[CA | CN | DE | EN | FR | JA | ES | KO | PT | ZH]

Welcome to another issue of the Brave GNU World. This time focussed on current political events as many things are currently taking place that most likely remained unnoticed by many readers, as they hardly get the mass media attention that their importance would suggest.

歡迎來到另一期的《勇敢 GNU 世界》。由於目前正在發生的許多事，很有可能仍然沒有被許多讀者注意到〈因為它們很難如同它們本身的重要性般地，受到大眾媒體的注意〉，所以這一次會把焦點放在目前的政治事件。

UDPKIT（通過網路的 IP/UDP 送出字串的命令列工具）

But before we go into politics at least one technical project shall be introduced: UDPKIT [5] by Sylvain Nahas from France. UDPKIT offers two commandline tools that may be small but offer quite a bit, because they allow sending strings via IP/UDP over the network.

但是在我們進入政治議題之前，至少有個技術計畫應該要被介紹到：由來自法國的 Sylvain Nahas 所完成的 UDPKIT [5] 。 UDPKIT 提供了兩個可能很小，但是卻很有用的命令列工具，因為它們允許經由通過網路的 IP/UDP 送出字串。

For those readers that have not spent a lot of time dealing with networks, a brief introduction should be given, it seems. The two most popular protocols for data transmission in the network are TCP and UDP.

看來應該要作一簡短的介紹，給那些並沒有花去許多時間來處理網路的讀者。兩個在網路上最受歡迎的資料傳輸協定是 TCP 和 UDP 。

TCP stands for "Transmission Control Protocol" and is a connection oriented protocol for which a dedicated link is created between two points, used and then terminated. A major advantage of this protocol is reliability, as it contains means for resubmission in case of transmission problems and such.

TCP 指的是「傳輸控制協定」（Transmission Control Protocol），並且是一種「連接」導向的協定，〔作用的〕方式是：一個專用的鏈接會在兩個點間建立起來，用過之後，然後結束。這份協定的一個主要優勢在於可靠性，因為在傳輸問題以及像是這樣〔的問題發生〕時，它包含了「重新提出」（resubmission）的方式【也就是，一定給你送到】。

UDP means "User Datagram Protocol" and is a connectionless protocol. Data transmitted by UDP can be read by an unlimited amount of recipients, but the protocol does not offer means of making sure that the data was received anywhere at all.

UDP 是指「使用者資料封包協定」（User Datagram Protocol），並且是一種「非連接」的協定。由 UDP 傳輸的資料可以被一個不受限制數量的接收端（recipients）閱讀到，但是協定卻也沒有提供了「確定資料被哪個地方所接收到」的方式。

This obviously makes the protocol less reliable, but also offers advantages in some situations. Sylvain Nahas for instance has an internal network in which one of his machines does not have monitor or keyboard. That machine is only turned on occasionally, but it should always be turned off whenever his workplace machine is turned off.

這顯然使得這份協定較不可靠，不過〔它〕也提供了在某些情況下的優勢。舉例來說 Sylvain Nahas 有一個內部網路，其中一台他的電腦並沒有螢幕或鍵盤。那台電腦偶爾才會開機，但是不管何時，只要他的工作電腦關機的話，它就一定要關機。

With UDPKIT his regular work machine can post a message to the network before shutting down. Is the other machine turned on, it will see the message and also shut down. Otherwise the message will disappear into the void.

有了 UDPKIT ，他的常用電腦就可以在完全關機之前發出一份訊息到網路上。如果另一台電腦已經開了機，它會看到那訊息並且也關機。不然那訊息會消失於無形之中。

In comparison: When using TCP as protocol, the workplace machine would try to initiate a connection to the other machine. Is that machine available, there should be no major differences. In case it is not turned on, however, the workplace machine will normally wait some time for the other machine to reply/become available.

