www/philosophy po/why-free.translist po/why-fre...

[GNUN]

CVSROOT:        /web/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     GNUN <gnun>     17/09/24 08:59:07

Modified files:
        philosophy/po  : why-free.translist why-free.zh-cn.po 
Added files:
        philosophy     : why-free.zh-cn.html 
        philosophy/po  : why-free.zh-cn-en.html 

Log message:
        Automatic update by GNUnited Nations.

CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/why-free.zh-cn.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/why-free.translist?cvsroot=www&r1=1.15&r2=1.16
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/why-free.zh-cn.po?cvsroot=www&r1=1.1&r2=1.2
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/why-free.zh-cn-en.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1

Patches:
Index: po/why-free.translist
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/why-free.translist,v
retrieving revision 1.15
retrieving revision 1.16
diff -u -b -r1.15 -r1.16
--- po/why-free.translist       12 Apr 2016 15:42:10 -0000      1.15
+++ po/why-free.translist       24 Sep 2017 12:59:06 -0000      1.16
@@ -31,6 +31,7 @@
 <span dir="ltr"><a lang="ta" hreflang="ta" 
href="/philosophy/why-free.ta.html">தமிழ்</a>&nbsp;[ta]</span> &nbsp;
 <span dir="ltr"><a lang="tr" hreflang="tr" 
href="/philosophy/why-free.tr.html">Türkçe</a>&nbsp;[tr]</span> &nbsp;
 <span dir="ltr"><a lang="uk" hreflang="uk" 
href="/philosophy/why-free.uk.html">українська</a>&nbsp;[uk]</span> 
&nbsp;
+<span dir="ltr"><a lang="zh-cn" hreflang="zh-cn" 
href="/philosophy/why-free.zh-cn.html">简体中文</a>&nbsp;[zh-cn]</span> 
&nbsp;
 <span dir="ltr"><a lang="zh-tw" hreflang="zh-tw" 
href="/philosophy/why-free.zh-tw.html">繁體中文</a>&nbsp;[zh-tw]</span> 
&nbsp;
 </p>
 </div>' -->
@@ -64,5 +65,6 @@
 <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" lang="ta" hreflang="ta" 
href="/philosophy/why-free.ta.html" title="தமிழ்" />
 <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" lang="tr" hreflang="tr" 
href="/philosophy/why-free.tr.html" title="Türkçe" />
 <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" lang="uk" hreflang="uk" 
href="/philosophy/why-free.uk.html" title="українська" />
+<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" lang="zh-cn" hreflang="zh-cn" 
href="/philosophy/why-free.zh-cn.html" title="简体中文" />
 <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" lang="zh-tw" hreflang="zh-tw" 
