free-hardware-designs.html - en to zh_TW translation catalogue (79 entries)

note: type: Content of: <title>
en: Free Hardware and Free Hardware Designs - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation
zh_TW: 自由硬體與自由硬體的設計 - GNU 專案 - 自由軟體基金會

note: type: Content of: <h2>
en: Free Hardware and Free Hardware Designs
zh_TW: 自由硬體與自由硬體的設計

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/">Richard M. Stallman</a>
zh_TW: 作者為 <a href="http://www.stallman.org/">Richard M. Stallman</a>

note: type: Content of: <blockquote><p>
en: Most of this article was published in two parts in Wired in March 2015.
zh_TW: 本文大部份的內容於2015年3月在《Wired》雜誌中分兩部份發佈。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: To what extent do the ideas of free software extend to hardware? Is it a moral obligation to make our hardware designs free, just as it is to make our software free? Does maintaining our freedom require rejecting hardware made from nonfree designs?
zh_TW: 自由軟體的概念對硬體有多大的影響力？讓我們的硬體設計自由是一種如同自由軟體一樣的道德義務嗎？維護我們的自由是否需要拒絕從非自由的設計製造出來的硬體？

note: type: Content of: <h3>
en: Definitions
zh_TW: 定義

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: <em>Free software</em> is a matter of freedom, not price; broadly speaking, it means that users are free to use the software and to copy and redistribute the software, with or without changes.  More precisely, the definition is formulated in terms of <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">the four essential freedoms</a>.  To emphasize that &ldquo;free&rdquo;refers to freedom, not price, we often use the French or Spanish word &ldquo;libre&rdquo; along with &ldquo;free.&rdquo;
zh_TW: <em>自由軟體</em>所講述的是自由，無關乎價格；廣義來說，這代表了使用者可以自由使用軟體，而且不管有沒有變更，都可以複製與轉散佈軟體。確切來說，這個定義是根據<a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">四個基本自由</a>。在英文中，因為要強調此處的 "free" 是解釋成自由而非免費，我們通常會使用法文或西班牙文的 "libre" 與 "free" 並行。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: Applying the same concept directly to hardware, <em>free hardware</em> means hardware that users are free to use and to copy and redistribute with or without changes.  However, there are no copiers for hardware, aside from keys, DNA, and plastic objects' exterior shapes.  Most hardware is made by fabrication from some sort of design.  The design comes before the hardware.
zh_TW: 將相同的概念直接套用於硬體，<em>自由硬體</em>代表了使用者可以自由使用硬體，不論有沒有變更，都可以複製與轉散佈。然而，除了鑰匙、DNA 與塑膠物體的外形以外，都沒有硬體複製機。大多數的硬體都是透過某種設計製造出來的。而設計先於硬體。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: Thus, the concept we really need is that of a <em>free hardware design</em>.  That's simple: it means a design that permits users to use the design (i.e., fabricate hardware from it) and to copy and redistribute it, with or without changes.  The design must provide the same four freedoms that define free software.
zh_TW: 因此，我們真正需要的概念是<em>自由硬體設計</em>。這很簡單：其代表了一種允許使用者使用設計（亦即使用其製造硬體）並不管在有無變更的情況下複製與轉散佈。自由硬體設計必須提供與定義自由軟體相同的四大自由。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: Then we can refer to hardware made from a free design as &ldquo;free hardware,&rdquo; but &ldquo;free-design hardware&rdquo; is a clearer term since it avoids possible misunderstanding.
zh_TW: 然後我們就可以將從自由的設計製造出來的硬體稱為「自由硬體」，但「自由設計硬體」會是比較清楚的術語，因為這避免了潛在的誤解。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: People first encountering the idea of free software often think it means you can get a copy gratis.  Many free programs are available for zero price, since it costs you nothing to download your own copy, but that's not what &ldquo;free&rdquo; means here.  (In fact, some spyware programs such as <a href="/philosophy/proprietary/proprietary-surveillance.html">Flash Player and Angry Birds</a> are gratis although they are not free.)  Saying &ldquo;libre&rdquo; along with &ldquo;free&rdquo; helps clarify the point.
zh_TW: 人們一開始遇到自由軟體的想法都是可以免費取得副本。許多自由軟體都是免費提供，但這這並不是「自由」所代表的意思。（事實上，某些間諜軟體，如<a href="/philosophy/proprietary/proprietary-surveillance.html">Flash Player 與憤怒鳥</a>是免費的，但並非自由。）與 "libre" 一起使用 "free" 有助於澄清這件事。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: For hardware, this confusion tends to go in the other direction; hardware costs money to produce, so commercially made hardware won't be gratis (unless it is a loss-leader or a tie-in), but that does not prevent its design from being free/libre.  Things you make in your own 3D printer can be quite cheap to make, but not exactly gratis since the raw materials will typically cost something.  In ethical terms, the freedom issue trumps the price issue totally, since a device that denies freedom to its users is worth less than nothing.
zh_TW: 對於硬體來說，這類的混淆通常會往另一個方向走；硬體需要花錢才能製造，因此商業製造的硬體不會免費提供（除非是用來引導顧客購買其他高價商品的低價商品，或是搭售商品），但這並不妨礙其設計自由化。你在自己的 3D 列印機上製作的東西可以很便宜，但絕對不會是免費的，因為原物料也要花錢。從道德的角度來看，自由的問題絕對勝過價格的問題，因為拒絕使用者自由的裝置根本沒有價值可言。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: We can use the term &ldquo;libre hardware&rdquo; as a concise equivalent for &ldquo;hardware made from a free (libre)  design&rdquo;.
zh_TW: 我們可以用英文的 "libre hardware" 作為「從自由設計製造出來的硬體」的代稱。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: The terms &ldquo;open hardware&rdquo; and &ldquo;open source hardware&rdquo; are used by some with the same concrete meaning as &ldquo;free-design hardware,&rdquo; but those terms downplay freedom as an issue.  They were derived from the term &ldquo;open source software,&rdquo; which refers more or less to free software but <a href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">without talking about freedom or presenting the issue as a matter of right or wrong</a>.  To underline the importance of freedom, we make a point of referring to freedom whenever it is pertinent; since &ldquo;open&rdquo; fails to do that, let's not substitute it for &ldquo;free.&rdquo;
zh_TW: 某些人使用「開放硬體」與「開放原始碼硬體」，這些術語跟「自由設計的硬體」有相同的含意，但這些術語將自由視做問題。它們源自於「開放原始碼軟體」一詞，其或多或少可以用以指稱自由軟體，但<a href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">並未談論自由，或將相關的問題以對錯的形式提出</a>。為了強調自由的重要性，我們在任何時候都會使用「自由」；因為「開放」並沒有做到這一點，所以請不要使用它來代替「自由」。

