00000005.htm

一份很好的linux入门资料

owner,&nbsp;and&nbsp;it&nbsp;harms&nbsp;no&nbsp;one.&nbsp;The&nbsp;owner&nbsp;can&nbsp;lose&nbsp;only&nbsp;if&nbsp;the&nbsp;person&nbsp;who&nbsp;made&nbsp;<BR>
the&nbsp;copy&nbsp;would&nbsp;otherwise&nbsp;have&nbsp;paid&nbsp;for&nbsp;one&nbsp;from&nbsp;the&nbsp;owner.&nbsp;<BR>
“拥有者”们声称当软件软件使用者自己拷贝软件时他们遭受了“损伤”，或者“经济&nbsp;<BR>
损失”。奇怪的是这样的拷贝本身对于软件拥有者并没有任何直接作用，并且也看不&nbsp;<BR>
出伤害了谁。至于经济损失，只有当该用户在如果得不到拷贝的版本会去掏钱买的&nbsp;<BR>
情况下拷贝才使软件商才会有这样的损失。&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;A&nbsp;little&nbsp;thought&nbsp;shows&nbsp;that&nbsp;most&nbsp;such&nbsp;people&nbsp;would&nbsp;not&nbsp;have&nbsp;bought&nbsp;<BR>
copies.&nbsp;Yet&nbsp;the&nbsp;owners&nbsp;compute&nbsp;their&nbsp;``losses''&nbsp;as&nbsp;if&nbsp;each&nbsp;and&nbsp;every&nbsp;one&nbsp;<BR>
would&nbsp;have&nbsp;bought&nbsp;a&nbsp;copy.&nbsp;That&nbsp;is&nbsp;exaggeration---to&nbsp;put&nbsp;it&nbsp;kindly.&nbsp;<BR>
不需要太多思考就能明白，绝大多数那些做拷贝的人怎么也是不会真的去买那个&nbsp;<BR>
软件的。在这样的情况下，那些软件商作出“经济损失”的假设&nbsp;-&nbsp;如果不能拷&nbsp;<BR>
贝人人都会去买那个软件&nbsp;-&nbsp;至少也是夸大其辞了的。&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The&nbsp;law.&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;法律&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Owners&nbsp;often&nbsp;describe&nbsp;the&nbsp;current&nbsp;state&nbsp;of&nbsp;the&nbsp;law,&nbsp;and&nbsp;the&nbsp;harsh&nbsp;<BR>
penalties&nbsp;they&nbsp;can&nbsp;threaten&nbsp;us&nbsp;with.&nbsp;Implicit&nbsp;in&nbsp;this&nbsp;approach&nbsp;is&nbsp;the&nbsp;<BR>
suggestion&nbsp;that&nbsp;today's&nbsp;law&nbsp;reflects&nbsp;an&nbsp;unquestionable&nbsp;view&nbsp;of&nbsp;<BR>
morality---yet&nbsp;at&nbsp;the&nbsp;same&nbsp;time,&nbsp;we&nbsp;are&nbsp;urged&nbsp;to&nbsp;regard&nbsp;these&nbsp;penalties&nbsp;as&nbsp;<BR>
facts&nbsp;of&nbsp;nature&nbsp;that&nbsp;can't&nbsp;be&nbsp;blamed&nbsp;on&nbsp;anyone.&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;This&nbsp;line&nbsp;of&nbsp;persuasion&nbsp;isn't&nbsp;designed&nbsp;to&nbsp;stand&nbsp;up&nbsp;to&nbsp;critical&nbsp;<BR>
thinking;&nbsp;it's&nbsp;intended&nbsp;to&nbsp;reinforce&nbsp;a&nbsp;habitual&nbsp;mental&nbsp;pathway.&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;It's&nbsp;elementary&nbsp;that&nbsp;laws&nbsp;don't&nbsp;decide&nbsp;right&nbsp;and&nbsp;wrong.&nbsp;Every&nbsp;American&nbsp;<BR>
should&nbsp;know&nbsp;that,&nbsp;forty&nbsp;years&nbsp;ago,&nbsp;it&nbsp;was&nbsp;against&nbsp;the&nbsp;law&nbsp;in&nbsp;many&nbsp;states&nbsp;<BR>
for&nbsp;a&nbsp;black&nbsp;person&nbsp;to&nbsp;sit&nbsp;in&nbsp;the&nbsp;front&nbsp;of&nbsp;a&nbsp;bus;&nbsp;but&nbsp;only&nbsp;racists&nbsp;would&nbsp;<BR>
say&nbsp;sitting&nbsp;there&nbsp;was&nbsp;wrong.&nbsp;<BR>
一个最基本的事实是：法律并不判断什么是正确或者错误。每个美国人都应当知道，&nbsp;<BR>
四十年以前，在很多州一个黑人坐在公共汽车的前面是违法的，而现在除了种族主&nbsp;<BR>
