用开源代码如何建立网站_建立全球开源法律网络

用开源代码如何建立网站

One may ask why a legal department was being used for what sounds like a relatively general goal. Such a question can be answered with context from the time period. In 2006 one of the main discussions about sustainability for open source was related to legal matters, particularly concerns or challenges related to patents and copyright matters. Simplifying things somewhat, there were open questions regarding whether patent challenges could make open source expensive or unsustainable for commercial actors, and there were open questions regarding whether parties could or should follow the terms of open source licenses.

有人可能会问，为什么要使用法律部门来完成听起来比较普遍的目标。可以从时间段的上下文中回答这个问题。 2006年，关于开源可持续性的主要讨论之一与法律事务有关，特别是与专利和版权事务有关的关注或挑战。在某种程度上简化了事情，对于专利挑战是否可能使开放源码变得昂贵或对商业参与者而言是不可持续的，存在着开放的问题，而对于当事方是否可以或应该遵循开放源代码许可的条件，存在着开放的问题。

On the latter point, and somewhat amusingly when used from the perspective of today, some parties were of the opinion that the terms of open source licenses might not be mandatory. Harold Welte, the team at gpl-violations and lawyers like Dr. Till Jeager in Germany are owed a debt for laying this question conclusively to rest not only in their own nation but globally. While it may seem superficially counter-intuitive, their work to ensure clarity a substantial foundation to encourage and sustain commercial investment in the sphere. After all, when it comes to investment, a clear, unambiguous and level playing-field is vital.

关于后一种观点，从今天的角度来看，使用某些观点有些可笑，一些团体认为开放源代码许可的条款可能不是强制性的。 gpl-violations团队的Harold Welte和德国的Till Jeager博士等律师被欠债，原因是这个问题最终不仅在本国而且在全球都存在。尽管表面上看起来违反直觉，但他们为确保清晰度所做的工作为鼓励和维持该领域的商业投资奠定了坚实的基础。毕竟，在投资方面，一个清晰，明确和公平的竞争环境至关重要。

FSFE’s legal department arrived at a perfect and positive time. We were at an inflection point in the Western European market where companies, governments and NGOs were ready to collaborate. We opened our figurative doors to a world that was primed to talk and almost immediately we entered into useful discussions that helped inform, educate and inspire our own team. Lingering concerns about potential tensions between commercial and non-commercial actors were significantly reduced and we found a common imperative in exploring how open source, from a legal perspective, could work excellently for everyone.

FSFE的法律部门正值完美时机。我们正处于西欧市场的转折点，公司，政府和非政府组织已准备好进行合作。我们打开了一个充满想像力的世界的形象之门，几乎立即我们进行了有益的讨论，这有助于为自己的团队提供信息，教育和启发。人们对商业行为者和非商业行为者之间潜在紧张关系的长期担忧大大减少了，我们发现，从法律的角度探讨开放源代码如何能很好地适用于所有人，这是一个共同的当务之急。

It quickly became evident that the greatest potential advantage for all parties was held in sharing knowledge. In much the same was as developers shared code, there was a need for lawyers and business managers to share questions asked, lessons learned, and opportunities explored. We needed a forum to help people share better. Being a legal department, and given that a lot of the key questions lay around the legal sphere, it was a natural fit to consider and then launch a network for legal experts. The “European Legal Network” was born in Spring 2007. We opened a mailing list with, if my recollection is solid after all these years, 17 participants.

很快就很明显，各方的最大潜在优势在于分享知识。与开发人员共享代码几乎相同，律师和业务经理需要共享所提出的问题，经验教训和探索的机会。我们需要一个论坛来帮助人们更好地分享。作为法律部门，考虑到很多关键问题都围绕法律领域，因此自然而然地考虑并启动一个法律专家网络。 “欧洲法律网络”诞生于2007年Spring。我们打开了邮件列表，如果这些年来我的印象很坚定，将有17位参与者。

During the initial weeks I was not sure how our nascent network would be received. Would people talk? Would people share? Would we provide real value to FSFE and to all the other participants? On a personal level, as coordinator of the legal department and as facilitator of the network, I had no idea how things would pan out. One cannot tell when one rolls the dice on something completely new.

在最初的几周内，我不确定如何收到我们的新生网络。人们会说话吗？人们会分享吗？我们是否将为FSFE和所有其他参与者提供真正的价值？就个人而言，作为法律部门的协调员和网络的协调人，我不知道事情会如何发展。人们无法分辨何时将骰子掷到全新的东西上。

The network exploded. It turns out that we perfectly hit a pressure point in the commercial, non-commercial and governmental space. People had been seeking a way to share in precisely this area and our structure — a network facilitated but not owned by FSFE — slot effectively into commonly perceived requirements for a neutral space. We shot up to 50 members extremely quickly without any compromise in the demographic targeted, a strong focus on legal professionals directly working (as opposed to simply exploring) this space. Instead of re-explaining basics to each other, everyone was well positioned to share new, useful information and perspectives.