note: type: Content of: <h3>
en: Hardware and Software
zh_TW: 硬體與軟體

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: Hardware and software are fundamentally different.  A program, even in compiled executable form, is a collection of data which can be interpreted as instructions for a computer.  Like any other digital work, it can be copied and changed using a computer.  A copy of a program has no inherent preferred physical form or embodiment.
zh_TW: 硬體與軟體完全不同。即使是已編譯完成的可執行形式，程式也可以被解釋為電腦指令的資料集合。就像任何其他的數位作品一樣，它可以使用電腦複製及變更。程式的副本並不會有固定的物理形式。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: By contrast, hardware is a physical structure and its physicality is crucial.  While the hardware's design might be represented as data, in some cases even as a program, the design is not the hardware.  A design for a CPU can't execute a program.  You won't get very far trying to type on a design for a keyboard or display pixels on a design for a screen.
zh_TW: 相較之下，硬體是一種物理結構，其物理性質非常重要。雖然硬體設計可以用資料的形式表示，有時甚至可以用程式的形式展示，但設計畢竟不是硬體。CPU 的設計圖並不能執行程式。您不會在鍵盤的設計圖上打字，或是在螢幕的設計圖上顯示像素。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: Furthermore, while you can use a computer to modify or copy the hardware design, a computer can't convert the design into the physical structure it describes.  That requires fabrication equipment.
zh_TW: 此外，雖然您可以使用電腦來修改或複製硬體設計，但電腦沒辦法將設計轉換為其所描述的物理結構。這需要製造設備。

note: type: Content of: <h3>
en: The Boundary between Hardware and Software
zh_TW: 硬體與軟體間的界線