href="/philosophy/why-free.zh-tw.html" title="繁體中文" />
 <!-- end translist file -->

Index: po/why-free.zh-cn.po
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/po/why-free.zh-cn.po,v
retrieving revision 1.1
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -b -r1.1 -r1.2
--- po/why-free.zh-cn.po        24 Sep 2017 12:48:47 -0000      1.1
+++ po/why-free.zh-cn.po        24 Sep 2017 12:59:06 -0000      1.2
@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@
 "Language: zh_CN\n"
 "MIME-Version: 1.0\n"
 "Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8\n"
-"Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit"
+"Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit\n"
 
 #. type: Content of: <title>
 msgid ""

Index: why-free.zh-cn.html
===================================================================
RCS file: why-free.zh-cn.html
diff -N why-free.zh-cn.html
--- /dev/null   1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ why-free.zh-cn.html 24 Sep 2017 12:59:05 -0000      1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,258 @@
+<!--#set var="ENGLISH_PAGE" value="/philosophy/why-free.en.html" -->
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.zh-cn.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+
+<!-- This file is automatically generated by GNUnited Nations! -->
+<title>为什么软件不应该有所有者 - GNU工程 - 
自由软件基金会</title>
+
+<meta name="Keywords" 
content="GNU、GNU工程、FSF、自由软件、自由软件基金会、为什么软件不应该有所有è€
…" />
+
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/why-free.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.zh-cn.html" -->
+<h2>为什么软件不应该有所有者</h2>
+
+<p><a href="http://www.stallman.org/";><strong>Richard Stallman</strong></a> 
著</p>
+
+<p>
+数字信息技术对社会的贡献在于它使信息的复制和修改变得更åŠ
 
容易。计算机能够使每个人都可以更容易地复制和修改信息。</p>
+
+<p>
+并非每个人都希望它更容易。版权体系赋予了软件&ldquo;所有è€
…&rdquo;，而大多数软件所有者的目æ 
‡æ˜¯æŠ‘制软件带给大众的潜在利益。他们要成为唯一能够复制和修改软件的人。</p>
+
+<p>
+版权体系兴起于印刷术&mdash;ä¸€é¡¹å¤§è§„æ¨¡å¤åˆ¶çš„æŠ€æœ¯ã€‚å› 
为版权仅仅
限制大规模复制，所以它很适用于该项技术。它并没有剥夺读è€
…的自由。一个普通读者
，没有印刷设备，只能用纸笔和墨水复制书籍，很少有读者
ä¼šå› æ­¤è¢«å‘Šä¸Šæ³•åº­ã€‚</p>
+
+<p>
+æ•°å­—æŠ€æœ¯æ¯”å°åˆ·è®¾å¤‡æ›´çµæ´»ï¼šä½ 
可以轻易地复制数字化的信息，并与他人分享。正是这种灵活性使之很难适用于象版权这æ
 ·çš„ä½“ç³»ã€‚è¿™å°±æ˜¯ä¸ºä»€ä¹ˆçŽ°åœ¨åŠ 
强软件版权的手段越来越恶劣和严苛。请思量一下软件发布è€
…协会（SPA）的四个实践：</p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>å¤§é‡å®£ä¼ èƒŒå›æ‰€æœ‰è€…åŽ»å¸®åŠ©æœ‹å‹æ˜¯é”™è¯¯çš„ã€‚</li>
+
+<li>诱使线人举报其工友和同事。</li>
+
