整理 by FreePeter

我的英語聽力好差。。。T_T
在refer了一些stallman的其他演講的transcript之后總算大多數內容還是catch了～～～
果然xf教育我們說對內容的預判是王道~~~
這兒有兩篇他曾經的lecture
http://www.fsfeurope.org/documents/rms-fs-2006-03-09.en.html
http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/torino-rms-transcript.en.html

好像stallman特別喜歡拿M$的軟件說事。。。恩，不過找到一篇蝦米google的。
Google designs software specifically to restrict the user. That's the nature of the Google Earth client: it is made the way it is specifically to restrict the people who use it. Obviously, it's not Free Software, because Free Software develops under the democratic control of its users. With the four freedoms: the freedom to run the program as you wish, to study the source code and change it so the program does what you wish, the freedom to distribute exact copies to others (which is the freedom to help your neighbour) and the freedom to distribute copies of your modified version (which is the freedom to contribute to your community). With these four freedoms the users, individually and collectively, are in charge.
原文連接
http://www.fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/transcript_richard_stallman_honorary_degree_speech_pavia_2007


注明一下，這些內容并不完全代表我的觀點。我特別郁悶的是他對QT/KDE的態度。。。
我個人的觀點還在forming,
我不是純粹因為好用或者技術上的領先才去用GNU/linux的，雖然很多強人的GNU/linux（在自己稍微配置了一下以后）巨好用無比。
我的GNU/linux大致是能用。。。但是總體上沒有當年的windows 2000好用（就這么被M$拋棄了...T_T）
簡單一點說，在完全不能用的free software和 non-free software之間，我顯然選擇后者。
但在現有的GNU/linux distribution和XP/Vista之間，我顯然選擇前者。
另外個人對QT那種非GPL覺得還可以。在GNOME和KDE之間，選擇是后者。
個人感覺。。。
free software / GNU Linux

p.s. 聽了speech最significant的一點是知道了應該叫做GNU/Linux
簡單一點說，GNU是一項浩大的工程，它也包括了制作一個操作系統，同時包括其他很多軟件，GCC,G++,Emacs........
然后呢，GNU操作系統的設計很早就完成了。。。然后他們寫啊寫。。。
在寫了接近十年之后，終于大體完工了，就差一個kernel了。。。
接著呢。。。據說原配寫kernel的那個人寫囧了。。。
于是Linus就跑來幫忙寫了個kernel玩，叫做Linux。
于是大家都只顧著看到拼盤的最后一塊。。。
Linux，嚴格意義上來說，只是GNU System的一種kernel實現方式而已。
stallman說：

Why do you call it GNU/Linux and not Linux?

Most operating system distributions based on Linux as kernel are basically modified versions of the GNU operating system. We began developing GNU in 1984, years before Linus Torvalds started to write his kernel. Our goal was to develop a complete free operating system. Of course, we did not develop all the parts ourselves—but we led the way. We developed most of the central components, forming the largest single contribution to the whole system. The basic vision was ours too.

In fairness, we ought to get at least equal mention.

下面是昨天的演講的0~20分鐘內容～～～

Hello & Happy Hacking (Laugh, Applause)

Society usually teaches people to judge software packages by practical concerns only
is this program convenient,
is this program reliable,
is it cheap,
and to ignore the most important questions:
if I use this program,
what does it do to my freedom?
if I use this program,
what does it do to the social solidarity of my community?

So people ignore the most important things
Those questions, are what free software is about,
free software, means software that respects users' freedom
it's a matter of freedom, not practice
when you tranlate it to chinese, you should say "自由", but not "免費"
(laugh & applause)


software which is not free software, is user-subjugating software, proprietary software,
it keeps user divided and helpless
divided, because everyone is forbidden to share it with everyone else
and helpless, because the users don't have the source code, so they can't change it,
They can't even verify what it actually doing to them.

However, just saying "I'm in favor of freedom" is too vain, is not specfic
Even Bush says he's in favor of freedom (Laugh)
and Bush can recognize freedom even after he's crashed.
So I need to say sth more specific, more precise.