比較一下：當使用 TCP 作為協定時，工作電腦會試著啟始到另一台機器的連接。如果那台機器在那，那麼就不會有什麼大差別。然而如果它沒有開機，工作電腦正常來說會「等待另一台電腦回覆〔訊息〕」或「變得可以取得」一段時間。

So UDPKIT is specifically useful in situations where messages should be sent unspecifically without having to know where or whether at all they are being received. The situation is somewhat similar to radio, where it is also not clear who hears a message or whether it has been heard at all.

所以 UDPKIT 在「訊息應該不特定地被送出，而不必知道它們在哪或是否真的被接收到」的情況下特別有用。這情況有點類似廣播：它也不清楚誰有聽到訊息，或是它是否真的有被聽到。

In fact the project was initiated on idea of a radio amateur who was looking for such a project on a French Debian list and didn't find one. So Sylvain decided to write it.

事實上這個計畫是由於「一個廣播業餘愛好者在法文的 Debian 列表中尋找像是這樣的計畫而找不到」的想法而啟始的。因此 Sylvain 決定開始來撰寫它。

UDPKIT was written in ISO C, keeping an eye on the classic Unix paradigm, providing two powerful tools that can be used on the commandline or within shell scripts. In the eyes of its author, this is a major advantage of the project.

UDPKIT 是以 ISO C 撰寫而成的，〔這是為了〕把眼光擺在經典的 Unix 典型（paradigm），提供了兩個「可以被用在命令列或在外殼腳本中」的有用工具。從它的作者的眼光來看，這是這個計畫的一個主要優勢。

The project is published as Free Software under the GNU General Public License (GPL) and is already quite stable in the current version 0.6. So for the future, plans are to internationalize the project and implement CRC checksums. Also a Debian package will hopefully be provided soon.

這計畫是在 GNU General Public License (GPL) 下公開作為自由軟體，並且目前的 0.6 版也已經非常穩定了。對於未來，有「國際化這個計畫」【中文版 README 已經可以取得】以及「實作 CRC checksums」的打算。另外，非常可能也會很快地提供出一個 Debian 套件。

Help with all these tasks and particularly more testing is very welcome.

對於所有這些任務的幫忙，特別是更多的測試，都是非常歡迎的。

資訊社會世界高峰會（World Summit on the Information Society; WSIS）

The earth summit "UN Conference on Environment and Development", often known simply as Rio-Conference, is certainly known to many people from the press and evening news. Less known is the "World Summit on the Information Society" (WSIS) [6], which is currently preparing itself to define the structures of the global knowledge and information society.

地球高峰會「聯合國環境與發展會議」（UN Conference on Environment and Development）〈通常被簡單地認識成「里約會議」（Rio-Conference）〉肯定經由報章雜誌和夜間新聞而為許多人們所熟知。較不被認識的是「資訊社會世界高峰會」（World Summit on the Information Society; WSIS） [6] ，它目前正在準備好它自己，以定義出全球知識以及資訊社會的結構。

But the question of control about, access to and participation in knowledge will seminally shape the future of human society. Although people may rightly say that these questions are secondary as long as the basic supply in terms of food or medicine is not secured, the issue will become essential as soon as that minimum supply becomes reality.

有關於「獲取（access to）與參與（participation in）知識」的控制問題，將會具有發展性地形塑人類社會的外貌。雖然人們也許可以正確地說：「只要以食物或醫療的形式表達的基本供給還未獲得保障，這些問題都只是次要的了」，但是一旦最小供給變成了事實，這個議題就會變成了必要〔的事〕了。

Also access to the knowledge can sometimes help providing that basic supply. Or as Louise Szente from Africa said: "Woe is the life of the modern day student living in 'Darkest Africa' for obviously we are still being kept in the slave quarters of the world. Harsh words? My friends, try and live in a society where such Acts as the Intellectual Property Acts of the world impedes your advancement in life."

