www/philosophy open-source-misses-the-point.zh-...

[GNUN]

CVSROOT:        /web/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     GNUN <gnun>     17/07/31 09:59:12

Modified files:
        philosophy     : open-source-misses-the-point.zh-cn.html 
        philosophy/po  : open-source-misses-the-point.zh-cn-en.html 
                         open-source-misses-the-point.zh-cn.po 

Log message:
        Automatic update by GNUnited Nations.

CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.zh-cn.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.20&r2=1.21
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.zh-cn-en.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.13&r2=1.14
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.zh-cn.po?cvsroot=www&r1=1.43&r2=1.44

Patches:
Index: open-source-misses-the-point.zh-cn.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.zh-cn.html,v
retrieving revision 1.20
retrieving revision 1.21
diff -u -b -r1.20 -r1.21
--- open-source-misses-the-point.zh-cn.html     27 Jul 2016 04:59:13 -0000      
1.20
+++ open-source-misses-the-point.zh-cn.html     31 Jul 2017 13:59:12 -0000      
1.21
@@ -1,28 +1,19 @@
-<!--#set var="PO_FILE"
- value='<a href="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.zh-cn.po">
- https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.zh-cn.po</a>'
- --><!--#set var="ORIGINAL_FILE" 
value="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html"
- --><!--#set var="DIFF_FILE" 
value="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.zh-cn-diff.html"
- --><!--#set var="OUTDATED_SINCE" value="2013-07-08" -->
+<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" 
value="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html" -->
 
 <!--#include virtual="/server/header.zh-cn.html" -->
-<!-- Parent-Version: 1.75 -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 -->
 
 <!-- This file is automatically generated by GNUnited Nations! -->
- <!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" 
value="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html" -->
-
-<title>开源究竟差哪了 - GNU 工程 - 自由软件基金会(FSF)</title>
+<title>为什么开源误导了自由软件的重点 - GNU 工程 - 
自由软件基金会(FSF)</title>
 
 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.translist" 
-->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.zh-cn.html" -->
-<!--#include virtual="/server/outdated.zh-cn.html" -->
- 
-<h2>开源究竟差哪了</h2>
+<h2>为什么开源误导了自由软件的重点</h2>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong> 著</p>
 
 <p>要说一个软件是 &ldquo;自由&rdquo; 的，这意味着它尊重 <a
-href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">用户的基本自由</a>：运行这个软件，学ä¹
 和修改它，以及重新发布它的原版或修改版。这是个å…
³äºŽè‡ªç”±æƒåˆ©çš„问题，而非价æ 
¼é«˜ä½Žã€‚我们讨论的自由是如同自由言论般的权利，不是å…
è´¹èµ é¥®ä¸€æ ·çš„å¤§æ´¾é€ã€‚</p>
+href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">用户的基本自由</a>：自由地运行这个软件，学ä¹
 和修改它，以及重新发布它的原版或修改版。这是个å…
³äºŽè‡ªç”±æƒåˆ©çš„问题，而非价æ 
¼é«˜ä½Žã€‚我们讨论的自由是如同自由言论般的权利，不是å…
è´¹èµ é¥®ä¸€æ ·çš„å¤§æ´¾é€ã€‚</p>
 
 <p>è¿™å‡ æ ·è‡ªç”±æ˜¯è‡³å…³é‡è¦çš„ã€‚ä¹‹æ‰€ä»¥è¯´å®ƒä»¬é‡è¦ï¼Œä¸ä»…ä»…å› 
为它们可以讨好哪个用户，更是由于它们维系着整个社会的凝聚力&mdash;
 å…
·ä½“说来，就是分享与协作的精神。随着我们的生活与文化日渐数字化，这æ
 ·çš„自由精神也随之越来越可贵。在一个充
斥着数字化音像与文字的世界中，自由软件日益重要，它本身已经成为å
…³ä¹Žç€æˆ‘ä»¬åŸºæœ¬è‡ªç”±çš„å› ç´ ä¹‹ä¸€ã€‚</p>
@@ -41,25 +32,32 @@
 
 <p>ä¸€äº›å¼€æºçš„æ”¯æŒè€…ä¼šè®¤ä¸ºï¼Œæ‰€è°“å¼€æºï¼Œæ— 
非是用来&ldquo;为自由软件做市场营销&rdquo;的。å…
·ä½“说来，就是向那些商界人士展现自由软件的实际
å¥½å¤„ã€‚åŒæ—¶é¿å…è°ˆåŠä»€ä¹ˆå¯¹é”™æ­£è¯¯ï¼Œå› 
为商业大佬们普遍不太喜欢这调调。还有一些开源的支持者
å¹²è„†å°±æŠ›å¼ƒè‡ªç”±è½¯ä»¶é“ä¹‰ä¸Šçš„ä»·å€¼è§‚ã€‚æ— 
论他们持哪种观点，一旦他们开始为开源营销的时候，自由软件运动所珍视的那些价值观就被抛诸脑后。于是，&ldquo;开源&rdquo;一词很快就单纯地和各种实用主义的价值观联系起来。比如说怎么能创é€
 一个强大，稳定的软件。很多开源支持者
从一开始就把这些价值观推崇至极，也难怪局外人会有如此联系了。</p>
 