义者没有人还有这样的想法。&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Natural&nbsp;rights.&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;天赐的权力。&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Authors&nbsp;often&nbsp;claim&nbsp;a&nbsp;special&nbsp;connection&nbsp;with&nbsp;programs&nbsp;they&nbsp;have&nbsp;<BR>
written,&nbsp;and&nbsp;go&nbsp;on&nbsp;to&nbsp;assert&nbsp;that,&nbsp;as&nbsp;a&nbsp;result,&nbsp;their&nbsp;desires&nbsp;and&nbsp;<BR>
interests&nbsp;concerning&nbsp;the&nbsp;program&nbsp;simply&nbsp;outweigh&nbsp;those&nbsp;of&nbsp;anyone&nbsp;else---or&nbsp;<BR>
even&nbsp;those&nbsp;of&nbsp;the&nbsp;whole&nbsp;rest&nbsp;of&nbsp;the&nbsp;world.&nbsp;(Typically&nbsp;companies,&nbsp;not&nbsp;<BR>
authors,&nbsp;hold&nbsp;the&nbsp;copyrights&nbsp;on&nbsp;software,&nbsp;but&nbsp;we&nbsp;are&nbsp;expected&nbsp;to&nbsp;ignore&nbsp;<BR>
this&nbsp;discrepancy.)&nbsp;<BR>
软件作者喜欢声称他们与其所写的程序具有某种特殊的关系，作为结论，他们&nbsp;<BR>
认为他们在这些程序上所有的利益和期望简单的就超过了任何人&nbsp;-&nbsp;甚至整个世&nbsp;<BR>
界的。(尽管通常是软件公司，而并非软件作者拥有软件的版权，但他们总是希望&nbsp;<BR>
我们忽略这个区别的)。&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;To&nbsp;those&nbsp;who&nbsp;propose&nbsp;this&nbsp;as&nbsp;an&nbsp;ethical&nbsp;axiom---the&nbsp;author&nbsp;is&nbsp;more&nbsp;<BR>
important&nbsp;than&nbsp;you---I&nbsp;can&nbsp;only&nbsp;say&nbsp;that&nbsp;I,&nbsp;a&nbsp;notable&nbsp;software&nbsp;author&nbsp;<BR>
myself,&nbsp;call&nbsp;it&nbsp;bunk.&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;But&nbsp;people&nbsp;in&nbsp;general&nbsp;are&nbsp;only&nbsp;likely&nbsp;to&nbsp;feel&nbsp;any&nbsp;sympathy&nbsp;with&nbsp;the&nbsp;<BR>
natural&nbsp;rights&nbsp;claims&nbsp;for&nbsp;two&nbsp;reasons.&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;One&nbsp;reason&nbsp;is&nbsp;an&nbsp;overstretched&nbsp;analogy&nbsp;with&nbsp;material&nbsp;objects.&nbsp;When&nbsp;I&nbsp;<BR>
cook&nbsp;spaghetti,&nbsp;I&nbsp;do&nbsp;object&nbsp;if&nbsp;someone&nbsp;else&nbsp;eats&nbsp;it,&nbsp;because&nbsp;then&nbsp;I&nbsp;cannot&nbsp;<BR>
eat&nbsp;it.&nbsp;His&nbsp;action&nbsp;hurts&nbsp;me&nbsp;exactly&nbsp;as&nbsp;much&nbsp;as&nbsp;it&nbsp;benefits&nbsp;him;&nbsp;only&nbsp;one&nbsp;<BR>
of&nbsp;us&nbsp;can&nbsp;eat&nbsp;the&nbsp;spaghetti,&nbsp;so&nbsp;the&nbsp;question&nbsp;is,&nbsp;which?&nbsp;The&nbsp;smallest&nbsp;<BR>
distinction&nbsp;between&nbsp;us&nbsp;is&nbsp;enough&nbsp;to&nbsp;tip&nbsp;the&nbsp;ethical&nbsp;balance.&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;No&nbsp;one&nbsp;should.&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The&nbsp;second&nbsp;reason&nbsp;is&nbsp;that&nbsp;people&nbsp;have&nbsp;been&nbsp;told&nbsp;that&nbsp;natural&nbsp;rights&nbsp;<BR>
for&nbsp;authors&nbsp;is&nbsp;the&nbsp;accepted&nbsp;and&nbsp;unquestioned&nbsp;tradition&nbsp;of&nbsp;our&nbsp;society.&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;As&nbsp;a&nbsp;matter&nbsp;of&nbsp;history,&nbsp;the&nbsp;opposite&nbsp;is&nbsp;true.&nbsp;The&nbsp;idea&nbsp;of&nbsp;natural&nbsp;<BR>
rights&nbsp;of&nbsp;authors&nbsp;was&nbsp;proposed&nbsp;and&nbsp;decisively&nbsp;rejected&nbsp;when&nbsp;the&nbsp;US&nbsp;<BR>
