名、档案版本号码、一个不怕当机的档案系统，
或许还要有自动档名补全、与终端机无关的显示支援、可能最後还要有
一个以Lisp为基础的视窗系统，可以使的好几个Lisp程式和普通的Unix
程式共同分想一个萤幕。Ｃ和Lisp都将会成为系统的程式语言。我们会
设法支援UUCP，MIT Chaosnet，及Internet的通讯协定。
GNU is aimed initially at machines in the 68000/16000 class with virtual
memory, because they are the easiest machines to make it run on. The extra
effort to make it run on smaller machines will be left to someone who wants
to use it on them.
GNU 最初的目标是有虚拟计忆体，68000/16000 系列的机器，因为这样
是最容易发展程式来实现GNU 的机器。剩下来让GNU 能在其它较小的机
器执行的工作将会留给那些希望能在这些机器上使用GNU 的人。
To avoid horrible confusion, please pronounce the `G' in the word `GNU'
when it is the name of this project.
为了避免令人不悦的混淆，请各位提到此计划的名字gnu 时务必要把Ｇ
的音发出来。
Who Am I?
我是谁？
I am Richard Stallman, inventor of the original much-imitated EMACS editor,
formerly at the Artificial Intelligence Lab at MIT. I have worked
extensively on compilers, editors, debuggers, command interpreters, the
Incompatible Timesharing System and the Lisp Machine operating system. I
^^^^^%@#@#!@#
pioneered terminal-independent display support in ITS. Since then I have
implemented one crashproof file system and two window systems for Lisp
machines, and designed a third window system now being implemented; this
one will be ported to many systems including use in GNU. [Historical note:
The window system project was not completed; GNU now plans to use the
X window system.]
我是Richard Stallman，是被很多程式模仿的Emacs 编辑器的原创者，
先前在麻省理工学院人工智慧实验室任教。我当时在编译器、编辑器、
除错器、命令解译器、Incompatible Timesharing System 以及Lisp机
器皆有广泛的研究。从那时起我就发展了一个不怕当机的档案系统及两
个Lisp机器的视窗系统而且设计了第三个现在正在发展中的视窗系统；
这一个将会移植到包括GNU 在内的很多系统上。〔按：这个视窗系统的
计画并没有完成；GNU 现在计画使用Ｘ视窗系统当作他的使用者介面〕
Why I Must Write GNU
我为什麽一定要写GNU
I consider that the golden rule requires that if I like a program I must
share it with other people who like it. Software sellers want to divide
the users and conquer them, making each user agree not to share with
others. I refuse to break solidarity with other users in this way. I
cannot in good conscience sign a nondisclosure agreement or a software
license agreement. For years I worked within the Artificial Intelligence
Lab to resist such tendencies and other inhospitalities, but eventually
they had gone too far: I could not remain in an institution where such
things are done for me against my will.
我认为『如果我喜欢一个程式的话，那我就应该分享给其他喜欢这个程
式的人』这句话是一个金科玉律。软体商欲个别击破使用者，使他们同
意不把软体和他人分享。我拒绝以这种方式破坏使用者的团结。我的良
心使我不会签下一个不开放的合约或是软体授权合约。我在MIT AI实验
室对抗这种趋势和其他的冷淡好几年，但是最後事情糟糕到：我没办法
待在一个处理事情的方法与我的意愿相违的机构。
So that I can continue to use computers without dishonor, I have decided to
put together a sufficient body of free software so that I will be able to
get along without any software that is not free. I have resigned from the
AI lab to deny MIT any legal excuse to prevent me from giving GNU away.
为了我能继续使用电脑而不蒙羞，我决定要集合一足够量的自由软体以
使我能够不使用那些没有自由的软体。我离开AI实验室为的就是不给MIT
有任何法律上的藉口来阻止我把GNU 送给其他人。
Why GNU Will Be Compatible with Unix
为什麽GNU 将会和UNIX相容
Unix is not my ideal system, but it is not too bad. The essential features
of Unix seem to be good ones, and I think I can fill in what Unix lacks
without spoiling them. And a system compatible with Unix would be
convenient for many other people to adopt.
UNIX并不是我理想的系统，但是它也不会太差。UNIX基本的特性似乎是
蛮优良的，而且我想我能够在不牺牲原有特性之下加进Unix缺少的地方
。况且一个和UNIX相容的系统可以让较多的人容易接受。
How GNU Will Be Available
GNU 将要如何让他人取得
GNU is not in the public domain. Everyone will be permitted to modify and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
redistribute GNU, but no distributor will be allowed to restrict its
further redistribution. That is to say, proprietary modifications will not
be allowed. I want to make sure that all versions of GNU remain free.