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: What is the boundary, in digital devices, between hardware and software? It follows from the definitions.  Software is the operational part of a device that can be copied and changed in a computer; hardware is the operational part that can't be.  This is the right way to make the distinction because it relates to the practical consequences.
zh_TW: 在數位裝置中，硬體與軟體的界線是什麼？其來自定義。軟體是在電腦中可以被複製與修改的部份；而硬體則沒辦法這麼做。這是區分的正確方法，因為其與實際後果有關。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: There is a gray area between hardware and software that contains firmware that <em>can</em> be upgraded or replaced, but is not meant ever to be upgraded or replaced once the product is sold.  In conceptual terms, the gray area is rather narrow.  In practice, it is important because many products fall in it.  We can treat that firmware as hardware with a small stretch.
zh_TW: 硬體與軟體間有著灰色地帶，因為其中包含了<em>可以</em>升級或取代的韌體，但在產品售出後通常不會升級或取代。從概念上來說，灰色區域相當狹窄。實際上，這很重要，因為有許多產品都屬於這種類型。我們可以將韌體視為硬體的小小延伸。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: Some have said that preinstalled firmware programs and Field-Programmable Gate Array chips (FPGAs) &ldquo;blur the boundary between hardware and software,&rdquo; but I think that is a misinterpretation of the facts.  Firmware that is installed during use is software; firmware that is delivered inside the device and can't be changed is software by nature, but we can treat it as if it were a circuit.  As for FPGAs, the FPGA itself is hardware, but the gate pattern that is loaded into the FPGA is a kind of firmware.
zh_TW: 有些人說預先安裝的韌體與現場可程式化邏輯閘陣列 (FPGA)「模糊了硬體與軟體間的界線」，但我認為這是對事實的誤解。使用過程中安裝的韌體是軟體；在裝置內提供且無法修改的韌體本質上也是軟體，但我們可以將其視為電路。而對 FPGA 來說，FPGA 本身是硬體，但載入到 FPGA 的邏輯閘模式是一種韌體。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: Running free gate patterns on FPGAs could potentially be a useful method for making digital devices that are free at the circuit level.  However, to make FPGAs usable in the free world, we need free development tools for them.  The obstacle is that the format of the gate pattern file that gets loaded into the FPGA is secret.  For many years there was no model of FPGA for which those files could be produced without nonfree (proprietary) tools.
zh_TW: 在 FPGA 上執行自由的邏輯閘模式是製造在電路層級上自由的數位裝置的好方法。不過，要在自由的世界中製造可用的 FPGA，我們需要它們的自由開發工具。但障礙是載入到 FPGA 的邏輯閘模式檔案的格式秘而不宣。多年來，沒有任何一個 FPGA 型號可以在不使用非自由（專有）工具的情況下生成這些檔案。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: As of 2015, free software tools are available for <a href="http://www.clifford.at/icestorm/">programming the Lattice iCE40</a>, a common model of FPGA, from input written in a hardware description language (HDL).  It is also possible to compile C programs and run them on the Xilinx Spartan 6 LX9 FPGA with <a href="https://github.com/Wolfgang-Spraul/fpgatools">free tools</a>, but those do not support HDL input.  We recommend that you reject other FPGA models until they too are supported by free tools.
zh_TW: 截至2015年為止，自由軟體工具可用於<a href="http://www.clifford.at/icestorm/">程式化 Lattice iCE40</a>，而這是很常見的 FPGA 型號，並以硬體描述語言 (HDL) 編寫。它也可以編譯以 C 語言編寫的程式，並在 Xilinx Spartan 6 LX9 FPGA 上與<a href="https://github.com/Wolfgang-Spraul/fpgatools">自由工具</a>一起執行，但那些並不支援 HDL 輸入。我們建議您拒絕使用其他 FPGA 型號，直到自由工具支援它們。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: As for the HDL code itself, it can act as software (when it is run on an emulator or loaded into an FPGA) or as a hardware design (when it is realized in immutable silicon or a circuit board).
zh_TW: 至於 HDL 本身，它可以充當軟體（當其在模擬器上執行，或是載入到 FPGA 時）或是硬體設計（當其在不可變動的半導體或電路板裡時）。

note: type: Content of: <h3>
en: The Ethical Question for 3D Printers
zh_TW: 3D 列印機的道德問題

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: Ethically, <a href="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html">software must be free</a>; a nonfree program is an injustice.  Should we take the same view for hardware designs?
zh_TW: 從道德上來說，<a href="/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html">軟體必須是自由的</a>；非自由軟體是不公正的。我們應該把一樣的觀點套用到硬體設計上嗎？

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: We certainly should, in the fields that 3D printing (or, more generally, any sort of personal fabrication) can handle.  Printer patterns to make a useful, practical object (i.e., functional rather than decorative) <em>must</em> be free because they are works made for practical use.  Users deserve control over these works, just as they deserve control over the software they use.  Distributing a nonfree functional object design is as wrong as distributing a nonfree program.
zh_TW: 在 3D 列印（或是更廣泛地說，一般個人製作）能力所及的領域中，我們應當這麼做。製作實用物品（功能性大於裝飾性）的列印模型<em>必須</em>是自由的，因為它們是為實際使用而製作的。使用者應該控制這些工作，就像他們應該控制其所使用的軟體一樣。散佈非自由的功能性物件設計就跟散佈非自由軟體一樣有問題。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: Be careful to choose 3D printers that work with exclusively free software; the Free Software Foundation <a href="http://fsf.org/resources/hw/endorsement">endorses such printers</a>.  Some 3D printers are made from free hardware designs, but <a href="http://www.cnet.com/news/pulling-back-from-open-source-hardware-makerbot-angers-some-adherents/">Makerbot's hardware designs are nonfree</a>.
zh_TW: 小心選擇可以在只使用自由軟體的情境下運作的 3D 列印機、自由軟體基金會<a href="http://fsf.org/resources/hw/endorsement">贊同這類印表機</a>。某些 3D 印表機是從自由的硬體設計製造出來的，但 <a href="http://www.cnet.com/news/pulling-back-from-open-source-hardware-makerbot-angers-some-adherents/">Makerbot 的硬體設計是非自由的</a>。

