open-source-misses-the-point.html - en to zh_TW translation catalogue (64 entries)

note: type: Content of: <title>
en: Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation
zh_TW: 為什麼開放原始碼錯失了自由軟體的重點 - GNU 專案 - 自由軟體基金會

note: type: Content of: <h2>
en: Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software
zh_TW: 為什麼開放原始碼錯失了自由軟體的重點

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: by Richard Stallman
zh_TW: 作者為 Richard Stallman

note: type: Content of: <div><blockquote><p>
en: The terms &ldquo;free software&rdquo; and &ldquo;open source&rdquo; stand for almost the same range of programs.  However, they say deeply different things about those programs, based on different values.  The free software movement campaigns for freedom for the users of computing; it is a movement for freedom and justice.  By contrast, the open source idea values mainly practical advantage and does not campaign for principles.  This is why we do not agree with open source, and do not use that term.
zh_TW: 「自由軟體」與「開放原始碼」兩個詞幾乎代表了相同範圍的程式。不過，因為是不同的價值觀，所以它們對這些程式的看法也大相逕庭。自由軟體運動為電腦使用者提供自由；這是一場自由與正義的運動。相較之下，開放原始碼重視的是實用優勢而非原則。這就是為什麼我們不贊成開放原始碼運動，也不會使用開放原始碼這個詞的原因。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: When we call software &ldquo;free,&rdquo; we mean that it respects the <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">users' essential freedoms</a>: the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute copies with or without changes.  This is a matter of freedom, not price, so think of &ldquo;free speech,&rdquo; not &ldquo;free beer.&rdquo;
zh_TW: 當我們說軟體是「自由」的時候，我們的意思是它尊重<a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">使用者的基本自由</a>：自由執行、研究並修改它，以及不管有沒有修改都能轉散佈其副本。其關乎自由而非價格，是如同言論自由，而非免費啤酒的權利。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: These freedoms are vitally important.  They are essential, not just for the individual users' sake, but for society as a whole because they promote social solidarity&mdash;that is, sharing and cooperation.  They become even more important as our culture and life activities are increasingly digitized. In a world of digital sounds, images, and words, free software becomes increasingly essential for freedom in general.
zh_TW: 這幾樣自由非常重要。不僅是對個人使用者，對整個社會的團結也相當重要，亦即分享與合作。隨著我們的文化與生活活動日益數位化，它也變得愈來愈重要。在一個充斥著數位化的聲音、圖片與文字的世界中，自由軟體日益重要，其本身已然成了增進我們基本自由的因素之一。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Tens of millions of people around the world now use free software; the public schools of some regions of India and Spain now teach all students to use the free <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux operating system</a>.  Most of these users, however, have never heard of the ethical reasons for which we developed this system and built the free software community, because nowadays this system and community are more often spoken of as &ldquo;open source&rdquo;, attributing them to a different philosophy in which these freedoms are hardly mentioned.
zh_TW: 目前全世界有數千萬人正在使用自由軟體；印度與西班牙某些區域的公立學校目前正教導所有學生使用自由的 <a href="/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html">GNU/Linux 作業系統</a>。然而，這些使用者之中，大多數並不了解我們為何要開發這套自由系統，又為何建立整個自由軟體社群，以及背後驅動整個運動的道德觀。因為如今這個系統，乃至於整個社群都被「開放原始碼」一詞籠罩，而這個詞代表的是一種完全不同的哲學思維，而甚少提及自由。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The free software movement has campaigned for computer users' freedom since 1983.  In 1984 we launched the development of the free operating system GNU, so that we could avoid the nonfree operating systems that deny freedom to their users.  During the 1980s, we developed most of the essential components of the system and designed the <a href="/licenses/gpl.html">GNU General Public License</a> (GNU GPL)  to release them under&mdash;a license designed specifically to protect freedom for all users of a program.
zh_TW: 1983年以降，自由軟體運動一直致於增進電腦使用者的自由。1984年，我們發起來開發自由作業系統的計畫，這個系統被命名為 GNU，如此我們就可以避免使用剝奪使用者自由的非自由作業系統。在1980年代，我們開發了一系列系統的基本組成元件，並設計了 <a href="/licenses/gpl.html">GNU 通用公眾授權條款</a> (GNU GPL)，並使用此授權條款釋出了大部份的系統元件。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Not all of the users and developers of free software agreed with the goals of the free software movement.  In 1998, a part of the free software community splintered off and began campaigning in the name of &ldquo;open source.&rdquo; The term was originally proposed to avoid a possible misunderstanding of the term &ldquo;free software,&rdquo; but it soon became associated with philosophical views quite different from those of the free software movement.