Constitution&nbsp;was&nbsp;drawn&nbsp;up.&nbsp;That's&nbsp;why&nbsp;the&nbsp;Constitution&nbsp;only&nbsp;permits&nbsp;a&nbsp;<BR>
system&nbsp;of&nbsp;copyright&nbsp;and&nbsp;does&nbsp;not&nbsp;require&nbsp;one;&nbsp;that's&nbsp;why&nbsp;it&nbsp;says&nbsp;that&nbsp;<BR>
copyright&nbsp;must&nbsp;be&nbsp;temporary.&nbsp;It&nbsp;also&nbsp;states&nbsp;that&nbsp;the&nbsp;purpose&nbsp;of&nbsp;copyright&nbsp;<BR>
is&nbsp;to&nbsp;promote&nbsp;progress---not&nbsp;to&nbsp;reward&nbsp;authors.&nbsp;Copyright&nbsp;does&nbsp;reward&nbsp;<BR>
authors&nbsp;somewhat,&nbsp;and&nbsp;publishers&nbsp;more,&nbsp;but&nbsp;that&nbsp;is&nbsp;intended&nbsp;as&nbsp;a&nbsp;means&nbsp;of&nbsp;<BR>
modifying&nbsp;their&nbsp;behavior.&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The&nbsp;real&nbsp;established&nbsp;tradition&nbsp;of&nbsp;our&nbsp;society&nbsp;is&nbsp;that&nbsp;copyright&nbsp;cuts&nbsp;<BR>
into&nbsp;the&nbsp;natural&nbsp;rights&nbsp;of&nbsp;the&nbsp;public---and&nbsp;that&nbsp;this&nbsp;can&nbsp;only&nbsp;be&nbsp;<BR>
justified&nbsp;for&nbsp;the&nbsp;public's&nbsp;sake.&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Economics.&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The&nbsp;final&nbsp;argument&nbsp;made&nbsp;for&nbsp;having&nbsp;owners&nbsp;of&nbsp;software&nbsp;is&nbsp;that&nbsp;this&nbsp;<BR>
leads&nbsp;to&nbsp;production&nbsp;of&nbsp;more&nbsp;software.&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Unlike&nbsp;the&nbsp;others,&nbsp;this&nbsp;argument&nbsp;at&nbsp;least&nbsp;takes&nbsp;a&nbsp;legitimate&nbsp;approach&nbsp;<BR>
to&nbsp;the&nbsp;subject.&nbsp;It&nbsp;is&nbsp;based&nbsp;on&nbsp;a&nbsp;valid&nbsp;goal---satisfying&nbsp;the&nbsp;users&nbsp;of&nbsp;<BR>
software.&nbsp;And&nbsp;it&nbsp;is&nbsp;empirically&nbsp;clear&nbsp;that&nbsp;people&nbsp;will&nbsp;produce&nbsp;more&nbsp;of&nbsp;<BR>
something&nbsp;if&nbsp;they&nbsp;are&nbsp;well&nbsp;paid&nbsp;for&nbsp;doing&nbsp;so.&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;But&nbsp;the&nbsp;economic&nbsp;argument&nbsp;has&nbsp;a&nbsp;flaw:&nbsp;it&nbsp;is&nbsp;based&nbsp;on&nbsp;the&nbsp;assumption&nbsp;<BR>
that&nbsp;the&nbsp;difference&nbsp;is&nbsp;only&nbsp;a&nbsp;matter&nbsp;of&nbsp;how&nbsp;much&nbsp;money&nbsp;we&nbsp;have&nbsp;to&nbsp;pay.&nbsp;It&nbsp;<BR>
assumes&nbsp;that&nbsp;``production&nbsp;of&nbsp;software''&nbsp;is&nbsp;what&nbsp;we&nbsp;want,&nbsp;whether&nbsp;the&nbsp;<BR>
software&nbsp;has&nbsp;owners&nbsp;or&nbsp;not.&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;People&nbsp;readily&nbsp;accept&nbsp;this&nbsp;assumption&nbsp;because&nbsp;it&nbsp;accords&nbsp;with&nbsp;our&nbsp;<BR>
experiences&nbsp;with&nbsp;material&nbsp;objects.&nbsp;Consider&nbsp;a&nbsp;sandwich,&nbsp;for&nbsp;instance.&nbsp;You&nbsp;<BR>
might&nbsp;well&nbsp;be&nbsp;able&nbsp;to&nbsp;get&nbsp;an&nbsp;equivalent&nbsp;<BR>