note: type: Content of: <h3>
en: Must We Reject Nonfree Digital Hardware?
zh_TW: 我們必須拒絕非自由的數位硬體嗎？

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: Is a nonfree digital <a href="#fn1">(*)</a> hardware design an injustice? Must we, for our freedom's sake, reject all digital hardware made from nonfree designs, as we must reject nonfree software?
zh_TW: 非自由的數位硬體 <a href="#fn1">(*)</a> 設計不公正嗎？我們必須為了自由而拒絕所有從非自由設計製造出來的數位硬體，就像我們拒絕非自由軟體那樣嗎？

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: Due to the conceptual parallel between hardware designs and software source code, many hardware hackers are quick to condemn nonfree hardware designs just like nonfree software.  I disagree because the circumstances for hardware and software are different.
zh_TW: 由於硬體設計與軟體原始碼在概念上類似，許多硬體駭客立刻就像非自由軟體那樣開始譴責非自由的硬體設計。我不同意這類的觀點，因為硬體與軟體的狀況不同。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: Present-day chip and board fabrication technology resembles the printing press: it lends itself to mass production in a factory.  It is more like copying books in 1950 than like copying software today.
zh_TW: 目前的晶片與電路板的製造技術比較像印刷機：它比較適合用於在工廠裡大規模生產。所以其比較接近在1950年代拷貝書籍，而不像現在的複製軟體。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: Freedom to copy and change software is an ethical imperative because those activities are feasible for those who use software: the equipment that enables you to use the software (a computer) is also sufficient to copy and change it.  Today's mobile computers are too weak to be good for this, but anyone can find a computer that's powerful enough.
zh_TW: 複製與修改軟體的自由是道德要求，因為這些事情對於使用軟體的人來說是做得到的：讓您可以使用軟體的裝置（電腦）也足以複製並修改它。目前的行動電腦的運算能力還不夠做到這一點，但任何人都能找到夠強大的電腦來做這件事。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: Moreover, a computer suffices to download and run a version changed by someone else who knows how, even if you are not a programmer.  Indeed, nonprogrammers download software and run it every day.  This is why free software makes a real difference to nonprogrammers.
zh_TW: 此外，電腦可以下載並執行由其他人修改的版本，即使你不是程式設計師也一樣。事實上，不是程式設計師的一般大眾會下載軟體並每天執行它。這就是為什麼自由軟體會對一般大眾產生影響的真正原因。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: How much of this applies to hardware? Not everyone who can use digital hardware knows how to change a circuit design, or a chip design, but anyone who has a PC has the equipment needed to do so.  Thus far, hardware is parallel to software, but next comes the big difference.
zh_TW: 但這之中又有多少可以套用到硬體上？不是每個使用數位硬體的人都知道要怎麼修改電路設計或是晶片設計，但有個人電腦的人都擁有所需的設備。到目前為止，硬體似乎與軟體類似，但接下來會有很大的不同。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: You can't build and run a circuit design or a chip design in your computer.  Constructing a big circuit is a lot of painstaking work, and that's once you have the circuit board.  Fabricating a chip is not feasible for individuals today; only mass production can make them cheap enough.  With today's hardware technology, users can't download and run John H Hacker's modified version of a digital hardware design, as they could run John S Hacker's modified version of a program.  Thus, the four freedoms don't give users today collective control over a hardware design as they give users collective control over a program.  That's where the reasoning showing that all software must be free fails to apply to today's hardware technology.
zh_TW: 你不能在你的電腦中建構並執行電路設計或晶片設計。建構大型電路板是一項艱苦的工作，並不是只要有電路板就可以了。製造晶片對於目前的個人來說，幾乎是不可能的事情；只有量產才會讓它們變得夠便宜。以當今的硬體技術來說，使用者並沒有辦法像執行 John S Hacker 修改的程式版本那樣下載並執行 John H Hacker 修改的數位硬體設計。因此，四大自由無法像給予使用者對軟體的完整控制權那樣給他們對硬體的完整控制權。這就是為什麼所有軟體都必須自由的推理無法套用到當今硬體技術的原因。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: In 1983 there was no free operating system, but it was clear that if we had one, we could immediately use it and get software freedom.  All that was missing was the code for one.
zh_TW: 1983年時沒有自由的作業系統，但很明顯的是如果我們在那時候有這類的作業系統的話，我們可以馬上使用它並得到軟體自由。這一切缺少的就只是一份程式碼。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: In 2014, if we had a free design for a CPU chip suitable for a PC, mass-produced chips made from that design would not give us the same freedom in the hardware domain.  If we're going to buy a product mass produced in a factory, this dependence on the factory causes most of the same problems as a nonfree design.  For free designs to give us hardware freedom, we need future fabrication technology.
zh_TW: 在2014年，就算我們有適用於個人電腦的自由 CPU 晶片設計，使用這個設計大規模製造的晶片也沒辦法在硬體領域給我們相同的自由。如果我們要購買工廠大規模生產的產品，這種對工廠的依賴會導致與非自由設計一樣的問題。對於可以給予我們硬體自由的自由設計，我們需要未來的製造技術。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: We can envision a future in which our personal fabricators can make chips, and our robots can assemble and solder them together with transformers, switches, keys, displays, fans and so on.  In that future we will all make our own computers (and fabricators and robots), and we will all be able to take advantage of modified designs made by those who know hardware.  The arguments for rejecting nonfree software will then apply to nonfree hardware designs too.
zh_TW: 我們可以設想我們的個人工廠可以自行製造晶片的未來，我們的機器人可以組裝並焊接變壓器、開關、鑰匙、顯示器、風扇等等零件。在這個未來，我們都可以製造自己的電腦（以及裝配工與機器人），我們都將能夠利用那些了解硬體的人所做的設計改進。此時拒絕非自由軟體的論點也將適用於非自由硬體設計。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: That future is years away, at least.  In the meantime, there is no need to reject hardware with nonfree designs on principle.
zh_TW: 這個未來也許還需要數年的時間。所以到目前為止，暫時不需要拒絕非自由設計的硬體。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: * As used here, &ldquo;digital hardware&rdquo; includes hardware with some analog circuits and components in addition to digital ones.
zh_TW: * 這裡所稱的「數位硬體」包含了有類比電路與除了數位電路以外元件的硬體。