-<p>开源软件和自由软件这两个词在很大程度上描述的是同一类软件，但是它们所基于的价值观却有着本质上的区别。开源是指一套<b>开发方法</b>；而自由软件则是一场<b>社会运动</b>。对于自由软件运动而言，自由软件是一个道德底线。å›
 
为只有自由软件才真正尊重用户的自由。开源软件则与此不同，开源的哲学是考虑怎么做把软件做得&ldquo;
+<p>开源软件和自由软件这两个词在很大程度上描述的是同一类软件，但是它们所基于的价值观却有着本质上的区别。开源是指一套开发方法；而自由软件则是一场社会运动。对于自由软件运动而言，自由软件是一个道德底线，是对用户自由的基本尊重。开源软件则与此不同，开源哲学考虑的是怎么做把软件做得&ldquo;
 更好 &rdquo; &mdash;
-仅仅
从实用的角度考虑好坏。开源的哲学里，非自由软件之所以不好，是å›
 
为他们采用了一种劣等的开发方式。而自由软件运动则以为，非自由软件本身就是一个社会问题。解决的方案则只能是抛弃非自由软件，转投自由软件。</p>
+仅仅
从实用的角度。开源的哲学里，非自由软件之所以不好，是å›
 为他们采用了一种劣等的开发方式。开源的大多数讨论å…
³æ³¨çš„不是是非，而仅仅是是否流行和是否成功；<a
+href="http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/Open-Source-Is-Woven-Into-the-Latest-Hottest-Trends-78937.html";>
+就是一个典型的例子</a>。</p>
+
+<p>然而，对自由软件运动来说，非自由软件是一个社会问题，å
…¶è§£å†³æ–¹æ³•æ˜¯åœæ­¢ä½¿ç”¨éžè‡ªç”±è½¯ä»¶å¹¶å¼€å§‹ä½¿ç”¨è‡ªç”±è½¯ä»¶ã€‚</p>
 
-<p>&ldquo;自由软件&rdquo;，&ldquo;开源软件&rdquo;，既然都指的是同类软件，那何å¿
…åœ¨åå­—ä¸Šè¿™ä¹ˆè¾ƒçœŸå‘¢ï¼Ÿææ€•è¿˜æ˜¯æœ‰è¿™ä¸ªå¿…è¦çš„ã€‚å› 
ä¸ºä¸åŒçš„è¯æ±‡ä¼ 
递着不同的思维。尽管现在看来，用另一个名字称呼自由软件可以给ä½
 同等的自由，但若要长期维护用户的自由，则必
é¡»è®©äººä»¬æ„è¯†åˆ°è‡ªç”±çš„ä»·å€¼ã€‚å€˜è‹¥ä½ 
想帮助人们做到这点，那么使用&ldquo;自由软件&rdquo;这一称呼则尤为重要。</p>
+<p>&ldquo;自由软件&rdquo;，&ldquo;开源软件&rdquo;，既然都指的是同类软件（<a
+href="/philosophy/free-open-overlap.html">或基本是同类软件</a>），那何å¿
…åœ¨åå­—ä¸Šè¿™ä¹ˆè¾ƒçœŸå‘¢ï¼Ÿæœ‰è¿™ä¸ªå¿…è¦çš„ã€‚å› ä¸ºä¸åŒçš„è¯æ±‡ä¼ 
递着不同的思维。尽管现在看来，用另一个名字称呼自由软件可以给ä½
 同等的自由，但若要长期维护用户的自由，则必
é¡»è®©äººä»¬æ„è¯†åˆ°è‡ªç”±çš„ä»·å€¼ã€‚å€˜è‹¥ä½ 
想帮助人们做到这点，那么使用&ldquo;自由软件&rdquo;这一称呼则尤为重要。</p>
 
 
<p>作为自由软件运动的成员，我们并不将开源阵营视为敌人。我们的敌人是专有（非自由）软件。但我们希望人们至少应该知道，我们所捍卫的是用户的自由。所以我们不愿被开源支持è€
…ä»¬è´´é”™æ ‡ç­¾ã€‚</p>
 
