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

Welcome to another issue of the Brave GNU World — hopefully not too many readers were affected by pyDDR fever and have blamed their sore muscles on the column.

歡迎來到又一期的《勇敢 GNU 世界》 — 希望沒有太多讀者感染到「pyDDR 熱」，並且向這專欄抱怨著他們酸痛的肌肉。

給自由軟體用的驅動程式（Drivers）

One particular situation is probably among the most difficult ones for many users of Free Software operating systems, especially when pure users are concerned. Assembling and installing the new hardware was quickly done, but the included drivers are only for Windows.

可能在對「許多自由軟體作業系統使用者的許多困難點」上的一個特別的情形，特別是純使用者所關切的是：組合（Assembling）和安裝（installing）新硬體時很快就完成了，但包含的驅動程式〔卻〕只有給 Windows 〔使用〕。

Unless you've spent significant time on internet research before buying hardware, so you could make an informed decision which hardware to buy, now precious hours are lost trying to locate the right driver. In especially unfortunate cases you will even come to realize that this particular piece of hardware is not supported at all. Outdated information, unmaintained links and discontinued development of some drivers make the situation worse.

除非在購買硬體之前，你已經花了許多時間在網際網路上搜尋〈這樣子你可以作出被告知有關於哪個硬體可以買〔的資訊〕的決定〉，〔否則〕現在先前的幾個小時已經在試著找出正確的驅動程式中浪費掉了。在特別不幸的例子中，你甚至將會最後瞭解到：這個特殊的硬體根本就不被支援。某些驅動程式的過時資訊、沒有維護的鏈接以及不再持續的開發，〔都〕使得這情況〔變得〕更差。

Strictly speaking, this is the fault of hardware vendors that are often not caring about selling their hardware outside the Windows monopoly and don't take customers outside that monopoly seriously.

嚴格地說，這是硬體賣方的錯〈他們經常對於將硬體賣到 Windows 壟斷〔範圍〕外不在乎，而且對 Windows 壟斷〔範圍〕外的顧客並不當真〉。

In fact often not every hardware vendor would even have to develop each and every driver themselves. Often there are volunteers to help developing drivers in their own interest. But in many cases, these developers only receive very limited support. Even worse. Some hardware vendors actively try to defend themselves against this attempt at increasing their market potential.

事實上，經常也並不是每一個硬體的賣方，都能夠自行開發每一份驅動程式。經常會有使用者基於他們自己的興趣來開發驅動程式。但是許多的狀況中，這些開發者只有獲得非常有限的支援。更糟的是：一些硬體賣方積極地護衛著他們自己，免受這個「可以增加他們的市場利基（potential）」的試圖的侵擾。

Of course there are also more and more exceptions to that rule, some hardware vendors are beginning to understand the potential of the Free Software market and either try to provide drivers themselves or further their development. Right now these are more or less exceptions confirming the rule, however. But drivers written and distributed exclusively by hardware vendors are really only the second best solution.

當然，對於那個法則而言，已經有愈來愈多的例外了：一些硬體賣方開始瞭解到自由軟體市場〔可以帶來〕的可能性，並且開始自己提供驅動程式，或是更進一步他們的開發。然而，就目前來說，這些或多或少〔都只是再次〕確認這法則的例外〔罷了〕。但是由硬體賣方獨佔性地撰寫以及散佈驅動程式，真的只是次佳的解決方案〔而已〕。

Better would be a platform on which vendors develop and maintain drivers together with interested companies and volunteers. This will not only help keeping drivers maintained even years after the production has been discontinued, it also becomes possible to use synergies.

較好〔的方式〕是有一個平台（platform），可以使賣方與有興趣的公司和志願者，一起開發以及維護驅動程式。這將不只幫助了「驅動程式即使在這項產品不再延續後的數年後，〔仍然〕受到維護」，「使用合成〔效果〕（synergies）【譯註：指的是獨立的個別的效果，經由互動或合作而產生全新或進一步的效果】」也成為可能。

Many boards by different hardware vendors use identical chipsets. So a lot of multiple work could be avoided. Also developing drivers for multiple operating systems or allowing porting to a new hard- or software-platform — creating a new sales market — would be possible.

許多由不同硬體賣方〔所做出〕的電路板（boards）使用了相同的晶片組（chipsets）。所以大量的重覆（multiple）工作可以被避免。同時，為多重作業系統開發驅動程式，或是允許移殖（porting）到一個新的硬體或軟體平台 — 因而創造出一個新的銷售市場 — 也將成為可能。

Hardware vendors willing to enter such a process would see a much increased usability for their hardware in combination with a higher customer retention based upon the knowledge that support will not be suddenly discontinued in 1-2 years. Not to mention that the potential market would grow.

