互联网与文化gnu.org
为什么开源错失了自由软件的本意
Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software
2011 — 2019，它一次次回到首页
黑点是上首页（≥ 50 分）的那次投稿，空心点是没冲上去的投稿，点越大分数越高。
导读
这是 Stallman 的文章，解释“自由软件”与“开源”并非同义词：前者以用户自由和道义为核心，后者更强调实用优势与商业推广。文章讨论这种理念差异如何影响许可证选择和社区实践，并回应开源营销对自由软件理念的淡化。
为什么经久不衰：它抓住了软件自由与实用开源之间的长期张力，涉及许可证、DRM、专利和用户权利，在开源商业化与平台生态复杂的今天仍值得重读。
HN 评论精选
GPL 与宽松许可证动机不同；选许可证应基于你希望发生什么，若介意他人闭源商用获利就不要选 BSD/MIT。
GPL 这类许可证存在是为了最大化自由软件的数量；MIT、BSD 这类宽松许可证则是为了让愿意慷慨分享的人有办法分享，历史上还相信开明的使用者会主动回馈。结果常是：使用宽松许可证的人发现别人拿自己的软件改造、批评原作者“不保护自由”，还做出原作者无法按自己意愿使用的版本。理解这场冲突后，你可以形成自己的看法：选许可证应看你希望发生什么；如果别人拿你的代码加个漂亮界面卖钱赚数百万而你不获利会让你愤怒，那就不该用 BSD 许可证。
btilly查看英文原文
I think this is an important distinction to be aware of. Licenses like the GPL exist for a reason. And that reason is an attempt to maximize the amount of software that is free. Licenses like the MIT and BSD license exist for a different reason. And that reason is to give people who want to share what they did on generous terms a way to do so. And historically this was done in the belief that enlightened users would see it as being in their interest to contribute back. The result was that people who used generous licenses got frustrated that others would come along, use their software, criticize the original author for "not protecting freedom", then create a modified version that the original author was not free to use as they wish! Historically the free software movement was very clearly described with long essays by Stallman. With the open source marketing campaign, there were essays that people who liked more generous licenses could get behind. And indeed lots of people began producing free software with no encounter with the ideas that started the free software movement. The link above was Stallman's response to this. If you understand the conflict, then you can form your own opinion. Here is mine. When you choose a license, you should choose correctly for what you want to have happen. Would it outrage you for someone else to take your code, put a pretty GUI on top, sell it, and make millions while you make nothing? Well then, you shouldn't use a BSD license. By contrast you shouldn't use the GPL if your response would be, "Bully for them, I had fun and they made the world better." Conversely if someone else used an open source license, DO NOT assume that their motivations are yours. It is their code with their choice of license chosen for their reasons. Respect that.
copyleft 仍依赖法律强制，与“无条件的礼物/公有领域”伦理存在张力。
我敬佩 Stallman，也认为他对实践伦理的贡献是过去五十年最重要的之一；但 GNU 许可证的问题在于它终究是许可证，依赖国家强制力和现代知识产权贸易协定才有约束力。GNU 许可证天生容易诉诸法律，社会契约反而次要；当我是被法律制裁威胁才回馈时，那不算真正的给予。礼物不该附带条件，认为真正的给予应把作品放入公有领域是合理的伦理立场。GNU 处在一个光谱上，体现了一些高尚伦理价值，但不体现另一些。
brudgers查看英文原文
I admire Richard Stallman and believe that his efforts are among the most important contributions to practical ethics in the last 50 years...yet [and we knew there had to be one] the issue I have with the GNU license is that it is a license. It's use relies on all the same implicit threat of state sanctioned violence and its infrastructure as its closed proprietary opposites. The GNU license is meaningless without modern intellectual property focused trade agreements to provide teeth when there is a violation. The GNU license is inherently litigious. That's the nature of licensing. Alternative licenses are also de jure, but some are de facto non-litigious by virtue of permissiveness. The primary contract for a GNU license is legal and the social contract is secondary...I'm not giving back when I am coerced by the threat of legal sanction into the act. Gifts don't come with strings attached, and it is reasonable for someone to hold the ethical belief that true giving means placing creative works in the public domain. Which is to say that GNU lies on a spectrum and reflects some noble ethical values and not others. Among those ethical values GNU does not reflect are many that deem an intellectual property infrastructure backed by state sanctioned violence on behalf of wealth [e.g. music downloader prosecutions] worse than actions which GNU's copyleft prohibits.
若 DRM 和专利剥夺了修改与分发自由，开源对用户的实际价值可能不如专有软件。
当游戏机或手机里运行着开源软件，却因 DRM 或专利而无法修改、运行或分发时，这种区别最明显。软件可能因共享基础而质量更好，但作为用户，我很难把它看得比专有软件更有价值。
belorn查看英文原文
The difference is most noticeable when a console or phone has open source software running which one can't modify, run or distribute because of DRM or patents. The software might be of better quality because it uses a common shared base, but as a user I have a hard time valuing it above proprietary developed software.
自由软件运动以用户自由和正义为原则，开源更重实用；原则差异会改变许可证实践。
自由软件运动为计算用户争取自由，是一场追求自由与正义的运动；相比之下，开源理念主要看重实用优势，并不为原则而战。继续读文章会更清楚：这种观点差异会实际影响最终形成的许可证实践。推广某种原则或精神很重要，因为它像理念的 DNA，不同的 DNA 会带来完全不同的结果。
DoreenMichele查看英文原文
The free software movement campaigns for freedom for the users of computing; it is a movement for freedom and justice. By contrast, the open source idea values mainly practical advantage and does not campaign for principles. If you read through more of the article, it becomes clear that the difference in viewpoint has actual real world impact on the type of licensing practices that result. Promoting a particular principle or ethos matters because it is like the DNA of the idea. Different DNA gets you completely different results.
历次讨论
同类还值得读
如今电脑上几乎所有操作在感知上都比 1983 年更慢（2017）
Almost everything on computers is perceptually slower than it was in 1983 (2017)
2017 年的推文串认为，尽管计算机硬件比 1983 年快得多，日常操作的感知速度却常常更慢：启动、界面响应和网络应用被层层抽象、动画、后台检查与网络依赖拖累。
互联网与文化上首页 5 次 · 2017–2020twitter.com网站肥胖危机
The Website Obesity Crisis
Maciej Cegłowski（idlewords）的经典演讲文稿《网站肥胖症危机》，批评现代网页越来越臃肿：动辄数 MB 的 JavaScript、追踪脚本和广告，把本可以轻…
互联网与文化上首页 5 次 · 2016–2021idlewords.com编辑精选亚马逊那本标价 23,698,655.93 美元的苍蝇书
Amazon’s $23,698,655.93 book about flies
博文讲的是亚马逊上一本关于果蝇的二手书被标到 23,698,655.93 美元。
互联网与文化上首页 5 次 · 2011–2022michaeleisen.org浏览器 User-Agent 字符串的历史
History of the browser user-agent string (2008)
2008 年的经典文章用戏谑的“创世纪”口吻，讲述浏览器 User-Agent 字符串如何从简单的标识演变成层层叠加的伪装：浏览器为了绕过按 UA 分发的网站检测，纷纷把自己伪装…
互联网与文化上首页 5 次 · 2012–2022webaim.org编辑精选最后的问题——艾萨克·阿西莫夫
The Last Question - Isaac Asimov
阿西莫夫最著名的短篇科幻小说《最后的问题》的在线全文。
互联网与文化上首页 5 次 · 2009–2019multivax.com编辑精选