 <h3>实践中，开源与自由软件的区别</h3>
 
-<p>在实践中，开源的要求比自由软件宽松一些。据我们所知，å‡
 
乎所有的自由软件都是开源软件。尽管大多数开源软件也同æ 
·æ˜¯è‡ªç”±è½¯ä»¶ï¼Œä½†ä¼šæœ‰ä¸€äº›ä¾‹å¤–。首å…
ˆï¼Œæœ‰äº›å¼€æºè®¸å¯è¯å¯¹ç”¨æˆ·è¿‡äºŽè‹›åˆ»ï¼Œå®ƒä»¬å°±æ²¡æœ‰è¢«åˆ—为自由软件。幸运的是，只有很少的软件会使用这些许可证。</p>
+<p>在实践中，开源的要求比自由软件宽松一些。据我们所知，迄今发布的自由软件源代ç
 éƒ½æ˜¯å¼€æºè½¯ä»¶ã€‚尽管大多数开源软件也同æ 
·æ˜¯è‡ªç”±è½¯ä»¶ï¼Œä½†ä¼šæœ‰ä¸€äº›ä¾‹å¤–。首å…
ˆï¼Œæœ‰äº›å¼€æºè®¸å¯è¯å¯¹ç”¨æˆ·è¿‡äºŽè‹›åˆ»ï¼Œå®ƒä»¬å°±æ²¡æœ‰è¢«åˆ—为自由软件。比如，&ldquo;Open
+Watcom&rdquo; å°±éžè‡ªç”±çš„ï¼Œå› ä¸ºå…¶è®¸å¯è¯ä¸å…
è®¸ä¿®æ”¹è¯¥è½¯ä»¶å’Œç§è‡ªä½¿ç”¨è¯¥è½¯ä»¶ã€‚幸运的是，很少软件会使用这些许可证。</p>
 
-<p>另外，还有更重要的一点。很多产品会å…
·å¤‡è®¡ç®—æœºçš„åŠŸèƒ½ï¼Œä¸Šé¢ä¼šè¿è¡Œç€è‡ªç”±è½¯ä»¶ã€‚ç„¶è€Œï¼Œå¦‚æžœä½ 
把这些自由软件做了修改，再安装
å›žé‚£äº›è®¾å¤‡ä¸Šï¼Œè¿™è¡Œä¸ºåˆ™åœ¨å¾ˆå¤šè®¾å¤‡ä¸Šæ— 
æ³•å®Œæˆã€‚æ¢è¨€ä¹‹ï¼Œè¿™äº›è®¾å¤‡åˆ¶é€ å•†ä¼šç¦æ­¢ç”¨æˆ·å®‰è£…
或运行修改后的自由软件（这包括许多Android设备），而只å…
è®¸åˆ¶é€ 
商授权的人或单位修改用户设备上的软件。我们把这种设备称作&ldquo;tyrants&rdquo;，即&ldquo;专制暴君&rdquo;；把这种行为称为&ldquo;tivoization&rdquo;。这个词源自<a
-href="http://www.tivo.com/";>TiVo</a>å…
¬å¸ç”Ÿäº§çš„机顶盒。它们的机顶盒基于GNU/Linux系统，使用了很多自由软件。用户可以使用该产品，通过互联网观看视频节目。虽然TiVoå
…¬å¸æŒ‰ç…§è®¸å¯è¯ï¼Œå‘布了源代ç 
ï¼Œä½†æ˜¯å´ç¦æ­¢ç”¨æˆ·åœ¨æœºé¡¶ç›’上运行自己的程序，或重新安装
系统。这是我们见到的第一个&ldquo;tyrant&rdquo;。在这æ 
·çš„产品上运行的软件，哪怕是以自由软件许可证发布了代ç 
ï¼Œä½†æ˜¯è¿è¡Œçš„äºŒè¿›åˆ¶ç‰ˆæœ¬å´ä¸èƒ½è¢«è®¤ä¸ºæ˜¯è‡ªç”±è½¯ä»¶ã€‚å› 
为它们同æ 
·é™åˆ¶äº†ç”¨æˆ·çš„è‡ªç”±ã€‚è€Œå®ƒä»¬å´ç¬¦åˆå¼€æºè½¯ä»¶çš„å®šä¹‰ï¼Œå› 
为开源软件仅仅通过软件许可证来界定开源和非开源。</p>
+<p>另外，实际
操作时还有更重要的一点。很多产品带有检测可执行文件签名功能的计算机，它会禁止用户安è£
…或运行修改后的可执行文件，而只有一家特权å…
¬å¸æ‰èƒ½ç”Ÿäº§å¯æ‰§è¡Œæ–‡ä»¶æˆ–完å…
¨æŽ§åˆ¶è¯¥äº§å“ã€‚我们把这种设备称作&ldquo;tyrants&rdquo;，即&ldquo;专制暴君&rdquo;；把这种行为称为&ldquo;tivoization&rdquo;，该名称来自我们首å
…ˆçœ‹åˆ°TiVo公司使用该方法发布产品。在这æ 
·çš„产品上运行的可执行软件，哪怕是以自由软件许可证发布了源代ç
 ï¼Œä½†æ˜¯ç”¨æˆ·å´æ— 法运行修改后的可执行文件，所以å…
¶å¯æ‰§è¡Œæ–‡ä»¶ä¸æ˜¯è‡ªç”±è½¯ä»¶ã€‚</p>
+
+<p>å¼€æºçš„æ ‡å‡†æ²¡æœ‰æ„è¯†åˆ°è¿™ä¸ªé—®é¢˜ï¼›å®ƒä»¬åªå…³å¿ƒæºä»£ç 
çš„许可证。这æ 
·ä»¥æ¥ï¼Œè¿™äº›ç¼–译自诸如Linux等开源和自由软件的可执行文件，原封未动，是开源的，但不是自由的。许多Android产品就åŒ
…å«è¿™æ ·çš„éžè‡ªç”±Linux可执行文件（tivoization）。</p>
 