GNU 不是公开的，没有约束的软体。我们将会允许每一个人修改及传播
GNU 但是绝不允许传播者对他传播的程式再加进其他的限制。就是说，
不允许将修改後的程式占为己有。我希望能确定GNU 所有的版本皆能保
持自由。
Why Many Other Programmers Want to Help
为什麽有很多程式设计者愿意帮忙
I have found many other programmers who are excited about GNU and want to
help.
我发现有很多程式设计者对GNU 感兴趣而且愿意帮忙 。
Many programmers are unhappy about the commercialization of system
software. It may enable them to make more money, but it requires them to
feel in conflict with other programmers in general rather than feel as
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
comrades. The fundamental act of friendship among programmers is the
sharing of programs; marketing arrangements now typically used essentially
^^^^^
forbid programmers to treat others as friends. The purchaser of software
must choose between friendship and obeying the law. Naturally, many decide
that friendship is more important. But those who believe in law often do
not feel at ease with either choice. They become cynical and think that
programming is just a way of making money.
很多程式设计者对系统软体商业化感到不悦。这可能使他们赚更多的钱
，但是一般而言这使得他们有与其他的程式设计者冲突的感觉而非大家
都是同志的感觉。程式设计者对友谊的最基本表现就是把程式分享出来
；而当前的市场至架构基本上禁止程式设计者彼此之间视为朋友。软体
购买者必须在友谊和守法之间做一选择。自然地，有很多选择了友谊比
较重要。但是那些相信法律的人常常没办法安心的做下任一选择。他们
变得愤世忌俗且认为写程式只不过是赚钱的一种方法而已。
By working on and using GNU rather than proprietary programs, we can be
hospitable to everyone and obey the law. In addition, GNU serves as an
example to inspire and a banner to rally others to join us in sharing.
This can give us a feeling of harmony which is impossible if we use
software that is not free. For about half the programmers I talk to, this
is an important happiness that money cannot replace.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
透过撰写及使用GNU 而非私有的程式，我们可以热情的对待每一个人并
且遵守法律。此外，GNU 更是一个激发与集结大家和我们一起分享的典
□及号志。这样子能够给我们一种和谐的感觉，这感觉是我们为那些不
自由的软体工作所不能得到的。大概有一半和我谈过得程式设计师认为
这是一个金钱所不能替换的、很重要的快乐。
How You Can Contribute
你能够如何贡献
I am asking computer manufacturers for donations of machines and money.
I'm asking individuals for donations of programs and work.
我请电脑制造商捐献机器及金钱。我呼吁个人贡献程式与精力。
One consequence you can expect if you donate machines is that GNU will run
on them at an early date. The machines should be complete, ready to use
systems, approved for use in a residential area, and not in need of
sophisticated cooling or power.
如果你贡献机器的话，你可以期待的一个结果就是GNU 可以早点在你提
供的机器上面执行。机器必须是完整的、马上可用的系统，可以在住宅
区内使用，而且不须要复杂的冷却及电力系统。
I have found very many programmers eager to contribute part-time work for
GNU. For most projects, such part-time distributed work would be very hard
to coordinate; the independently-written parts would not work together.
But for the particular task of replacing Unix, this problem is absent. A
complete Unix system contains hundreds of utility programs, each of which
is documented separately. Most interface specifications are fixed by Unix
compatibility. If each contributor can write a compatible replacement for
a single Unix utility, and make it work properly in place of the original
on a Unix system, then these utilities will work right when put together.
Even allowing for Murphy to create a few unexpected problems, assembling
these components will be a feasible task. (The kernel will require closer
communication and will be worked on by a small, tight group.)
我发现有很多的程式师渴望为GNU 贡献部份□暇的精力。对大部分的计
画而言，如此部份的、分散的工作非常难以协调；大家独立写的各部份
可能没办法合在一起工作。但是就取代Unix的特定任务来说就没有这个
问题。一个完整的Unix系统包括了上百个工具程式，每一个程式都分别
有所描述。大部分的界面规格都因Unix相容性的缘故而是固定的。如每
一个贡献者能够写一个某个Unix工具的相容替代品，让它在Unix下能正
确的取代原来程式的工作，那麽这些工具集合在一起时便能正常工作。
即使让允许Murphy再制造一些出乎意料的问题，把这些部份组合起来仍
然是件可行的工作。（系统核心的工作就需要较密切的沟通，且只有一
群紧密的小组能够参加）
If I get donations of money, I may be able to hire a few people full or
part time. The salary won't be high by programmers' standards, but I'm
looking for people for whom building community spirit is as important as
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
making money. I view this as a way of enabling dedicated people to devote
their full energies to working on GNU by sparing them the need to make a
living in another way.