zh_TW: 並非所有的使用者與開發都贊同自由軟體運動的目標。1998年，自由軟體社群中的部份成員分裂出來，並以「開放原始碼」之名繼續活動。一開始，由於英文的 &ldquo;free software&rdquo; 一詞可能會造成歧義，所以才提出這個說法，但「開放原始碼」這個詞很快就開始異化，使得背後的哲學觀點與自由軟體運動相去甚遠。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Some of the supporters of open source considered the term a &ldquo;marketing campaign for free software,&rdquo; which would appeal to business executives by highlighting the software's practical benefits, while not raising issues of right and wrong that they might not like to hear.  Other supporters flatly rejected the free software movement's ethical and social values.  Whichever their views, when campaigning for open source, they neither cited nor advocated those values.  The term &ldquo;open source&rdquo; quickly became associated with ideas and arguments based only on practical values, such as making or having powerful, reliable software.  Most of the supporters of open source have come to it since then, and they make the same association.  Most discussion of &ldquo;open source&rdquo; pays no attention to right and wrong, only to popularity and success; here's a <a href="http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/Open-Source-Is-Woven-Into-the-Latest-Hottest-Trends-78937.html"> typical example</a>.  A minority of supporters of open source do nowadays say freedom is part of the issue, but they are not very visible among the many that don't.
zh_TW: 某些開放原始碼的支持者認為這個術語是用來「為自由軟體行銷」，也就是說向那些商業界的人士強調自由軟體的實際好處，同時避免提出他們不會想要聽到的對錯問題。還有一些支持者乾脆丟棄自由軟體運動的道德觀與社會價值。不論他們所持有的是哪一種觀點，只要他們一開始為開放原始碼行銷，自由軟體運動所珍視的那些價值觀就被拋諸腦後。於是，「開放原始碼」一詞很快就與各種實用主義的價值觀聯結在一起，例如要如何建立強大且穩定的軟體。很多開放原始碼的支持者從一開始就把這些價值觀推崇至極，也難怪局外人難以搞清楚狀況了。大多數「開放原始碼」的討論都絕口不談是非對錯，而只關心人氣與成功；這裡就有一個<a href="http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/Open-Source-Is-Woven-Into-the-Latest-Hottest-Trends-78937.html">典型的案例</a>。現在，少數開放原始碼的支持者也會把自由當成一個問題來討論，但他們的影響力實在猶如滄海之一粟。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The two now describe almost the same category of software, but they stand for views based on fundamentally different values.  For the free software movement, free software is an ethical imperative, essential respect for the users' freedom.  By contrast, the philosophy of open source considers issues in terms of how to make software &ldquo;better&rdquo;&mdash;in a practical sense only.  It says that nonfree software is an inferior solution to the practical problem at hand.
zh_TW: 開放原始碼軟體與自由軟體所描述的軟體類型幾乎相同，但它們代表了價值觀卻有著本質上的不同。對於自由軟體運動來說，自由軟體是道德底線，是對使用者自由的基本尊重。相較之下，開放原始碼軟體哲學的觀點則有所不同，其關心的是如何讓軟體「更好」，只從實用的角度檢視。開放原始碼的哲學裡，非自由軟體之所以不好，是因為他們用來較差的開發方式。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: For the free software movement, however, nonfree software is a social problem, and the solution is to stop using it and move to free software.
zh_TW: 然而，對自由軟體運動來說，非自由軟體就是社會問題，解決方法就是停止使用它並轉向自由軟體。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: &ldquo;Free software.&rdquo; &ldquo;Open source.&rdquo; If it's the same software (<a href="/philosophy/free-open-overlap.html">or nearly so</a>), does it matter which name you use? Yes, because different words convey different ideas.  While a free program by any other name would give you the same freedom today, establishing freedom in a lasting way depends above all on teaching people to value freedom.  If you want to help do this, it is essential to speak of &ldquo;free software.&rdquo;
zh_TW: 「自由軟體」與「開放原始碼軟體」既然是一樣的軟體（<a href="/philosophy/free-open-overlap.html">或幾乎相同</a>），那用哪個名字來稱呼真的有那麼重要嗎？當然重要，因為不同的詞語傳達了不同的想法，雖然就算使用其他名稱來稱呼自由軟體仍會給你同等的自由，但若要長期維護使用者的自由，就必須讓使用者意識到自由的價值。倘若你想協助人們做到這點，那麼使用「自由軟體」這個稱呼則尤其重要。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: We in the free software movement don't think of the open source camp as an enemy; the enemy is proprietary (nonfree) software.  But we want people to know we stand for freedom, so we do not accept being mislabeled as open source supporters.
zh_TW: 作為自由軟體運動的成員，我們並未將開放原始碼陣營當作敵人；我們的敵人是專有（非自由）軟體。但我們希望人們至少應該知道，我們所捍衛的是使用者的自由，所以並不想被誤認為是開放原始碼的支持者。