A program is free software, if it gives the 4 essential freedoms.
freedom 0, is to run the program as you wish
freedom 1, is the freedom to study the source code of the program, and change it, to make it do what you wish.
freedom 2, is the freedom to help your neighbour, that's the freedom to make copies, exact copies, and distribute to others, when you wish.
freedome 3, is the freedom to contribute to your community, that's the freedom to make copies of your modified versions, and distribute them to others when you wish. The freedom to distribute copies, includes the freedom to gives them away, and the freedom to sell them, so that hasn't to be 免費, often it is, but that's not part of the definition, that's because that's just about price and price isn't the issue here, freedom is the issue here.

So if the program gives you all 4 of the essential freedoms, then it's a free software, which means that social system of the distribution and use, is an ethical system
Where we respect freedom, and the social solidairy of our comunity.

but if one of these freedom is missing, or insufficient,
then it's proprietary software, non-free software, user-subjugating software,
because the social system of the distribution and use is unethical,
such software should not exist, developing a free software, is a contribution to society, big or small, depending on the details, but at least it's going in the good direction.
but to develop and distribute proprietary program, it's not a contribution to society,
it's a power gramp()  , it's attempting to take power of society,
if the program has any attractive features,
those are bait for a trap, and the trap is that you lose your freedom.
so, the aim of free software movement is, software should be free, users should be free. (Applause)

But why are these 4 freedoms essential,
why divide free software this way? Each freedom has its own reason.
Freedom 2, the freedom to help your neighbour,
the freedom to make exact copies and distribute them,
is essential on fundamental moral grounds.
so that you can live an upright, ethical life as a good memeber of your community.
if you use a program that doesn't give you freedom No.2,
you're in danger of falling into a moral dilemma,
at any moment, whenever your friend says, "that program is nice, could i have a copy?"
at that moment, you will face a choice between 2 evils
1 evil, is to give your friend a copy, and violate the licence of the program,
the other evil, is to refuse your friend a copy, and comply with the licence of the program.
Once in the dilema, you ought to choose the lesser evil,
which is to give your friend the copy, and violates the licence of the program
what makes this evil the lesser evil?
well, if you can't avoid doing some kind of wrong to somebody,
better to do wrong to sb who has done wrong and deserves it.
like the developer of pro,
we can assume that your friend is a good friend, a good member of community,
and normally deserves your co-operation,
of coz, it's a good thing to co-opperate with other people as well.
but this case, the case where the people is a good people of the comunity, is a sharpest case,
the sharpest contrast, because let's contrast this good member of your comunity with the developer of the proprietary program who has deliberately attacked the social solidatry of your comunity, deliberately try to divide you.
clearly the lesser evil is to do wrong to the developer,
however, being the lesser evil doesn't mean it's good
it's never a good thing to make an agreement then to break it.
now, there're some kind of agreements, that are evil in themselves,
and keeping them is worse than breaking them,
and that's an example, but still, breaking is not good
and if you give your friend a copy, what will we have,
he will have an unathorized copy of a proprietary program,  
and that's a bad thing, almost as bad as an authorized copy would be.

So what you should really do, when you have thought about this ethical issue,
is to make sure, you're never in this dilemma,
there're 2 ways to do that,
1 is, don't have any friends,
the distributers of proprietary software implicitly suggest that method
the other method is , don't use the proprietary software,
if you don't have a copy, you don't have to worry about what you will say to your friend,
that's my method, if sb offers me a proprietary program on the condition that i promise not to share with you,
i would tell them no,
i would say, my conscience doesn't allow me, to make an agreement like that,
a couple of weeks ago, sb give me a computer,
i went to visit the company, and i was given 1 of their computers
and when i try to use it,
the top of screen asking me to accept a licence,
for some non-free programs,
i couldn't agree with that,
so i explain this problem, and i ask if there's anyway i can delete these non-free programs, and go past that and skip around that licence page,
and so far, it's not clear that i can do so, so i may never actually use that computer,
coz i'm not going to accept that licence.