願意進入這樣一個過程（process）的硬體賣方，將會看到他們的硬體增快得多的使用性，這是由於〔硬體〕與「奠基於支援將不會在一二年內突然地不再延續的認識，因而有著較高的顧客向心力（retention）」〔所造成〕的混合效果。更不用提到潛在的市場將會成長了。

The entry portal for such a system would have to be a database, which allows searching for products of vendors in order to know about the existing drivers and their status. So users would directly find out whether drivers exist and whether they are for instance stable, only suited for developers, orphaned and/or outdated.

針對一個這樣子的系統的進入點（entry portal）將會需要一個資料庫，來允許搜尋賣方的產品，以知道關於現有的驅動程式以及它們的狀態。因此使用者才能直接地發現驅動程式是否存在？以及它們是否〔只是某些〕狀況下穩定？只適合給開發者、已經成了孤兒以及／或過時了。

Florian Duraffourg from France calls to build such a database.

來自法國的 Florian Duraffourg 徵求〔志願者〕來建立起這樣一個資料庫。

給自由軟體驅動程式使用的資料庫

Based on PHP, HTML and MySQL, Florian Duraffourg is aiming at creating a driver database [5] specifically for GNU/Linux and GNU/HURD. Anyone looking for a driver should then be able to find out whether a driver exists and which status it has.

Florian Duraffourg 基於 PHP 、 HTML 和 MySQL ，將目標放在創作出一個特別針對 GNU/Linux 和 GNU/HURD 的驅動程式資料庫（driver database） [5] 。任何正在尋找一支驅動程式的人應該到時候就可以知道是否有這一支驅動程式存在，以及它的狀態為何了。

By means of a simple Web-access, this would also allow checking directly before buying hardware in a store to see how well it is supported. Florian also considers allowing direct server access, so accessing the database would become possible without HTML and browser; for instance with a simple client program on a wireless device like a PDA or mobile telephone.

經由簡單的網路存取（Web-access），這也允許了〔人們〕在商店裡購買硬體之前，直接檢查看看它被支援的程度如何。 Florian 也考慮了允許直接的伺服器存取，這樣一來即使沒有了 HTML 和瀏覽器，存取資料庫也將成為可能；舉例來說：在像是 PDA 或行動電話一般的無線裝置上，提供一支客戶端程式。

Thoughts and plans around this program are still under development, so Florian still doesn't have a final domain or dedicated server. Among his considerations was also to mirror all drivers on a dedicated FTP server to slow linkrot and loss of information.

圍繞著這支程式的想法和打算仍然處在發展〔階段〕，所以 Florian 仍然還沒有最終的域名（domain）或一台專屬的伺服器。在他的考慮中也有：鏡射在一台專屬 FTP 伺服器上的所有驅動程式以減緩資訊的失效鏈接（linkrot）以及漏失〔的程度〕。

Right now his biggest concern is finding volunteers that would like to contribute to development, designing the web site, translating documents into different languages and assembling the driver database.

目前，他最大的關切點在於尋找願意貢獻開發、設計網站、翻譯文件到不同語言、以及組裝起驅動程式資料庫的志願者。

This seems like an extremely useful project and I hope that many volunteers will join the effort. Also some hardware vendors will hopefully recognize their chance and support this project directly.

這看起來似乎是個極為有用的計畫，因此我希望能有許多志願者加入這份努力。也希望有一些硬體賣方能夠認識到它們〔由此可以獲得〕的機會，並且直接地支援這個計畫。

Those interested in finding business models around Free Software should also have come to realize that another very interesting opportunity has presented itself in this field.

那些有興趣找出環繞著自由軟體商業模型〔的人〕，應該也會漸漸瞭解到：另一個非常有趣的機會已經在這個領域中將它自己展示出來。

Should a store or mail order business strategically orient itself towards hardware supported by Free Software like GNU/Linux, this added value would certainly be worth a lot to many people.

商家或是郵購公司是否會策略性地將自己導入到被像是 GNU/Linux 一般的自由軟體所支援的硬體？〔考慮到〕這附加價值肯定會對許多人〔來說〕非常值得。

Customers would know that they could shop as much as they wanted without having to worry about lack of support. As a kind of additional service they could even get a CD with the right drivers for the hardware they just bought.