网络爆炸了。事实证明，我们完全碰到了商业，非商业和政府领域的压力点。人们一直在寻找一种方法来精确地共享该区域，而我们的结构(由FSFE促进但并非由FSFE拥有的网络)可以有效地进入对中性空间的普遍需求。我们非常Swift地招募了多达50名成员，而没有针对目标人群做出任何妥协，我们特别关注直接在此领域工作的法律专业人士(而不是简单地探索)。每个人都可以互相分享新的，有用的信息和观点，而不是相互重新解释基础知识。

It would be too much to claim the European Legal Network the first useful space for sharing legal knowledge. Debian Legal had provided an excellent resource for many years. OpenBar had provided a way for lawyers to talk, albeit mostly in the US, so quite removed from our geographic demographic. No, we were not the first, but perhaps we were the best positioned for what was needed at that time and in that place. Europe suddenly had a private, non-judgemental space for lawyers to open up and learn how valuable open source-style collaboration could be in their field. They returned the favor by dramatically driving forward knowledge between professionals in the space.

宣称欧洲法律网络为共享法律知识的第一个有用空间实在太多了。多年来，Debian Legal提供了极好的资源。尽管主要在美国，但OpenBar为律师提供了一种交谈的方式，因此与我们的地理区域完全分离。不，我们不是第一位的，但是也许我们在当时和那个时候所需要的位置上处于最佳位置。欧洲突然之间有了一个私人的，不受审判的空间，供律师开放并了解在他们的领域中开源形式的合作有多么宝贵。他们通过大力推动该领域专业人士之间的知识交流而获得了青睐。

I directly ran the European Legal Network for two years, during my complete tenure as legal coordinator of FSFE, and later continued to actively assist with its development for a further two years as a Senior Advisor. We retained the title of the network during this time but within 24 months had actually grown to encompass over 100 participants from 4 continents. The key to growth was the same as the key to initial launch. A strong and unwavering focus was kept on the clearly defined demographic and actions were taken only in the interest of these parties rather than being confused with other goals, imperatives or pressures. This cohesiveness invited trust and increased collaboration that continued development of a virtuous cycle.

在我作为FSFE的法律协调人的整个任期内，我直接运营了欧洲法律网络长达两年，后来作为高级顾问，继续继续积极协助其发展，为期两年。在此期间，我们保留了该网络的名称，但实际上在24个月内，该网络已增长为涵盖来自四大洲的100多名参与者。增长的关键与最初发布的关键相同。坚定不移地将重点放在明确界定的人口统计上，并且仅出于这些当事方的利益而采取了行动，而不与其他目标，当务之急或压力相混淆。这种凝聚力吸引了人们的信任并加强了合作，从而继续发展了良性循环。

The point at which a small network became a large network, or a regional network become a global network, is surprisingly had to delineate. Such maturity becomes obvious after the fact rather than in the moment of creation. What was evident was that the network and the facilitators of the network had an increasing responsibility to itself and to those who may be impacted by the outcomes it produced. Conversations did not become overly weighty but it was clear over time that each conversation had the potential to enact real change or real improvement over a larger and larger segment of its potential audience.

令人惊讶的是，必须将小型网络变成大型网络，或将区域网络变成全球网络。这种成熟度在事实之后而不是在创造之时变得显而易见。显而易见的是，网络及其推动者对自身以及对可能受到其产生的结果影响的人们的责任越来越大。对话并没有变得过分沉重，但随着时间的流逝，很明显，每次对话都有可能在越来越多的潜在受众中实施真正的改变或真正的改进。

Right at this moment, in describing the potential of the network, I must also caution against reading too much into it and against inviting any hubris in further description. Creating a valuable space for legal professionals to share knowledge was a worthy endeavor. The relationships it formed were just as valuable as the information passed in any single or series of discussions. But the world is not a simple place, and any influence can be but a partial nudge or a single fragment in a much later situation or puzzle. Commercial imperatives sit alongside development potentials and restrictions with as great or greater weight than legal matters pertaining to software. The best we could accomplish, and this was still a significant win, was to ensure that legal dialogue about open source was closer to state of the art than it would have been in different circumstances.