如果有人贡献金钱，那麽我就能够请几个全职或临时的人。以程式师的
标准来说，这薪水不是很高，但是我要找的是那些认为建立团队精神和
赚钱一样重要的人。我认为提供奉献的人另一种维持生计的方式是使他
们能够全心全力投入GNU 工作的一种方法。
Why All Computer Users Will Benefit
为什麽所有的电脑使用者都会受益
Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain good system software
free, just like air.
只要GNU 一写好，每个人都能够自由的取得优良的系统软体，就像空气一
样。
This means much more than just saving everyone the price of a Unix license.
It means that much wasteful duplication of system programming effort will
be avoided. This effort can go instead into advancing the state of the
art.
这不只是仅仅省下大家一笔Unix的版权费而已。这更意味著大家可以避
免白白浪费掉重复设计系统的工作。这省下来的力气可以转而增进此系
统的技术层次与品质。[ the state of the art. ]
Complete system sources will be available to everyone. As a result, a user
who needs changes in the system will always be free to make them himself,
or hire any available programmer or company to make them for him. Users
will no longer be at the mercy of one programmer or company which owns the
sources and is in sole position to make changes.
每一个人都能取得完整的程式码。因此，需要更改系统的使用者总是能
自由的自行修改之，或雇用任何能够胜任的程式师或公司来替他做这件
事。使用者不在需要看某一个拥有原始码的程式师或公司的脸色—如果
只有他们想作些更改的话。
Schools will be able to provide a much more educational environment by
encouraging all students to study and improve the system code. Harvard's
computer lab used to have the policy that no program could be installed on
the system if its sources were not on public display, and upheld it by
actually refusing to install certain programs. I was very much inspired by
this.
学校将能够透过鼓励所有的学生学习及改进程式码的方式提供更富教育性
的环境。哈佛的电脑实验室曾经有这样一个政策：不允许一个不能公开展
示原始码的程式安装到系统里面，而且拒绝安装某些程式以展示贯彻的决
心。我从这件事得到不少启发。
Finally, the overhead of considering who owns the system software and what
one is or is not entitled to do with it will be lifted.
最後，谁该拥有这个系统软体的顾虑及谁被允许或不允许运用这软体做什
麽事的限制都会解除。
Arrangements to make people pay for using a program, including licensing of
copies, always incur a tremendous cost to society through the cumbersome
mechanisms necessary to figure out how much (that is, which programs) a
person must pay for. And only a police state can force everyone to obey
them. Consider a space station where air must be manufactured at great
cost: charging each breather per liter of air may be fair, but wearing the
metered gas mask all day and all night is intolerable even if everyone can
afford to pay the air bill. And the TV cameras everywhere to see if you
ever take the mask off are outrageous. It's better to support the air
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
plant with a head tax and chuck the masks.
为了使使用程式者付费，包括授权数量，必须透过累赘的机制来测量使用
者需要为哪个程式付出多少钱，总是使社会付出大量的成本。而且只有警
方能使每个人都遵守之。考虑一个必须用很高的成本制造空气的太空站：
对每呼吸一升空气收费可能蛮公平的，但是成天带著空气记录器的口罩是
无法忍受的，即使每个人都有能力付空气费。而且到处都是监视器检查你
是否拿掉呼吸罩是一种侮辱。It's better to ?????...............
Copying allor parts of a program is as natural to a programmer as
breathing, and as productive. It ought to be as free.
^^^^^^^ ? as productive as breathing?
拷贝大部份或部份的程式对一个程式师而言是和呼吸一样自然且??的事。
这应该是自由的。
Some Easily Rebutted Objections to GNU's Goals
一些GNU 的理想容易被反驳的地方 (?)
"Nobody will use it if it is free, because that means
they can't rely on any support."
"You have to charge for the program
to pay for providing the support."
『如果它是免费的话就没有人会用它，因为这表示
他们没有任何协助可以依赖。』
『你必须对程式收费，用来支持提供支援所需之费用。』
If people would rather pay for GNU plus service than get GNU free without
service, a company to provide just service to people who have obtained GNU
free ought to be profitable.
