王应宽 转载 Wang Yingkuan Beijing, China August 9, 2015 纪念艾伦 · 施瓦茨——自由网络的布衣战士，开放存取推动者 博主按：年仅 26 岁的社交 新闻 网站 Reddit 联合创始人艾伦 · 施瓦茨（ Aaron Swartz ）于 2013 年 1 月 11 日（周五）在纽约的公寓里自杀。他的家人在声明中指责称：“这是美国刑事司法系统滥用恐吓手段和越权导致的结果。麻省理工学院官员和马萨诸塞州联邦检察官的决定导致了施瓦茨的死亡。” 施瓦茨是计算机技术、编程和网络天才，一直专注于网络信息资源公共获取的不懈斗争，让广大网民可以免费享受数据的自由之战，取得了突出成绩。 2001 年，年仅 14 岁的施瓦茨就协助创建了 RSS 源的新规则，从而方便了博客、文章和视频在网上的传播。一年之后，他又与万维网之父蒂姆 · 伯纳斯 · 李爵士等人一起用语义网对互联网进行完善使得网页内容的基础数据可以在不同的网络应用和项目中共享并重复使用。同时，他还是发起“知识共享”项目的团队一员，通过免费易用的版权许可，简化信息共享。他还是“求进同盟”的创始人之一，不仅谴责网络审查，还是网上抵制运动的中流砥柱，是挫败反盗版立法议案的功臣。近期，学界人士威胁将会抵制向读者收费的期刊，他更是积极推动者。早在 2008 年，施瓦茨就发布了《开放存取的游击宣言》，倡导和力挺开放存取。 Aaron Swartz 在宣言中称：科学信息的开放存取是一种“道义责任”。他采用计算机网络技术进入图书馆的网络，很轻松的从 JSTOR 下载了 480 万篇文章，因此遭遇指控。 2013 年 1 月，他因为被联邦法院指控犯有“数据盗窃”、滥用计算机、计算机和网络诈骗等罪名，如果获罪，他将可能被处以 35 年监禁和 100 万美元罚金。更主要的是，施瓦茨因为对网络自由现实不满，以及对科学信息开放存取理想实现的绝望而抑郁自杀。可以说，施瓦茨是开放存取的自由斗士，也可能是第一位为网络自由与开放获取牺牲的人。正如蒂姆爵士在一份简短的悼词中所说：“艾伦已逝。我们迷途世间，却痛失一位睿智的长者；我们以黑客身份为公义而战，却痛失一位战友；我们为人父母，却痛失一位共同的孩子。让我们寄以哀思。”科技成果信息的开放共享是加强交流，推动创新的“前人的肩膀”。网络信息时代，科研的方式和路径发生改变，前人研究成果信息的开放开辟了新的科研创新路径：开放获取 (Open Access) ——开放数据 (Open Data) ——开放科学 (Open Science) ——开放创新 (Open Innovation) 。施瓦茨推动开放存取和知识共享的义举令人敬仰，值得纪念，于是哀思和纪念还在网络蔓延。 转载： Remembering Aaron Swartz ： Commons man 纪念艾伦 · 施瓦茨——自由网络的布衣战士 信息来源： http://www.24en.com/coop/ecocn/2013-01-16/153269.html TO CALL Aaron Swartz gifted would be to miss the point. As far as theinternet was concerned, he was the gift. In 2001, aged just 14, he helpeddevelop a new version of RSS feeds, which enable blog posts, articles andvideos to be distributed easily across the web. A year later he was workingwith Sir Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the world wide web, and others onenhancing the internet through the Semantic Web, in which web-page contentswould be structured so that the underlying data could be shared and reusedacross different online applications and endeavours. At the same time he waspart of a team, composed of programmers like himself (albeit none quite asyouthful), lawyers and policy wonks, that launched Creative Commons, a projectthat simplified in formation -sharingthrough free, easy-to-use copyright licences. 你可以说艾伦 · 施瓦茨的才华是 “ 上天的礼物 ” ，但这并非重点。因为对于互联网而言，他本身就是 “ 上天的礼物 ” 。早在 2001 年，年仅 14 岁的施瓦茨就协助创建了 RSS 源的新规则，从而方便了博客、文章和视频在网上的传播。一年之后，他又与万维网之父蒂姆 · 伯纳斯 · 李爵士等人一道，用语义网对互联网进行完善（在语义网的架构下，网页内容的基础数据可以在不同的网络应用和项目中，得以共享并重复使用）。同时，他还是发起 “ 知识共享 ” 项目的团队一员。 “ 知识共享 ” 通过免费易用的版权许可，简化信息共享；其幕后团队除了有律师和政策专家，还有和施瓦茨一样的程序员（不过谁也不如他年轻）。 Most of this he did for little or no compensation. One exception wasReddit, though he later sounded almost contrite about the riches showered onhim and his colleagues by Condé Nast, the publisher of Vogue and over a dozenother prominent lifestyle magazines, which bought the popular social news site in2006. In any case, he wasn't a good fit for corporate life, he said, and left afew months later—or, depending on whom you talk to, was asked to leave. But thecash did let him focus on his relentless struggle to liberate data for onlinemasses to enjoy for free. 他做这些工作的报酬极其微薄，甚至为零。 Reddit 是个例外： 2006 年，这家红极一时的社交 新闻 网站被康泰纳仕集团收购（后者是《 Vogue 》等十多家著名生活时尚杂志的出版商），施瓦茨和他的同事从中获利颇丰。然而，他事后谈及这笔财富的语气几近悔恨。