此时此刻，在描述网络的潜力时，我还必须警告不要过多地阅读它，也不要邀请任何狂妄自大的人进行进一步的描述。为法律专业人士创造宝贵的共享知识的空间是一项值得努力的工作。它形成的关系与任何单个或一系列讨论中传递的信息一样有价值。但是世界不是一个简单的地方，任何影响都可能只是部分推动，或者在以后的局势或困惑中成为一个碎片。商业势在必行，而其发展潜力和限制与软件法律事项相比具有更大或更重要的意义。我们能做的最好的事情是，这仍然是一个重大的胜利，是要确保有关开源的法律对话比在不同情况下更接近最新技术。

I am best placed to talk about what I got out of developing and participating in the network rather than speculating on what others may have received. First and foremost I obtained a far broader while simultaneously far more nuanced understanding of the field. What had appeared black and white descended into shades of grey, and these shades were extremely informative, quite often bridging what would otherwise be gulfs between the viewpoints of disparate parties. Secondly I discovered the energy and willingness to collaborate far transcends what might be expected among parties that are natural competitors even in fields as conservative and as cautious as law. Put simply, people regardless of type are predisposed to collaboration, and given the slightest opportunity and an appropriate forum will do so with great gusto. We all benefit from such occasions.

我最适合谈论我从开发和参与网络中学到的东西，而不是猜测其他人可能收到的东西。首先，我获得了对该领域的更广泛而更细微的了解。黑白相间的东西变成了灰色阴影，这些阴影非常有帮助，经常弥合不同党派观点之间的鸿沟。其次，我发现即使在法律保守和谨慎的领域，合作的活力和意愿也远远超出了自然竞争者之间的期望。简而言之，无论类型如何，人们都倾向于合作，并且只要有最小的机会，适当的论坛就会极大地吸引人。我们都从这样的场合中受益。

It was an honor to be part of releasing reference materials, the first law journal dedicated to open source and the first law book (a lawyers reference) related to open source as outcomes of the network collaborations. There are relatively few opportunities in this world to affect real change in one situation or another, and a group empowered to do so is a special place indeed. There are so many stories to tell, so many lessons learned, and so many items that should best be described as inspirations for future potential collaboration. Over the coming years I hope to share some of these while respecting the key principle of the network, and the core of the open collaboration it fostered, the Chatham House Rule.

荣幸地成为发布参考资料，第一本致力于开放源代码的法律期刊和第一本与开放源代码相关的法律书籍(律师参考)的一部分，这是网络合作的成果。在这个世界上，在一种或另一种情况下影响真正变化的机会相对较少，而有权这样做的群体确实是一个特殊的地方。有太多的故事要讲，有很多的经验教训，以及太多的项目应被描述为未来潜在合作的灵感。在未来的几年中，我希望在尊重网络关键原则及其所促进的开放式协作的核心Chatham House Rule的同时分享其中的一些内容。

Today the Legal Network (finally renamed somewhere toward the end of its first decade) continues as a space for legal professionals to meet and discuss open source. It remains a list with a process for proposing and approving members rather than a public list, a situation that developers and other parties used to acting in an unrestricted public sphere may level some criticism at, but those from the field of law — and indeed political scientists such as myself — find second nature. In areas of liability one is far more empowered to talk off the record, without attribution to an employees or misunderstandings along such lines, creating a carefully balanced flow of open and closed. Get it right and sharing follows a curve of impressive positive proportions. Get it wrong and value is undermined. If anything this was the trick we got most right in the formative years of the network.

如今，法律网络(在其最初的十年末最终改名为某个地方)继续作为法律专业人士聚会和讨论开源的空间。它仍然是一个列表，其中包含提议和批准成员的过程，而不是公开列表，这种情况下，开发人员和其他各方过去曾在不受限制的公共领域中采取行动，可能会引起一些批评，但来自法律领域的批评甚至是政治上的批评像我这样的科学家-发现了第二天性。在责任领域，人们更有能力取消记录，而不会导致雇员的归属或类似的误解，从而形成了谨慎平衡的开放和封闭流程。做到正确，分享遵循令人印象深刻的积极比例的曲线。弄错了，价值就被破坏了。如果有的话，这就是技巧，这是我们在网络形成的几年中最正确的方法。

Will the network have an impact as powerful in its second decade as it had in its first? Bluntly I do not think so. The first bridges you build are the most transformative either in the physical world or the ethereal world of creative goods. Once you open doors of commerce or information things change dramatically. From there most of the future is in optimization, a process of iterative improvement rather than the excitement, energy and change of a revolutionary new approach. This is not a bad thing. Indeed, it shows that the foundation laid has proven solid and has provided a path for many to productively follow. There can be few higher accolades in any activity of which we partake.