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: Practical Differences between Free Software and Open Source
zh_TW: 自由軟體與開放原始碼軟體的實質差異

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: In practice, open source stands for criteria a little looser than those of free software.  As far as we know, all existing released free software source code would qualify as open source.  Nearly all open source software is free software, but there are exceptions.  First, some open source licenses are too restrictive, so they do not qualify as free licenses.  For example, &ldquo;Open Watcom&rdquo; is nonfree because its license does not allow making a modified version and using it privately.  Fortunately, few programs use such licenses.
zh_TW: 在實踐中，開放原始碼的標準比自由軟體略為寬鬆。就我們所知，所有現存的自由軟體的原始碼都是開放原始碼。開放原始碼軟體也幾乎都是自由軟體，但仍有例外。首先，有些開放原始碼授權條款對使用過於嚴苛，所以就不會被認為是自由軟體。舉例來說，&ldquo;Open Watcom&rdquo; 就不是自由軟體，因為其授權條款不允許修改與私自使用該軟體。幸運的是，很少程式使用這類授權條款。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: 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 &ldquo;tyrants&rdquo;, and the practice is called &ldquo;tivoization&rdquo; after the product (Tivo)  where we first saw it.  Even if the executable is made from free source code, the users cannot run modified versions of it, so the executable is nonfree.
zh_TW: 此外，實際操作時還有更重要的一點，許多產品包含了檢測執行檔簽章的電腦，這樣就可以阻擋使用者安裝不同的執行檔；只有一家特權公司才能生成執行檔或完全控制該產品。我們稱這種裝置為「專制暴君」，把這種行為稱為 &ldquo;tivoization&rdquo;，會有這種名字是因為我們看到 Tivo 公司的產品這麼做了之後才出現。即便執行檔是由自由的原始碼做成的，使用者也無法執行其修改版本，所以執行檔是非自由的。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: 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.
zh_TW: 開放原始碼的標準並沒有意識到這個問題；他們只關心原始碼的授權條款。如此一來，這些編譯自 Linux 等開放與自由軟體的執行檔，就是開放原始碼但並不自由的。許多 Android 也包含了這樣的非自由 Linux 執行檔。

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: Common Misunderstandings of &ldquo;Free Software&rdquo; and &ldquo;Open Source&rdquo;
zh_TW: 對「自由軟體」與「開放原始碼」的常見誤解

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The term &ldquo;free software&rdquo; is prone to misinterpretation: an unintended meaning, &ldquo;software you can get for zero price,&rdquo; fits the term just as well as the intended meaning, &ldquo;software which gives the user certain freedoms.&rdquo; We address this problem by publishing the definition of free software, and by saying &ldquo;Think of &lsquo;free speech,&rsquo; not &lsquo;free beer.&rsquo;&rdquo; This is not a perfect solution; it cannot completely eliminate the problem. An unambiguous and correct term would be better, if it didn't present other problems.
zh_TW: 在英語中，&ldquo;free software&rdquo; 一詞很容易被誤解：因為 Free 既有免費，也有自由的意思。而我們所謂的自由軟體，則是「一種可以賦予使用者特定自由的軟體」。為了解決這個問題，我們發佈了自由軟體的定義，亦即其為「言論自由」而非「免費啤酒」。這顯然不是個理想的解決方案；它並不能完全解決這個問題。如果不會有其他問題，那沒有歧異的術語顯然會更好。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Unfortunately, all the alternatives in English have problems of their own.  We've looked at many that people have suggested, but none is so clearly &ldquo;right&rdquo; that switching to it would be a good idea.  (For instance, in some contexts the French and Spanish word &ldquo;libre&rdquo; works well, but people in India do not recognize it at all.)  Every proposed replacement for &ldquo;free software&rdquo; has some kind of semantic problem&mdash;and this includes &ldquo;open source software.&rdquo;
zh_TW: 可惜的是，英文中能替換 Free 的詞都有自己的問題。我們考量了許多其他人的建議，但並沒有哪個比其他的更「正確」。（舉例來說，在某些情境下，法文與西班牙文中的 libre 可能會好一點，但在印度的人們就會完全看不懂。）每個可以替代 &ldquo;free software&rdquo; 的詞語都多少有點語義上的問題，其中當然也包含了 &ldquo;open source software&rdquo;。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The <a href="https://opensource.org/osd">official definition of &ldquo;open source software&rdquo;</a> (which is published by the Open Source Initiative and is too long to include here) was derived indirectly from our criteria for free software.  It is not the same; it is a little looser in some respects.  Nonetheless, their definition agrees with our definition in most cases.
zh_TW: <a href="https://opensource.org/osd">「開放原始碼軟體」的官方定義</a>（由開放原始碼促進會發佈，因為它太長了，所以就不在這裡列出了）是直接從我們對於自由軟體的定義衍生而來。雖然兩者仍有所不同；在某些方面，開放原始碼的定義比自由軟體更寬鬆。不過在大部份情況下，開放原始碼的定義與自由軟體是等價的。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: However, the obvious meaning for the expression &ldquo;open source software&rdquo;&mdash;and the one most people seem to think it means&mdash;is &ldquo;You can look at the source code.&rdquo; That criterion is much weaker than the free software definition, much weaker also than the official definition of open source.  It includes many programs that are neither free nor open source.
zh_TW: 可是，開放原始碼軟體的字面意思，也是人們普遍以為的意思，是「你可以看到原始碼」。這樣的定義比自由軟體的定義要來得寬鬆，甚至也比開放原始碼的官方定義還要寬鬆。這包含了許多既不自由也不開放原始碼的程式。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Since the obvious meaning for &ldquo;open source&rdquo; is not the meaning that its advocates intend, the result is that most people misunderstand the term.  According to writer Neal Stephenson, &ldquo;Linux is &lsquo;open source&rsquo; software meaning, simply, that anyone can get copies of its source code files.&rdquo; I don't think he deliberately sought to reject or dispute the official definition.  I think he simply applied the conventions of the English language to come up with a meaning for the term.  The <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20001011193422/http://da.state.ks.us/ITEC/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf">state of Kansas</a> published a similar definition: &ldquo;Make use of open-source software (OSS).  OSS is software for which the source code is freely and publicly available, though the specific licensing agreements vary as to what one is allowed to do with that code.&rdquo;
zh_TW: 由於「開放原始碼」的字面意義與其支持者的本意不同，導致很多人誤解了這個詞。這裡引用一段 Neal Stephenson 文章中的話，「Linux 是『開放原始碼』軟體，意思很簡單，就是任何人都能取得其原始碼的副本。」我覺得他並非有意拒絕或曲解開放原始碼的官方定義，而應該只是望文生義。而<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20001011193422/http://da.state.ks.us/ITEC/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf">堪薩斯州政府</a>也發佈了一份類似的定義：「開放原始碼軟體就是一種使用者可以免費且公開地取得其原始碼的軟體；使用者可以對其原始碼做那些操作，則根據其授權條款而有所不同。」