「獲取知識」有時候也可以幫助提供那基本的供給。或是如同來自非洲的 Louise Szente 所說：「現今居住在『黑暗非洲』的學生，〔其〕生命真是可悲啊，因為我們仍然被維持在世界的奴隸地域之中。〔很〕嚴苛的字眼〔嗎〕？我的朋友們，嚐試並且住在一個『像是智慧財產權法的法案，會阻止你在生命中的進步』的社會之中吧。」

This is a quote from a study by Prof. Alan Story, which was written for the Commission on Intellectual Property Rights [7]. The commission went back to the whitepaper "Eliminating World Poverty: Making Globalisation Work for the Poor" of the UK government and was dealing centrally with the question of developing and least-developed countries.

這裡是來自 Alan Story 教授為「智慧財產權委員會」 [7] 所寫的一份研究的引用。委員會回到了英國政府的《消除世界貧窮：讓全球化為貧窮而做》，並且主要是來處理開發中以及未開發國家的問題。

The study of Prof. Alan Story provided the basis for discussion of the expert workshop "Copyright, Software and the Internet" for that commission. If you are interested in the details, the protocols of the workshops, the studies and the final result are still online on the commission web site. [7]

Alan Story 教授的研究提供了給那個委員會的《版權、軟體、與互聯網》專家工作組作為討論的基礎。如果你對於細節有興趣〔的話〕，工作組的議定書、這份研究、以及最終的結論仍然在委員會的網站線上。 [7]

So now the visions and rules of the information and knowledge society should be fixed in a global context until 2005. Deviating from that consensus later on national level may become very hard, so the reverberations of this summit will be with us for some time.

所以現在關於「資訊與知識社會的展望和規則」直到二零零五年〔以前〕，在全球的背景之下應該是固定了。稍後要在國家的層級上偏離那項共識也許會變得很難，所以這一次高峰會的〔直接〕反響將會跟隨著我們一段時間。

The WSIS is split into two phases. The first phase is to take place December 10th-12th in Geneva this year, the second phase July 15th-18th 2005 in Tunis. In preparation of the summit in Geneva there were already two preparatory conferences, the so-called "PrepCom"s. The last preparatory conference (PrepCom-3) will take place September 15th-26th in Geneva.

WSIS 現在分成兩個階段。第一個階段今年十二月十日到十二日在日內瓦【瑞士】舉行，第二階段〔則是〕在二零零五年七月十五日到十八日於突尼斯【突尼西亞首都】〔舉行〕。為了準備在日內瓦的高峰會，已經舉辦過兩次準備性會議了〈所謂的「會前會」（PrepCom）〉。最後一次準備性會議（第三次會前會）將會在九月十五日到卄六日於日內瓦舉辦。

Between these preparatory conferences there are also working conferences, so-called "intersessional meetings" in which major work on the documents is done. The last of these intersessional meetings took place July 15th-18th in Paris, hosted by the UNESCO, and was to get the documents into a shorter, more concise and clear form, because they had become bloated and unreadable by numerous comments and addendums.

介於這些準備性會議之間，也有一些工作會議，〔也就是〕所謂的「會期間會面」（intersessional meetings），〔這些就〕是文件的主要工作完成的地方。最後一次這些個會期間會面〔已經〕在七月十五日到十八日於巴黎舉辦〔過了〕，它是由 UNESCO 所主辦的，〔目的〕在於使文件成為更短、更簡潔、以及更清楚的形式，因為它們已經〔過於〕膨脹，並且由於大量的註解和補遺而變得無法閱讀。

As an event of the United Nations, only governments are admitted as fully accredited participants of the WSIS and the connected conferences. Although it seems relatively common in this context to have emissaries of companies appear as part of the governmental delegations. Especially in very complex areas requiring a lot of specific knowledge the large companies usually have a lot of freedom to implement their policies.