+<li>çªè¢­ï¼ˆé è­¦å¯Ÿå¸®åŠ©ï¼‰åŠžå…¬åœºæ‰€å’Œå­¦æ ¡ï¼Œå‘Šè¯‰äººä»¬å¿…
须自证没有从事非法复制。</li>
+
+<li>起诉（在SPA的要求下，由美国政府操作）诸如<acronym 
title="Massachusetts Institute of
+Technology，麻省理工学院">MIT</acronym>的David
+LaMacchiaè¿™æ ·çš„äººå£«ï¼Œä¸æ˜¯å› 
ä¸ºå¤åˆ¶è½¯ä»¶ï¼ˆä»–å¹¶æ²¡æœ‰è¢«æŒ‡æŽ§å¤åˆ¶è½¯ä»¶ï¼‰ï¼Œè€Œä»…ä»…æ˜¯å› 
为没有看管复制设备和没有监管设备用途。<a
+href="#footnote1">[1]</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>
+这四项实践都类似于前苏联使用的手段：每个复印机都有一个警卫，以防止非法复制；而个人只能秘密复制信息，然后象地下出版物似的人ä¼
 
人。当然也有不同之处：苏联信息控制的动机是政治；而美国的是利润。然而，影响我们的是行动，而非动机。任何阻止信息分享的企图，æ—
 è®ºä¸ºä»€ä¹ˆï¼Œéƒ½ä¼šä½¿ç”¨åŒæ ·çš„æ‰‹æ®µå’Œå¯¼è‡´åŒæ ·ä¸¥é…·çš„æ°›å›´ã€‚</p>
+
+<p>
+所有者
ä¸ºäº†èŽ·å¾—æŽ§åˆ¶æˆ‘ä»¬å¦‚ä½•ä½¿ç”¨ä¿¡æ¯çš„æƒåŠ›ï¼Œé‡‡å–äº†å¦‚ä¸‹å‡ 
种狡辩：</p>
+
+
+<ul>
+<li id="name-calling">扣帽子。
+
+<p>
+所有者
使用诽谤性字眼，如&ldquo;盗版&rdquo;和&ldquo;偷窃&rdquo;，还使用专业术语，如&ldquo;知识产权&rdquo;和&ldquo;伤害&rdquo;，来向大众推介一种思考方式&mdash;把程序和实物简单类比。</p>
+
+<p>
+我们对实物所有权的理念和直觉是针对<em>拿走别人的东西</em>是否合适这件事。它们不能直接应用于<em>复制</em>这件事。但是，所有è€
…å°±æ˜¯è®©æˆ‘ä»¬è¿™æ ·ç”¨ã€‚</p></li>
+
+<li id="exaggeration">夸大其词。
+
+<p>
+所有者
声称当用户自己复制程序时，他们受到了&ldquo;伤害&rdquo;或者
蒙受了&ldquo;经济损失&rdquo;ã€‚ä½†æ˜¯å¤åˆ¶å¯¹æ‰€æœ‰è€…å¹¶æ— 
直接影响，也没有伤害任何人。如果复制的人只能向所有者
购买拷贝的话，复制才会是所有者的损失。</p>
+
+<p>
+进一步思考的结果是这些人中的大多数不会去购买拷贝。可是，所有è€
…仍然按ç…
§æ¯ä¸ªäººéƒ½ä¼šä¹°æ‹·è´æ¥è®¡ç®—自己的&ldquo;损失&rdquo;。这就是夸大å
…¶è¯&mdash;说得客气点。</p></li>
+
+<li id="law">诉之法律。
+
+<p>
+所有者经常讲述现行法律及å…
¶ç”¨æ¥å¨èƒæˆ‘ä»¬çš„ä¸¥åŽ‰æƒ©ç½šæŽªæ–½ã€‚è¯¥ä¸¾æŽªæš—ç¤ºå½“ä»Šæ³•å¾‹åæ˜ 
çš„æ˜¯æ— 
可辩驳的道德准则&mdash;而与此同时，我们强烈建议视这些处罚为自然事实，它们不能归咎于任何人。</p>
+
+<p>
+æ­¤å¤„çš„æŽ¨ç†å¹¶ä¸æ˜¯ç”¨æ¥ç»å—æ‰¹åˆ¤æ€§æ€è€ƒï¼›å®ƒæ„åœ¨åŠ å¼ºä¹ 
惯性的心理道路。<sup><a href="#TransNote1">1</a></sup></p>
+
+<p>
+法律并不决定正确或者
错误，这是基础。每一个美国人都应该知道，在50年代，黑人坐在å
…¬äº¤è½¦çš„前排在许多州是非法的；但是只有种族主义者
才会说坐在那里是错误的。</p></li>
+
+<li id="natural-rights">自然权利。
+
+<p>
+著作者们经常声称对其软件具有特殊å…
³è”，并据此断言，他们对软件的期望和兴趣就会超越å…
¶ä»–人&mdash;乃至超越整个世界的所有其他人。（典型的情
况是，å…
¬å¸è€Œéžä¸ªäººæ‹¥æœ‰è½¯ä»¶ç‰ˆæƒï¼Œä½†æ˜¯æˆ‘们在此忽略这个差异。）</p>
+
+<p>
+对那些建议以&mdash;ä½œè€…æ¯”ä½ æ›´é‡è¦&mdash;为å…
¬ç†çš„人，我只能说：我，作为一个软件著作者
，称之为胡说。</p>
+
+<p>
+ä½†æ˜¯ä¸€èˆ¬äººä»¬åªä¼šå› ä¸ºä¸¤ä¸ªåŽŸå› 
才可能赞同对自然权利的申明。</p>
+
+<p>
+ä¸€ä¸ªåŽŸå› 
是对实物类比的过度推广。当我做意大利面条时，我会反对别人吃它，å›
 为那æ 
·æˆ‘就没的吃了。对方获利的多少和对我的伤害正好相当；我们两个只有一个人可以吃到面条，所以问题是：哪个人是谁？我们之间最小的差异都足以打ç
 ´é“德的平衡。</p>
+
+<p>
+ä½†æ˜¯ä½ æ˜¯å¦è¿è¡Œæˆ–ä¿®æ”¹æˆ‘å†™çš„ç¨‹åºç›´æŽ¥å½±å“çš„æ˜¯ä½ 
ï¼Œå¯¹æˆ‘çš„å½±å“åªæ˜¯é—´æŽ¥çš„ã€‚ä½ æ˜¯å¦ç»™äºˆæœ‹å‹ä¸€ä»½æ‹·è´å¯¹ä½ 
å’Œä½ æœ‹å‹çš„å½±å“è¿œå¤§äºŽå¯¹æˆ‘çš„å½±å“ã€‚æˆ‘ä¸åº”è¯¥æœ‰æƒåŠ›å‘ŠçŸ¥ä½ 