如果有人宁愿花钱买有售後服务的GNU 而非免费得到没有服务的GNU ，
一家专门为那些免费拿到GNU 的人提供服务的公司应该会很赚钱。
We must distinguish between support in the form of real programming work
and mere handholding. The former is something one cannot rely on from a
^^^^^^^^^
software vendor. If your problem is not shared by enough people, the
vendor will tell you to get lost.
我们必须辨别程式支援和维修支援方式上的不同。前者是软体公司所不
能依靠的。如果没有足够多的人和你有相同的问题，软体公司可能会让
你陷入无助之地。
If your business needs to be able to rely on support, the only way is to
have all the necessary sources and tools. Then you can hire any available
person to fix your problem; you are not at the mercy of any individual.
With Unix, the price of sources puts this out of consideration for most
businesses. With GNU this will be easy. It is still possible for there to
be no available competent person, but this problem cannot be blamed on
distribution arrangements. GNU does not eliminate all the world's problems,
only some of them.
如果你的事业需要支援倚靠，唯一的方法就是准备好一切所需的原始码
和工具。然後你可以聘请任何一位可以胜任的人来解决你的问题。你不
须任由某人摆布。就UNIX而言，原始码的价钱让大部分的企业无法考虑
这种作法。用GNU 的话这就很容易了。但是还是有可能找不到可以胜任
的人的情况，但是这个问题不能怪罪传播的方法。GNU 并没有解决世界
上所有的问题，只是其中的一部份而已。
Meanwhile, the users who know nothing about computers need handholding:
^^^^^^^^^^
doing things for them which they could easily do themselves but don't know
how.
同时，对电脑一无所知得使用者须要帮助：为他们做一些他们自己能轻
易做到，但不晓得如何做的事。
Such services could be provided by companies that sell just hand-holding
and repair service. If it is true that users would rather spend money and
get a product with service, they will also be willing to buy the service
having got the product free. The service companies will compete in quality
and price; users will not be tied to any particular one. Meanwhile, those
of us who don't need the service should be able to use the program without
paying for the service.
这样子的服务可以由专门维修的公司提供。如果使用者真的宁愿花钱买
一个有售後服务的软体，他们也将愿意为免费得到的软体买些服务。这
些服务公司会在品质和价钱上竞争；使用者将不会受限於特定的一加公
司。同时，我们这些不须要服务的人也能够自由的使用程式而不须要花
钱在服务上。
"You cannot reach many people without advertising,
and you must charge for the program to support that."
"It's no use advertising a program people can get free."
"没有广告的话你就没办法让很多人知道你的东西，
而你必须对程式收钱以支持广告经费。"
"广告一个别人可以免费得到的程式是没有用的。"
There are various forms of free or very cheap publicity that can be used to
inform numbers of computer users about something like GNU. But it may be
true that one can reach more microcomputer users with advertising. If this
is really so, a business which advertises the service of copying and
mailing GNU for a fee ought to be successful enough to pay for its
advertising and more. This way, only the users who benefit from the
^^^^^^^^^
advertising pay for it.
有多种形式免费的或很便宜的传播媒介可以用来让不少的电脑使用者知
道像GNU 之类的事。可是刊登广告可以触及更多微电脑的使用者可能是
真的。如果是这样的话，一个刊登广告提供拷贝及邮购GNU 的事业应该
可以赚得远超过它所投资的广告费。在这种机制下，只有从广告中获益
得使用者才须要为之付费。
On the other hand, if many people get GNU from their friends, and such
companies don't succeed, this will show that advertising was not really
necessary to spread GNU. Why is it that free market advocates don't want
to let the free market decide this?
另一方面，如果很多人透过朋友拿到GNU ，而上述的事业没有成功，这
就显示了GNU 并不须要借助广告来传播。为什麽自由市场得拥护者不想
要让自由市场决定这件事？
"My company needs a proprietary operating system
to get a competitive edge."
"我的公司需要一个专属的作业系统才能够较有竞争力"
GNU will remove operating system software from the realm of competition.
You will not be able to get an edge in this area, but neither will your
competitors be able to get an edge over you. You and they will compete in
other areas, while benefitting mutually in this one. If your business is
selling an operating system, you will not like GNU, but that's tough on
you. If your business is something else, GNU can save you from being
pushed into the expensive business of selling operating systems.
GNU 将会把系统软体移出竞争的领域。你将无法在这方面占有优势，但同
样的你的对手也无法在这方面胜过你。你和他们会在其他方面竞争，而在
这方面互相获益。如果你的事业就是卖作业系统，你大概不会喜欢GNU ，
不过这会很为难你。如果你的事业是其他方面的话，GNU 可以让你省下研
发作业系统所需要的昂贵经费。
I would like to see GNU development supported by gifts from many
manufacturers and users, reducing the cost to each.