作為聯合國的一個事件，只有政府才被允許作為 WSIS 完全受到認可的參與者，〔也〕才能參與會議。雖然在這個範疇內看起來「有公司的代表〔參與〕」相對來說較為一般性，〔但是〕似乎〔這〕是作為政府委任的一部份。特別是在需要大量的特定知識的相當複雜的領域中，大公司通常擁有〔較〕大的自由來實現它們的政策。

According to inside information, it is for instance the case that in another forum on UN level, the WIPO ("World Intellectual Propert Organization"), the U.S. delegation regularly contains a significant amount of direct Microsoft representatives.

根據內部資訊〔來源〕，以在另一個聯合國層次的論壇「世界智慧財產權組織」【http://www.wipo.org/cn/index.html】（World Intellectual Propert Organization; WIPO）為例，美國的委任〔名單〕中包含了數量可觀的微軟直接代表。

Small and medium sized enterprises only have very limited influence through the industry associations, in which the large companies again have most influence.

經由產業商會的中小型企業只有非常有限的影響力，再一次地，大公司擁有最多影響力。

The third leg of the political process are the so-called civil society. Generally, this term includes all non-governmental organizations that are to a large extent forming or being an expression of public opinion. That includes chruches, unions, schools, foundations, clubs. Organizations like Greenpeace, the WWF and also the Free Software Foundation (FSF) are classic examples of civil societies.

政治運作的第三勢力（The third leg）是所謂的公民團體。一般來說，這個術語包括了所有「在最大的範圍內，形塑或是成為公眾意見的一種表達」的非政府組織。那包括了教會、公會、學校、基金會、和俱樂部。像是「綠色和平」（Greenpeace）【http://www.greenpeace.org/ ，它在香港設有 辦事處】、「世界自然基金」（World Wildlife Fund; WWF）【http://www.panda.org/ ，它在中國的辦公室有 志願者網頁】、還有自由軟體基金會，〔都〕是公民團體的經典例子。

Within the UN hierarchy, civil societies traditionally have a difficult position. In some of the preparatory conferences of the WSIS the civil societies were at times even banned from the room, so they could not even listen to the considerations that were to shape the information age. It seems that most governments consider this to have been a mistake, however.

在聯合國的階級〔體系〕裡，公民團體傳統上有著艱難的地位。在 WSIS 的一些準備會議中，公民團體有時甚至會被排拒在外，所以它們甚至無法聽到用來形塑資訊時代的考慮理由〔為何〕。然而，看起來似乎大部份的政府認為這是一項錯誤。

But including the civil societies remains difficult, as they still do not have the right to speak at the substantial discussions about issues. In Paris all of civil societies were given half an hour in the morning to address the delegates, for instance. This allows for general comments, but is only of limited use for substantial discussions.

不過包括公民團體在內仍是困難的，因為它們仍然沒有權利在關於議題的重要討論中發言。舉例來說，在巴黎，所有的公民團體都在早上被給予半個小時讓代表們講話，但是這對於重要的討論只有著有限的用處。

Among the governments seeking better inclusion of civil societies is also the German government, which is represented by the ministry for economy and labour (BMWA) in the WSIS process.

由經濟與勞工部作為代表的德國政府，也在 WSIS 運作之中，於政府之間尋求著將公民團體作一較好的納入。

So in planning meetings it was agreed to have not only a representative of economy -- in this case Dr. Rainer Händel of Siemens in representation of BITKOM -- but also add a representative of the German civil societies to the German governmental delegation for Paris.

所以在規劃會議中，〔各國〕已經同意了不只〔包括〕有經濟〔體〕的代表 -- 在這個例子中， Siemens 的 Rainer Händel 博士代表了 BITKOM -- 〔另外〕也加入了由德國政府委任到巴黎的德國公民團體代表。

The coordination circle of German civil societies for WSIS then created a ranked list of candidates that should participate in the German delegation with the mandate of the coordination circle. In the end, Georg Greve, president of the FSF Europe -- and author of this column -- was admitted to the German governmental delegation. [8]

針對 WSIS 的德國公民團體的協調圈，接著建立了一份「應該參與到協調圈中具有正式委任，並且分好級別的」候選列表。到了最後，歐洲自由軟體基金會的總裁〈以及本專欄的作者〉 Georg Greve ，被接受成為德國政府的委任代表 [8] 。

This makes Germany one of the few countries together with others like Switzerland or Denmark, that formally include civil societies in the WSIS process.