 <h3>关于&ldquo;自由软件&rdquo;和&ldquo;开源&rdquo;的常见误解</h3>
 
 <p>在英语中，&ldquo;自由软件&rdquo;，即 Free
-Software，这个词很容易被误解：Free一词既有å…
è´¹çš„意思，也有自由的意项。而我们所谓的自由软件，则是&ldquo;一类可以赋予用户指定自由的软件&rdquo;。要解决这个问题，我们发布了自由软件的定义。为了方便理解，我们解释自由软件中
+Software，这个词很容易被误解：Free一词既有å…
è´¹çš„意思，也有自由的意思。而我们所谓的自由软件，则是&ldquo;一类可以赋予用户指定自由的软件&rdquo;。要解决这个问题，我们发布了自由软件的定义。为了方便理解，我们解释自由软件中
 Freeï¼Œæ˜¯è‡ªç”±è¨€è®ºä¸­æ‰€è¯´çš„è‡ªç”±ï¼Œè€Œéžå…è´¹èµ é¥®ä¸­çš„å…
è´¹ã€‚è¿™æ˜¾ç„¶ä¸æ˜¯ä¸ªç†æƒ³çš„è§£å†³æ–¹æ¡ˆï¼Œå®ƒæ— 法完å…
¨æœç»è¿™ä¸€é—®é¢˜ã€‚一个意思正确，又没有歧异的词显然更好些，不过前提是这词不会引起å
…¶ä»–麻烦。</p>
 
 <p>可惜的是，在英语中，能替换 Free
@@ -67,18 +65,21 @@
 
Software&rdquo;的词多少都会有些语义方面的问题&mdash;这显然也åŒ
…括&ldquo;开源软件&rdquo;（Open Source
 Software）。</p>
 
-<p><a
-href="http://opensource.org/docs/osd";>开源软件的官方定义</a>（它是由开源促进会发布的，鉴于这个定义过长，就不在本文中å
…
¨éƒ¨å¼•ç”¨äº†ï¼‰æ˜¯ç›´æŽ¥ä»Žæˆ‘们对于自由软件的界定衍生而来。不过二è€
…
也有不同，在某些方面，开源软件的定义比自由软件更宽松。不过总体而言，开源软件的定义和我们自由软件的定义在很多地方都是等价的。</p>
+<p><a href="http://opensource.org/docs/osd";>
+&ldquo;开源软件&rdquo;的官方定义</a>（它是由开源促进会发布的，鉴于这个定义过长，就不在本文中å
…
¨éƒ¨å¼•ç”¨äº†ï¼‰æ˜¯ç›´æŽ¥ä»Žæˆ‘们对于自由软件的界定衍生而来。不过二è€
…
也有不同，在某些方面，开源软件的定义比自由软件更宽松。不过总体而言，开源软件的定义和我们自由软件的定义在很多地方都是等价的。</p>
 
 <p>可是，&ldquo;开源软件&rdquo;的字面意思&mdash;同æ 
·ä¹Ÿæ˜¯äººä»¬æ™®éä»¥ä¸ºçš„意思&mdash;是&ldquo;ä½ å¯ä»¥çœ‹åˆ°æºä»£ç 
&rdquo;。这æ 
·çš„意思比起自由软件定义来说要宽松的多，也比开源软件的定义宽松多。这æ
 ·çš„字面意思囊括了很多既非自由也非开源的软件。</p>
 
-<p><!-- It was from http://da.state.ks.us/itec/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf, but
-that page is no longer available. -->
-由于&ldquo;开源&rdquo;一词的字面意思与开源支持者
的本意不同，导致很多人误解了这个词。这里引用一段Neal
-Stephensonæ–‡ç« 
中的话，&ldquo;Linux是&lsquo;开源&rsquo;软件，意思很简单，就是任何人都可以获得它的源代ç
 &rdquo;。我觉得Stephenson先生并非有意拒绝或者
曲解开源软件的官方定义。恐怕他仅仅
是望文生义，可惜误会了开源这词。å 
ªè¨æ–¯å·žæ”¿åºœä¹Ÿæ›¾å‘布了一份开源软件的简化定义：&ldquo;开源软件（OSS）即一类计算机软件，用户可以å
…è´¹ä¸”å…¬å¼€åœ°èŽ·å¾—å…¶æºä»£ç ï¼›ç”¨æˆ·å¯ä»¥å¯¹å…¶æºä»£ç 
åšå“ªäº›æ“ä½œï¼Œåˆ™æ ¹æ®è½¯ä»¶çš„许可证规定各有不同&rdquo;。</p>
+<p>由于&ldquo;开源&rdquo;一词的字面意思与开源支持者
的本意不同，导致很多人误解了这个词。这里引用一段Neal
+Stephensonæ–‡ç« 
中的话，&ldquo;Linux是&lsquo;开源&rsquo;软件，意思很简单，就是任何人都可以获得它的源代ç
 &rdquo;。我觉得Stephenson先生并非有意拒绝或者
曲解开源软件的官方定义。恐怕他仅仅
是望文生义，可惜误会了开源这词。<a
+href="https://web.archive.org/web/20001011193422/http://da.state.ks.us/ITEC/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf";>å
 