不要这么做。任何人都不该拥有这个权力。</p>
+
+<p>
+å¦ä¸€ä¸ªåŽŸå› æ˜¯äººä»¬è¢«å‘ŠçŸ¥ä½œè€…çš„è‡ªç„¶æƒåˆ©æ˜¯è¢«è®¤å¯çš„ã€æ— 
å¯è¾©é©³çš„ç¤¾ä¼šä¼ ç»Ÿã€‚</p>
+
+<p>
+从历史来看，正好相反。起草美国宪法时，作者
的自然权利就已被提出并且被一致否决。这就是为什么宪法ä»
…<em>å…
è®¸</em>而不是<em>要求</em>有一个版权系统；这就是为什么宪法说版权å¿
…
须是有时限的。宪法还阐述了版权的目的是促进发展&mdash;而不是奖励作è€
…。版权确实回报了作者
些许，回报出版商更多，但作为手段，回报意在改变他们的行为。</p>
+
+<p>
+æˆ‘ä»¬ç¤¾ä¼šå»ºç«‹çš„çœŸæ­£ä¼ ç»Ÿæ˜¯ç‰ˆæƒæ¶ˆå‡äº†å…
¬ä¼—的自然权利&mdash;而它只能按照公众的利益来评判。</p></li>
+
+<li id="economics">ç»æµŽå› ç´ ã€‚
+
+<p>
+最后一个论证软件应该有所有者的论点是这æ 
·å¯ä»¥äº§å‡ºæ›´å¤šçš„软件。</p>
+
+<p>
+å’Œå…¶ä»–å‡ 
个论点不同，该论点至少对此问题采取了一种合理的解法。</p>
+
+<p>
+但是这个经济学的论点有一个漏洞：它的基础假设是差别仅
在于我们付多少钱。它假设我们要的是<em>软件产品</em>ï¼Œæ— 
论软件是否有所有者。</p>
+
+<p>
+å› 
为符合我们对实物的经验，人们就轻易地接受了这个假设。举个例子，拿三明治来说吧。假设ä½
 å¯ä»¥å…è´¹æˆ–ä»˜è´¹èŽ·å¾—åŒæ ·çš„ä¸€ä¸ªä¸‰æ˜Žæ²»ã€‚è¿™æ ·ï¼Œä½ 
æ‰€ä»˜çš„é’±å°±æ˜¯å”¯ä¸€çš„å·®åˆ«ã€‚æ— è®ºä½ 
æ˜¯å¦èŠ±é’±ä¹°ï¼Œè¿™ä¸ªä¸‰æ˜Žæ²»çš„å£å‘³ä¸€æ ·ã€è¥å…»ä»·å€¼ä¹Ÿä¸€æ ·ï¼Œä½ 
ä¹Ÿåªèƒ½åƒä¸€æ¬¡ã€‚ä½ æ˜¯å¦ä»Žå…¶æ‰€æœ‰è€…æ¥è´­ä¹°é™¤äº†å½±å“ä½ 
付钱的多少，也不会再影响别的什么。</p>
+
+<p>
+è¿™ä¸ªé“ç†å¯¹å…¶ä»–å®žç‰©ä¹Ÿä¸€æ ·æˆç«‹&mdash;æ— è®ºå®ƒæ˜¯å¦æœ‰æ‰€æœ‰è€…
并不直接影响它<em>是</em>ä»€ä¹ˆï¼Œä¹Ÿä¸å½±å“ä½ 
获得它之后会怎么对待它。</p>
+
+<p>
+但是如果软件有所有者
ï¼Œå®ƒæ˜¯ä»€ä¹ˆå°±å—åˆ°å¾ˆå¤§çš„å½±å“ï¼Œä¹Ÿä¼šå½±å“è´­ä¹°å®ƒä¹‹åŽä½ å¯¹å…
¶æ‹·è´çš„所作所为。差别就不只是花钱多少。软件所有者
系统会鼓励软件所有者
制作软件&mdash;ä½†ä¸æ˜¯ç¤¾ä¼šçœŸæ­£çš„éœ€æ±‚ã€‚å®ƒé€ 
成了影响我们大家的难以形容的道德污染。</p></li>
+
+</ul>
+
+<p>
+社会的需求是什么？它需要每个社会å…
¬æ°‘都能真正享有的信息&mdash;例如，人们可以ç 
”è¯»ã€ä¿®æ­£ã€æ”¹é€ 
和提高的程序，而不只是操作运行。然而软件所有者å…
¸åž‹çš„äº¤ä»˜æ˜¯ä¸€ä¸ªæˆ‘ä»¬æ— æ³•å­¦ä¹ æˆ–ä¿®æ”¹çš„é»‘ç›’ã€‚</p>
+
+<p>
+社会还需要自由。如果软件有所有者
，软件用户就失去了控制他们生活的部分自由。</p>
+
+<p>
+最重要的是，社会需要鼓励其å…
¬æ°‘志愿互助的精神。当软件所有者
告诉我们以自然的方式帮助邻居
是&ldquo;盗版&rdquo;，他们就是在污染社会的文明精神。</p>
+
+<p>
+这就是为什么我们说<a 
href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">自由软件（free
+software）</a>å…³ä¹Žè‡ªç”±ï¼Œæ— å…³ä»·æ ¼ã€‚</p>
+
+<p>
+尽管所有者
的经济学论点是错误的，但是经济学的问题是现实的。有些人为了快乐而编写有用的软件，有些人为了赞美和爱æƒ
…而编写有用的软件；但是如果我们要编写超
越这些人的更多软件，我们需要资金。</p>
+
+<p>
+自从19世纪80年代以来，自由软件的开发者
一直尝试用各种方法获得资金，有些获得了成功。并不需要让任何人变得富有；一个正常的收å
…
¥å°±ä¼šæ˜¯äººä»¬ä»Žäº‹è®¸å¤šå·¥ä½œçš„足够激励，而这些工作还不象编程这æ
 ·æœ‰æˆå°±æ„Ÿã€‚</p>
+
+<p>
+æœ‰è®¸å¤šå¹´æ¥ï¼Œæˆ‘ä¸€ç›´é 
为客户定制我编写的自由软件来谋生，直到固定资助<sup><a
+href="#TransNote2">2</a></sup>让我不必再那æ 
·åšã€‚æˆ‘çš„æ¯ä¸ªå®šåˆ¶éƒ½æ·»åŠ 到了æ 
‡å‡†å‘布版中，从而最终为大众所用。客户付钱给我，我就会开发他们需要的功能而不是我认为最优å
…ˆçš„功能。</p>
+
+<p>
+有些自由软件开发者通过销售技术服务获得收å…
¥ã€‚在1994年，Cygnus
+Support公司，大概有50个员工，估计å…
¶å‘˜å·¥15%的工作是进行自由软件的开发&mdash;对一个软件å…
¬å¸æ¥è¯´è¿™æ˜¯ä¸€ä¸ªå€¼å¾—尊敬的比例。</p>