sandwich&nbsp;either&nbsp;free&nbsp;or&nbsp;for&nbsp;a&nbsp;price.&nbsp;If&nbsp;so,&nbsp;the&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;amount&nbsp;you&nbsp;pay&nbsp;is&nbsp;the&nbsp;only&nbsp;difference.&nbsp;Whether&nbsp;or&nbsp;not&nbsp;you&nbsp;have&nbsp;to&nbsp;buy&nbsp;<BR>
it,&nbsp;the&nbsp;sandwich&nbsp;has&nbsp;the&nbsp;same&nbsp;taste,&nbsp;the&nbsp;same&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;nutritional&nbsp;value,&nbsp;and&nbsp;in&nbsp;either&nbsp;case&nbsp;you&nbsp;can&nbsp;only&nbsp;eat&nbsp;it&nbsp;once.&nbsp;<BR>
Whether&nbsp;you&nbsp;get&nbsp;the&nbsp;sandwich&nbsp;from&nbsp;an&nbsp;owner&nbsp;or&nbsp;not&nbsp;cannot&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;directly&nbsp;affect&nbsp;anything&nbsp;but&nbsp;the&nbsp;amount&nbsp;of&nbsp;money&nbsp;you&nbsp;have&nbsp;afterwards.&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;This&nbsp;is&nbsp;true&nbsp;for&nbsp;any&nbsp;kind&nbsp;of&nbsp;material&nbsp;object---whether&nbsp;or&nbsp;not&nbsp;it&nbsp;has&nbsp;<BR>
an&nbsp;owner&nbsp;does&nbsp;not&nbsp;directly&nbsp;affect&nbsp;what&nbsp;it&nbsp;is,&nbsp;or&nbsp;what&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;you&nbsp;can&nbsp;do&nbsp;with&nbsp;it&nbsp;if&nbsp;you&nbsp;acquire&nbsp;it.&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;But&nbsp;if&nbsp;a&nbsp;program&nbsp;has&nbsp;an&nbsp;owner,&nbsp;this&nbsp;very&nbsp;much&nbsp;affects&nbsp;what&nbsp;it&nbsp;is,&nbsp;and&nbsp;<BR>
what&nbsp;you&nbsp;can&nbsp;do&nbsp;with&nbsp;a&nbsp;copy&nbsp;if&nbsp;you&nbsp;buy&nbsp;one.&nbsp;The&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;difference&nbsp;is&nbsp;not&nbsp;just&nbsp;a&nbsp;matter&nbsp;of&nbsp;money.&nbsp;The&nbsp;system&nbsp;of&nbsp;owners&nbsp;of&nbsp;<BR>
software&nbsp;encourages&nbsp;software&nbsp;owners&nbsp;to&nbsp;produce&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;something---but&nbsp;not&nbsp;what&nbsp;society&nbsp;really&nbsp;needs.&nbsp;And&nbsp;it&nbsp;causes&nbsp;<BR>
intangible&nbsp;ethical&nbsp;pollution&nbsp;that&nbsp;affects&nbsp;us&nbsp;all.&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;What&nbsp;does&nbsp;society&nbsp;need?&nbsp;It&nbsp;needs&nbsp;information&nbsp;that&nbsp;is&nbsp;truly&nbsp;available&nbsp;<BR>
to&nbsp;its&nbsp;citizens---for&nbsp;example,&nbsp;programs&nbsp;that&nbsp;people&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;can&nbsp;read,&nbsp;fix,&nbsp;adapt,&nbsp;and&nbsp;improve,&nbsp;not&nbsp;just&nbsp;operate.&nbsp;But&nbsp;what&nbsp;software&nbsp;<BR>
owners&nbsp;typically&nbsp;deliver&nbsp;is&nbsp;a&nbsp;black&nbsp;box&nbsp;that&nbsp;we&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;can't&nbsp;study&nbsp;or&nbsp;change.&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Society&nbsp;also&nbsp;needs&nbsp;freedom.&nbsp;When&nbsp;a&nbsp;program&nbsp;has&nbsp;an&nbsp;owner,&nbsp;the&nbsp;users&nbsp;<BR>
lose&nbsp;freedom&nbsp;to&nbsp;control&nbsp;part&nbsp;of&nbsp;their&nbsp;own&nbsp;lives.&nbsp;<BR>