diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/google-engineering-talk.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/google-engineering-talk.html | 376 |
1 files changed, 202 insertions, 174 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/google-engineering-talk.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/google-engineering-talk.html index 0743ec5..b93cdbb 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/google-engineering-talk.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/google-engineering-talk.html @@ -1,20 +1,31 @@ <!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> -<!-- Parent-Version: 1.86 --> - +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 --> +<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html --> +<!--#set var="TAGS" value="speeches" --> +<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" --> <title>GNU & The Free Software Foundation (Engineering Tech Talk at Google) - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> - +<style type="text/css" media="screen"><!-- +@media (min-width: 55em) { .toc li { display: inline-block; width: 95%; }} +--></style> <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/google-engineering-talk.translist" --> <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> - +<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" --> +<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE--> +<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" --> +<div class="article reduced-width"> <h2>GNU & The Free Software Foundation</h2> -<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong></p> -<p>(Engineering Tech Talk at Google, June 11, 2004)</p> +<address class="byline">by Richard Stallman</address> -<div class="summary"> +<div class="infobox"> +<p>Engineering Tech Talk at Google, June 11, 2004</p> +</div> + +<div class="toc"> +<hr class="no-display" /> <h3 class="no-display">Table of Contents</h3> -<ul> +<ul class="columns no-bullet"> <li><a href="#introduction">1. Introduction</a></li> <li><a href="#how-it-started">2. How it started</a></li> <li><a href="#gnu-operating-system">3. GNU operating system</a></li> @@ -51,7 +62,7 @@ copyright, Microsoft</a></li> <li><a href="#games-as-free-software">28. Games as free software</a></li> <li><a href="#gpl-freedoms-for-cars-saving-seeds">29. GPL freedoms for cars, saving seeds</a></li> -<li><a href="#no-software-is-better-than-non-free-software">30. No software is better than non-free software</a></li> +<li><a href="#no-software-is-better-than-non-free-software">30. No software is better than nonfree software</a></li> <li><a href="#portability-of-free-software">31. Portability of free software</a></li> <li><a href="#is-some-free-software-obfuscated-on-purpose">32. Is some @@ -100,7 +111,7 @@ software; there was free software going back to the early days of computing. As soon as there were a couple of computers of the same model, people could try sharing software. And they did.</p> -<p>{This is not... This has a problem. How do we stop the feedback? Can +<p>{This is not… This has a problem. How do we stop the feedback? Can someone do anything? I'm willing to get some feedback, but only from you, not from the PA system.</p> @@ -123,8 +134,8 @@ signing a non-disclosure agreement {which I}. And I had concluded that it is unethical to sign a non-disclosure agreement for generally useful technical information, such as software. To promise not to share with one's fellows is a violation of human solidarity. So when I saw that the -machine downstairs was asking me to sign an NDA, I just said, "I can't -sign an NDA." Well, fortunately, there was an option; they let me come +machine downstairs was asking me to sign an NDA, I just said, “I can't +sign an NDA.” Well, fortunately, there was an option; they let me come in here and speak without signing it, otherwise you would have had to go outside to listen. [Laughter]</p> @@ -141,10 +152,10 @@ there was no lawful way to get a copy of those operating systems without signing a non-disclosure agreement, which was unethical. So I decided to try to do something about it, to try to change that situation. And the only way I could think of to change it was to write another operating -system, and then say as the author "this system is free; you can have it +system, and then say as the author “this system is free; you can have it without a non-disclosure agreement and you're welcome to redistribute it to other people. You're welcome to study how it works. You're welcome to -change it." <span class="gnun-split"></span>So, instead of being divided +change it.” <span class="gnun-split"></span>So, instead of being divided and helpless, the users of this system would live in freedom. Ordinary proprietary software is part of a scheme where users are deliberately kept divided and helpless. The program comes with a license that says @@ -179,14 +190,14 @@ could switch to it without an incompatible change.</p> <p>I realized that I could take the best ideas from the various systems I had helped develop or use and add my pet ideas and make my dream operating system. But this would have been incompatible, and the users -would mostly have rejected it, saying "it would be too much work to -switch, so we're just not going to." So, by making the system +would mostly have rejected it, saying “it would be too much work to +switch, so we're just not going to.” So, by making the system upward-compatible with UNIX, I could spare the users that obstacle and make more of a chance that users would actually use the system.</p> <p>If the users had rejected it, I would have had a perfect excuse. I -could have said "I offered them freedom and they rejected it; it's their -fault." But I wanted to make more than just an excuse. I wanted to +could have said “I offered them freedom and they rejected it; it's their +fault.” But I wanted to make more than just an excuse. I wanted to build a community where people would actually live in freedom, which meant I had to develop a system people would actually use. So I decided to make the system upward-compatible with UNIX.</p> @@ -204,7 +215,7 @@ normally be using 32-bit machines anyway, and that turned out to be true.