+
+<p>
+在19世纪90年代，包括Intel、Motorola、Texas Instruments和Analog 
Devices在内的多家公司联合资助GNU
+C编译器的继续开发。GCC的主要开发仍然是由付费开发者
做出的。针对Ada语言的GNU编译器是在90年代由美国空军资助的，之后由å›
 此而成立的一家公司继续开发。</p>
+
+<p>
+自由软件的规模还不大，但是美国由听众支持的电台作为例子已经表明，它可以支持大规模的活动而æ—
 需强迫每个用户都付费。</p>
+
+<p>
+ä½œä¸ºå½“ä»Šçš„è®¡ç®—æœºç”¨æˆ·ï¼Œä½ å¯èƒ½æ­£åœ¨ä½¿ç”¨<a
+href="/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware">专属</a>程序。如果ä½
 
的朋友来要一份拷贝，拒绝可能是不对的。合作比版权更重要。但是地下的、遮掩的合作不是一个好社会应有的。人们应该自豪地å
…¬å¼€è¿½æ±‚正直的生活，这就意味着要对专属软件说不。</p>
+
+<p>
+ä½ æœ‰æƒå…¬å¼€å’Œè‡ªç”±åœ°ä¸Žå…¶ä»–è½¯ä»¶ç”¨æˆ·åˆä½œã€‚ä½ æœ‰æƒå­¦ä¹ 
è½¯ä»¶å¦‚ä½•å·¥ä½œï¼Œå¹¶æ•™ä¼šä½ çš„å­¦ç”Ÿã€‚ä½ æœ‰æƒé›‡ä½£ä½ 
å–œæ¬¢çš„ç¨‹åºå‘˜ä¸ºä½ ä¿®å¤ç¨‹åºã€‚</p>
+
+<p>
+ä½ æœ‰æƒæ‹¥æœ‰è‡ªç”±è½¯ä»¶ã€‚</p>
+
+<h3>脚注</h3>
+<ol>
+<li id="footnote1">这些指控都先后被驳回了。</li>
+</ol>
+
+<hr />
+<blockquote id="fsfs"><p class="big">本文发表于<a
+href="http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/";><cite>自由软件、自由社会：理查德.M.斯托曼
+选集</cite></a>。</p></blockquote>
+
+<div class="translators-notes">
+
+<!--TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't have notes.-->
+<h3>译注</h3>
+<ol>
+<li id="TransNote1">mental 
pathway，思想常常循着常规进行，这种趋势，
+心理学上称之为&ldquo;心理的道路&rdquo;。</li>
+<li 
id="TransNote2">原文是fellowship，一个虚职，有类似奖学金的收å…
¥ã€‚</li>
+</ol></div>
+</div>
+
+<!-- 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 
的一般性问题发送到<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)。有关失效链接或å…
¶ä»–错误和建议，请发送邮件到<a
+href="mailto:address@hidden";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>。</p>
+
+<p>
+<!-- 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 href="mailto:address@hidden";>
+
+        &lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>.</p>
+
+        <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+        our web pages, see <a
+        href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+        README</a>. -->
+若您想翻译本文，请参看<a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">翻译须知</a>获取有å…
³åè°ƒå’Œæäº¤ç¿»è¯‘的相关事项。</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+     files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+     be under CC BY-ND 3.0 US.  Please do NOT change or remove this
+     without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+     Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+     document.  For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+     document was modified, or published.
