開放性原始碼的簡介

作者﹕Eric S. Raymond <esr@snark.thyrsus.com>
譯者﹕趙平望 (Pinwang Chao) <tchao@worldnet.att.net>

我在 1998 年 2 月初網景公司作出宣布之後﹐一直在想下一步該怎麼辦 -- 多年來提倡“ free software ”的努力﹐現在終於獲得美國公司企業主流的採納﹒ 但我同時也認識到﹐“ free software ”本身卻有嚴重的問題﹒

具體而言﹐“ free software ”這個名詞就有問題﹐儘管其概念正確無誤﹐ 但我越來越覺得這個名詞不能再用﹒

這個名詞體現出兩方面的問題﹒首先﹐它的含意不明﹔“ free ”的意義非常含混 (Free Software Foundation 一直需要對此作出解釋 )﹒“ free ”是指“不收費用”﹐還是指“任何人都可自由修改”﹐或還有其他含意﹖

其次﹐這個名詞使許多公司感到不安﹒盡管我個人對這個名詞絲毫沒有感到不妥之處﹐ 但從實際出發﹐我們應該設法改變這些公司的想法﹐不是棄其不顧﹐掉頭而去﹐ 因為這只有對我們有利﹒我們可以從這裡得到實利﹐而又無需放棄我們的理想和對優越技術的追求 -- 現在是我們重新定位的時刻了﹒我們需要一個新的更貼切的名詞﹒

在我與網景公司舉行會議之後(2月5日)﹐我與矽谷一些 Linux 同好聚在一起﹐ 費盡腦汁﹐各出主意﹒我們想到一些名詞﹐但又覺得不妥﹐最後我們找到了一個我們大家都喜歡的替代名稱﹕ “開放性原始碼(open source)”[謝東翰(thhsieh)先生的建議--- 譯者注]﹒

國際 Linux 董事會的兩位董事 John "maddog" Hall 和 Larry Augustin 當時也在場 (然而﹐有趣的是“開放性原始碼(open source)” 這個名稱卻是以觀察員身份代表[4] Foresight Institute 的 Chris Peterson 的建議)﹒ Linus Torvalds 本人在第二天同意這個名詞﹒此外﹐這也不是只是 Linux 的事﹔ Keith Bostic 喜歡這個名詞﹐並認為世界各地使用 BSD 的人也能接受這個名詞﹒

我們建議世界各地以前曾經討論過“ free software ”的人都把它改成 “開放性原始碼 (open source)”﹒這包括﹕開放性原始碼軟件﹐開放性原始碼模式﹐ 開放性原始碼文化﹒(在向美國公司企業推銷這種概念時﹐我還將時時引用“相互討論”的辦法)﹒

Bruce Perens 已經自願登記“開放性原始碼(open source)”作為商標﹐ 並通過 Software in the Public Interest 擁有這個商標﹒RMS 本人則表示﹐ 只要 Bruce 編寫的開放性原始碼的定義不亞于 Debian Free Software 的準則 (Debian Free Software Guidelines)﹐他就使用這個名詞(盡管並不只用這個名詞)﹒

此時﹐我們應該公開解釋變換此詞的理由﹒Linus 曾在“主導世界101”中說過﹐ 崇尚開放性原始碼的人必須竭力設法主導電腦世界﹐並使公司企業參與其事﹒ 當然﹐他的論點是正確的 -- 這次改變 - Linus 也認為 - 只是這項過程的一部分﹒ 這表示我們願意同市場合作﹐並使市場迎合我們的目的﹐而不繼續僵持在無足輕重和敵對的地位﹒

嘿﹐各位﹐現在是緊要關頭﹒網景公司的宣布改變了一切﹒ 我們已從二十年來一直被圍困的小角落突圍而出 ﹒現在是一盤全新的棋 -- 場面更大﹐ 趣味更濃 -- 我想我們必能獲勝﹒

參考﹕

4. http://www.foresight.org/
5. http://www.ccil.org/~esr

原始文件: http://sagan.earthspace.net/~esr/open-source.html

Original article:

Goodbye, "free software"; hello, "open source"

After the Netscape announcement broke in February early 1998 I did a lot of thinking about the next phase -- the serious push to get "free software" accepted in mainstream corporate America. And I realized we have a serious problem with "free software" itself.

Specifically, we have a problem with the term "free software", itself, not the concept. I've become convinced that the term has to go.

The problem with it is twofold. First, it's confusing; the term "free" is very ambiguous (something the Free Software Foundation's propaganda has to wrestle with constantly). Does "free" mean "no money charged?" or does it mean "free to be modified by anyone", or something else?

Second, the term makes a lot of corporate types nervous. While this does not intrinsically bother me in the least, we now have a pragmatic interest in converting these people rather than thumbing our noses at

them. There's now a chance we can make serious gains in the mainstream business world without compromising our ideals and commitment to technical excellence -- so it's time to reposition. We need a new and better label.

I brainstormed this with some Silicon Valley fans of Linux the day after my meeting with Netscape (Feb 5th). We kicked around and discarded several alternatives, and we came up with a replacement label we all liked: "open source".

John "maddog" Hall and Larry Augustin, both of the Linux International Board of Directors, were in on the brainstorming session (though interestingly enough the term "open source" was suggested by non-hacker Chris Peterson, observing for the [4]Foresight Institute).

Linus Torvalds himself approved it the following day. And it isn't a Linux-only thing; Keith Bostic likes it and says he thinks the BSD community can be brought on board.

We suggest that everywhere we as a culture have previously talked about "free software", the label should be changed to "open source". Open-source software. The open-source model. The open source culture.

The Debian Open Source Guidelines. (In pitching this to corporate America I'm also going to be invoking the idea of "peer review" a lot.)

Bruce Perens has volunteered to register "open source" as a trademark and hold it through Software in the Public Interest. And RMS himself has said he'll use the term (though not exclusively) as long as the Open Source Definition Bruce is working up isn't weaker than the Debian Free Software Guidelines.

And, we should explain publicly the reason for the change. Linus has been saying in "World Domination 101" that the open-source culture needs to make a serious effort to take the desktop and engage the corporate mainstream. Of course he's right -- and this re-labeling, as Linus agrees, is part of the process. It says we're willing to work with and co-opt the market for our own purposes, rather than remaining stuck in a marginal, adversarial position.

It's crunch time, people. The Netscape announcement changes everything. We've broken out of the little corner we've been in for twenty years. We're in a whole new game now, a bigger and more exciting one -- and one I think we can win.

Eric S. Raymond <esr@snark.thyrsus.com>

References

4. http://www.foresight.org/
5. http://www.ccil.org/~esr