消費者將會知道他們可以買來愈多他們想要的〔東西〕，而不必擔心缺乏支援。作為一種額外的服務，他們甚至可以拿到一張有著他們剛剛購買的硬體的驅動程式 CD 。

And due to customer retention they would be likely to buy their other hardware that is often uncritical in terms of being supported, like hard disks, cases, CPUs, memory from that company. So by supporting the project above even the sales-oriented businesses could gain substantial additional value.

同時，由於顧客向心力〔使然〕，他們〔也比較〕可能購買那公司的其它硬體〈那些以被支援的角度來看經常並不重要的〉，像是硬碟、〔主機〕外殼、 CPUs 、記憶體…。所以經由支援上述的計畫，甚至銷售導向的事業體也可以獲取大量的附加價值。

libQGLViewer （3D 閱覽程式庫）

The libQGLViewer [6] project by Gilles Debunne has created a 3D viewer library that makes development of 3D applications easier and faster.

由 Gilles Debunne 所完成的 libQGLViewer [6] 計畫已經創作出了一個 3D 閱覽程式庫（viewer library），它使得開發 3D 應用程式〔得以〕更簡單，也更快速。

According to Gilles, it was a major problem for development of 3D applications that tools like a moving camera, snapshots, simple coordinate systems — although classical and well-known — are rarely part of 3D standard libraries. Even GLUT is using a much lower abstraction level.

根據 Gilles ，開發 3D 應用程式的一個主要問題在於：像是移動攝影機（moving camera）、快照（snapshots）、簡易座標系統（simple coordinate systems） — 雖然經典且〔為人所〕熟知 — 都很少是 3D 標準程式庫的一部份。即便是 GLUT 也是使用一個較為低階的抽象層。

In comparison, libQGLViewer provides camera and objects, which can be freely moved with the mouse within a 3D scenario. Also saving snapshots in different formats including vector-based EPS is possible.

比較之下， libQGLViewer 提供了攝影機和物件，它們都可以在 3D 場景（scenario）中，以滑鼠任意地移動。同時，以不同格式儲存快照〈其中包括以向量為基礎的 EPS〉也是可能的。

The project is based on the QGLWidget class of the Qt library and solely for the purpose of showing the refresh rate it is still using GLUT. This dependency will disappear with the move to Qt 3.1, however. The libQGLViewer itself was — like the Qt library — written in C++.

這計畫是奠基於 Qt 程式庫中的 QGLWidget 類別（class），它也仍然使用 GLUT ，不過這單單只是為了顯示更新率（refresh rate）〔而已〕。然而，這個相依性（dependency）將會在轉移到 Qt 3.1 之後消失。 libQGLViewer 它本身 — 如同 Qt 程式庫 — 是以 C++ 編寫而成的。

The author is working in a graphics laboratory in which everyone was creating their own 3D viewer in the past. Each solution had its strengths, but none was complete. This is what Gilles sought to change. Also he is teaching students and sought to allow them to get creative more easily without having to spend much time on the infrastructure.

作者正在致力於一個圖形製造廠（graphics laboratory），有了它〔之後〕，未來每一個人都可以創作出他們自己的 3D 閱覽器。〔以前〕每一個解決方案都有著它的強處，但卻沒有一個是完整的。這就是 Gilles 尋求著要改變的〔地方〕。他也教授學生，並且試圖允許他們可以更容易地發揮創意（to get creative），而不用必須花費許多時間在基礎建設上。

Therefore Gilles began developing this project. Originally he estimated it to be a weeks worth of work, but in the end it turned out to be a full-time project for a whole year. By now he considers the project to be finished, only the documentation could still need some polishing by a native English speaker. Also some feedback for the installation routine would be welcome.

因此 Gilles 開始了開發這項計畫。一開始他估計它是個值上幾個星期的工作，但最後它卻變成了整整一年的全時計畫。現在他認為計畫將要結束了，只差了文件仍然需要位英語母語者的一些修飾。關於安裝常式（routine）的一些反饋也是歡迎的。

Declaring the project finished was a conscious decision, by the way. His declared goal was to keep the viewer as general as possible without focussing on specific applications. Gilles is convinced to have reached that limit, so he decided to not add any more substantial new features.

順道一提，宣布計畫結束是個有意識的決定。他所宣布的目標在於，保持閱覽器儘可能地一般化，而不是聚焦在特定的應用上。 Gilles 相信〔它〕已經達到了極限，所以他決定不再增加任何實質的新功能特色了。

According to its author, the most important advantages of the project are its clean, portable and carefully design API, also the library comes with complete documentation and a great amount of commented examples. This makes it possible to generate a simple 3D viewer within one minute and 10 lines of code.