+     
+     If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+     Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+     years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+     year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+     being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+     
+     There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+     Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
+<p>Copyright &copy; 1994, 2009 Richard Stallman</p>
+
+<p>本页面使用<a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/";>Creative Commons
+Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>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>翻译团队</b>：<a rel="team"
+href="https://savannah.gnu.org/projects/www-zh-cn/";>&lt;CTT&gt;</a>，2017。</div>
+
+<p class="unprintable"><!-- timestamp start -->
+最后更新：
+
+$Date: 2017/09/24 12:59:05 $
+
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>

Index: po/why-free.zh-cn-en.html
===================================================================
RCS file: po/why-free.zh-cn-en.html
diff -N po/why-free.zh-cn-en.html
--- /dev/null   1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ po/why-free.zh-cn-en.html   24 Sep 2017 12:59:06 -0000      1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,375 @@
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+<title>Why Software Should Not Have Owners
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+
+<meta name="Keywords" content="GNU, GNU Project, FSF, Free Software, Free 
Software Foundation, Why Software Should Not Have Owners" />
+
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/why-free.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+
+<h2>Why Software Should Not Have Owners</h2>
+
+<p>by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/";><strong>Richard
+Stallman</strong></a></p>
+
+<p>
+Digital information technology contributes to the world by making it
+easier to copy and modify information.  Computers promise to make this
+easier for all of us.</p>
+
+<p>
+Not everyone wants it to be easier.  The system of copyright gives
+software programs &ldquo;owners&rdquo;, most of whom aim to withhold
+software's potential benefit from the rest of the public.  They would
+like to be the only ones who can copy and modify the software that we
+use.</p>
+
+<p>
+The copyright system grew up with printing&mdash;a technology for
+mass-production copying.  Copyright fit in well with this technology
+because it restricted only the mass producers of copies.  It did not
+take freedom away from readers of books.  An ordinary reader, who did
+not own a printing press, could copy books only with pen and ink, and
+few readers were sued for that.</p>
+
+<p>
+Digital technology is more flexible than the printing press: when
+information has digital form, you can easily copy it to share it with
+others.  This very flexibility makes a bad fit with a system like
+copyright.  That's the reason for the increasingly nasty and draconian
+measures now used to enforce software copyright.  Consider these four
+practices of the Software Publishers Association (SPA):</p>
+
+<ul>
+<li>Massive propaganda saying it is wrong to disobey the owners to
+help your friend.</li>
+
+<li>Solicitation for stool pigeons to inform on their coworkers and
+colleagues.</li>
+
+<li>Raids (with police help) on offices and schools, in which people
+are told they must prove they are innocent of illegal copying.</li>
+
+<li>Prosecution (by the US government, at the SPA's request) of people
+such as
+<acronym title="Massachusetts Institute of Technology">MIT</acronym>'s
+David LaMacchia, not for copying software (he is not accused of
+copying any), but merely for leaving copying facilities unguarded and
+failing to censor their use.<a href="#footnote1">[1]</a></li>
+</ul>
+
+<p>
+All four practices resemble those used in the former Soviet Union,
+where every copying machine had a guard to prevent forbidden copying,
+and where individuals had to copy information secretly and pass it
+from hand to hand as samizdat.  There is of course a difference: the
+motive for information control in the Soviet Union was political; in
+the US the motive is profit.  But it is the actions that affect us,
+not the motive.  Any attempt to block the sharing of information, no
+matter why, leads to the same methods and the same harshness.</p>
+
+<p>
+Owners make several kinds of arguments for giving them the power
+to control how we use information:</p>
+
+
+<ul>
+<li id="name-calling">Name calling.