我希望能见到GNU 的发展受到许多制造商及使用者的支持，以减低双方的
发费。
"Don't programmers deserve a reward for their creativity?"
"难道程式师不应该从他的创造力获得回报吗？"
If anything deserves a reward, it is social contribution. Creativity can
be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the
results. If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative
programs, by the same token they deserve to be punished if they restrict
the use of these programs.
如果有甚麽事值得回报的话，那非贡献社会莫数了。创造力可以是一种
对社会的贡献，但是必须以社会能够自由使用其结果为限。如果程式师
因写出创新的程式就应得到报酬的话，同理如果他们对这些程式的使用
设限的话，他们也该受罚。
"Shouldn't a programmer be able to ask for a reward for his creativity?"
"难道程式师不能为他的创造力要求报酬吗？"
There is nothing wrong with wanting pay for work, or seeking to maximize
one's income, as long as one does not use means that are destructive. But
the means customary in the field of software today are based on
destruction.
希望工作有薪水拿，或是使自己有最大的收入并没有什麽不对的，只要
不要用破坏性的手段就可以了。但是在现今软体领域内常用的手段却都
是以破坏为依归的。
Extracting money from users of a program by restricting their use of it is
destructive because the restrictions reduce the amount and the ways that
the program can be used. This reduces the amount of wealth that humanity
??????????????????????????????????????????????
derives from the program. When there is a deliberate choice to restrict,
the harmful consequences are deliberate destruction.
藉著限制一个程式的使用者的使用□围来获取金钱是具有破坏性的，因
为那些限制减少了程式的应用□围。这减少了人类能由此程式所得到的
财富。如果可以任意设定限制的话，其恶果就是任意的破坏。
The reason a good citizen does not use such destructive means to become
wealthier is that, if everyone did so, we would all become poorer from the
mutual destructiveness. This is Kantian ethics; or, the Golden Rule.
Since I do not like the consequences that result if everyone hoards
information, I am required to consider it wrong for one to do so.
Specifically, the desire to be rewarded for one's creativity does not
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
justify depriving the world in general of all or part of that creativity.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
一个好公民不会用这麽有破坏性的手段来致富的原因是，如果大家都这
样做的话，我们会因为彼此的互相攻击而变得更穷。这是不变的真理，
或者说是金科玉律。因为我不愿见到每个人都藏私的後果，所以我认为
这样做是不对的。特别是，想要由创造力获得报酬的欲望并不能拨夺?!
......???.....
"Won't programmers starve?"
"程式师会没工作而挨饿吗?"
I could answer that nobody is forced to be a programmer. Most of us cannot
manage to get any money for standing on the street and making faces. But
we are not, as a result, condemned to spend our lives standing on the
street making faces, and starving. We do something else.
我可以回答说，没有人被强迫当程式师啊！我们一般人没办法站在街上
扮鬼脸就可以赚钱的。但是我们也因此不是注定要一辈子站在街上扮鬼
脸，然後挨饿。我们还做其他的事。
But that is the wrong answer because it accepts the questioner's implicit
assumption: that without ownership of software, programmers cannot possibly
be paid a cent. Supposedly it is all or nothing.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
可是这种回答是错误的，因为它认同问题本身隐含的假设：如果没有一
套软体的所有权的话，没有人会付程式师一毛钱。在大家的想像里，这
好像是用二分法分开的。
The real reason programmers will not starve is that it will still be
possible for them to get paid for programming; just not paid as much as
now.
让程式师不会挨饿的真正原因是他们仍然可以靠设计程式赚钱。只是没
有像现在那麽多罢了。
Restricting copying is not the only basis for business in software. It is
the most common basis because it brings in the most money. If it were
prohibited, or rejected by the customer, software business would move to
other bases of organization which are now used less often. There are
always numerous ways to organize any kind of business.
限制软体的拷贝并不是做软体生意的唯一手段。这是最常用的方法因为
这样子赚最多钱。如果这种方法被限制，或者被客户拒绝的话，软体事
业就会用其他现在比较少用的方法。世上永远有很多种方法来组织任何
一种事业的。
Probably programming will not be as lucrative on the new basis as it is
now. But that is not an argument against the change. It is not considered
an injustice that sales clerks make the salaries that they now do. If
programmers made the same, that would not be an injustice either. (In
practice they would still make considerably more than that.)
