开源共享让知识增长，敝帚自珍令知识缩水 - Eben Moglen关于开放软件源代码的发言-视频

2013年7月9日，美国哥伦比亚大学的法学教授Eben Moglen在欧洲议会发表了一篇关于通用公共许可权GPL的谈话。其主旨在于打破软件作者权利专属、各自为营的壁垒，提倡开放源代码、鼓励用户自行对软件进行再开发，并以同样的源代码开放方式将改进后的软件进一步流传开去。

既然Moglen先生是法学教授，一句一段的讲话风格自不在话下，但坐在位子还摇头摆尾，看着实在眼晕！

英文版文字来源：http://fsftn.org/eben-moglens-speech-at-eurpoean-union-parliment/
中文翻译：律政混混


Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, distinguished parliamentarians, colleagues and friends. It’s an honor to be here this afternoon.

非常感谢！尊敬的主席女士、议员、同僚以及朋友们，与你们在此共度午后是我的荣幸。


Since 1979, a general consensus has prevailed in the developed economies that computer software is a subject predicate to copyright law, and that the primary form of legal control exercised over the making and distribution of computer software is in copyright.

自1979年以来，发达国家就有这样一个普遍认知： 计算机软件依从于版权法，其开发与经销的法律规范基本形态就是版权法。

Beginning in the early nineties, the United States legal system began also to apply patent law to the development and distribution of software, but the primary legal arrangements for the software industry in the world (both proprietary and free and open source software [FOSS]) depend from copyright.

90年代初， 美国的司法系统开始将专利权应用于软件的开发和经销， 但全球软件工业（包括有版权软件、以及源代码免费开放的自由软件FOSS）的法规控制体系仍然是基于版权。

Copyright gives to the authors of computer programs the same exclusive rights it gives to authors of literary works. In my home legal system, those are defined as the right to make copies, to prepare derivative works, and to control initial distribution. In other legal systems within the European Community, it may also include: rights of public display, performance, and the making available of software. The point is that the authors of software are given rights to exclusive control over their works. And in the world of free and open source software, legal arrangements are used to return to users some of the exclusive rights possessed by authors.

版权（法）赋予软件作者与文字作者同样的专有权。在我的国家（美国）， 作者版权意味着复制权、改写权以及第一次发行的控制权。而在欧洲司法系统， 它可能还包括公开展示、表演以及加工成软件的权利。上述做法旨在赋予作者对其作品的专属掌控权。而在源代码免费开放的自由软件世界FOSS里，相关的法律规范则是将作者享有的部分专属权交给用户。

My role right now this afternoon is to discuss the most widely used of these FOSS copyright licenses: the GNU General Public License [GPL]. It now exists in the world in two versions: version 2 made in 1991, and version 3 made in 2006-2007.

今天我的与会目的，是讨论目前被广泛使用的FOSS版权许可：GNU通用公共（版权）许可GPL. 目前，它有两个版本：1991年的版本2、以及2006到2007的版本3.

Taken together, the two versions of the GPL currently are used to license and distribute software of commercial value in the world in the excess of 120 billion U.S. dollars a year – roughly in the neighborhood of a hundred billion euro. Services and other forms of IT [information technology] built on top of that FOSS now amount to several hundred additional billion euro a year.

每年，全球有超过1200亿美金（大约1000亿欧元）商用价值的软件，在其授权和经销上都应用了上述两个版本的GPL。而由FOSS的GPL衍生出来的其他服务及IT附属产品的价值更高达每年几千亿欧元。


The GPL licenses more software than all of Microsoft and Oracle put together. The GPL is roughly in order of magnitude larger than SAP, the largest commercial producer of software in the European Union. But we don’t think of the GPL as a company or a block, because, of course, it isn’t: It’s actually a system of rights returns to users.