+
+<p>
+Owners use smear words such as &ldquo;piracy&rdquo; and
+&ldquo;theft&rdquo;, as well as expert terminology such as
+&ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; and &ldquo;damage&rdquo;, to
+suggest a certain line of thinking to the public&mdash;a simplistic
+analogy between programs and physical objects.</p>
+
+<p>
+Our ideas and intuitions about property for material objects are about
+whether it is right to <em>take an object away</em> from someone else.  They
+don't directly apply to <em>making a copy</em> of something.  But the owners
+ask us to apply them anyway.</p></li>
+
+<li id="exaggeration">Exaggeration.
+
+<p>
+Owners say that they suffer &ldquo;harm&rdquo; or &ldquo;economic
+loss&rdquo; when users copy programs themselves.  But the copying has
+no direct effect on the owner, and it harms no one.  The owner can
+lose only if the person who made the copy would otherwise have paid
+for one from the owner.</p>
+
+<p>
+A little thought shows that most such people would not have bought
+copies.  Yet the owners compute their &ldquo;losses&rdquo; as if each
+and every one would have bought a copy.  That is exaggeration&mdash;to
+put it kindly.</p></li>
+
+<li id="law">The law.
+
+<p>
+Owners often describe the current state of the law, and the harsh
+penalties they can threaten us with.  Implicit in this approach is the
+suggestion that today's law reflects an unquestionable view of
+morality&mdash;yet at the same time, we are urged to regard these
+penalties as facts of nature that can't be blamed on anyone.</p>
+
+<p>
+This line of persuasion isn't designed to stand up to critical
+thinking; it's intended to reinforce a habitual mental pathway.</p>
+
+<p>
+It's elementary that laws don't decide right and wrong.  Every American
+should know that, in the 1950s, it was against the law in many
+states for a black person to sit in the front of a bus; but only
+racists would say sitting there was wrong.</p></li>
+
+<li id="natural-rights">Natural rights.
+
+<p>
+Authors often claim a special connection with programs they have
+written, and go on to assert that, as a result, their desires and
+interests concerning the program simply outweigh those of anyone
+else&mdash;or even those of the whole rest of the world.  (Typically
+companies, not authors, hold the copyrights on software, but we are
+expected to ignore this discrepancy.)</p>
+
+<p>
+To those who propose this as an ethical axiom&mdash;the author is more
+important than you&mdash;I can only say that I, a notable software
+author myself, call it bunk.</p>
+
+<p>
+But people in general are only likely to feel any sympathy with the
+natural rights claims for two reasons.</p>
+
+<p>
+One reason is an overstretched analogy with material objects.  When I
+cook spaghetti, I do object if someone else eats it, because then I
+cannot eat it.  His action hurts me exactly as much as it benefits
+him; only one of us can eat the spaghetti, so the question is, which one?
+The smallest distinction between us is enough to tip the ethical
+balance.</p>
+
+<p>
+But whether you run or change a program I wrote affects you directly
+and me only indirectly.  Whether you give a copy to your friend
+affects you and your friend much more than it affects me.  I shouldn't
+have the power to tell you not to do these things.  No one should.</p>
+
+<p>
+The second reason is that people have been told that natural rights
+for authors is the accepted and unquestioned tradition of our society.</p>
+
+<p>
+As a matter of history, the opposite is true.  The idea of natural
+rights of authors was proposed and decisively rejected when the US
+Constitution was drawn up.  That's why the Constitution only
+<em>permits</em> a system of copyright and does not <em>require</em>
+one; that's why it says that copyright must be temporary.  It also
+states that the purpose of copyright is to promote progress&mdash;not
+to reward authors.  Copyright does reward authors somewhat, and
+publishers more, but that is intended as a means of modifying their
+behavior.</p>
+
+<p>
+The real established tradition of our society is that copyright cuts
+into the natural rights of the public&mdash;and that this can only be
+justified for the public's sake.</p></li>
+
+<li id="economics">Economics.
+
+<p>
+The final argument made for having owners of software is that this
+leads to production of more software.</p>
+
+<p>
+Unlike the others, this argument at least takes a legitimate approach
+to the subject.  It is based on a valid goal&mdash;satisfying the
+users of software.  And it is empirically clear that people will
+produce more of something if they are well paid for doing so.</p>
+
+<p>
+But the economic argument has a flaw: it is based on the assumption
+that the difference is only a matter of how much money we have to pay.
+It assumes that <em>production of software</em> is what we want,
+whether the software has owners or not.</p>
+
+<p>
+People readily accept this assumption because it accords with our
+experiences with material objects.  Consider a sandwich, for instance.
+You might well be able to get an equivalent sandwich either gratis or
+for a price.  If so, the amount you pay is the only difference.