note: type: Content of: <h3>
en: We Need Free Digital Hardware Designs
zh_TW: 我們需要自由的數位硬體設計

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: Although we need not reject digital hardware made from nonfree designs in today's circumstances, we need to develop free designs and should use them when feasible.  They provide advantages today, and in the future they may be the only way to use free software.
zh_TW: 雖然我們目前還不需要拒絕使用非自由設計製造的數位硬體，我們還是需要開發自由的設計，並在可行的時候使用它們。它們目前提供了優勢，而在未來，它們可能是使用自由軟體的唯一方法。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: Free hardware designs offer practical advantages.  Multiple companies can fabricate one, which reduces dependence on a single vendor.  Groups can arrange to fabricate them in quantity.  Having circuit diagrams or HDL code makes it possible to study the design to look for errors or malicious functionalities (it is known that the NSA has procured malicious weaknesses in some computing hardware).  Furthermore, free designs can serve as building blocks to design computers and other complex devices, whose specs will be published and which will have fewer parts that could be used against us.
zh_TW: 自由硬體設計有實際優勢。多間公司可以製造同一種硬體，從而減少對單一供應商的依賴。團體可以安排大量製造。有電路圖或 HDL 程式碼就可以研究設計並尋找設計錯誤或惡意功能（眾所週知，美國國家安全局已經在某些硬體中植入惡意弱點）。此外，自由設計可以當作建構電腦與其他複雜裝置的模組，其規格會被公開，所以用來對付我們的元件會比較少。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: Free hardware designs may become usable for some parts of our computers and networks, and for embedded systems, before we are able to make entire computers this way.
zh_TW: 在我們能以這種方式製造整臺電腦之前，自由硬體設計可以用在我們電腦與網路中的某些部份，以及嵌入式系統上。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: Free hardware designs may become essential even before we can fabricate the hardware personally, if they become the only way to avoid nonfree software.  As common commercial hardware is increasingly designed to subjugate users, it becomes increasingly incompatible with free software, because of secret specifications and requirements for code to be signed by someone other than you.  Cell phone modem chips and even some graphics accelerators already require firmware to be signed by the manufacturer.  Any program in your computer, that someone else is allowed to change but you're not, is an instrument of unjust power over you; hardware that imposes that requirement is malicious hardware.  In the case of cell phone modem chips, all the models now available are malicious.
zh_TW: 如果變成避免使用非自由軟體的唯一方法，即使我們還不能自己製造硬體，自由硬體設計也可能會變得相當重要。隨著常見的商業硬體愈來愈常被設計用來控制使用者，其與自由軟體的相容性愈來愈低，因為祕密規格與程式碼需求由你以外的人簽署。手機的數據機晶片與某些顯示卡驅動程式甚至都已經開始要求由製造商簽章。你電腦中的程式可以讓除了你以外的其他人修改，是對你行使不公正權力的工具；強制要求簽章的硬體就是惡意硬體。以手機的數據機晶片來說，目前所有可用的型號都是惡意的。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: Some day, free-design digital hardware may be the only platform that permits running a free system at all.  Let us aim to have the necessary free digital designs before then, and hope that we have the means to fabricate them cheaply enough for all users.
zh_TW: 未來的某一天，自由設計的數位硬體可能會是唯一可以執行自由系統的平臺。我們的目標是在這之前擁有足夠的自由數位設計，並希望我們有足夠的方法為所有的使用者以低成本製造它們。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: If you design hardware, please make your designs free.  If you use hardware, please join in urging and pressuring companies to make hardware designs free.
zh_TW: 如果你設計硬體，請讓你的設計自由。如果你使用硬體，請加入敦促與施壓公司讓硬體設計自由。