经GPL授权的软件总和不仅超过微软（Microsoft）和甲骨文（Oracle）两家公司的数量总和，也远远超出了SAP的授权软件总量，而后者是欧盟最大的商务软件生产商。 不过，我们并不认为GPL是一个公司或是一个巨头，因为它本来就不是，它是“将版权还与用户”的系统。

Both versions of the GPL are designed to provide users of software with four crucial rights : the right to use the software for any purpose without additional permission or restriction, the right to have and study and understand the source code of the software, so that every person who comes into possession of a computer program can understand how it works, what it does, and how it might be changed or improved to make it more fit for her purposes, and to share both modified and unmodified versions of the program at discretion.

前述两个GPL版本都奉行同一个宗旨：向软件用户提供4个重要权利： 不受限制、任意使用软件而无需额外的附加授权；有权拥有、学习并理解软件源代码的权利，以期让获得该软件的人可以理解软件是如何工作的？该软件的作用？如何改动或优化软件功能以适应其需求，以及与别人分享该软件的权利，包括自己修改过的版本、以及未修改的版本。


In order to ensure that those rights are guaranteed to every user, the GNU/GPL versions take a very simple approach to how software should be given to its users. The license says, basically: here is software. You may do anything you want with it: copy it, modify it, give it to anyone you please. Just don’t give them fewer rights, in whatever you make, than we gave you in what you started with. In other words: we’re a commons, and you may build in this commons all you want, and do anything you want here, but don’t try to remove anything from the commons permanently.

为了确保每个用户都可以得到上述权利，GNU/GPL关于软件交付到用户的授权做法很简单，大意是：软件在此，你拿它干什么都行：复制、修改、想把它给谁就给谁（就是这么任性！）唯一不要做的就是：不要因为你对该软件做了改动，而把我们给你的权利加以限制再出手。换句话说，我们是一个共享机制平台，你在此平台上可以天马行空、为所欲为，但就是不要挖这个共享平台的墙角。


This use of copyright law, to make sharing impermeable to breakage, to prevent anyone from taking the program private, or enhancing the program and not sharing the improvement under distribution, has essentially socialized research and development in infrastructure software around the world.

版权法的这种（反其道而行之的奇葩）应用目的在于：构建反破坏的共享机制，防止任何人将程序（软件）据为己有、或者在程序升级后在其分销发行上将其版权私有化。这种理念在全球基础软件平台的研究和开发上早已根深蒂固、广植人心。

Android, which is based on GPL-licensed operating system code, is now the majority of all mobile computing devices on Earth. The server market, which was one hundred percent dominated by Microsoft at the end of the twentieth century, is no longer dominated by Microsoft at all.
More than twenty percent of all the servers shipped in the world last year were shipped with free software on them from the factory. The monopoly which two of the largest governments on Earth spent a decade fighting in their own courts, gave way to competition from FOSS software.

安卓，这个基于GPL授权理念的操作系统源码已经是当今世界所有移动设备的主导者。曾经在20世纪末被微软完全垄断的服务器市场，已然今非昔比。去年，全球有20%的服务器在发货时，已经由生产商安装了免费软件。垄断，这个全球两个最大的政府花了十年为之大打官司的特权，已经拱手为FOSS软件让路。

The GPL achieved those results because the GPL institutionalized sharing, and brought various market participants (from IBM to Hewlett-Packard, to the United States government, to Oracle, to the largest manufacturers in East Asia) to a common table, in which everybody’s actions benefited everybody, and research could be socialized rather than contained within the silos of individual firms.

GPL的成功在于它的共享机制，把各持己见的市场参与者（从IBM到HP，到美国政府，到甲骨文Oracle，及至东亚的大型生产商）带到“共用理念”的圆桌会议上，实现“我为人人、人人为我”，研究成果可以实现社会化共享，而不是烂在各生产商的自家地窖里。

The result was a burst of enormous innovation in the world, which changed not just prices in the market for information technology, but the structure of the market itself.