and we must reject the probability against the terms,
that our enermy's use,
for instance, what's it mean, when they say, if you share you're pirate,
what they really tring to say?
they're trying to say, that helping your neighbour,
is the moral eqivalent of attacking a ship, to stealing a cargo,
and nothing could be more false than that,
because attacking a ship is very very bad,
but helping your neighbour is the right thing to do,
so those people are trying to twist up our ideas of right and wrong,
by using dishonest words,
we have watched out their dishonest words and rejects them,
so when sb asks me what do i think of piracy,
i say that attacking ships is very bad,
and if someone asks me what i think of software piracy,
i say as far as i know, pricay these days use guns, but not software.
well that's the reason for freedom 2, the freedom to help your neighbour, the freedom to make exact copies and distribute them to others when you wish

Freedom 0, the freedom to run the program as you wish,
is essential for different reason,
so you could control your computing.
There're proprietary programs whose licence restricted even the use of authorized copies,
and that's obviously not controlling your computing,
so that's unacceptable,
we have to reject programs whose licences restricted how you can run them, or for what purpose, or how long, or anything like that.
because you, have to be in control your own computing.
but, freedom 0 is not enough.
because, the developer still controls what you do,
not through the licence, but through the code, the program.
so we also need freedom 1, the freedom to study the source code and to change it.
so the program does what you wish,
this way, you decide, instead of having the developers decided and imposed decisions on you.
if a program doesn't come with freedom 1,
you can even tell what's it doing to you.
and many of these programs do nasty things,
they have features designed to spy on the user, to restrict the user, even to attack the user,
of coz, spying on the user and restricting the user is not done only by software and your computer,
and it's also done by servers and gateways,
but that's the different issue,
if you can't even control your computing on your computer,
you're totally under the power of the software developers,
and there malicious features are quite common,
for instance, many proprietary program spy on the user,
1 you may heard of, that spy on user is called MS windows.
when the users of windows, and i won't say you, because i'm sure you won't use nasty program like this.
when the users of windows, clicks on the menu feature, to search his own files for a word,
windows sends a message to MS saying what word you're searching for.
that's 1 spy feature.
but there's another, when XP asks for an upgrade,
it sends MS a message of a list of all the programs on the machine,
that's another spy feature,
but are those the only ones?
we don't know, MS never announced these spy features,
people find them by investigation,
so there could be more spy features, that people haven't found yet,
however, windows isn't the only program that spy on the user,
WMP does too, in fact, it does total surveillance. it report everything that the user looks at.
that illustrates today, cooperations try to spy on people just as same as the government do,
most of the world is now under an empire of the magical coperations(???)
and most governor do whatever the magical coperations(??) tells them to do,
and this means they're not democratic, and that's bad thing.
So, WMP spys on users, but, please don't think MS is uniquely evil, that MS
is the only company so nasty that will do this
because RealPlayer does the same thing,
and we're almost certain RealPlayer did it first,
after all, MS is more known for imitation than invetion.
But malicious feature gets worse than just spying,
there's also the malicious feature, functionality of refusing to function.
when the program says, i don't wanna show the contents of this file,
even though it's in your own computer,
i don't wanna let you copy part of this file
even though it's in your own computer,
i'm not going to print this file for you, coz i don't like you.
and i wasn't put here to serve you, i was put here to control you.
i'm not your servant, although i pretend to be,
i'm actually your prison guard.

now this practice is also know as DRM(Digital Restrictions Management),
intentionally implemented malicious feature of stopping you from doing things, that sb else doesn't want you to do.
and many companies do this, for instance MS, apple, google, adobe, sony, amazon does this, and many other.
and everytime they do this,
it attacks your freedom, at 2 different levels at once.
first of all, the purpose of these restrictions, is to attack your freedom,
it's to stop you from doing things which would otherwise be your legal right,
but the way they do it attacks your freedom at another level,
because they do it by publishing things in secret formats,
and that is to make sure we can't write any free software to access those things,
so even to access them in a way permitted, you have to use a non-free program,
and that's also an attack on your freedom,
2 attacks on your freedom at the same time,
because that's so dangerous,
we urge you never to buy or accept or use any product with DRM,
unless you personally possess the means to break the DRM.

so far instances, if you have the free software that can read and play a DVD
then it's OK to buy or rent DVDs or accept as gifts,
but if you don't have that free software,
you should refuse to accept a DVD,
there're a few DVDs which are not encrypted
and they don't post a problem, they don't have the DRM, that's fine, i have a few of those,
i don't have any encrypted DVDs, i reject them.