note: type: Content of: <h3>
en: Levels of Design
zh_TW: 設計層級

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: Software has levels of implementation; a package might include libraries, commands and scripts, for instance.  But these levels don't make a significant difference for software freedom because it is feasible to make all the levels free.  Designing components of a program is the same sort of work as designing the code that combines them; likewise, building the components from source is the same sort of operation as building the combined program from source.  To make the whole thing free simply requires continuing the work until we have done the whole job.
zh_TW: 軟體有實作層級；舉例來說，軟體包可能包含了函式庫、指令與指令稿。但是這些層級對軟體自由沒有顯著影響，因為可以讓所有層級都自由。設計程式的元件與設計將它們組合起來的程式碼是一樣的工作；同樣地，從原始碼建構元件與從原始碼建構組合好的程式是一樣的工作。要讓整個東西都自由，只要繼續工作，直到所有工作都完成。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: Therefore, we insist that a program be free at all levels.  For a program to qualify as free, every line of the source code that composes it must be free, so that you can rebuild the program out of free source code alone.
zh_TW: 因此，我們堅持認為程式在所有層級都是自由的。要讓程式取得自由的資格，每行組成程式的程式碼都必須是自由的，這樣你就可以單獨使用自由的程式碼重建程式。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: Physical objects, by contrast, are often built out of components that are designed and build in a different kind of factory.  For instance, a computer is made from chips, but designing (or fabricating) chips is very different from designing (or fabricating)  the computer out of chips.
zh_TW: 相較之下，實體元件通常是由在不同類型的工廠設計並建構的元件所組裝而成的。舉例來說，電腦由晶片製造而成，但設計（或製造）晶片與設計（或製造）從晶片製造而成的電腦幾乎完全不同。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: Thus, we need to distinguish <em>levels</em> in the design of a digital product (and maybe some other kinds of products).  The circuit that connects the chips is one level; each chip's design is another level.  In an FPGA, the interconnection of primitive cells is one level, while the primitive cells themselves are another level.  In the ideal future we will want the design be free at all levels.  Under present circumstances, just making one level free is a significant advance.
zh_TW: 因此，我們必須將數位產品（與其他某些類型的產品）的設計層級分開來。連接到晶片的電路是一個層級；每個晶片的設計又是另一個層級。在 FPGA 中，原始單元的互相連接是一個層級，而原始單元又是另一個層級。在理想中的未來，我們希望在所有層級的設計都是自由的。在目前的情況下，就連讓一個層級的設計自由化都是顯著進步。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: However, if a design at one level combines free and nonfree parts &mdash; for example, a &ldquo;free&rdquo; HDL circuit that incorporates proprietary &ldquo;soft cores&rdquo; &mdash; we must conclude that the design as a whole is nonfree at that level.  Likewise for nonfree &ldquo;wizards&rdquo; or &ldquo;macros,&rdquo; if they specify part of the interconnections of chips or programmably connected parts of chips.  The free parts may be a step towards the future goal of a free design, but reaching that goal entails replacing the nonfree parts.  They can never be admissible in the free world.
zh_TW: 但是如果某個設計在一個層級中同時包含了自由與非自由的部份（舉例來說，包含了專有「軟體核心」的「自由」的 HDL 電路），我們可以得出結路，也就是這個設計在這個層級是非自由的。同樣地，對於非自由的「精靈」或「巨集」來說，如果它們指定了晶片互相連接的一部份或是晶片的可程式化部份。自由元件可能是邁向未來自由設計目標的一步，但要達到這個目標需要替換非自由元件。它們永遠不會被自由世界所接納。

note: type: Content of: <h3>
en: Licenses and Copyright for Free Hardware Designs
zh_TW: 自由硬體設計的授權條款與著作權