ªè¨æ–¯å·žæ”¿åºœ</a>也曾发布了一份开源软件的简化定义：&ldquo;开源软件（OSS）即一类计算机软件，用户可以å
…è´¹ä¸”å…¬å¼€åœ°èŽ·å¾—å…¶æºä»£ç ï¼›ç”¨æˆ·å¯ä»¥å¯¹å…¶æºä»£ç 
åšå“ªäº›æ“ä½œï¼Œåˆ™æ ¹æ®è½¯ä»¶çš„许可证规定各有不同。&rdquo;</p>
 
 <p>还有更糟糕的，<i>纽约时报</i>发表了<a
-href="http://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-design-37415.html";>一篇文ç«
 </a>，把开源这词的意思完全拧了，文中将开源软件解释为内
测版软件&mdash;就是给一小撮用户做测试的抢å…
ˆç‰ˆè½¯ä»¶&mdash;è¿™ä¸œè¥¿ä¸“æœ‰è½¯ä»¶å¼€å‘è€…åœ¨å‡ 
十年前就发布过了。</p>
+href="http://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-design-37415.html";>一篇文ç«
 </a>，把开源这词的意思完全拧了，文中将开源软件解释为内
测版软件&mdash;就是给一小撮用户做测试并获得内
部反馈的抢先版软件&mdash;è¿™ä¸œè¥¿ä¸“æœ‰è½¯ä»¶å¼€å‘è€…åœ¨å‡ 
十年前就发布过了。</p>
+
+<p>这个概念甚至被延伸到一个<a
+href="http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/aug/27/texas-teenager-water-purifier-toxic-e-waste-pollution";>æ—
 需专利</a>çš„äº§å“è®¾è®¡ä¸­ã€‚æ— 
需专利的产品设计对社会是一个很大的贡献，但是
+&ldquo;æºä»£ç &rdquo; 一词和它们没有关系。</p>
 
 <p>开源的支持者
们试图通过不断引用官方定义来解决这些误会。这方法显然没错，可直接引述定义对自由软件似乎更有效。&ldquo;Free
 Software&rdquo;一词字面上有两个意思，å…
¶ä¸­çš„è‡ªç”±ä¹‹æ„æ˜¯æˆ‘ä»¬å¸Œæœ›ä¼ 
达的。一个人如果能理解&ldquo;è‡ªç”±è¨€è®ºè€Œéžå…è´¹èµ 
饮&rdquo;这句话，就不会再搞错该使用Free的哪个意项。然而，&ldquo;开源&rdquo;一词ä»
…仅有一个字面意思，而这个意思与å…
¶æœ¬èº«è¦è¡¨è¾¾çš„意思又有所不同。结果就很难找一个简单的方法解释官方的定义。这就带来了更多的误解。</p>
@@ -105,7 +106,7 @@
 <p>对于一个纯粹的开源狂热者
来说&mdash;假设他没有被自由软件的理想所影响&mdash;可能会说，&ldquo;ä½
 们（专有软件开发者
）竟然没用我们的开发模型，还能开发出这么好的软件。这太让我感到意外了。能给我拷一份ä½
 们的软件吗？&rdquo;
 这æ 
·çš„态度会让专有软件的诡计得逞&mdash;剥夺我们的自由。</p>
 
-<p>而自由软件支持者
则会说，&ldquo;您的软件非常吸引人，不过我更看重我的自由。很遗憾，我不得不放弃使用您的软件。我会支持一个项目，开发一个实现类似功能的自由软件。&rdquo;
+<p>而自由软件支持者
则会说，&ldquo;您的软件非常吸引人，不过我更看重我的自由。很遗憾，我不得不放弃使用您的软件。我会用å
…
¶ä»–的方法完成我的工作，并支持一个实现类似功能的自由软件项目。&rdquo;
 ä½ è‹¥çœŸå¿ƒçè§†ä½ çš„è‡ªç”±ï¼Œæˆ‘ä»¬å°±å¯ä»¥ç”¨è¡ŒåŠ¨åŽ»æå«å®ƒã€‚</p>
 
 <h3>å¼ºå¤§è€Œå¯é çš„è½¯ä»¶ï¼Œæœªå¿…æ˜¯ä¸ªå¥½ä¸œè¥¿</h3>
@@ -129,6 +130,9 @@
 
 <p>遗憾的是，开源的领导者
们恰恰是选择忽视了这些问题。他们意识到，只要在道德和自由方面è£
…
聋作哑，转而只讨论某些自由软件当下可以创收多少效益，就没准能让他们更高效地&ldquo;卖&rdquo;软件给一些特定用户，尤å
…¶æ˜¯å•†ä¸šç”¨æˆ·ã€‚</p>
 