在第二个十年中，网络的影响是否会像第一个十年一样强大？坦率地说，我不这么认为。您建造的第一座桥梁在创意产品的实体世界或空灵世界中都是最具变革性的。一旦打开商务或信息之门，事情就会发生巨大变化。从那里开始，未来的大部分时间都在优化上，这是一个反复改进的过程，而不是革命性新方法的激动，活力和变化。这不是一件坏事。确实，这表明奠定了坚实的基础，并为许多人提供了有效的遵循途径。在我们参与的任何活动中，很少有较高的荣誉。

What is interesting, with a little time and distance from that rush and the intensity of the early days, is to consider in the context of the larger ecosystem how things changed. In 2007 it was somewhat revolutionary to suggest that lawyers could collaborate in much the same manner as developers. Today it is becoming common practice for business leaders, lawyers and policy makers to adopt such a stance. Conclusively and overwhelming so? No, not at all at this juncture in our socio-political evolution, but a massive degree more likely than in the past. We are on a trend that sees collaboration as more valuable than isolation when addressing intellectual capital of all types, with software being just one.

有趣的是，与高峰期相距甚短的时间和距离以及初期的强度，是在更大的生态系统的背景下考虑事物的变化。在2007年，建议律师可以与开发人员几乎相同的方式进行合作具有一定的革命性。如今，对于企业领导人，律师和政策制定者而言，采取这种立场已成为一种惯例。结论性的和压倒性的？不，在我们的社会政治演变的这个关头根本没有，但是比过去更有可能。我们正处于一种趋势中，在解决所有类型的智力资本时，协作比隔离更有价值，而软件只是其中之一。

As I write this, a group of local and international guests have just completed a full day conference dedicated equally to Open Source and the Public Domain hosted by the Korean Copyright Commission. As the chairman noted in the opening remarks, it may seem strange for an entity entrusted with protecting copyright to explore sharing ranging in scope from extremely liberal (open source) through to completely unrestricted (public domain), but such perspectives inform positive social growth. As musicians took the stage to explain why they were releasing work into the public domain, and international experts from companies like Toyota explained how they were embracing open source, it underlined that the discourse around copyright in the 21st century is increasingly focused on addressing how we all get the most from the outcomes of human ingenuity.

在我撰写本文时，一群本地和国际来宾刚刚完成了由韩国版权委员会主办的全天会议，该会议同样致力于开放源代码和公共领域。正如董事长在开幕词中所指出的那样，对于一个受权保护版权的实体来说，探索从极度自由的(开源)到完全不受限制的(公共领域)范围内的共享似乎有些奇怪，但是这种观点可以促进积极的社会发展。当音乐家登台解释为什么将作品发布到公共领域时，丰田等公司的国际专家解释了他们如何拥抱开源，这突显了21世纪有关版权的论述越来越集中于解决我们如何所有人都从人类创造力中获得最大收益。

The network I founded was a tiny building block in this global movement, a movement fueled not primarily by ideals, but rather sustained by utility. The network worked for the same reason as all the other activities adjacent worked. People found value, they told other people, and it snowballed from there. Beyond the excitement of what that all means there is also an important kernel of truth that should provide inspiration for all those to come. You, as an individual, can affect real change if you approach challenges to business or society with an open, questioning mind, and you take steps to bring people closer rather than further together. For once we bring people together, we start to solve even the greatest challenges, and we start to improve even the most difficult things.

我建立的网络是这一全球运动中的一个很小的组成部分，这一运动并非主要由理想推动，而是由效用支撑。该网络之所以能够工作，是因为与相邻的所有其他活动都一样。他们告诉其他人，人们发现了价值，并且价值从那里滚滚而来。除了这意味着什么的兴奋之外，还有一个重要的真理核心，应该为所有未来的人们提供灵感。如果您以开放，质疑的心态来面对企业或社会的挑战，并且采取措施使人们更加亲密而不是走到一起，那么您作为个人就可以影响真正的变革。因为一旦我们将人们召集在一起，我们就开始解决最大的挑战，甚至开始改善最困难的事情。

I opened my speech at the conference today by noting that in our 100,000 year history as a species all of our greatest accomplishments have been marked by cooperation and all of our greatest failings have been marked by a failure to work together. I think this observation contains the germ of an important truth. We are both as simple and as complex as it suggests.

我在今天的会议上致开幕辞，指出作为一个物种，在我们100,000年的历史中，我们所有最大的成就都以合作为标志，而我们所有最大的失败都以共同努力为标志。我认为这种观察包含一个重要真理的根源。我们既简单又复杂。