在此新的环境中，程式设计可能不再像现在有这麽高的利润。但是这不
是用来反对这种改变的理由。没有人认为销售员目前的薪水是不公平的
，如果程式师赚一样多钱，那也不会不公平了。（事实上，他们仍然可
以赚比这样多很多的钱。）
"Don't people have a right to control how their creativity is used?"
"难道人没有控制他们创造力该如何运用的权力吗?"
"Control over the use of one's ideas" really constitutes control over other
people's lives; and it is usually used to make their lives more difficult.
" 一个人控制自己的思想的运用" 实际上包含了控制他人的生活; 而且
通常会使得他们的日子更难过。
People who have studied the issue of intellectual property rights carefully
(such as lawyers) say that there is no intrinsic right to intellectual
property. The kinds of supposed intellectual property rights that the
government recognizes were created by specific acts of legislation for
specific purposes.
像律师等仔细研究过智慧财产权问题的人认为实际上智慧财产权并非固
有的( 天生的) 权力。政府所认同的那种智慧财产权是为了特定的目的
而透过特别的立法程序创造出来的。
For example, the patent system was established to encourage inventors to
disclose the details of their inventions. Its purpose was to help society
rather than to help inventors. At the time, the life span of 17 years for
a patent was short compared with the rate of advance of the state of the
art. Since patents are an issue only among manufacturers, for whom the
cost and effort of a license agreement are small compared with setting up
production, the patents often do not do much harm. They do not obstruct
most individuals who use patented products.
举例而言, 专利制度是为了鼓励发明者公开他们的发明的详细内容而设
的。他的目的是为了帮助整个社会，而不是发明者。在那时候17年的专
利有效期相对於科技的进步是相当短的。因为专利权只是制造商之间的
问题，而且对他们而言，签一个专利合约的负担和量产比较可以说很小
，所以专利权对他们而言通常不会有什麽伤害。他们没有妨碍到使用专
利产品的个人。
The idea of copyright did not exist in ancient times, when authors
frequently copied other authors at length in works of non-fiction. This
practice was useful, and is the only way many authors' works have survived
even in part. The copyright system was created expressly for the purpose
of encouraging authorship. In the domain for which it was invented--books,
which could be copied economically only on a printing press--it did little
harm, and did not obstruct most of the individuals who read the books.
古时候并没有智慧财产权的概念，有一段很长的时间在非小说的领域里
面，作者常常引用他人的作品。这种动作是非常有用的，而且这也是很
多作者的作品能够部份被保留下来的唯一途径。智慧财产权系统原是设
立来鼓励创作的。在智慧财产权原先发明的领域（书籍）内，只有印刷
公司才能很经济的大量复制的情况下，它并没有什麽害处，并且没有妨
碍到大部份的读者。
All intellectual property rights are just licenses granted by society
because it was thought, rightly or wrongly, that society as a whole would
benefit by granting them. But in any particular situation, we have to ask:
??????????????????????????????
are we really better off granting such license? What kind of act are we
licensing a person to do?
所有的智慧财产权只不过是社会所给予的权限，因为不管这样子的想法
是否正确，一般认为给予这个权利可以对这整个社会有所帮助。但是在
任何的特定状况下，我们必须思考：我们给予这些权利後真的变得更好
了吗？我们到底允取了什麽□围的授权？
The case of programs today is very different from that of books a hundred
years ago. The fact that the easiest way to copy a program is from one
neighbor to another, the fact that a program has both source code and
object code which are distinct, and the fact that a program is used rather
than read and enjoyed, combine to create a situation in which a person who
enforces a copyright is harming society as a whole both materially and
spiritually; in which a person should not do so regardless of whether the
law enables him to.
以今日程式软体的情况而言，是与一百年前的书籍的情况迥然不同的。
拷贝一个程式最简单的方法就是向邻近的人索取，一个程式有本质互异
的原始码与目的码，以及一个程式是拿来用的，而不是用来阅读与娱乐
的本质，结合在一起形成了一个特殊的情况；那就是一个人如果强行施
用智慧财产权的话，就会对整个社会，不论是物质上或者是精神上，造
成伤害。所以一个人不应该这样做，不管法律允不允许他这麽做。
"Competition makes things get done better."
『竞争可以促进进步』
The paradigm of competition is a race: by rewarding the winner, we
encourage everyone to run faster. When capitalism really works this way,
it does a good job; but its defenders are wrong in assuming it always works
this way. If the runners forget why the reward is offered and become
intent on winning, no matter how, they may find other strategies--such as,
attacking other runners. If the runners get into a fist fight, they will
all finish late.