+<p>当开源支持者
讨论到这些更深层次的问题时，他们通常的想法就是把源代ç 
ä½œä¸ºäººç±»çš„
+&ldquo;礼物&rdquo;。假定专有软件不发布源代ç 
åœ¨é“义上是合法的，那么开源是一件好事，它超
出了道义的要求。</p>
+
 
<p>从这套理论的观点看，这方法倒也真算行之有效了。开源这词说服了众多商业和个人用户，使得他们他们开始使用，甚至开发自由软件，由此扩大了我们的社区。然而如此的扩å¼
 仅仅是表面上的，停留在仅仅å…
³æ³¨å®žç”¨çš„层次上。由于开源的哲学仅仅
停留在实用层面，进而阻碍了人们理解自由软件更深层次的含义。它为我们的社区添åŠ
 了新鲜血液，却没能教会那些新人如何维持这æ 
·ä¸€ä¸ªç¤¾åŒºã€‚至此为止，倒也还好，但它还不足以捍卫自由。把用户吸引到自由软件社区来，ä»
…ä»…
是万里长征的第一步，他们还需要懂得去成为自己自由的维护è€
…。</p>
 
 
<p>这些没能理解自由软件含义的用户，早晚会出于某些实用角度的考虑，再转投专有软件。æ—
 数的软件公司已经开始做出这æ 
·çš„尝试吸引用户使用专有软件，哪怕是发行å…
è´¹çš„专有软件。用户只有在懂得珍视自由软件赋予他们的自由之后，才会拒绝如此诱惑。所以，我们å¿
…
须反复强调自由，才能渐渐扩散自由的理念。&ldquo;保持沉默&rdquo;的信条在商业化的过程中可能会有用，但过分强调它，让热爱自由被视为自私，则会害了整个社区。</p>
@@ -141,9 +145,26 @@
 å‘è¡Œç‰ˆä¹‹æ‰€ä»¥æœ‰ç”Ÿå­˜å’Œå‘å±•çš„ç©ºé—´ï¼Œå°±æ˜¯å› 
为我们社区中大多数人并没有坚守自己的自由。这并非巧合。大多数
 GNU/Linux
 
用户是被&ldquo;开源&rdquo;一词吸引而来，而开源则没有把维护用户自由作为å
…¶ç›®æ ‡ã€‚æ— è§†è‡ªç”±çš„è¨€è®ºå£å£ç›¸ä¼ ï¼Œæ¼ 
视自由的态度比比皆是。人人如此，互相影响。要扭转这æ 
·çš„局势，我们唯一能做的，就是更多地谈论自由，而非把它搁置一边。</p>
 
+<h3>&ldquo;FLOSS&rdquo; 和 &ldquo;FOSS&rdquo;</h3>
+
+<p> &ldquo;FLOSS&rdquo; 和 &ldquo;FOSS&rdquo; 作为<a
+href="/philosophy/floss-and-foss.html"> 中立于自由软件和开源
+</a>çš„æœ¯è¯­ä½¿ç”¨ã€‚å¦‚æžœä½ å¸Œæœ›ä¸­ç«‹ï¼Œ&ldquo;FLOSS&rdquo;
+æ›´å¥½äº›ï¼Œå› ä¸ºå®ƒç¡®å®žä¸­ç«‹ã€‚ä½†æ˜¯ä½ 
å¦‚æžœæ”¯æŒè‡ªç”±ï¼Œä½¿ç”¨ä¸­ç«‹çš„æœ¯è¯­æ˜¯ä¸å¯¹çš„ã€‚æå«è‡ªç”±éœ€è¦ä½ 
å‘äººä»¬å±•ç¤ºä½ å¯¹è‡ªç”±çš„æ”¯æŒã€‚</p>
+
+<h3>思想的对手</h3>
+
+<p>&ldquo;自由&rdquo; 和 &ldquo;开放open&rdquo; 
是一对思想的对手。&ldquo;自由软件&rdquo; 和
+&ldquo;开源&rdquo;
+却是不同的概念，虽然从大多数人看待软件的眼å…
‰æ¥çœ‹ï¼Œå®ƒä»¬è®¨è®ºçš„æ˜¯åŒä¸€ä¸ªæ¦‚å¿µã€‚å½“äººä»¬ä¹ 
惯于用&ldquo;开源&rdquo;表达和思考时，他们对自由软件运动哲学的理解和思考就受到了阻碍。如果他们已经把我们以及我们的软件和&ldquo;开放&rdquo;一词å
…
³è”起来，那么在他们意识到我们的立场<em>有所不同</em>之前，我们就应该在思想上为他们敲响警钟。一切宣ä¼
 
&ldquo;开放&rdquo;一词的活动都会倾向于遮掩自由软件运动的意义。</p>
+
+<p>所以，自由软件活动家都会被建议不要参与自称 
&ldquo;开放&rdquo;
+çš„æ´»åŠ¨ã€‚å³ä½¿è¯¥æ´»åŠ¨æœ¬èº«æ˜¯å¥½çš„ï¼Œä½ 
的每次参与都会由于推动了开源的概念而伤害到自由软件运动。有许多活动是
 &ldquo;自由&rdquo; 或
+&ldquo;libre。&rdquo;ä½ 
的每次参与都会对自由软件运动是正面的支持。有这么多项目可选，为什么不选那些多些正面支持的呢？</p>
+
 <h3>总结</h3>
 