GPL成果带来的是全球范围内革新的急速膨胀，不仅波及IT市场的产品价格，也深深触及市场架构自身。


We were working with GPL version 2 from 1993 when I started working with the license’s author, Mr Stallman, well into the 21st century. In the course of those 16 years, not only we changed the intellectual and substantive role of IT in the world, but of course a lot of other technological developments occurred as well. Therefore, in 2006 we began revising the GPL in a public discussion process.

我与Stallman先生（GPL授权系统作者）在GPL版本2上面的合作，始于1993年，直到21世纪。这16年间，我们改变的不仅是IT在这个世界上所扮演的知识实体角色，也促成了其他技术进步的产生。 因此，2006年，我们开始审议GPL，把它推向一个公开讨论的议程。


By the time we began that public work, in 2006, hundreds of large businesses around the world, including thirty of the largest patent holders in information technology, were using, selling and running their businesses over GPL（ed） software. All, I repeat all, of the large investment banks in the world, located in Europe, in Japan and in the United States – all used free software. Re-licensing, that is revising the license of the GPL, was therefore a large scale international legislative activity, conducted without government authorization or hierarchy, anarchist legislation, Legislation without government.

2006年，当我们开始这项公开（讨论）议题时，全球上百家大型企业，包括30家拥有专利的IT厂商已经透过使用、销售或运行GPL化软件，将其融入到自身商业运营中。所有，我强调是“所有”，位于欧洲、日本、以及美国的全球大型投资银行都是自由软件用户。重新授权，即GPL授权审议过程，也因此成为全球最大规模的立法举措，并具有不受任何政府、或特权操控，纯粹的无政府立法行为，立法、却没政府的事儿的特点！（哈哈~~~，笑死我啦！李敖大师，您追随的“无政府主义”又被升华啦！）

In the briefing document, I presented for you a summary of that process pointing at the tools, devices and principles that we used to conduct a process around the world, sixteen month long, to revise all the rules of sharing software.

在我为各位呈上的简报中，概述了我们在全球实施该计划中用到的工具、设备以及原则。我们在16个月时间内重新审议了软件共享的所有规定。

We built technology the European Parliament has yet to build for itself, to allow, not just public access to legislative material, but public comment and editing of legislative material: Our stet system for reviewing drafts of the GPL on the net – in public, which in the hands of Philippe Aigrain became co-ment, in Paris, a system for public consultation, was an early attempt, at the very beginning of the 21st century, to conduct public legislation.

我们所创立的技术是目前欧洲议会还不曾有的：开放立法资源的公共访问权限，允许对其加注或编辑。我们的stet系统就是放在网上公开的GPL草案审议系统，而在Philippe Aigrain手中，它变成了co-ment系统，是一个位于巴黎的公共咨询系统，这也是我们这个计划在21世纪的初期尝试，算是公共立法系统的先驱。

As the history of that revision process laid out briefly in our document shows, we found approximately 2,000 comments around the world over the course of 16 months, which our system carefully required parties to tie directly to wording in the document. So we had no flame wars, no long speeches, no -if you pardon my use of the word- political posturing. People had to say: “This sentence doesn’t work for me, because… and here’s what I think should be done with it.” And we created a system which allowed the viewer, by color intensity on the page, to see where people were hotly debating, and where comments had not yet been filed on the document – to guide public discussion without controlling it.

如简报中该审议的实施历程所言，在16个月的时间里，我们收到2000条来自全球的评语，对此，我们的系统要求各方务必将其直接链入相关文本。如此一来， 我们就免去了口舌之争、长篇大论，甚至是官腔官调。大众可以说“这句话对我来说是废话，因为...我觉得你们得把它改成这样”。我们开创的是这样一个系统：浏览者可以透过页面上高亮显示的文字了解什么是当前热议内容？哪些文字还没有被评注？简而言之，引导、而不是管束公众讨论。


We created public committees for the discussion of the draft, in which individual hackers from around the world, were accorded the same procedural rights as the IBM corporation, the Hewlett-Packard corporation, and so on. We presented a democratic face for the revision of our copyright law – that is to say the copyright law, concerning software around the world, which had enabled the production of the software that had competed so successfully against proprietary software made elsewhere.

