《信息科學(xué)類(lèi)專(zhuān)業(yè)英語(yǔ)》課件第12章

Lesson12WhySoftwareshouldnotHaveOwners?(第十二課為什么軟件不應(yīng)當(dāng)有所有者？)

Vocabulary(詞匯)ImportantSentences(重點(diǎn)句)QuestionsandAnswers(問(wèn)答)Problems(問(wèn)題)

Digitalinformationtechnologycontributestotheworldbymakingiteasiertocopyandmodifyinformation.Computerspromisetomakethiseasierforallofus.

Noteveryonewantsittobeeasier.Thesystemofcopyrightgivessoftwareprograms“owners”,mostofwhomaimtowithholdsoftware’spotentialbenefitfromtherestofthepublic.Theywouldliketobetheonlyoneswhocancopyandmodifythesoftwarethatweuse.

Thecopyrightsystemgrewupwithprinting—atechnologyformassproductioncopying.Copyrightfitinwellwiththistechnologybecauseitrestrictedonlythemassproducersofcopies.Itdidnottakefreedomawayfromreadersofbooks.Anordinaryreader,whodidnotownaprintingpress,couldcopybooksonlywithpenandink,andfewreadersweresuedforthat.

Digitaltechnologyismoreflexiblethantheprintingpress:wheninformationhasdigitalform,youcaneasilycopyittoshareitwithothers.Thisveryflexibilitymakesabadfitwithasystemlikecopyright.That’sthereasonfortheincreasinglynastyanddraconianmeasuresnowusedtoenforcesoftwarecopyright.ConsiderthesefourpracticesoftheSoftwarePublishersAssociation(SPA):

Massivepropagandasayingitiswrongtodisobeytheownerstohelpyourfriend.[1]

Solicitationforstoolpigeonstoinformontheircoworkersandcolleagues.[2]

Raids(withpolicehelp)onofficesandschools,inwhichpeoplearetoldtheymustprovetheyareinnocentofillegalcopying.[3]

Prosecution(bytheUSgovernment,attheSPA’srequest)ofpeoplesuchasMIT’sDavidLaMacchia,notforcopyingsoftware(heisnotaccusedofcopyingany),butmerelyforleavingcopyingfacilitiesunguardedandfailingtocensortheiruse.[4]

AllfourpracticesresemblethoseusedintheformerSovietUnion,whereeverycopyingmachinehadaguardtopreventforbiddencopying,andwhereindividualshadtocopyinformationsecretlyandpassitfromhandtohandas“samizdat”.Thereisofcourseadifference:themotiveforinformationcontrolintheSovietUnionwaspolitical;intheUSthemotiveisprofit.Butitistheactionsthataffectus,notthemotive.Anyattempttoblockthesharingofinformation,nomatterwhy,leadstothesamemethodsandthesameharshness.

Ownersmakeseveralkindsofargumentsforgivingthemthepowertocontrolhowweuseinformation:

Namecalling.

Ownersusesmearwordssuchas“piracy”and“theft”,aswellasexpertterminologysuchas“intellectualproperty”and“damage”,tosuggestacertainlineofthinkingtothepublic—asimplisticanalogybetweenprogramsandphysicalobjects.

Ourideasandintuitionsaboutpropertyformaterialobjectsareaboutwhetheritisrighttotakeanobjectawayfromsomeoneelse.Theydon’tdirectlyapplytomakingacopyofsomething.Buttheownersaskustoapplythemanyway.

Exaggeration.

Ownerssaythattheysuffer“harm”or“economicloss”whenuserscopyprogramsthemselves.Butthecopyinghasnodirecteffectontheowner,anditharmsnoone.Theownercanloseonlyifthepersonwhomadethecopywouldotherwisehavepaidforonefromtheowner.

Alittlethoughtshowsthatmostsuchpeoplewouldnothaveboughtcopies.Yettheownerscomputetheir“l(fā)osses”asifeachandeveryonewouldhaveboughtacopy.Thatisexaggeration—toputitkindly.[5]

Thelaw.