-<p>开源的支持者们把一个个用户拉å…
¥ä»–们的阵营，而提醒用户维护自由的任务，则落到了我们自由软件支持è€
…
们的肩膀上。我们要敢于用比以往更大的声音说&ldquo;这是自由软件，它才是真正尊重ä½
 的自由的软件！&rdquo;&mdash;æ¯å½“ä½ 
把&ldquo;开源软件&rdquo;一词替换成&ldquo;自由软件&rdquo;的时候，ä½
 就是在支持我们的运动。</p>
+<p>开源的支持者们把一个个用户拉å…
¥ä»–们的阵营，而提醒用户维护自由的任务，则落到了我们自由软件支持è€
…
们的肩膀上。我们要敢于用比以往更大的声音说&ldquo;这是自由软件，它才是真正尊重ä½
 的自由的软件！&rdquo;&mdash;æ¯å½“ä½ 
把&ldquo;开源软件&rdquo;一词替换成&ldquo;自由软件&rdquo;的时候，ä½
 就是在支持我们的理念。</p>
 
 <h4>脚注</h4>
 
@@ -159,8 +180,7 @@
 
href="http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-352-managing-innovation-emerging-trends-spring-2005/readings/lakhaniwolf.pdf";>论文</a>
 中提到，很大一部分开发者
都认为软件本该自由，由此才参与开发自由软件的。可惜他们的调查的是SourceForge上的开发è€
…
，而SourceForge网站本身则并不认为软件自由是个伦理问题。</p>
 
-
-<div style="font-size: small;">
+<div class="translators-notes">
 
 <!--TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't have notes.-->
  </div>
@@ -169,10 +189,11 @@
 <!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/footer.zh-cn.html" -->
 <div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
 
-<p>请将有关自由软件基金会(FSF) &amp; GNU 的查询 &amp; 
问题发送到<a
+<p>请将有关自由软件基金会(FSF) &amp; GNU 的一般性 &amp; 
问题发送到<a
 href="mailto:address@hidden";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>。也可以通过 <a
-href="/contact/">其他联系方法</a> 
联系自由软件基金会(FSF)。请将坏链接，错误或建议发送给<a
+href="/contact/">其他联系方法</a> 
联系自由软件基金会(FSF)ã€‚è¯·å°†æ— æ•ˆé“¾æŽ¥ï¼Œå…
¶ä»–错误或建议发送给<a
 href="mailto:address@hidden";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>。</p>
 
 <p>
@@ -194,25 +215,26 @@
 
GNU中文翻译组：我们尽力为您提供准确易懂的翻译。然而，我们也难å
…ä¼šå‡ºé”™ã€‚请将翻译问题发送至<a
 
href="mailto:address@hidden";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>。若您也希望贡献自己的翻译，可以通过<a
 
href="https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/www-zh-cn-translators";>邮件列表</a>与GNU中文翻译组联系。</p>
+</div>
 
-<p>版权所有 &copy; 2007，2010，2012 Richard Stallman</p>
+<p>Copyright &copy; 2007, 2010, 2012, 2015, 2016 Richard Stallman</p>
 
 <p>本页面采用 <a rel="license"
-href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/";>Creative Commons
-Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a> 许可证授权。</p>
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/us/";>Creative Commons
+Attribution-NoDerivs 4.0 United States License</a> 许可证授权。</p>
 
 <!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.zh-cn.html" -->
 <div class="translators-credits">
 
 <!--TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't want credits.-->
-<b>翻译</b>: é‚“æ¥  （Nan Deng）
-<b>å®¡æ ¡</b>: 李凡希</div>
-
+<b>翻译</b>: é‚“æ¥ ï¼ˆNan Deng）
+<b>å®¡æ ¡</b>: 李凡希
+<a rel="team" href="https://savannah.gnu.org/projects/www-zh-cn/";>CTT</a></div>
 
- <p><!-- timestamp start -->
+<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
 最后更新：
 
-$Date: 2016/07/27 04:59:13 $
+$Date: 2017/07/31 13:59:12 $
 
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>

Index: po/open-source-misses-the-point.zh-cn-en.html
===================================================================
RCS file: 
/web/www/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.zh-cn-en.html,v
retrieving revision 1.13
retrieving revision 1.14
diff -u -b -r1.13 -r1.14
--- po/open-source-misses-the-point.zh-cn-en.html       14 Jun 2013 23:57:53 
-0000      1.13
+++ po/open-source-misses-the-point.zh-cn-en.html       31 Jul 2017 13:59:12 
-0000      1.14
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 <!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
-<!-- Parent-Version: 1.75 -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 -->
 <title>Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software - GNU Project - 
 Free Software Foundation</title>
 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.translist" 
-->
@@ -70,17 +70,22 @@
 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.  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.</p>
+problem at hand.  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>.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
 