這使得德國〔成為〕與其它像是瑞士或丹麥等，正式包括公民團體在 WSIS 運作中的少數國家。

在巴黎的「會期間會面」

Trying to give a detailed report of everything taking place during the intersessional meeting would surely go beyond the scope of this column. But some of the most crucial topics discussed should at least be introduced here.

試著給予一份在「會期間會面」期間內所發生的每一件事的詳細報告，肯定超過了本專欄的〔討論〕範圍之外。不過一些討論過的最重要議題，應該至少在這裡介紹〔一下〕。

通訊權？

Among the questions most hotly debated was the question of "Communication Rights" or even a "Right to Communicate". Many countries -- for instance Egypt, China or the U.S.A. -- were eloquently contradicting formulating such a right. Only Brazil really stuck up for explicitly speaking about Communication Rights.

在〔所有的〕問題之中，爭論地最為激烈的是「通訊權」（Communication Rights），或甚至是「進行通訊的權利」（Right to Communicate）。許多國家 -- 舉例來說埃及、中國、或是美國 -- 在公式化這樣的一種權利時，〔都同時〕展現了針鋒相對而具有說服力的觀點。只有巴西真的明確地支持談論關於「通訊權」〔的觀念〕。

The countries contradicting the formulation mostly argued that such a right was not defined anywhere and the WSIS was not equipped to define new human rights.

對於公式化產生矛盾的國家，大部份都主張：這樣的一種權利並沒有在任何地方被定義，而且 WSIS 也不是用來定義新的人權的〔會議〕。

They unfortunately don't seem to have understood that information technology allows invalidating some rights even though you may still have them on paper.

它們看起來很不幸地沒有瞭解到：資訊科技允許了〔得以〕「無效化一些權利」〔的方式〕，即便你可能在紙面上擁有它們。

An example for this is the European Copyright Directive (EUCD), and its equivalent in the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), both going back to the TRIPS agreement of the World Trade Organization (WTO), which allow such invalidation in for fair use rights. [9]

關於這個的一個例子有「歐洲版權命令」（European Copyright Directive; EUCD），以及它的美國對等物「數位千禧年版權法案」（Digital Millennium Copyright Act; DMCA），兩者都回到了世界貿易組織（World Trade Organization; WTO）的 TRIPS 協議，這允許了針對「合理使用權利」（fair use rights） [9] 的如此的無效化〔作為〕。

Owing to making the crossing of certain lines -- usually referred to as "technical protection measures" -- an offense to be prosecuted by courts, the provider of these technologies is given power to take control over previously public spaces and remove them from the control of democratic legislation.

由於造成了特定層面〔上〕的交錯 -- 通常稱作為「技術保護手段」（technical protection measures） -- 那是一種可以被法庭加以起訴的犯罪，這些科技的提供者被給予了權力，〔因此〕得以控制到先前〔屬於〕公眾領域（public spaces）〔的地方〕，並且將它們自民主立法〔機制〕中移除。

The DMCA for instance provided the grounds for censorship of Scientology critical web sites, since the information provided on these pages was only available within technical protection measures, so they could only have been acquired through violation of the DMCA. Drastically speaking, DMCA and EUCD both replace democracy through company-controlled technocracy in essential areas of public life.