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The <i>New York Times</i> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-design-37415.html"> ran an article that stretched the meaning of the term</a> to refer to user beta testing&mdash;letting a few users try an early version and give confidential feedback&mdash;which proprietary software developers have practiced for decades.
zh_TW: 某些狀況更糟糕，《紐約時報》<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-design-37415.html">發佈了一篇文章來延伸這個詞的涵義</a>，文中將開放原始碼軟體解釋為內部測試版軟體，也就是給一小部份的使用者測試並提供內部回饋的搶先版軟體，但這東西專有軟體幾十年前就玩過了。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The term has even been stretched to include designs for equipment that are <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/aug/27/texas-teenager-water-purifier-toxic-e-waste-pollution">published without a patent</a>.  Patent-free equipment designs can be laudable contributions to society, but the term &ldquo;source code&rdquo; does not pertain to them.
zh_TW: 這個概念甚至被延伸到一個<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/aug/27/texas-teenager-water-purifier-toxic-e-waste-pollution">不含專利的產品設計中</a>。不含專利的產品設計對社會來說是很大的貢獻，但「原始碼」一詞跟它們並沒有關係。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Open source supporters try to deal with this by pointing to their official definition, but that corrective approach is less effective for them than it is for us.  The term &ldquo;free software&rdquo; has two natural meanings, one of which is the intended meaning, so a person who has grasped the idea of &ldquo;free speech, not free beer&rdquo; will not get it wrong again.  But the term &ldquo;open source&rdquo; has only one natural meaning, which is different from the meaning its supporters intend.  So there is no succinct way to explain and justify its official definition.  That makes for worse confusion.
zh_TW: 開放原始碼支持者試圖不斷引用他們的官方定義來解決這個問題，但直接引述定義對自由軟體來說似乎更有效。英文的 &ldquo;free software&rdquo; 一詞字面上有兩個意思，而我們希望傳達其中的自由之意，這樣知道「言論自由，而非免費啤酒」的人就不會再犯錯。然而，「開放原始碼」一詞僅有一個字面的意思，而這個意思與其真正要表達的意義又有所不同。結果就是很難找到一個簡單的方法來解釋官方的定義。這就帶來了更多的誤解。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Another misunderstanding of &ldquo;open source&rdquo; is the idea that it means &ldquo;not using the GNU GPL.&rdquo; This tends to accompany another misunderstanding that &ldquo;free software&rdquo; means &ldquo;GPL-covered software.&rdquo; These are both mistaken, since the GNU GPL qualifies as an open source license and most of the open source licenses qualify as free software licenses.  There are <a href="/licenses/license-list.html"> many free software licenses</a> aside from the GNU GPL.
zh_TW: 另一個關於「開放原始碼」的誤解是，它代表了「不使用 GNU GPL」。這個誤解又常常伴隨著另一個誤解，亦即「自由軟體」就是「使用 GPL 的軟體」。這兩個都是錯的，因為 GNU GPL 被認證為是開放原始碼授權條款，而大多數的開放原始碼授權條款也都被認證為自由軟體授權條款。除了 GPL 以外，還有<a href="/licenses/license-list.html">很多自由軟體授權條款</a>。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The term &ldquo;open source&rdquo; has been further stretched by its application to other activities, such as government, education, and science, where there is no such thing as source code, and where criteria for software licensing are simply not pertinent.  The only thing these activities have in common is that they somehow invite people to participate.  They stretch the term so far that it only means &ldquo;participatory&rdquo; or &ldquo;transparent&rdquo;, or less than that.  At worst, it has <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/opinion/sunday/morozov-open-and-closed.html"> become a vacuous buzzword</a>.
zh_TW: 「開放原始碼」一詞一再地被引申到各種領域，如政府、教育、科學與其他根本沒有原始程式碼的地方，以及和軟體授權條款根本扯不上關係的地方。它們唯一的共同點就是：多多少少都是鼓勵人們參與某個活動。到頭來，「開放原始碼」這個詞被引申成了「參與性」或「透明性」。或甚至根本不到這樣。最糟糕的解釋，則<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/opinion/sunday/morozov-open-and-closed.html">完全變成了空洞的流行語</a>。