竞争的典型例子就是赛跑了：透过给予胜利者奖品，我们鼓励大家跑快
一点。资本主义就是这样运作的，而且这种机制做的不错；但是他的支
持者却犯了一个错误，就是假设这种机制永远是可行的。假设竞跑者忘
了给奖品的功用，而只求胜利的话，无论如何，他们可能会使用其他的
手段—如，攻击其他的跑者。如果赛跑变成了一场拳架的话，那大家都
会花更多的时间到达终点。
Proprietary and secret software is the moral equivalent of runners in a
fist fight. Sad to say, the only referee we've got does not seem to
object to fights; he just regulates them ("For every ten yards you run, you
are allowed one kick."). He really ought to break them up, and penalize
runners for even trying to fight.
专属软体与秘密软体就是道德上等价於拳架中的跑者。我很难过的说，
目前发现的唯一调停者好像并不反对打架；他仅仅节制他们而已（你每
跑十码，可以踢一下）他真的应该把他们架开，然後惩罚那些甚至是意
图打架的跑者。
"Won't everyone stop programming without a monetary incentive?"
『会不会因为没有金钱上的诱因而大家都停止写程式了呢？』
Actually, many people will program with absolutely no monetary incentive.
Programming has an irresistible fascination for some people, usually the
people who are best at it. There is no shortage of professional musicians
who keep at it even though they have no hope of making a living that way.
实际上，有很多的人即使没有任何的酬劳也愿意写程式。写程式对某些
人而言具有著难以抗拒的吸引力，通常是那些很精通写程式的那群。即
使这样做几乎不可能以此维持他们的生计，但是也从来不缺乏维持这种
原则的专业级音乐家。
But really this question, though commonly asked, is not appropriate to the
situation. Pay for programmers will not disappear, only become less. So
the right question is, will anyone program with a reduced monetary
incentive? My experience shows that they will.
但是虽然这个问题常常被问到，却不是实际上会发生的状况。付费给程
式师的状况不可能会消失，只是会便少而已。所以正确的问题应该是，
有人愿意为一个较少的酬劳写程式吗？我的经验告诉我真的有人愿意。
For more than ten years, many of the world's best programmers worked at the
Artificial Intelligence Lab for far less money than they could have had
anywhere else. They got many kinds of non-monetary rewards: fame and
appreciation, for example. And creativity is also fun, a reward in itself.
有超过十年的时间，全世界有很多顶尖的程式设计者在ＭＩＴ的人工智
慧实验室工作；并且拿了较别处少的钱。他们得到了很多非金钱上的回
馈，例如：名誉和激赏。而且创造也很有趣，本身就是一种报酬。
Then most of them left when offered a chance to do the same interesting
work for a lot of money.
然後他们之中的大部分如果能得到一个一样有趣，而且有很多钱的工作
机会时就离去了。
What the facts show is that people will program for reasons other than
riches; but if given a chance to make a lot of money as well, they will
come to expect and demand it. Low-paying organizations do poorly in
competition with high-paying ones, but they do not have to do badly if the
high-paying ones are banned.
这个事实显示了人还是会为了财富以外的东西写程式；但是如果有个赚
大钱的机会，那他们就会期待、争求它。薪资低的组织的竞争力一定比
薪资高的组织差，但是如果禁止高薪政策的话那就不一定较差的。
"We need the programmers desperately. If they demand that we
stop helping our neighbors, we have to obey."
"我们非常迫切的需要程式员。如果他们要我们
停止帮助邻近的夥伴的话，我们就要遵从他们"
You're never so desperate that you have to obey this sort of demand.
Remember: millions for defense, but not a cent for tribute!
你永远不会迫切到必须遵从这种要求的地步。记住一句话：宁愿花几百
万来做防御工事，也不愿进贡一分钱。(millions for defense, but
not a cent for tribute!)
"Programmers need to make a living somehow."
"无论如何程式设计师也要维持生计啊!"
In the short run, this is true. However, there are plenty of ways that
programmers could make a living without selling the right to use a program.
This way is customary now because it brings programmers and businessmen the
most money, not because it is the only way to make a living. It is easy to
find other ways if you want to find them. Here are a number of examples.
短程而言，这是真的。无论如何，程式师还有很多不需要贩卖软体使用
权也可以维持生计的方法。贩卖软体使用权是目前普遍的方法是因为它
帮程式师和商人赚最多的钱，而不是因为他是维持生计的唯一方法。如
果你愿意找其他方法的话也很容易。这里就有几个□例：
A manufacturer introducing a new computer will pay for the porting of
operating systems onto the new hardware.
一个制造出新的电脑系统的制造商要负责出移植作业系统到新机器的钱。
The sale of teaching, hand-holding and maintenance services could also
employ programmers.