舉例來說， DMCA 提供了「給予『批判科學教派（Scientology）的網站』審查〔機制〕」的立足點，由於在這些頁面上所提供的資訊，只有在技術保護手段中才可以取得，所以它們可能就只能經由「違反 DMCA」才可以獲得。嚴厲地說來， DMCA 和 EUCD 兩者都將民主，以「受到公司控制的」技術治國（technocracy）於公眾生活的〔一些〕必要領域，給替換掉了。

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) [10] states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

《世界人權宣言》 （Universal Declaration of Human Rights; UDHR） [10] 〈第十九條〉陳述到：人人有權享有主張和發表意見的自由；此項權利包括持有主張而不受干涉的自由，和通過任何媒介和不論國界尋求、接受和傳遞消息和思想的自由（Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.）。

As these rights are increasingly dependant upon control over the medium, they are as much in danger of becoming hollow as article 27, which gives every human being the right to participate in cultural life.

由於這些權利愈來愈依賴於「對於媒介的控制」，〔使得〕它們面臨到成為空言的危險，如同〈第二十七條〉【第一款】所給予的：人人有權自由參加社會的文化生活…。

Speaking clearly of Communication Rights would therefore not have meant defining new rights but rather protecting existing rights from technocratic erosion.

因此「把通訊權說清楚」並不意味著定義新的權利，而比較是「保護既有的權利，以避免受到技術治國主義的侵蝕」。

工業的資訊控制

The area of industrial information control, usually referred to as "intellectual property" was grounds for lots of discussion.

工業資訊控制的領域〈通常是被指為「智慧財產」〉是許多討論的立足點。

Many sides -- especially the USA, but also the German ministry of justice during the coordination meetings before Paris -- demanded to keep this area out of the WSIS entirely, since that area is dealt with in other organizations, especially WIPO and WTO.

許多方面 -- 特別是美國，但是也有「在巴黎〔會〕之前協調會議的期間內的」德國司法部 -- 要求保持這一個領域完全在 WSIS 之外，因為那個領域是在別的組織〈特別是 WIPO 和 WTO〉中加以處理的。

That would mean the failure of the WSIS.

那可能代表著 WSIS 的失敗。

The questions cannot be separated, as the question of control about knowledge and information is obviously central for the knowledge and information society.

這個問題無法被分開〔來看〕，因為關於知識和資訊的控制的問題，顯然是知識和資訊社會的中心〔點〕。

With or without the internet: without revising legislation in that area not only single-mindedly pursuing the interests of the rights holding industry, but also those of artists, authors and society as a whole -- especially those in developing and least-developed countries -- the social divide between poor and rich will only get larger and also become more pronounced in the financially stronger countries.

不管有沒有互聯網：在那個領域〔如果〕沒有修訂立法，不只是一意孤行地追求「持有工業的權利」所獲取的利益，同時也是〔追求以〕那些「藝術家、作家、以及作為整體的社會」〈特別是那些處在開發中以及未開發的國家〉〔作為代價〕的〔利益〕，分開成貧窮和富有的社會分裂將會更為巨大，並且也會在經濟強勢的國家中變得呼聲更高（more pronounced）。

These are only two of the topics that were discussed. In case you're interested, there is a more detailed debriefing about the events and political currents during the intersessional meeting in Paris available on the web page of the FSF Europe. [11]

這些只是兩個被討論到的議題。如果你有興趣，有一份關於「這些事件以及在巴黎『會期間會面』期間內的政治趨勢」的詳細結論，可以在歐洲自由軟體基金會的網頁上取得。 [11]

〔世界〕需要你

Hopefully I was capable of at least giving you an idea of the importance of that topic. Working on this area in fact requires stamina, a good amount of tolerance against becoming frustrated and a lot of work.

希望我至少〔已經〕能夠給你〔關於〕那個議題的重要性的概念。致力於這個領域事實上需要持久的毅力 -- 能夠十足地忍受「變得讓人沮喪」〔的事〕以及「大量的工作」。

As individuals living within a society, we really cannot afford trusting in "someone" to work on these issues if we remain inactive ourselves.