我们开创的是一个用于草案讨论的公共委员会，它让全球的个体黑客拥有和IT巨头IBM、HP一样的过程参与权。我们为版权法的审议打造了一个民主的新面孔：版权法在全球的软件世界里，为一种全新的软件产销模式打开了方便之门，这个新生物已经成功地打败了版权专属的软件产品。


All of this, I wish to emphasize, is very primitive. GPL, even now, is essentially an early example of how the socialization of technological development through sharing can produce inherently superior technology. It’s a work in demonstration. We know what our data are in. We made the world software industry change: We created heaps of innovation, and we destroyed heaps of burden for parties locked into software sold to them by vendors who would not allow them to understand it or change it.

需要强调的是, 以上所讲内容仍然处于一个原型（实验）阶段。即便在今天，从本质上说，GPL仍然是一个初级模型，为大家展示了：“科技开发的社会共享化可以发掘出其固有的、更高阶的技术。” 我们知道我们的数据在哪个阶段，我们也确实为软件工业带来了变化：我们创造出“革新堆”（heap, 计算机硬件原理概念），同时摧毁了“负荷堆”，在购买软件时就开始纠结的苦恼：不能深入了解软件、更不能自行改变它。

We now live in a world in which the software industry is re-concentrating inside mobile computing devices… The idea that you can be sold a computing device which you can’t understand, can’t study, can’t change, can’t fix, and therefore can’t prevent from spying on you, is the advent of the industry the GPL and other FOSS institutions were designed to prevent. Recent events in the world have reminded everybody why computers you can’t trust aren’t safe to use – and have underlined the importance of technology individual users can understand and modify in preventing outright political oppression.

我们所在的是软件工业重新聚焦于移动电脑设备上的年代。那种“花钱买一个不允许你深入了解、不允许你学习、不允许你改动、修正，从而也就不能防止被窥视监听的电脑设备”的概念正是基于GPL以及FOSS理念的软件工业的革新对象。最近发生的事（斯诺登事件）正在提醒人们：你不敢相信的电脑，也不会给你带来使用上的安全感；以及让软件个体用户懂得并修改软件在抵制政治强权操控上的重要性。

We began our activities in changing the law applicable to software with a political purpose in mind. The purpose was to support freedom.

这项以“改造法律，使其适用于软件”为宗旨的计划在开始之初就被注入了政治理念： 倡导自由。


Our belief was, and remains, that only a form of knowledge sharing which permits everyone to learn is safe for political liberty as well as economic innovation.
我们坚信：“人人可学”的知识共享形态才是政治自由、和经济创新的安全保障。


We don’t consider this to be our invention. We consider this to be Galileo’s invention. We consider the right to tell the truth and to share scientific knowledge without permission and without control by law to be one of the greatest achievements of European civilization.

我们更愿意把它看做是“伽利略式发明”，而不是我们自己的发明。我们认为：告知真相的权利、以及无需特许、不受法律约束的知识共享权利是欧洲文明最伟大的成就之一。


We regard what we do as in the main line of the activity of the people of Liberty who brought a new Europe into being in 1789. We consider ourselves to be acting on behalf of the very idea of shared knowledge and common self-improvement, which is the achievement of European science.

我们把自己的努力视作自由人民在1789年带领欧洲开创新欧洲变革洪流的一部分。我们的所作所为代表的正是“知识共享以及共有的自我提升”理念，而这正是欧洲科学成就之所在。

We reject wholeheartedly that this is either some danger or something to be careful about.

我们也诚挚表明：不接受任何“这(GPL)是一种危险、需要慎重考虑的议题”的说法。

Every government on Earth should now be aware that the largest IT firms in the world, including Microsoft, cannot live or operate without free software. Every government on Earth is aware that no bank, no telecommunications firm, no energy company can exist or operate without free software.