Ownersoftendescribethecurrentstateofthelaw,andtheharshpenaltiestheycanthreatenuswith.Implicitinthisapproachisthesuggestionthattoday’slawreflectsanunquestionableviewofmorality—yetatthesametime,weareurgedtoregardthesepenaltiesasfactsofnaturethatcan’tbeblamedonanyone.[6]

Thislineofpersuasionisn’tdesignedtostanduptocriticalthinking;it’sintendedtoreinforceahabitualmentalpathway.

It’selementarythatlawsdon’tdeciderightandwrong.EveryAmericanshouldknowthat,fortyyearsago,itwasagainstthelawinmanystatesforablackpersontositinthefrontofabus;butonlyracistswouldsaysittingtherewaswrong.

Naturalrights.

Authorsoftenclaimaspecialconnectionwithprogramstheyhavewritten,andgoontoassertthat,asaresult,theirdesiresandinterestsconcerningtheprogramsimplyoutweighthoseofanyoneelse—oreventhoseofthewholerestoftheworld.(Typicallycompanies,notauthors,holdthecopyrightsonsoftware,butweareexpectedtoignorethisdiscrepancy.[7])

Tothosewhoproposethisasanethicalaxiom—theauthorismoreimportantthanyou—IcanonlysaythatI,anotablesoftwareauthormyself,callitbunk.

Butpeopleingeneralareonlylikelytofeelanysympathywiththenaturalrightsclaimsfortworeasons.

Onereasonisanoverstretchedanalogywithmaterialobjects.WhenIcookspaghetti,Idoobjectifsomeoneelseeatsit,becausethenIcannoteatit.Hisactionhurtsmeexactlyasmuchasitbenefitshim;onlyoneofuscaneatthespaghetti,sothequestionis,which?Thesmallestdistinctionbetweenusisenoughtotiptheethicalbalance.

ButwhetheryourunorchangeaprogramIwroteaffectsyoudirectlyandmeonlyindirectly.Whetheryougiveacopytoyourfriendaffectsyouandyourfriendmuchmorethanitaffectsme.Ishouldn’thavethepowertotellyounottodothesethings.Nooneshould.

Thesecondreasonisthatpeoplehavebeentoldthatnaturalrightsforauthorsistheacceptedandunquestionedtraditionofoursociety.

Asamatterofhistory,theoppositeistrue.TheideaofnaturalrightsofauthorswasproposedanddecisivelyrejectedwhentheUSConstitutionwasdrawnup.That’swhytheConstitutiononlypermitsasystemofcopyrightanddoesnotrequireone;that’swhyitsaysthatcopyrightmustbetemporary.Italsostatesthatthepurposeofcopyrightistopromoteprogress—nottorewardauthors.Copyrightdoesrewardauthorssomewhat,andpublishersmore,butthatisintendedasameansofmodifyingtheirbehavior.

Therealestablishedtraditionofoursocietyisthatcopyrightcutsintothenaturalrightsofthepublic—andthatthiscanonlybejustifiedforthepublic’ssake.

Economics.

Thefinalargumentmadeforhavingownersofsoftwareisthatthisleadstoproductionofmoresoftware.

Unliketheothers,thisargumentatleasttakesalegitimateapproachtothesubject.Itisbasedonavalidgoal—satisfyingtheusersofsoftware.Anditisempiricallyclearthatpeoplewillproducemoreofsomethingiftheyarewellpaidfordoingso.

Buttheeconomicargumenthasaflaw:itisbasedontheassumptionthatthedifferenceisonlyamatterofhowmuchmoneywehavetopay.Itassumesthat“productionofsoftware”iswhatwewant,whetherthesoftwarehasownersornot.