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: You make a hardware design free by releasing it under a free license.  We recommend using the GNU General Public License, version 3 or later.  We designed GPL version 3 with a view to such use.
zh_TW: 你可以使用自由的授權條款來釋出硬體設計。我們建議使用 GNU 通用公眾授權條款，第三版或更新。我們當初設計 GPL 第三版時也考慮到了這點。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: Copyleft on circuits, and on nondecorative object shapes, doesn't go as far as one might suppose.  The copyright on these designs only applies to the way the design is drawn or written.  Copyleft is a way of using copyright law, so its effect carries only as far as copyright law carries.
zh_TW: 電路與非裝飾性物體外形上的著作傳並不如人們想像的那麼有力。這些設計的著作權適用範圍僅及於繪製或編寫出來的設計。著作傳是使用著作權法規的一種方式，因此其效力僅及於著作權法規可達之處。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: For instance, a circuit, as a topology, cannot be copyrighted (and therefore cannot be copylefted).  Definitions of circuits written in HDL can be copyrighted (and therefore copylefted), but the copyleft covers only the details of expression of the HDL code, not the circuit topology it generates.  Likewise, a drawing or layout of a circuit can be copyrighted, so it can be copylefted, but this only covers the drawing or layout, not the circuit topology.  Anyone can legally draw the same circuit topology in a different-looking way, or write a different HDL definition that produces the same circuit.
zh_TW: 舉例來說，作為拓樸的電路並不受著作權保護（也因此無法將其著作傳化）。用 HDL 編寫的電路定義則受著作權保護（也因此可以著作傳化），但是著作傳在這裡只涵蓋到 HDL 程式碼所描述的細節，並不及於其所生成的電路拓樸。同樣地，電路的設計圖與佈局受著作權保護，所以可以被著作傳化，但其效力僅及於設計圖或佈局，不及於電路拓樸。任何人都可以用不同的方式合法地繪製相同的電路拓樸，或是編寫生成相同電路的不同 HDL 定義。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: Copyright doesn't cover physical circuits, so when people build instances of the circuit, the design's license will have no legal effect on what they do with the devices they have built.
zh_TW: 著作權並未涵蓋實體電路，所以當人們建構電路的實體的時候，設計的授權條款對他們建構的裝置並沒有法律效力。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: For drawings of objects, and 3D printer models, copyright doesn't cover making a different drawing of the same purely functional object shape.  It also doesn't cover the functional physical objects made from the drawing.  As far as copyright is concerned, everyone is free to make them and use them (and that's a freedom we need very much).  In the US, copyright does not cover the functional aspects that the design describes, but <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap13.html#1301">does cover decorative aspects</a>.  When one object has decorative aspects and functional aspects, you get into tricky ground <a href="#fn2">(*)</a>.
zh_TW: 對於物件圖與 3D 列印機模型，著作權並不包含對相同的功能物件進行不同的繪製。它也不包含由圖所製作出來的實體功能性物件。就著作權來說，每個人都可以自由製作並使用它們（這是我們非常需要的自由）。在美國，著作權不包含設計所描述的功能，但是<a href="http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap13.html#1301">包含了裝飾</a>。當一個物體同時具有裝飾性與功能性，你就會遇到棘手的問題 <a href="#fn2">(*)</a>。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: All this may be true in your country as well, or it may not.  Before producing objects commercially or in quantity, you should consult a local lawyer.  Copyright is not the only issue you need to be concerned with.  You might be attacked using patents, most likely held by entities that had nothing to do with making the design you're using, and there may be other legal issues as well.
zh_TW: 這些東西在你的國家的情況可能相同，也可能不同。在商業化或大量製造某項物品之前，你應該先諮詢當地的律師。著作權並不是你唯一要關心的問題。你可能會被其他人利用專利進行攻擊，而且很可能是由與你正在使用的設計無關的實體持有，還可能有其他法律問題。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: Keep in mind that copyright law and patent law are totally different.  It is a mistake to suppose that they have anything in common.  This is why the term &ldquo;<a href="/philosophy/not-ipr.html">intellectual property</a>&rdquo; is pure confusion and should be totally rejected.
zh_TW: 請注意，著作權法和專利法完全不同。假設它們有任何共同點都是錯誤的。這就是為什麼「<a href="/philosophy/not-ipr.html">智慧財產權</a>」一詞純屬混亂，應該完全被拒絕。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: * An article by Public Knowledge gives useful information about this <a href="https://www.publicknowledge.org/assets/uploads/documents/3_Steps_for_Licensing_Your_3D_Printed_Stuff.pdf"> complexity</a>, for the US, though it falls into the common mistake of using the bogus concept of &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; and the propaganda term &ldquo;<a href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Protection">protection</a>.&rdquo;
zh_TW: * Public Knowledge 的一篇文章提供了在美國有關於這種<a href="https://www.publicknowledge.org/assets/uploads/documents/3_Steps_for_Licensing_Your_3D_Printed_Stuff.pdf">複雜性</a>的資訊，雖然它還是犯了使用「智慧財產權」與宣傳用的「<a href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Protection">保護</a>」一詞的常見錯誤。