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: Different Values Can Lead to Similar Conclusions&mdash;but Not Always
zh_TW: 不同的價值觀也許可以得到相同的結論──可惜總有例外

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Radical groups in the 1960s had a reputation for factionalism: some organizations split because of disagreements on details of strategy, and the two daughter groups treated each other as enemies despite having similar basic goals and values.  The right wing made much of this and used it to criticize the entire left.
zh_TW: 1960年代，美國的極左翼陣營由於意見分歧而導致黨派林立。即便他們基本上有著相同的目的與價值觀，但各派別依舊水火不容，關係緊張。這使得右翼陣營得以借力使力，用以攻擊整個左翼陣營。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Some try to disparage the free software movement by comparing our disagreement with open source to the disagreements of those radical groups.  They have it backwards.  We disagree with the open source camp on the basic goals and values, but their views and ours lead in many cases to the same practical behavior&mdash;such as developing free software.
zh_TW: 由於自由軟體運動與開放原始碼支持者存在諸如此類的差異，於是就有人想要以美國極左翼陣營的例子來告誡或詆毀自由軟體運動。不過現在的情況正好相反：我們和開放原始碼陣營有著不同的目的與價值觀，但不同的觀點卻導致了類似的行為，例如開發自由軟體。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: As a result, people from the free software movement and the open source camp often work together on practical projects such as software development.  It is remarkable that such different philosophical views can so often motivate different people to participate in the same projects.  Nonetheless, there are situations where these fundamentally different views lead to very different actions.
zh_TW: 於是大家看到的結果就是：來自自由軟體運動的人經常與開放原始碼的支持者在同一個專案中一起工作，例如開發軟體。這很重要：儘管大家的價值觀不同，但卻可能在同一個專案中一起工作。當然，我們和開放原始碼支持者間不同的觀點有時候也會導致不同的行為。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The idea of open source is that allowing users to change and redistribute the software will make it more powerful and reliable.  But this is not guaranteed.  Developers of proprietary software are not necessarily incompetent.  Sometimes they produce a program that is powerful and reliable, even though it does not respect the users' freedom.  Free software activists and open source enthusiasts will react very differently to that.
zh_TW: 開放原始碼支持者的想法是，讓使用者可以修改並轉散佈軟體可以讓它變得更強大且更可靠。但這並不是必要條件。很多專有軟體的開發者的技術能力也很強。有時候，即便專有軟體不尊重使用者的自由，也還是可以開發出強大且可靠的程式。自由軟體支持者與開放原始碼的支持者對此的反應就會有所不同。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: A pure open source enthusiast, one that is not at all influenced by the ideals of free software, will say, &ldquo;I am surprised you were able to make the program work so well without using our development model, but you did.  How can I get a copy?&rdquo; This attitude will reward schemes that take away our freedom, leading to its loss.
zh_TW: 對於一個純粹的開放原始碼狂熱份子，在沒有被自由軟體的理想所影響的情況下，可能會說「你們（專有軟體開發者）沒用我們的開發模型，還能開發出這麼好的軟體。可以讓我複製一份嗎？」這樣的態度讓專有軟體的詭計得逞，也就是剝奪我們的自由。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The free software activist will say, &ldquo;Your program is very attractive, but I value my freedom more.  So I reject your program.  I will get my work done some other way, and support a project to develop a free replacement.&rdquo; If we value our freedom, we can act to maintain and defend it.
zh_TW: 而如果是自由軟體的支持者則會說，「您的程式非常吸引人，但我更重視自由。所以我拒絕您的程式。我會以其他方式來完成我的工作，並支持一個開發類似功能的自由軟體專案。」如果真心重視自由，我們就應該要用行動去捍衛它。

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: Powerful, Reliable Software Can Be Bad
zh_TW: 強大且可靠的軟體未必是好東西