每一个政府机构都应该意识到：没有自由软件，包括微软在内的全球所有大型IT商家都玩不转；没有自由软件，全球所有银行、电信企业、能源公司都歇菜！


I am disappointed, I must admit, among all the things that make me happy and delighted and honored to be here today, that in 2013 we're still talking about this. We shouldn't be. The data are long since in. The changes in the industry have long since been registered.

我必须说，在获邀出席今天的会议所带来的溢于言表的荣耀欢欣之外，我是有一点遗憾的：在2013年，这(GPL)还是一个被讨论的议题。真的不应该。万事具备蹉跎过，时至今日变无多！


The effects on, let us say, a small territory of thirty-one million people in Kerala in India, which has been using free software for its public administration, which has been teaching it in its schools, and which has been paying close attention to its social meaning for almost a decade now, are fully indicative of the nature of the social benefits to be had by real engagement with the process of free software.

在印度一个只有三千一百万人口、叫Kerala的小地方正在使用自由软件进行公共管理，自由软件被纳入学校的教学内容，自由软件在当地产生的社会影响也被深度检视了近十年，其成果显著印证了自由软件社会化所带来的社会效益。


We celebrate today Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz’s ability to join the formalities of copyright law and the administrative processes of the European Commission into the free software system via the EUPL. I am not sure, as every license maker enjoys his own licenses, that Patrice will necessarily join with me in hoping that the EUPL is not forever necessary. But whatever may be the case about our persisting licensing structures, the documents on which we do business, which are a tiny bit of this story, the larger principles should no longer be in question: Sharing is how knowledge grows. Owning is how knowledge shrinks.

我们今天也同样庆祝Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz成功地透过EUPL把欧洲版权法和欧洲委员会的管理议程纳入自由软件系统。我不能肯定，因为众所周知，每个许可权的制定者都会敝帚自珍，Patrice会和我一样，盼望有一天EUPL（European Union Public Licence）也失去它存在的价值（到别人家做客还羞辱主人，狠哪！）不过，无论我们在固持己见上能走多远，无论构建商业基础的文案工作（多么繁杂），它也不过是这个故事的一个小插曲；无论如何，毋庸置疑的大原则是： 开源共享让知识增长，敝帚自珍令知识缩水。


The GPL has demonstrated that, with respect to computer software, sharing produces technological innovation and social benefit. Ownership does not.

GPL已经就其在计算机软件上的应用向世人证明：（资源）共享制能带来技术革新和社会效益；（资源）专属制却无此动能。


The GPL is only one of many ways that people can share software, and I don’t propose that it's the best or the necessary one. In my law practice on behalf of developers of free software at the Software Freedom Law Center, we use GPL with some clients and we avoid GPL with others, for practical reasons having to do with the nature of their software and the nature of their intended distributions. Particular licenses are neither panaceas nor plagues. They're simply, like all other legal documents, ways to get through the day.

GPL是人们共享软件的多种方式之一，我并不主张它是最好的、或是必要的。我在软件自由法律中心供职，为
自由软件的开发者提供法律服务。在实际案例中，根据软件的性质以及发售渠道的特性，我们会推荐一些客
户使用GPL，而避免另一些用户与GPL挂钩。特定的许可权既不是万金油也不是瘟疫。他们只是保障事情顺利
进行的法律文书。

The Principle of Freedom, the free exchange of technological knowledge, and the Rights of Users with respect to technology, are however not trivialities. They are the central institutions of technology that serves Human purposes in the 21st century.

自由的理念、自由交换科学知识、以及用户获得科技知识的权力并非无聊琐事，而是21世纪服务于人类的科技核心架构。

And I will close only with one more statement: Technology which doesn't serve human purposes in
the 21st century, serves inhuman purposes. Thank you very much.

我将以这样一句话来结束我今天的发言：21世纪，科技若非以人性为本，即是以反人性为虐！谢谢各位！http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FI1CoeqyD5o