根據它的作者，這計畫最重要的優勢在於它的清楚（clean）、可移殖性（portable）和仔細設計的應用程式介面（API），程式庫也附有完整的文件，以及相當大量的註解過的例子。這使得它有可能可以在一分鐘內，以十行程式碼來製作出一個簡單的 3D 閱覽器。

Gilles also sought to emphasize what the libQGLViewer is not. It does not do 3D rendering, because its sole purpose is to provide the viewer — the "draw()" method remains the responsibility of the user and a lot of possibilities exist to generate the scenario. libQGLViewer then allows the user to enter these scenarios and move within them.

Gilles 也試圖強調 libQGLViewer 不是什麼。它並不做 3D 描繪（rendering），因為它唯一的目的在於提供閱覽器 — "draw()" 方法（method）仍然是使用者的責任，而且製作出場景也還存在著許多可能性。 libQGLViewer 接著允許使用者進入這些場景，然後在它們之中移動。

The libQGLViewer is published as Free Software under the GNU General Public License (GPL). Apparently there were numerous requests to switch to the Lesser General Public License (LGPL) in order to also allow proprietary applications. For personal and political reasons Gilles decided to keep publishing the libQGLViewer under the GPL, however.

libQGLViewer 是在 GNU General Public License (GPL) 下作為自由軟體而公開。顯然地有許多切換到 Lesser General Public License (LGPL) 的要求，以為了〔使它〕也允許私權應用程式〔得以使用〕。然而基於個人以及政治因素， Gilles 決定了保持在 GPL 下公開 libQGLViewer 〔的作法〕。

Also he found the generally available information about licenses, possible change of licenses and multi-licensing to be incomplete and sometimes confusing. He is probaby not the only person feeling that way, so it might be useful to write a little introduction into the background.

他也發現了關於許可證、許可證的可能改變、以及「不完全，並且有時候〔造成〕混淆的多許可（multi-licensing）」的一般可以取得的資訊。他可能並不是唯一那樣子感覺到的人，因此寫一點進入背景的介紹可能會是有用的。

介紹版權（Copyright）

In order to be able to understand the licenses, it helps to understand the background on which they are built. Licenses like the GNU General Public License (GPL) are Copyright-licenses, or Authorship right ("Droit d'Auteur") licenses. Even though the terms Copyright and Droit d'Auteur are almost the same for most practical purposes, some historic differences exist.

為了可以瞭解許可證，知道用來構建它們的背景會有幫助。像是 GNU General Public License (GPL) 的許可證是版權許可證（Copyright-licenses），或是「作者權（Authorship right ； Droit d'Auteur）許可證」【事實上 Authorship right 就語意上也可以翻譯為著作權，但是因為目前我們已經把著作權視為作者權（著作人格權）和版權（著作財產權）的合稱，因此還是避免採用這一個術語以免造成困擾】。即使版權和作者權對於大部份的實用目的而言幾乎是一樣的，〔它們之間〕仍然存在歷史差異。

In order to understand these, one has to know that Copyright is an invention of the Gutenberg age, a result of inventing the printing press around 1476. Originally being a pure monopoly for publishers it wasn't intended to give authors any rights in their works. Only 1710 first authors can purchase rights in their own works.

為了瞭解這些，〔我們〕必須知道版權是 Gutenberg 時代的一項發明，〔是〕一個在大約一四七六年發明了印刷術（printing press）〔之後〕的結果【中國則更早了六百年】。一開始的狀況是出版者的純粹壟斷〔情形〕，它〔當時〕也不是為了要給予作者關於他們作品的任何權利。只有到了一七一○年才第一次有作者購買了他們自己的作品的權利。

The idea of a fundamental right of the author in his or her work — the core of todays Droit d'Auteur — has been propagated mostly by German and French philosophers in the time before the French revolution and has first been implemented as a major achievement of the French revolution.

「作者擁有他或她的作品的基本權利（a fundamental right）」的想法 — 那是作者權的核心 — 在法國大革命前，已經在大部份的德國和法國哲學家中普及了，並且作為法國大革命的一項主要成就而首次地被加以實現（implemented）。

This established the Droit d'Auteur as a new legal tradition in order to replace the old, publisher-monopoly oriented system. Today, essentially the continental European countries are following the Droit d'Auteur tradition while the angloamerican area is still following the Copyright tradition.