Peoplereadilyacceptthisassumptionbecauseitaccordswithourexperienceswithmaterialobjects.Considerasandwich,forinstance.Youmightwellbeabletogetanequivalentsandwicheitherfreeorforaprice.Ifso,theamountyoupayistheonlydifference.Whetherornotyouhavetobuyit,thesandwichhasthesametaste,thesamenutritionalvalue,andineithercaseyoucanonlyeatitonce.Whetheryougetthesandwichfromanownerornotcannotdirectlyaffectanythingbuttheamountofmoneyyouhaveafterwards.

Thisistrueforanykindofmaterialobject—whetherornotithasanownerdoesnotdirectlyaffectwhatitis,orwhatyoucandowithitifyouacquireit.

Butifaprogramhasanowner,thisverymuchaffectswhatitis,andwhatyoucandowithacopyifyoubuyone.Thedifferenceisnotjustamatterofmoney.Thesystemofownersofsoftwareencouragessoftwareownerstoproducesomething—butnotwhatsocietyreallyneeds.Anditcausesintangibleethicalpollutionthataffectsusall.[8]

Whatdoessocietyneed?Itneedsinformationthatistrulyavailabletoitscitizens—forexample,programsthatpeoplecanread,fix,adapt,andimprove,notjustoperate.Butwhatsoftwareownerstypicallydeliverisablackboxthatwecan’tstudyorchange.

Societyalsoneedsfreedom.Whenaprogramhasanowner,theuserslosefreedomtocontrolpartoftheirownlives.

Andaboveallsocietyneedstoencouragethespiritofvoluntarycooperationinitscitizens.Whensoftwareownerstellusthathelpingourneighborsinanaturalwayis“piracy”,theypolluteoursociety’scivicspirit.

Thisiswhywesaythatfreesoftwareisamatteroffreedom,notprice.

Theeconomicargumentforownersiserroneous,buttheeconomicissueisreal.Somepeoplewriteusefulsoftwareforthepleasureofwritingitorforadmirationandlove;butifwewantmoresoftwarethanthosepeoplewrite,weneedtoraisefunds.

Fortenyearsnow,freesoftwaredevelopershavetriedvariousmethodsoffindingfunds,withsomesuccess.There’snoneedtomakeanyonerich;themedianUSfamilyincome,around$35k,provestobeenoughincentiveformanyjobsthatarelesssatisfyingthanprogramming.

Foryears,untilafellowshipmadeitunnecessary,ImadealivingfromcustomenhancementsofthefreesoftwareIhadwritten.Eachenhancementwasaddedtothestandardreleasedversionandthuseventuallybecameavailabletothegeneralpublic.ClientspaidmesothatIwouldworkontheenhancementstheywanted,ratherthanonthefeaturesIwouldotherwisehaveconsideredhighestpriority.

TheFreeSoftwareFoundation(FSF),atax-exemptcharityforfreesoftwaredevelopment,raisesfundsbysellingGNUCD-ROMs,T-shirts,manuals,anddeluxedistributions,(allofwhichusersarefreetocopyandchange),aswellasfromdonations.Itnowhasastaffoffiveprogrammers,plusthreeemployeeswhohandlemailorders.

Somefreesoftwaredevelopersmakemoneybysellingsupportservices.CygnusSupport,witharound50employees[whenthisarticlewaswritten],estimatesthatabout15percentofitsstaffactivityisfreesoftwaredevelopment—arespectablepercentageforasoftwarecompany.

CompaniesincludingIntel,Motorola,TexasInstrumentsandAnalogDeviceshavecombinedtofundthecontinueddevelopmentofthefreeGNUcompilerforthelanguageC.Meanwhile,theGNUcompilerfortheAdalanguageisbeingfundedbytheUSAirForce,whichbelievesthisisthemostcost-effectivewaytogetahighqualitycompiler.[AirForcefundingendedsometimeago;theGNUAdaCompilerisnowinservice,anditsmaintenanceisfundedcommercially.]