 <p>&ldquo;Free software.&rdquo; &ldquo;Open source.&rdquo; If it's the same 
-software (or nearly so), 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;</p>
+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;</p>
 
 <p>We in the free software movement don't think of the open source
 camp as an enemy; the enemy is proprietary (nonfree) software.  But
@@ -89,23 +94,30 @@
 
 <h3>Practical Differences between Free Software and Open Source</h3>
 
-<p>In practice, open source stands for criteria a little weaker than
-those of free software.  As far as we know, all existing free software
-would qualify as open source.  Nearly all open source software is free
-software, but there are exceptions.  First, some open source licenses
-are too restrictive, so they do not qualify as free licenses.
-Fortunately, few programs use those licenses.</p>
-
-<p>Second, and more important, many products containing computers
-(including many Android devices) come with executable programs that
-correspond to free software source code, but the devices do not allow
-the user to install modified versions of those executables; only one
-special company has the power to modify them.  We call these devices
-&ldquo;tyrants&rdquo;, and the practice is called
-&ldquo;tivoization&rdquo; after the product where we first saw it.
-These executables are not free software even though their source code
-is free software.  The criteria for open source do not recognize this
-issue; they are concerned solely with the licensing of the source code.</p>
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
 
 <h3>Common Misunderstandings of &ldquo;Free Software&rdquo; and
 &ldquo;Open Source&rdquo;</h3>
@@ -129,7 +141,7 @@
 &ldquo;free software&rdquo; has some kind of semantic problem&mdash;and 
 this includes &ldquo;open source software.&rdquo;</p>
 
-<p>The <a href="http://opensource.org/docs/osd";>official definition of
+<p>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;
@@ -148,24 +160,30 @@
 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 state of Kansas published a similar definition:
-<!-- It was from http://da.state.ks.us/itec/TechArchPt6ver80.pdf, but
-that page is no longer available. --> &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;</p>
-
-<p>The <i>New York Times</i>
-has <a 
-href="http://www.nytimes.com/external/gigaom/2009/02/07/07gigaom-the-brave-new-world-of-open-source-game-design-37415.html";>
-run an article that stretches the meaning of the term</a> to refer to
+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;</p>
+
+<p>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.</p>
 
+<p>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.</p>
+
 <p>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
@@ -234,10 +252,10 @@
 schemes that take away our freedom, leading to its loss.</p>
 
 <p>The free software activist will say, &ldquo;Your program is very
-attractive, but I value my freedom more.  So I reject your program.
-Instead I will support a project to develop a free
-replacement.&rdquo;  If we value our freedom, we can act to maintain and
-defend it.</p>
+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.</p>
 
 <h3>Powerful, Reliable Software Can Be Bad</h3>
 
@@ -294,6 +312,12 @@
 certain free software, they might be able to &ldquo;sell&rdquo; the
 software more effectively to certain users, especially business.</p>
 
+<p>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.</p>
+
 <p>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
@@ -332,6 +356,40 @@
 about freedom go hand in hand, each promoting the other.  To overcome
 this tendency, we need more, not less, talk about freedom.</p>
 
+<h3>&ldquo;FLOSS&rdquo; and &ldquo;FOSS&rdquo;</h3>
+
+<p> 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.</p>
+
+<h3>Rivals for Mindshare</h3>
+
+<p>&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.</p>
+
+<p>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?</p>
+
 <h3>Conclusion</h3>
 
 <p>As the advocates of open source draw new users into our community,
@@ -339,7 +397,7 @@
 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 campaign.</p>
+&ldquo;open source,&rdquo; you help our cause.</p>
 
 <h4>Notes</h4>
 
@@ -363,6 +421,7 @@
 <!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
 
 <div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
 
 <p>Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to <a
 href="mailto:address@hidden";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>.  There are also <a
@@ -388,18 +447,19 @@
 href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
 README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
 of this article.</p>
+</div>
 
-<p>Copyright &copy; 2007, 2010, 2012 Richard Stallman</p>
+<p>Copyright &copy; 2007, 2010, 2012, 2015, 2016 Richard Stallman</p>
 
 <p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
-href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/";>Creative
-Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>.</p>
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/";>Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p>
 
 <!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
 
-<p>Updated:
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2013/06/14 23:57:53 $
+$Date: 2017/07/31 13:59:12 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>

Index: po/open-source-misses-the-point.zh-cn.po
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/open-source-misses-the-point.zh-cn.po,v
retrieving revision 1.43
retrieving revision 1.44
diff -u -b -r1.43 -r1.44
--- po/open-source-misses-the-point.zh-cn.po    31 Jul 2017 13:29:57 -0000      
1.43
+++ po/open-source-misses-the-point.zh-cn.po    31 Jul 2017 13:59:12 -0000      
1.44
@@ -15,7 +15,6 @@
 "MIME-Version: 1.0\n"
 "Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8\n"
 "Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit\n"
-"Outdated-Since: 2013-07-08 17:25+0000\n"
 
 #. type: Content of: <title>
 msgid ""