他表示，自己和公司生活完全格格不入，几个月后就辞职了（也有人说他是被劝退的，当然这得看你问的是谁）。不过这笔现金的确让他可专注于自己的不懈斗争：让广大网民可以免费享受数据的自由之战。 For although programming was his first love, campaign ing was histrue vocation. He co-founded Demand Progress, a group that rails againstinternet censorship and which played a prominent role in the online campaign last yearthat helped to scupper proposed anti-piracy legislation supported by Hollywood film studios and other content owners. His GuerrillaOpen Access Manifesto of 2008 presaged—and perhaps inspired—recentthreats by academics to shun journals that charge readers for access. 因为虽说编程是他的至爱，但自由之战才是他真正的天职。他是 “ 求进同盟 ” 的创始人之一，这一团体不仅谴责网络审查，还是去年挫败反盗版立法议案的功臣：它是网上抵制运动的中流砥柱，而此役对于最终胜利功不可没（该法案的幕后支持者是好莱坞制片商等内容所有者）。近期，学界人士发出威胁，将会抵制向读者收费的期刊；此举在施瓦茨 2008 年的《开放存取的游击宣言》中便早有预言，又或者此举正是受其启发。 Around 2006 he obtained—though he would not say how—the completebibliographic data for books held by the Library of Congress. He thought itunfair that the Library's catalogue division charged hefty fees to provide thisin formation ,which, being the work of the government , had no copyright protection withinthe United States. So he posted it in the Open Library, which aims to providean entry for every book in existence as part of Internet Archive, a projectfounded by the internet entrepreneur Brewster Kahle to store a copy of everyweb page of every website ever to go online. 2006 年左右，施瓦茨拿到了国会图书馆藏书的全部书目数据（不过对于获取途径，他却不愿提及）。在他看来，这一信息作为美国政府的工作，在国内不受版权法的保护，因此该馆编目部门对此收取高额费用，实为不公。于是，他把信息放入 “ 公共图书馆 ” （作为 “ 互联网档案馆 ” 的一部分， “ 公共图书馆 ” 旨在将所有现存书籍全部入册；而该 “ 档案馆 ” 是由互联网企业家布鲁斯特 · 卡勒创建，旨在为所有网站的页面一一备份。） Aghast at how federal court documents were available only for a price fromthe inappositely named Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER)system, in 2009 he used the free access temporarily granted to public libraries to retrieve18m pages of PACER's 500M documents before he was cut off. They ended up on public .re source .org, founded byCarl Malamud, a veteran advocate of open access, also known as the internet's public librarian. TheFBI investigated but did not pursue charges. 还有一件事让施瓦茨忿忿不平。那就是联邦法庭记录必须付费方可查阅，而且这一查阅系统名为 “ 公众获取电子版法庭记录的途径 ” ，但却名不符实。于是 2009 年时，他利用公共图书馆获得的临时免费权限，从该系统的 5 亿份记录中获取了 1800 万页的信息，直至这一权限被废止。这些信息最后被放到了 public .re source .org 上（该网站的创始人是倡导开放存取的老将、被誉为 “ 互联网图书馆馆长 ” 的卡尔 · 马拉默德）。联邦调查局对此立案调查，但并未提起诉讼。 The authorities weren't always so lenient. In 2011 he was arrested for allege dly retrieving4.8M documents from JSTOR, a fee-based repository of articles from scholarlyjournals. Prosecutors claimed that Mr Swartz, a fellow at Harvard at the time,installed a laptop in a wiring closet at the nearby Massachussetts Institute ofTechnology and used a pseudonym to gain access, which is free to staff andstudents at subscribing institutions. If convicted, he would have faced up to35 years in prison and a $1M fine. 然而当局并非总是这么心慈手软。 2011 年，施瓦茨因涉嫌从 JSTOR 系统获取 480 万份文档而被捕（ JSTOR 是基于收费模式的学术期刊存储系统）。检方称，施瓦茨犯案时还是哈佛大学的研究生，由于 JSTOR 系统对付费院校的教员和学生免费开放，他便在附近哈佛大学的配线室中安装了一部手提电脑，并用假名进入该系统。如果获罪，他可能面临最高 35 年的牢狱和 100 万美元的罚金。 