這建立起了「作者權作為一項新的法律傳統（legal tradition）」，以用來取代舊的〔傳統〕，也就是「出版者壟斷導向的體系」。今天，實質上歐洲大陸國家遵循著作者權傳統， 而盎格魯美洲地區【北美，包括美國和加拿大】仍然遵循著版權傳統。

To create common international ground, there have been harmonizing processes and agreements that are commonly referred to by the cities of Berne and Stockholm in which they have come to pass in. Because of this, most issues are practically not different despite the very different basis. With one exception.

為了創造出「共同國際基點」（common international ground）【即，在兩種不同體系之間建立起可以溝通互動的渠道】，〔因此〕在牽涉到的城市〈Berne 和 Stockholm〉〔之間〕有了調和的過程（harmonizing processes），和已經批准的協定（agreements）。因為這樣，〔使得〕在非常不同的根基（basis）之外，大部份的〔相關〕議題在實用上並無不同。〔但〕有一個例外。

Contrary to Copyright, Droit d'Auteur knows a personality right of the author, which — like other human rights — is inalienable. Independent of what any contract says, the personality rights of the author can never be limited. In fact, a contract that is (seemingly or for real) trying to do this runs a risk of being declared invalid in court.

與版權相反的是，作者權認知作者的人格權（personality right） — 就像其它人權 — 是不可讓渡的（inalienable）。獨立於任何合約上所說〔的條款〕，作者的人格權永遠不能受到限制。事實上，一份（似乎或是真的）試圖這樣做的合約，就是冒了在法庭上被宣佈為無效的風險。【這應該以法律體系層次的角度來看，命令違反法律者無效；法律違反憲法者無效；甚至憲法違反基本人權者也是無效的。當然，許可證是屬於合約的層次。】

Only the so-called exploitation rights are transferrable. There are single and exclusive exploitation rights; the proprietor of the exclusive exploitation rights can provide an unlimited amount of single exploitation rights and defend his rights in court. So the exclusive exploitation rights are for most practical purposes similar to the angloamerican Copyright.

只有所謂的利用權（exploitation rights）【現行的著作財產權】是可以移轉的。利用權有單一（single）以及獨佔（exclusive），獨佔利用權的所有人（proprietor）可以提供不限數量的單一利用權，並在法庭上捍衛他的權利。所以就大部份的實用目的〔來說〕，獨佔利用權相似於盎格魯美洲的版權。

自由軟體授權（Licensing）

So based upon these exclusive exploitation rights and/or the Copyright the owner of these rights can choose the license under which the software is distributed. In the case of Free Software that means choosing a Free Software license. [7]

所以根據這些獨佔利用權以及／或版權，這些權利的擁有者可以選擇軟體要在哪一個許可證下散佈。以自由軟體的例子來看，那表示選擇一份自由軟體許可證 [7] 。

As the owner of the exlusive exploitation rights/Copyright can issue an unlimited amount of single exploitation rights (and therefore licenses), it is of cause always possible to issue the same software under several licenses. Whether these licenses are Free Software licenses or proprietary makes no legal difference.

由於獨佔利用權／版權的擁有者可以發出（issue）不限數量的單一利用權（也因此「〔作出〕授權〔動作〕」），當然總是有可能「在數個不同許可證下」發出相同軟體〔的授權〕。這些許可證是自由軟體或是私權的許可證在法律上並無不同。

Should the exclusive exploitation rights be with several people, because a piece of software has several authors and they have not chosen to combine their rights with one fiduciary, for instance, of cause all of these authors must agree with the licensing.

當獨佔利用權屬於數個人時〈舉例來說：因為一個軟體片段有著數位作者，而他們還沒有選擇要組合起他們的權利予單一的受託者〉，當然所有的作者都必須同意授權〔的條件〕。

So the license is given by means of the exclusive exploitation rights — which are more or less the same as the anglo-american Copyright — as a single exploitation right.

所以許可證是以獨佔利用權的方式 — 或多或少與盎格魯美洲版權相同 — 以單一利用權來〔加以〕給出。

It should be understood that only the owner of the exclusive exploitation rights can also defend the license in court. Also relicensing may become practically impossible if a large number of authors has been working on a project.

應該要瞭解的是，也只有獨佔利用權的擁有者可以在法庭上捍衛許可證。另外，如果有很大數量的作者在一個計畫中〔一起〕工作，再授權（relicensing）或許會變得不可能〔實行〕。

For this reason — as presented in Brave GNU World issue #48 [8] — the FSF Europe has published the Fiduciary Licence Agreement (FLA) [9] in February 2003.