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The idea that we want software to be powerful and reliable comes from the supposition that the software is designed to serve its users.  If it is powerful and reliable, that means it serves them better.
zh_TW: 大家都希望軟體強大且可靠，這個想法是建立在軟體是為使用者服務的情境下。既然是為使用者服務，那強大且可靠的軟體顯然可以為使用者提供更好的服務。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: But software can be said to serve its users only if it respects their freedom.  What if the software is designed to put chains on its users? Then powerfulness means the chains are more constricting, and reliability that they are harder to remove.  Malicious features, such as spying on the users, restricting the users, back doors, and imposed upgrades are common in proprietary software, and some open source supporters want to implement them in open source programs.
zh_TW: 但是，只有在軟體尊重使用者的自由的時候才能說它們是在為使用者服務。倘若軟體本身有意剝奪使用者的自由並設置更多障礙，那讓這樣的軟體變得更強大無疑是為使用者加上更多的枷鎖，更可靠意味著這些障礙更難以克服。在現實生活中，惡意功能在專有軟體中比比皆是：監視使用者、限制使用者、後門與強制更新等等。而某些開放原始碼軟體的支持者竟然希望在他們的軟體中實作相同的功能。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Under pressure from the movie and record companies, software for individuals to use is increasingly designed specifically to restrict them.  This malicious feature is known as Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) (see <a href="http://defectivebydesign.org/">DefectiveByDesign.org</a>) and is the antithesis in spirit of the freedom that free software aims to provide.  And not just in spirit: since the goal of DRM is to trample your freedom, DRM developers try to make it hard, impossible, or even illegal for you to change the software that implements the DRM.
zh_TW: 迫於電影與唱片公司的壓力，愈來愈多的個人軟體被用於限制使用者的行為。這種惡意功能的官方講法是數位版權管理（DRM，參見<a href="http://defectivebydesign.org/">DefectiveByDesign.org</a>）。這種功能與自由軟體的核心價值完全背道而馳。說起來，這甚至已經不只是在精神層面上背道而馳了，在實際操作上，DRM 的開發者試圖讓使用者無法修改軟體，甚至將其視為非法行為。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Yet some open source supporters have proposed &ldquo;open source DRM&rdquo; software.  Their idea is that, by publishing the source code of programs designed to restrict your access to encrypted media and by allowing others to change it, they will produce more powerful and reliable software for restricting users like you.  The software would then be delivered to you in devices that do not allow you to change it.
zh_TW: 儘管如此，仍然有些開放原始碼的支持者提議開發「開放原始碼 DRM」軟體。這背後的邏輯是，發佈這些限制使用者自由的原始碼，並允許使用者修改它，就可以做出更強大且可靠的軟體，以便繼續限制使用者的自由。然後，這些軟體會被複製到某個裝置上並一起賣給你，而那個裝置則禁止你修改在上面執行的軟體。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: This software might be open source and use the open source development model, but it won't be free software since it won't respect the freedom of the users that actually run it.  If the open source development model succeeds in making this software more powerful and reliable for restricting you, that will make it even worse.
zh_TW: 這類的軟體也許可以稱得上是開放原始碼軟體，並使用開放原始碼的開發模式，但絕對不會是自由軟體，因為其並不尊重執行它的使用者的自由。如果開放原始碼的開發模式可以成功地製造這類的軟體，並讓這些軟體更強大且更可靠，進而限制你我的自由，那只能說這類的開放原始碼把一切變得更糟了。

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: Fear of Freedom
zh_TW: 對自由的恐懼