Alltheseexamplesaresmall;thefreesoftwaremovementisstillsmall,andstillyoung.Buttheexampleoflistener-supportedradiointhiscountry[theUS]showsit’spossibletosupportalargeactivitywithoutforcingeachusertopay.

Asacomputerusertoday,youmayfindyourselfusingaproprietary(18kcharacters)program.Ifyourfriendaskstomakeacopy,itwouldbewrongtorefuse.Cooperationismoreimportantthancopyright.Butunderground,closetcooperationdoesnotmakeforagoodsociety.Apersonshouldaspiretoliveanuprightlifeopenlywithpride,andthismeanssaying“No”toproprietarysoftware.

Youdeservetobeabletocooperateopenlyandfreelywithotherpeoplewhousesoftware.Youdeservetobeabletolearnhowthesoftwareworks,andtoteachyourstudentswithit.Youdeservetobeabletohireyourfavoriteprogrammertofixitwhenitbreaks.

Youdeservefreesoftware.

1.?nastyadj.污穢的,骯臟的,令人厭惡的,淫穢的,下流的,兇相的,威脅的。

2.?propagandan.宣傳，傳播。

3.?solicitationn.懇請(qǐng)，征求，請(qǐng)求。

4.?prosecutionn.進(jìn)行,經(jīng)營(yíng),檢舉,起訴。Vocabulary

5.??censorn.審查員,負(fù)責(zé)審查書(shū)籍、電影或其他材料并刪去或削減其中被認(rèn)為在道德上、政治上或其他方面有不宜內(nèi)容的人；信件檢查員,負(fù)責(zé)檢查私人信件和官方急件并刪去其中被認(rèn)為是秘密或危及安全的信息，如軍隊(duì)里的信息；譴責(zé)者，監(jiān)察者v.tr.檢查和刪節(jié)。

6.?smearv.tr.弄臟,用擴(kuò)散或涂抹的方法粘著油滑或骯臟的物質(zhì),弄污；污蔑，詆毀玷污或企圖毀掉某人的名譽(yù)，誹謗v.intr.被弄臟，變臟,被涂上污點(diǎn)，變得有污點(diǎn)，變臟n.污點(diǎn),由于涂抹而產(chǎn)生的記號(hào)，污點(diǎn)或污漬；誹謗，詆毀,毀壞名譽(yù)的企圖；污蔑或誹謗。

7.?analogyn.模擬,模擬設(shè)備；類(lèi)比,類(lèi)推。

8.?discrepancyn.相差,差異,矛盾。

9.?axiomn.公理。

10.?decisivelyadv.決然地,果斷地。

11.?legitimateadj.合法的,遵照法律的；正規(guī)的,與建立起來(lái)或被接受的典范和標(biāo)準(zhǔn)一致的；建立在邏輯推理之上的，合乎邏輯的；真正的，真實(shí)的。v.tr.使合法；正式批準(zhǔn)，授權(quán)正式地或以官方名義批準(zhǔn)；授權(quán)。

12.?empiricallyadv.以經(jīng)驗(yàn)為主地。

13.?intangibleadj.難以明了的,無(wú)形的。

14.?compilern.編譯程序，(又稱(chēng))編譯器。

15.?cost-effectiveadj.性?xún)r(jià)比。

[1]Massivepropagandasayingitiswrongtodisobeytheownerstohelpyourfriend.

大量宣傳說(shuō)違背所有者(的意愿)去幫助你的朋友是錯(cuò)誤的。

[2]Solicitationforstoolpigeonstoinformontheircoworkersandcolleagues.

用誘餌引誘以控告合作者和同事。ImportantSentences

[3]Raids(withpolicehelp)onofficesandschools,inwhichpeoplearetoldtheymustprovetheyareinnocentofillegalcopying.