+Whether or not you have to buy it, the sandwich has the same taste,
+the same nutritional value, and in either case you can only eat it
+once.  Whether you get the sandwich from an owner or not cannot
+directly affect anything but the amount of money you have afterwards.</p>
+
+<p>
+This is true for any kind of material object&mdash;whether or not it
+has an owner does not directly affect what it <em>is</em>, or what you
+can do with it if you acquire it.</p>
+
+<p>
+But if a program has an owner, this very much affects what it is, and
+what you can do with a copy if you buy one.  The difference is not
+just a matter of money.  The system of owners of software encourages
+software owners to produce something&mdash;but not what society really
+needs.  And it causes intangible ethical pollution that affects us
+all.</p></li>
+
+</ul>
+
+<p>
+What does society need?  It needs information that is truly available
+to its citizens&mdash;for example, programs that people can read, fix,
+adapt, and improve, not just operate.  But what software owners
+typically deliver is a black box that we can't study or change.</p>
+
+<p>
+Society also needs freedom.  When a program has an owner, the users
+lose freedom to control part of their own lives.</p>
+
+<p>
+And, above all, society needs to encourage the spirit of voluntary
+cooperation in its citizens.  When software owners tell us that
+helping our neighbors in a natural way is &ldquo;piracy&rdquo;, they
+pollute our society's civic spirit.</p>
+
+<p>
+This is why we say that
+<a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">free software</a>
+is a matter of freedom, not price.</p>
+
+<p>
+The economic argument for owners is erroneous, but the economic issue
+is real.  Some people write useful software for the pleasure of
+writing it or for admiration and love; but if we want more software
+than those people write, we need to raise funds.</p>
+
+<p>
+Since the 1980s, free software developers have tried various methods
+of finding funds, with some success.  There's no need to make anyone
+rich; a typical income is plenty of incentive to do many jobs that are
+less satisfying than programming.</p>
+
+<p>
+For years, until a fellowship made it unnecessary, I made a living
+from custom enhancements of the free software I had written.  Each
+enhancement was added to the standard released version and thus
+eventually became available to the general public.  Clients paid me so
+that I would work on the enhancements they wanted, rather than on the
+features I would otherwise have considered highest priority.</p>
+
+<p>
+Some free software developers make money by selling support services.
+In 1994, Cygnus Support, with around 50 employees, estimated that
+about 15 percent of its staff activity was free software
+development&mdash;a respectable percentage for a software company.</p>
+
+<p>
+In the early 1990s, companies including Intel, Motorola, Texas
+Instruments and Analog Devices combined to fund the continued
+development of the GNU C compiler.  Most GCC development is still done
+by paid developers.  The GNU compiler for the Ada language was funded
+in the 90s by the US Air Force, and continued since then by a company
+formed specifically for the purpose.</p>
+
+<p>
+The free software movement is still small, but the example of
+listener-supported radio in the US shows it's possible to support a
+large activity without forcing each user to pay.</p>
+
+<p>
+As a computer user today, you may find yourself using a
+<a href="/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware">proprietary</a>
+program.  If your friend asks to make a copy, it would be wrong to
+refuse.  Cooperation is more important than copyright.  But
+underground, closet cooperation does not make for a good society.  A
+person should aspire to live an upright life openly with pride, and
+this means saying no to proprietary software.</p>
+
+<p>
+You deserve to be able to cooperate openly and freely with other
+people who use software.  You deserve to be able to learn how the
+software works, and to teach your students with it.  You deserve to be
+able to hire your favorite programmer to fix it when it breaks.</p>
+
+<p>
+You deserve free software.</p>
+
+<h3>Footnotes</h3>
+<ol>
+<li id="footnote1">The charges were subsequently dismissed.</li>
+</ol>
+
+<hr />
+<blockquote id="fsfs"><p class="big">This essay is published
+in <a href="http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/";><cite>Free
+Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard
+M. Stallman</cite></a>.</p></blockquote>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#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 href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
+the FSF.  Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to <a href="mailto:address@hidden";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- 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 href="mailto:address@hidden";>
+        &lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>.</p>
+
+        <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+        our web pages, see <a
+        href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+        README</a>. -->
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+     files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+     be under CC BY-ND 3.0 US.  Please do NOT change or remove this
+     without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+     Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+     document.  For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+     document was modified, or published.
+     
+     If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+     Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+     years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+     year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+     being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+     
+     There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+     Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
+
+<p>Copyright &copy; 1994, 2009 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>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2017/09/24 12:59:06 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>