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The main initial motivation of those who split off the open source camp from the free software movement was that the ethical ideas of &ldquo;free software&rdquo; made some people uneasy.  That's true: raising ethical issues such as freedom, talking about responsibilities as well as convenience, is asking people to think about things they might prefer to ignore, such as whether their conduct is ethical.  This can trigger discomfort, and some people may simply close their minds to it.  It does not follow that we ought to stop talking about these issues.
zh_TW: 當年那些人之所以從自由軟體運動中分裂出去，並發起開放原始碼運動，原因就是「自由軟體」的道德基礎讓不少人如坐針氈。確實如此，倘若說起道德，如使用者的自由、開發者的責任等等，往往會迫使人們去思考一些常被忽視的問題，例如某些行為是否符合道德規範等等。這種說教確實會讓人心生不快，有些人因而將其拋諸腦後，從此不聞不問。但這並不代表我們應該對這些問題避而不談。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: That is, however, what the leaders of open source decided to do.  They figured that by keeping quiet about ethics and freedom, and talking only about the immediate practical benefits of certain free software, they might be able to &ldquo;sell&rdquo; the software more effectively to certain users, especially business.
zh_TW: 然而開放原始碼的領導者們恰好選擇了忽略這些問題。他們認為，只要在道德與自由方面裝聾作啞，轉而只談論某些自由軟體在當下有什麼好處，他們或許就可以把軟體更有效地「賣」給特定使用者，尤其是商業使用者。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: When open source proponents talk about anything deeper than that, it is usually the idea of making a &ldquo;gift&rdquo; of source code to humanity.  Presenting this as a special good deed, beyond what is morally required, presumes that distributing proprietary software without source code is morally legitimate.
zh_TW: 當開放原始碼支持者討論到這些深層問題時，通常他們的想法是，原始碼是給人類的「禮物」。假設專有軟體不釋出原始碼在道德上是合理的，那麼開放原始碼是一件好事，因為它遠超出了道德要求。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: This approach has proved effective, in its own terms.  The rhetoric of open source has convinced many businesses and individuals to use, and even develop, free software, which has extended our community&mdash;but only at the superficial, practical level.  The philosophy of open source, with its purely practical values, impedes understanding of the deeper ideas of free software; it brings many people into our community, but does not teach them to defend it.  That is good, as far as it goes, but it is not enough to make freedom secure.  Attracting users to free software takes them just part of the way to becoming defenders of their own freedom.
zh_TW: 如果以這種觀點來看，那麼這套方法的確算是相當有效。開放原始碼的這套說詞說服了眾多商業與個人使用者使用，甚至開發自由軟體，因而擴大了我們的社群。不過這類的擴張只是表面上的，停在只關心實用性的層次上。由於開放原始碼的哲學只停留在實用層次上，從而阻礙了人們理解自由軟體更深層的含義。它為我們的社群注入了新血，卻沒能教會那些新人如何維持這樣的社群。如果只有這樣，那倒也還好，但它還不足以捍衛自由。將使用者吸引到自由軟體社群來只是第一步，他們必須學會捍衛自己的自由。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Sooner or later these users will be invited to switch back to proprietary software for some practical advantage.  Countless companies seek to offer such temptation, some even offering copies gratis.  Why would users decline? Only if they have learned to value the freedom free software gives them, to value freedom in and of itself rather than the technical and practical convenience of specific free software.  To spread this idea, we have to talk about freedom.  A certain amount of the &ldquo;keep quiet&rdquo; approach to business can be useful for the community, but it is dangerous if it becomes so common that the love of freedom comes to seem like an eccentricity.
zh_TW: 這些沒能理解自由軟體含義的使用者，早晚會出於一些實用層面上的考慮，而回頭使用專有軟體。無數的軟體公司已經開始做出這種嘗試來吸引使用者使用專有軟體，甚至是釋出免費的專有軟體。使用者只有在懂得珍惜自由軟體賦予他們的自由之後，才會拒絕如此誘惑。所以，我們必須反覆強調自由，才能漸漸擴散自由軟體的理念。「保持沉默」在商業化的過程中可能會有用，但過份強調它，讓重視自由被當成自私，則對整個社群都有害。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: That dangerous situation is exactly what we have.  Most people involved with free software, especially its distributors, say little about freedom&mdash;usually because they seek to be &ldquo;more acceptable to business.&rdquo; Nearly all GNU/Linux operating system distributions add proprietary packages to the basic free system, and they invite users to consider this an advantage rather than a flaw.
zh_TW: 如此危機正是我們目前所面臨的。大多數參與自由軟體社群的人們，特別是其散佈者，都對自由絕口不談，往往是因為他們想要「在商業上被認可」。幾乎所有的 GNU/Linux 散佈版都會在其基礎系統中加入專有軟體包。而且他們認為這是優點而非缺點。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Proprietary add-on software and partially nonfree GNU/Linux distributions find fertile ground because most of our community does not insist on freedom with its software.  This is no coincidence.  Most GNU/Linux users were introduced to the system through &ldquo;open source&rdquo; discussion, which doesn't say that freedom is a goal.  The practices that don't uphold freedom and the words that don't talk about freedom go hand in hand, each promoting the other.  To overcome this tendency, we need more, not less, talk about freedom.
zh_TW: 帶有專有附加元件的軟體，與包含了非自由軟體的 GNU/Linux 散佈版之所以有發展的空間，就是因為我們社群中的大多數人沒有堅守自己的自由。這並非巧合，大多數的 GNU/Linux 使用者是被「開放原始碼」一詞吸引而來，而其並未把維護使用者自由作為目標。無視自由的言論口耳相傳，漠視自由的態度比比皆是。要扭轉這樣的局勢，我們所應該做的，是更常談論自由，而不是把它們晾在一旁。

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

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: The terms &ldquo;FLOSS&rdquo; and &ldquo;FOSS&rdquo; are used to be <a href="/philosophy/floss-and-foss.html"> neutral between free software and open source</a>.  If neutrality is your goal, &ldquo;FLOSS&rdquo; is the better of the two, since it really is neutral.  But if you want to stand up for freedom, using a neutral term isn't the way.  Standing up for freedom entails showing people your support for freedom.
zh_TW: &ldquo;FLOSS&rdquo; 與 &ldquo;FOSS&rdquo; 用於在<a href="/philosophy/floss-and-foss.html">自由軟體與開放原始碼間保持中立</a>。如果你希望保持中立，那 &ldquo;FLOSS&rdquo; 會比較好，因為它確實中立。但如果你支持自由，使用中性的詞語是不對的。捍衛自由需要你對人們展示你對自由的支持。

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: Rivals for Mindshare
zh_TW: 思想的對手