對(duì)辦公室和學(xué)校實(shí)施突擊檢查(在警察的幫助下)，要人們證明自己沒(méi)有進(jìn)行非法拷貝。

[4]Prosecution(bytheUSgovernment,attheSPA’srequest)ofpeoplesuchasMIT‘sDavidLaMacchia,notforcopyingsoftware(heisnotaccusedofcopyingany),butmerelyforleavingcopyingfacilitiesunguardedandfailingtocensortheiruse.

(美國(guó)政府在SPA的請(qǐng)求下)控告麻省理工學(xué)院的DavidLaMacchia，不是因?yàn)樗截愜浖?他也沒(méi)有被指控拷貝)，而僅僅是因?yàn)樗麤](méi)有看管好拷貝工具和審查這些工具的使用。

[5]Alittlethoughtshowsthatmostsuchpeoplewouldnothaveboughtcopies.Yettheownerscomputetheir“l(fā)osses”asifeachandeveryonewouldhaveboughtacopy.Thatisexaggeration—toputitkindly.

簡(jiǎn)單的一點(diǎn)思考就可以知道這些人中的大多數(shù)都不會(huì)買(mǎi)那些拷貝。但是所有者們卻以在每個(gè)人都會(huì)買(mǎi)一份的情況下計(jì)算他們的損失。說(shuō)得善意一點(diǎn)，這是一種夸張。

[6]Ownersoftendescribethecurrentstateofthelaw,andtheharshpenaltiestheycanthreatenuswith.Implicitinthisapproachisthesuggestionthattoday’slawreflectsanunquestionableviewofmorality—yetatthesametime,weareurgedtoregardthesepenaltiesasfactsofnaturethatcan’tbeblamedonanyone.

所有者們經(jīng)常在我們面前提及國(guó)家法律和他們可以實(shí)行的嚴(yán)厲懲罰來(lái)威脅我們。這種作法暗示，當(dāng)今的法律反映的是無(wú)可非議的道德觀點(diǎn)，而與此同時(shí)，又迫使我們?nèi)ハ嘈胚@些處罰是自然而然的，不能去怪罪任何人。

[7]Authorsoftenclaimaspecialconnectionwithprogramstheyhavewritten,andgoontoassertthat,asaresult,theirdesiresandinterestsconcerningtheprogramsimplyoutweighthoseofanyoneelse—oreventhoseofthewholerestoftheworld.(Typicallycompanies,notauthors,holdthecopyrightsonsoftware,butweareexpectedtoignorethisdiscrepancy.)

作者們經(jīng)常聲稱(chēng)他們與他們編寫(xiě)的程序之間的聯(lián)系，然后進(jìn)一步聲稱(chēng)他們對(duì)這些程序的要求和利益比其他任何人，甚至是世界上所有的人都重要(一般情況下，是公司而不是作者掌握著軟件的版權(quán)，而我們卻被指望去忽視這種區(qū)別)。

[8]Butifaprogramhasanowner,thisverymuchaffectswhatitis,andwhatyoucandowithacopyifyoubuyone.Thedifferenceisnotjustamatterofmoney.Thesystemofownersofsoftwareencouragessoftwareownerstoproducesomething—butnotwhatsocietyreallyneeds.Anditcausesintangibleethicalpollutionthataffectsusall.

但如果程序有了所有者，就會(huì)很大程度上影響它本身，也影響人們購(gòu)買(mǎi)了一個(gè)拷貝后可以如何處置它。這里的區(qū)別不只是一個(gè)錢(qián)的問(wèn)題。軟件所有者的制度鼓勵(lì)軟件所有者們?nèi)ドa(chǎn)那些社會(huì)并不真正需要的東西。同時(shí)所產(chǎn)生的對(duì)倫理觀念的無(wú)形污染會(huì)影響我們每個(gè)人。

1.?Accordingtothecontentbefore“Namecalling”,answerthefollowingquestions.

(1)?Whodoesn’twanttheprocessofcopyingandmodifyinginformationtobeeasy?()

A.?Thepublic.

B.?Theuser.

C.?Theowner.