教学、软体维修等服务也需要程式师。
People with new ideas could distribute programs as freeware, asking for
donations from satisfied users, or selling hand-holding services. I have
met people who are already working this way successfully.
有新点子的人可以把他们的程式以freeware的形式流出，然後要求满意
的使用者捐献，或者是提供支援服务等。我已遇过用这种方法闯出一片
天地的人了。
Users with related needs can form users' groups, and pay dues. A group
would contract with programming companies to write programs that the
group's members would like to use.
有相同需求的使用者可以组成使用者组织，然後会费。一个团体可以和
程式设计公司前合约写一些该组织成员有兴趣使用的软体。
All sorts of development can be funded with a Software Tax:
各种的发展可以由软体税的基金支持。
Suppose everyone who buys a computer has to pay x percent of
the price as a software tax. The government gives this to
an agency like the NSF to spend on software development.
假设每个买电脑的人都要付ｘ％的钱作为软体税。然後政府把这笔钱交
给一个类似FSF 的组织身t责软体的发展。
But if the computer buyer makes a donation to software development
himself, he can take a credit against the tax. He can donate to
the project of his own choosing--often, chosen because he hopes to
use the results when it is done. He can take a credit for any amount
of donation up to the total tax he had to pay.
但是如果电脑购买者对软体的发展有所贡献的话，那他可以减税。他可
以自己选择要贡献哪个计画—通常选那些他最希望能够做到的计画。减
税可以依贡献程度减到抵消掉全部的税为止。
The total tax rate could be decided by a vote of the payers of
the tax, weighted according to the amount they will be taxed on.
而软体税率可依总纳税额决定，其比重可以由纳税人投票决定。
The consequences:
* the computer-using community supports software development.
* this community decides what level of support is needed.
* users who care which projects their share is spent on
can choose this for themselves.
这样的结果是:
* 电脑的使用者团体支持软体的发展。
* 此团体决定该有什麽样程度的支援。
* 那些关心自己需求的计画的使用者可以参加该计画的进行。
In the long run, making programs free is a step toward the post-scarcity
world, where nobody will have to work very hard just to make a living.
People will be free to devote themselves to activities that are fun,
such as programming, after spending the necessary ten hours a week
on required tasks such as legislation, family counseling, robot
repair and asteroid prospecting. There will be no need to be able
to make a living from programming.
长远来看，免费的提供软体是迈向不虞匮乏的世界的一步骤，在那世界
里没有人需要为了生计而辛勤的工作。在每个星期花了固定的十小时做
些必要的工作，如立法、家庭会议、修理机器人和探索小型星後，大家
会有时间从事些有趣的活动，例如写程式。那时候就不须要靠写程式来
过活了。
We have already greatly reduced the amount of work that the whole
society must do for its actual productivity, but only a little of this
has translated itself into leisure for workers because much
nonproductive activity is required to accompany productive activity.
The main causes of this are bureaucracy and isometric struggles
^^^^^^^^^^^^
against competition. Free software will greatly reduce these
drains in the area of software production. We must do this,
in order for technical gains in productivity to translate into
less work for us.
我们（利用现有的科技）已经大量减少了达到目前生产力所需要的工作
量，但是只有其中的一部份转化成工作者的□暇，因为要达到有生产力
的活动往往伴随著很多没有生产力的活动。主要的肇因是官僚和制度的
对竞争的纠葛。自由软体的观念在软体的生产上可以大大的减少这些羁
绊。为了使科技对生产力的增益能实质上减少我们的工作量，我们必须
这麽做。
Copyright (C) 1985 Richard M. Stallman
本文版权为Richard M. Stallman所有, Copyright (C) 1985
Permission is granted to anyone to make or distribute verbatim copies
^^^^^^^^^
of this document as received, in any medium, provided that the
copyright notice and permission notice are preserved,
and that the distributor grants the recipient permission
for further redistribution as permitted by this notice.
任何人在拿到这文件的同时便受予他以任何媒体复制与传播本??文章
的权利，前题是本版权宣告与授权声明必须保留不动，而且散播者
必须受予接受者如同本声明一样再次传播的权利。
Modified versions may not be made.
本文不允许更改。
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Shiau Yong-Ching (萧永庆) Phone: 7358499 - 717
E-mail: syc@cc.ntu.edu.tw
Department of Electrical Engineering, Taiwan University
☆ [Origin: ◎椰林风情◎] [From: woju.g1.ntu.edu.tw ] [Login: **] [Post: **]