為了這個理由 — 如同在《勇敢 GNU 世界》第四十八期中的陳述 [8] — 歐洲 FSF 已經在二○○三年二月出版了〈信託許可同意書〉（Fiduciary Licence Agreement ； FLA） [9] 。

關於 FLA 的問題

In reaction to the publication of the FLA, some questions were raise that should maybe be briefly addressed here.

反應了 FLA 的出版，一些或許應該要簡短地在此說明的問題被提了出來。

One question raised a few times was whether the FLA should replace the GPL. That is of course not the case, because the GPL is one Copyright based license granted by means of the exclusive exploitation rights, while the FLA is dealing with transfer of exclusive exploitation rights, which is one level before the license.

一個提出了數次的問題是 FLA 是否應該〔用來〕取代 GPL 。那當然不是這樣，因為 GPL 是一份基於版權，並以獨佔利用權的方式所授與的許可證，而 FLA 是在處理獨佔利用權移轉〔的問題〕〈那是在「作出授權」的前一個層次〉。

Another question was with reference to the keeping the possibility open for the assigning party to do dual-licensing, since the FLA is retransferring an unlimited amount of single exploitation rights back to the author. The question raised was whether it would be possible to then enforce these licenses in court as the author is no longer holder of the exclusive exploitation rights.

另一個問題是有關於「〔是否要〕保持讓渡團體（assigning party）做出雙授權（dual-licensing）的可能性為開放〔的狀態〕」，因為 FLA 再次地將「不限數量的單一利用權」移轉給回作者。提出的問題是它是否有可能接著在法庭中強制〔執行〕這些許可證，因為作者已經不再是獨佔利用權的握有者（holder）了。

If you imagine this case, author A would assign her rights to the FSF Europe and give a single, proprietary license to company B with the contract clause of not passing this license and software on to third parties. Now company C is selling software in which the software of author A is obviously used in a proprietary way. What does this mean?

如果你想像這個例子，甲作者讓渡了她的權利給歐洲 FSF ，並且給了一份單一、私權的授權給乙公司，合約中的條款有：不可轉讓此授權以及軟體到第三團體。現在丙公司販賣顯然是甲作者以私權方式使用的軟體。這表示什麼？

There are two logical possibilities. Normally the software would be published under the GNU General Public License by the FSF Europe, so the first possibility would be that company C has violated the GPL by using the software proprietary. Of course the FSF Europe would investigate that. Only when company C provides written evidence that they did not take the GPL version, but rather the proprietary version of company B, they will be cleared of that suspicion.

有兩種邏輯上的可能性。正常來說，軟體會由歐洲 FSF 在 GNU General Public License 下公開，所以第一個可能性會是丙公司由於使用了軟體私權而違反了 GPL 。歐洲 FSF 當然會調查那〔情形〕。只有當丙公司提供了〔指明了〕他們並沒有拿了 GPL 版本的書面證據（written evidence），他們才能洗清那項質疑。

In that case, company B has violated its contract with author A, however. And the author of course still has the right to take legal steps against contract violation. So the author can take legal steps and cut the chain of transferral of rights in the transferral to company B.

然而如果是那樣的話，乙公司就已經違反了它與甲作者的合約。作者當然仍然有權採取法律程序來對付合約違反〔情事〕。所以作者可以採取法律程序，並且切斷轉移到（transferral to）乙公司的轉移鏈。

Of course I need to state explicitly that this will in doubt always require intensive checking by an accredited and fully trained lawyer, which I am not. But I do hope that I was successful in making the overall picture clearer to non-lawyers without upsetting the experts in legal issues with oversimplifying matters in their eyes.

當然我需要明確地聲明將會受到質疑的這個〔狀況〕，需要一位合格並受完整訓練的律師的徹底檢查，而我並不是。但我真的希望我〔已經〕成功地使整個的圖像，對於不是律師的人〔變得〕較為清楚，〔同時〕沒有使法律議題的專家，由於在他們眼光中過度簡化的內容而感到不悅。

結語

Enough for this issue. As usual I am hoping for numerous suggestions, questions, comments and of course information about interesting projects and new developments to the usual address. [1]

本期足夠了。如同往常，我希望能有許多關於有趣計畫和新發展的建議、問題、意見、當然還有資訊，〔寄〕送到往常的〔郵件〕地址 [1] 。