D.?Allofthem.QuestionsandAnswers

(2)?Whatrightofthereaderisrestrictedwhencopyrightiscombinedwithprinting?()

A.?Reading.

B.?Masscopy.

C.?Copywithpenandpaper.

D.?Allofthem.

(3)?Whichofthefollowingtechnologyismoreadvancedthanprintingpress?

A.?Digitaltechnology.

B.?Draconianmeasuresnowusedtoenforcesoftwarecopyright.

C.?Hand-copying.

D.?Noneofabove.

(4)?WhichofthefollowingisnotameasuretakenbySPAtoenforcesoftwarecopyright?()

A.?Widespreadpersuasionsofabsoluterightoftheowners.

B.?Promotingmonitoringamongworkers.

C.?Unexpectedraidstosomeinstitutions.

D.?Usehi-techdevicestobugthepublic.

(5)?TheauthormentionsSovietUnioninordertoprovethepracticeofSPAis().

A.favorable

B.nasty

C.democratic

D.allofabove

2.??Accordingtothecontentbetween“Namecalling”and“Economics”,answerthefollowingquestions.

(1)?Allofthefollowingwordsexcept()areusedtodescribetheuser’scopying.

A.?piracy

B.?theft

C.?improvement

D.?damage

(2)?Theauthorthinkstheanalogybetweenprogramsandphysicalobjectsis().

A.?persuasive

B.?accurate

C.?simplistic

D.?respectable

(3)?Theauthorthinksthecopying().

A.hasaloteffectontheowner,anditharmseveryone

B.hassomeeffectontheowner,anditharmssomepeople

C.hasalittleontheowner,butitharmsnoone

D.hasnodirecteffectontheowner,anditharmsnoone

(4)?Howdotheownerscomputetheireconomicloss?()

A.?Theysupposetheoneswhoneedthesoftwarewouldhaveboughtacopy.

B.?Theysupposehalfoftheuserwouldhaveboughtacopy.

C.?Theysupposeeveryonewouldhaveboughtacopy.

D.?Theysupposetheoneswhoarewillingtopayeveryonewouldhaveboughtcopy.

(5).Theownerscansuffergreatlossonlyif().

A.?thepersonwhomadethecopywouldotherwisehavepaidforonefromtheowner

B.?wheneveracopyismade

C.?wheneversomeonedoesn’tpay

D.?thepotentialconsumersarescaredbythecopyright

(6)?Whydotheownersoftendescribethecurrentstateofthelaw,andtheharshpenaltiestheycanthreatenuswith?()

A.?Tomakeushaveaninsightofthecopyright.

B.?Tomakeusformahabitualmentality.

C.?Tomakeusknowhowsensibletoimportthecopyright.

D.?Tomakeuschallengetheunquestionableviewofmorality.

(7)?Whichofthefollowingstatesmentsisright?()

A.?Weareurgedtoblametheownersforthepenalties.

B.?Theownerspersuasioncanstanduptocriticalthinking.

C.?Lawsdeciderightandwrong.

D.?Rightandwrongcannotbeverifiedbylaws.

(8)?Whoholdthecopyrightsonsoftware?()

A.?Theauthors.

B.?Thecompanies.

C.?Theusers.

D.?Allofthem.

(9)?Theauthordeemstheanalogywithmaterialobjectsis().

A.?reasonable

B.?nonsense

C.?accurate

D.?persuasive

(10)?WhichofthefollowingsaysingsisWrong?()

A.?Peoplehavebeentoldthatnaturalrightsforauthorsistheacceptedandunquestionedtraditionofoursociety.

B.?TheConstitutionstatesthepurposeofcopyrightistopromoteprogress—nottorewardauthors.

C.?TheConstitutionsaysthatcopyrightmustbetemporary.

D.?Realestablishedtraditionofoursocietycannotbejustifiedforthepublic’ssake.

3.?Accordingtotherestcontent,answerthefollowingquestions.

(1)