note: type: Content of: <h3>
en: Promoting Free Hardware Designs Through Repositories
zh_TW: 透過存放處推廣自由硬體設計

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: The most effective way to push for published hardware designs to be free is through rules in the repositories where they are published.  Repository operators should place the freedom of the people who will use the designs above the preferences of people who make the designs.  This means requiring designs of useful objects to be free, as a condition for posting them.
zh_TW: 推動已經發佈的硬體設計變為自由的最有效方法是透過他們發佈的存放處的規則。存放處的操作者應該將自由置於設計師的偏好之上。這代表了將實用物件自由釋出來作為發佈它們的條件。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: For decorative objects, that argument does not apply, so we don't have to insist they must be free.  However, we should insist that they be sharable.  Thus, a repository that handles both decorative object models and functional ones should have an appropriate license policy for each category.
zh_TW: 對於裝飾用的物件，這個論點不適用，所以我們不必強求它們必須是自由的。不過，我們應該堅持它們必須是可共享的。因此，同時處理裝飾性物件與功能性物件的存放處應該要為每個分類都使用適當的授權條款政策。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: For digital designs, I suggest that the repository insist on GNU GPL v3-or-later, Apache 2.0, or CC-0.  For functional 3D designs, the repository should ask the design's author to choose one of four licenses: GNU GPL v3-or-later, Apache 2.0, CC-SA, CC-BY or CC-0.  For decorative designs, it should suggest GNU GPL v3-or-later, Apache 2.0, CC-0, or any of the CC licenses.
zh_TW: 對於數位設計來說，我建議存放處使用 GNU GPL 第三版或更新，Apache 2.0 或 CC0。對於功能性 3D 設計，存放處應該要求設計的作者從四個授權條款中選擇一個：GNU GPL 第三版或更新、Apache 2.0、CC-BY-SA、CC-BY 或 CC0。對於裝飾性的設計，建議使用 GNU GPL 第三版或更新、Apache 2.0、CC0 或任何其他的創用 CC 授權條款。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: The repository should require all designs to be published as source code, and source code in secret formats usable only by proprietary design programs is not really adequate.  For a 3D model, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STL_%28file_format%29">STL format</a> is not the preferred format for changing the design and thus is not source code, so the repository should not accept it, except perhaps accompanying real source code.
zh_TW: 存放處應該要求所有的設計都以原始碼的型式發佈，而只能由專有設計程式使用的原始碼並不恰當。對於 3D 模型來說，<a href="https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/STL_(%E6%AA%94%E6%A1%88%E6%A0%BC%E5%BC%8F)">STL 格式</a>並不是偏好的變更設計格式，因此不是原始碼，所以存放處不應該接受此格式，除非其附帶了真正的原始碼。

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: There is no reason to choose one single format for the source code of hardware designs, but source formats that cannot yet be handled with free software should be accepted reluctantly at best.
zh_TW: 沒有理由為硬體設計的原始碼選擇單一格式，但無法以自由軟體處理的原始格式以目前的狀況來說也只能勉強接受。

note: type: Content of: <h3>
en: Free Hardware Designs and Warranties
zh_TW: 自由硬體設計與擔保

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: In general, the authors of free hardware designs have no moral obligation to offer a warranty to those that fabricate the design.  This is a different issue from the sale of physical hardware, which ought to come with a warranty from the seller and/or the manufacturer.
zh_TW: 一般而言，自由硬體設計的作者沒有義務為製造設計的人提供擔保。這跟硬體銷售是不同的問題，應該由賣方或製造商提供擔保。

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

note: type: Content of: <p>
en: We already have suitable licenses to make our hardware designs free.  What we need is to recognize as a community that this is what we should do and to insist on free designs when we fabricate objects ourselves.
zh_TW: 我們已經有適用於讓我們的硬體設計自由的授權條款。我們需要了解的是，在社群中，我們應該在自己製作物品時使用自由設計。

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︰