JSTOR settled its civil issues with him, and considered the matter closed.Indeed, soon after the prosecutors pounced with criminal charges, it opened upall public -domainarticles in its trove. And, two days before Mr Swartz's pre mature death onJanuary 11th, apparently by suicide in his New York apartment, it expanded a testprogramme to enable limited reading of about 4.5M articles to those whoregister for a free account. JSTOR 与施瓦茨达成民事和解，并认为此事已经了结。事实上，在检方提起刑事诉讼后不久， JSTOR 就开放了系统中所有公共领域的文章。今年 1 月 9 日，也即施瓦茨去世的两天前， JSTOR 扩大了一项测试方案，让注册免费账户的读者可以在一定限度内阅读大约 450 万篇文章。 1 月 11 日，施瓦茨死于纽约的公寓内，很显然是自杀身亡。 The prospect of prison may or may not have been what pushed the26-year-old, long struggling with bouts of depression, over the edge. Opinionsvaried as to whether prosecutors could secure a conviction. They certainlybelieved they had enough to put him away. Lawrence Lessig, a well-known webtheorist and academic, as well as Mr Swartz's friend and mentor, thought thatthe evidence wasenough to demonstrate that his protegé's act was wrong, morally if not legally,but deserved only minor punishment. Alex Stamos, who was to testify as anexpert witness target-- witness for thedefence, described it as inconsiderate, not criminal. 26 岁的施瓦茨长期患有抑郁症。让他走上绝路的可能是牢狱之灾，也可能不是。对于检方能否让其获罪，人们看法不一。检方当然相信，自己有足够的证据让他坐牢。著名网络理论家、学者劳伦斯 · 莱斯格是施瓦茨的导师和朋友，他认为，证据足以证明自己的门生有过错，即使他没触犯法律，也有违道德，但只应稍事惩罚。亚历克斯 · 史塔摩斯原本要以专家证人的身份为被告作证，在他看来，施瓦茨的行为只是 “ 不替他人着想 ” ，并未触犯刑法。 On hearing of his death Babbage (G.F.) reviewed a number of e-mails heexchanged with Mr Swartz in 2000-01. The boy was in his mid-teens but hisprose, taut and to the point, was as mature as his precocious mind. He wanted to know where yourcorrespondent obtained book data for a price-comparison site. He even suggesteda collaboration ,regretfully unconsummated, that later became the nucleus of the Open Library. 得知他的死讯后，本栏目作者 G.F. 回顾了 2000 至 2001 年间，自己与施瓦茨的电邮往来。那时的施瓦茨不过是个十四五岁的少年，但他的文风简洁明了、一针见血，和他的思想一样老成。他询问笔者获取图书信息的途径，以便用于一个价格比较的网站。甚至他还提出了一份合作建议，而这后来成了 “ 公共图书馆 ” 的核心理念；遗憾的是，笔者与他的合作并未实现。 With typical foresight, a decade ago Mr Swartz put up a web page thatappoints a virtual executor and instructs him to make the contents of his harddrives public , onelast gift to the online commons. But meagre compensation for the loss of thatmost uncommon of online commoners. As Sir Tim put it, in fewer than 140 character s,Aaron dead. World wanderers, we have lost a wise elder. Hackers forright, we are one down. Parents all, we have lost a child. Let us weep.And the web wept. 早在十年前，施瓦茨就以他特有的远见，在网上为自己的虚拟遗嘱指定了执行者，并将自己硬盘中的内容交由后者公开，作为留给网络大众的最后一份礼物。但这远远无法弥补他的离世带来的损失，因为我们失去的是网络大众中最不同寻常的人物。正如蒂姆爵士在一份简短的悼词中所说： “ 艾伦已逝。我们迷途世间，却痛失一位睿智的长者；我们以黑客身份为公义而战，却痛失一位战友；我们为人父母，却痛失一位共同的孩子。让我们寄以哀思。 ” 于是，哀思便在网络蔓延。 附件： 《开放存取游击宣言》全文 Guerilla Open Access Manifesto Information is power. But likeall power, there are those who want to keep it for themselves. The world’sentire scientific and cultural heritage, published over centuries in books andjournals, is increasingly being digitized and locked up by a handful of privatecorporations. Want to read the papers featuring the most famous results of the sciences?You’ll need to send enormous amounts to publishers like Reed Elsevier. There are those struggling