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: &ldquo;Free&rdquo; and &ldquo;open&rdquo; are rivals for mindshare.  &ldquo;Free software&rdquo; and &ldquo;open source&rdquo; are different ideas but, in most people's way of looking at software, they compete for the same conceptual slot.  When people become habituated to saying and thinking &ldquo;open source,&rdquo; that is an obstacle to their grasping the free software movement's philosophy and thinking about it.  If they have already come to associate us and our software with the word &ldquo;open,&rdquo; we may need to shock them intellectually before they recognize that we stand for something <em>else</em>.  Any activity that promotes the word &ldquo;open&rdquo; tends to extend the curtain that hides the ideas of the free software movement.
zh_TW: 「自由」與「開放」是思想上的競爭對手。「自由軟體」與「開放原始碼」卻是完全不同的概念，雖然從大多數人看待軟體的角度來看，它們講的是一樣的東西。當人們慣於使用「開放原始碼」表達與思考時，他們對自由軟體運動哲學的理解與思考就會受到阻礙。如果他們已經把我們與我們的軟體與「開放」一詞相連，那麼在他們意識到兩者的立場<em>有所不同</em>之前。我們就應該為其思考敲響警鐘。一切宣傳「開放」一詞的活動都會傾向於掩蓋自由軟體運動的意義。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Thus, free software activists are well advised to decline to work on an activity that calls itself &ldquo;open.&rdquo; Even if the activity is good in and of itself, each contribution you make does a little harm on the side by promoting the open source idea.  There are plenty of other good activities which call themselves &ldquo;free&rdquo; or &ldquo;libre.&rdquo; Each contribution to those projects does a little extra good on the side.  With so many useful projects to choose from, why not choose one which does extra good?
zh_TW: 因此，自由軟體的支持者會被建議不要參加任何以「開放」為名的活動。即使活動本身是好的，你的每次參與都會推動開放原始碼的概念而傷害自由軟體運動。有許多活動是以「自由」為名，你的每次參與都對自由軟體運動是正面的支持。有這麼多的專案可供選擇，為什麼不選那些可以正面支持的呢？

note: type: Content of: <div><h3>
en: Conclusion
zh_TW: 結論

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: As the advocates of open source draw new users into our community, we free software activists must shoulder the task of bringing the issue of freedom to their attention.  We have to say, &ldquo;It's free software and it gives you freedom!&rdquo;&mdash;more and louder than ever.  Every time you say &ldquo;free software&rdquo; rather than &ldquo;open source,&rdquo; you help our cause.
zh_TW: 開放原始碼軟體的支持者不斷將新的使用者拉入我們的社群，而提醒使用者維護自由的任務，則落到了我們自由軟體支持者的肩上。我們要用比以往更大的聲音說「這是自由軟體，它才能真正給你自由！」每當你把「開放原始碼軟體」換成「自由軟體」時，你就是在支持我們的理念。

note: type: Content of: <h4>
en: Note
zh_TW: 備註

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: Lakhani and Wolf's <a href="http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/lakhaniwolf.pdf"> paper on the motivation of free software developers</a> says that a considerable fraction are motivated by the view that software should be free. This is despite the fact that they surveyed the developers on SourceForge, a site that does not support the view that this is an ethical issue.
zh_TW: Lakhani 與 Wolf 在<a href="http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/lakhaniwolf.pdf">關於自由軟體開發者的動機的論文中</a>提到，大部份的開發者認為軟體本該自由，因此才參與自由軟體開發的。可惜他們調查的是 SourceForge 上的開發者，而 SourceForge 網站本身則不認為軟體自由是道德問題。

note: type: Content of: <div><div><p>
en: Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to <a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org">&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;</a>.  There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> the FSF.  Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org">&lt;webmasters@gnu.org&gt;</a>.
zh_TW: 請來信到 <a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org">&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;</a> 詢問有關自由軟體基金會（FSF）和 GNU 的一般問題；或者<a href="/contact/">以其他方式</a>聯絡自由軟體基金會。至於損毀的連結及其他修正和建議，可以將之寄給 <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org">&lt;webmasters@gnu.org&gt;</a>。

note: TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph, replace it with the translation of these two: We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality translations.  However, we are not exempt from imperfection. Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard to <a hr
en: Please see the <a href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations of this article.
zh_TW: 我們努力盡所能提供貼切、品質良善的翻譯。然而，我們無法十全十美，還請將你的意見評述與一般建議寄給 <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">&lt;web-translators@gnu.org&gt;</a>。</p>
    <p>請參照 <a href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">翻譯讀我 README</a> 來瞭解協調和提交我們的網頁翻譯相關事宜。

note: type: Content of: <div><p>
en: This page is licensed under a <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.
zh_TW: 本頁面採用<a rel="license" href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/deed.zh_TW">創用 CC 姓名標示-禁止改作 4.0 國際</a>條款給予授權。

note: TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't want credits. type: Content of: <div><div>
en: *GNUN-SLOT: TRANSLATOR'S CREDITS*
zh_TW: <b>翻譯</b>：黃柏諺 <a href="mailto:s8321414 (at) gmail (dot) com">&lt;s8321414 (at) gmail (dot) com&gt;</a>, 2019.

note: timestamp start type: Content of: <div><p>
en: Updated:
zh_TW: 更新時間︰