作為生活在社會之中的個體，我們實在無法承擔「〔只是〕信任『某個人』致力在這些議題上〔的風險〕」，如果我們自己〔對此〕仍〔也只〕是不積極的。

All organizations active in this area require help in lots of ways -- even if "just" by showing public support.

所有活躍於這個領域的組織都在許多方面上需要幫忙 -- 即使是如：「只」〔以〕顯示公眾支持〔的方式〕。

There are many ways of getting involved and a good contact point for the FSF Europe is probably the discussion list. [12] If you would like to get directly involved in the WSIS process, you can also find information on the web. [13]

有許多方式可以參與，而對於歐洲自由軟體基金會〔而言〕，一個好的聯繫點可能是討論列表 [12] 。如果你想要直接參與到 WSIS 運作中，你也可以在網上找到資訊 [13] 。

And of course this work also is dependant upon money -- and be it only to cover the travel expenses, which many activits are paying from their own pocket. Regarding my trip to Paris, I would like to take the occasion to thank the Linux-Verband, which covered most of the travel expenses, as well as the Böll-Foundation, which also substantially contributed to them.

當然，這項工作也依賴於金錢〔的支持〕 -- 並且讓它只提供到旅行的開支〔就好〕，許多活動是從他們自己的荷包裡支付的。關於我到巴黎的旅程，我想要藉這個機會感謝 Linux-Verband ，它提供了大部份的旅行開支，另外還有 Böll-基金會，它也相當地捐助了它們。

德國的「橋接想法」網站（Bridge-Ideas.de）

Readers living in Germany also have another possibility to deal with these issues. Recently the bridge - citizen rights in a digital society foundation was established in Berlin, Germany. [14] The founder was Frank Hansen who cooperated with the Bewegungsstiftung ("Movement foundation") to start this foundation to create awareness for exactly these issues.

住在德國的讀者也有著另一個可能，得以〔用來〕處理這些議題。最近，「橋接」這個「在一間數位社會基金會的公民權」在德國柏林被建立了起來 [14] 。創辦人 Frank Hansen 與 Bewegungsstiftung （行動基金會； Movement foundation）合作而開始了這間基金會，以建立完全地針對這些議題的「認識」（awareness）。

As the first action, a call for ideas was started. Until October 1st 2003, any group or person can submit ideas to plan and make a campaign about the lurking reduction of citizen rights in the digital domain.

作為第一次的行動，一項徵求想法〔的活動〕〔已經〕開始了。直到二零零二年十月一日〔為止〕，任何團體或個人〔都〕可以提交出想法，以用來規劃和發起一個關於「在數位領域中，潛伏著縮減公民權〔的作為〕」的活動。

The best idea will be presented by the jury on November 1st 2003 and will receive up to EUR 15.000,- from the foundation to implement that campaign.

最佳的想法將會由評審委員在二零零三年十一月一日展示出來，並且最多會自基金會處收到一萬五千歐元，以用來實現那場運動。

This does offer the possibility to make a difference and hopefully many ideas will be submitted.

這確實提供了「做點不同事」的可能性，也希望許多想法會被提交〔出來〕。

足夠了

Enough Brave GNU World for now from this rather remarkable summer in Europe. As usual I would like to encourage everyone to get in touch with comments, questions and ideas to the usual address. [1]

來自於歐洲這一次酷暑的《勇敢 GNU 世界》現在已經足夠了【據統計已有二萬人死於這次歐洲熱浪，其中法國就佔了近一萬四千人】。一如往常，我想要鼓勵每一個人經由送來意見、問題、和想法到通常的地址來〔與我〕聯繫。 [1]

Especially authors of Free Software should feel pushed to get in touch with their projects. They don't have to be large or finished in order to be interesting to other people.

特別是自由軟體的作者應該對於〔與我〕聯繫他們的計畫有〔一些〕迫切感。它們不必一定要是大規模或是已經完成的，才能讓其他人覺得有趣。

So far -- see you next month.

到此為止 -- 下個月再見。