tochange this. The Open Access Movement has fought valiantly to ensure thatscientists do not sign their copyrights away but instead ensure their work ispublished on the Internet, under terms that allow anyone to access it. But evenunder the best scenarios, their work will only apply to things published in thefuture. Everything up until now will have been lost. That is too high a price topay. Forcing academics to pay money to read the work of their colleagues?Scanning entire libraries but only allowing the folks at Google to read them? Providingscientific articles to those at elite universities in the First World, but notto children in the Global South? It’s outrageous and unacceptable. “I agree,” many say, “but whatcan we do? The companies hold the copyrights, they make enormous amounts of moneyby charging for access, and it’s perfectly legal —there’s nothing we can do tostop them.” But there is something we can, something that’s already being done:we can fight back. Those with access to theseresources —students, librarians, scientists —you have been given a privilege.You get to feed at this banquet of knowledge while the rest of the world islocked out. But you need not —indeed, morally, you cannot —keep this privilegefor yourselves. You have a duty to share it with the world. And you have:trading passwords with colleagues, filling download requests for friends. Meanwhile, those who have beenlocked out are not standing idly by. You have been sneaking through holes andclimbing over fences, liberating the information locked up by the publishersand sharing them with your friends. But all of this action goes onin the dark, hidden underground. It’s called stealing or piracy, as if sharinga wealth of knowledge were the moral equivalent of plundering a ship andmurdering its crew. But sharing isn’t immoral —it’s a moral imperative. Only thoseblinded by greed would refuse to let a friend make a copy. Large corporations, of course,are blinded by greed. The laws under which they operate require it —their shareholderswould revolt at anything less. And the politicians they have bought off backthem, passing laws giving them the exclusive power to decide who can makecopies. There is no justice infollowing unjust laws. It’s time to come into the light and, in the grandtradition of civil disobedience, declare our opposition to this private theftof public culture. We need to take information,wherever it is stored, make our copies and share them with the world. We needto take stuff that's out of copyright and add it to the archive. We need to buysecret databases and put them on the Web. We need to download scientific journalsand upload them to file sharing networks. We need to fight for Guerilla Open Access. With enough of us, around theworld, we’ll not just send a strong message opposing the privatization of knowledge —we’llmake it a thing of the past. Will you join us? Aaron Swartz July 2008, Eremo, Italy 延伸阅读 The Guerilla Open Access Manifesto: Aaron Swartz, open access and the sharing imperative The Guerilla Open Access Manifesto_ Aaron Swartz open access and.pdf
标签: 知识共享