</p> <p>So then the only thing that I needed before I could start work was a -name. Now, to be a hacker means to enjoy playful cleverness -- in +name. Now, to be a hacker means to enjoy playful cleverness—in programming, and in other areas of life, any area of life [where] you could be playfully clever. And there was a hacker tradition that when you were writing a program that was similar to some existing program, @@ -214,29 +225,29 @@ saying it is not the other program.</p> <p>For instance, in the '60s and '70s there were many TECO text editors, more or less similar; typically each system would have a TECO and it would be called something-or-other-TECO. But one clever hacker called -his program TINT, for "TINT Is Not TECO" -- the first recursive acronym. +his program TINT, for “TINT Is Not TECO”—the first recursive acronym. And we thought that was very funny. So after I developed the first Emacs extensible text editor in 1975, there were many imitations, and -some were called this-or-that-Emacs. But one was called FINE for "FINE -Is Not Emacs" and there was SINE for "SINE Is Not Emacs", and EINE for -"EINE Is Not Emacs", and MINCE for "MINCE Is Not Complete Emacs." Then -EINE was mostly rewritten, and version two was called ZWEI for "ZWEI Was -EINE Initially." [Laughter]</p> +some were called this-or-that-Emacs. But one was called FINE for “FINE +Is Not Emacs” and there was SINE for “SINE Is Not Emacs,” and EINE for +“EINE Is Not Emacs,” and MINCE for “MINCE Is Not Complete Emacs.” Then +EINE was mostly rewritten, and version two was called ZWEI for “ZWEI Was +EINE Initially.” [Laughter]</p> -<p>So I looked for a recursive acronym for "Something is not UNIX," but +<p>So I looked for a recursive acronym for “Something is not UNIX,” but the usual four-letter method was no good, because none of those was a word. And if it doesn't have some other meaning, it's not funny. So I -thought, "what else can I do, hmm?" Nothing came to me, so I thought, -"I'll make a contraction, then I could get a three-letter recursive -acronym." I started substituting all 26 letters: ANU, BNU, CNU, DNU, -ENU, FNU, GNU! Well, "gnu" is the funniest word in the English language, -so that had to be the choice. If you can call something "GNU," it makes +thought, “what else can I do, hmm?” Nothing came to me, so I thought, +“I'll make a contraction, then I could get a three-letter recursive +acronym.” I started substituting all 26 letters: ANU, BNU, CNU, DNU, +ENU, FNU, GNU! Well, “gnu” is the funniest word in the English language, +so that had to be the choice. If you can call something “GNU,” it makes no sense to pick anything else.</p> -<p>So, of course, the reason why the word "gnu" is used for so much -word-play is that, according to the dictionary, it's pronounced "new." -So people started asking each other, "hey, what's g-nu," as a joke, long -before you could answer "GNU's Not UNIX." But now you can give that +<p>So, of course, the reason why the word “gnu” is used for so much +word-play is that, according to the dictionary, it's pronounced “new.” +So people started asking each other, “hey, what's g-nu,” as a joke, long +before you could answer “GNU's Not UNIX.” But now you can give that answer and the best part is, it sounds like you're obnoxiously telling the person what it isn't, instead of answering his question. But the fact is, you're giving the exact meaning of GNU; so you are, in fact, @@ -245,7 +256,7 @@ appearance that you're refusing to.</p> <p>In any case, when it's the name of our operating system, please pronounce a hard G; don't follow the dictionary. If you talk about the -"new" operating system, you'll get people very confused. We've been +“new” operating system, you'll get people very confused. We've been working on it for 20 years now, so it's not new anymore. But it still is, and always will be, GNU, no matter how many people call it Linux by mistake.</p> @@ -281,7 +292,7 @@ place long before I ever saw an actual UNIX machine.</p> <p>So, at the time, I thought that I and the other people I was recruiting to try to help would develop all these pieces and make a -complete system and then we'd say, "come and get it." But that's not how +complete system and then we'd say, “come and get it.” But that's not how it happened. In September '84, I started developing GNU Emacs, which was my second implementation of the extensible programmable text editor. And by early '85, it was suitable for me to do all my editing with it. Now, @@ -298,17 +309,17 @@ interesting by itself. People asked me for copies, so I had to work out the details of how to distribute it. Of course, I put a copy in the anonymous FTP server, and that was good for people on the net, but in 1985, most programmers were not on the Internet. So they asked me for -copies; what was I going to say? I could have said, "I want to spend my +copies; what was I going to say? I could have said, “I want to spend my time writing more pieces of the GNU system, not writing mag tapes, so -please find a friend who can download it and put it on tape for you," +please find a friend who can download it and put it on tape for you,” and they would have found people sooner or later, because programmers generally know other programmers.</p> <h3 id="expensive-habits">5. Expensive habits</h3> <p>But I had no job, and I was looking for some way to make some money -through my work on free software. So I announced, "send me $150 and I'll -mail you a tape of GNU Emacs." And the orders began dribbling in. By the +through my work on free software. So I announced, “send me $150 and I'll +mail you a tape of GNU Emacs.” And the orders began dribbling in. By the middle of the year, they were trickling in, eight to ten orders a month, which, if necessary, I could have lived on.</p> @@ -335,13 +346,13 @@ way.</p> <h3 id="definition-of-free-software">6. Definition of free software</h3> -<p>But people sometimes used to say to me, "what do you mean, it's free -software, if it costs $150?" Well, the English word "free" has multiple +<p>But people sometimes used to say to me, “what do you mean, it's free +software, if it costs $150?” Well, the English word “free” has multiple meanings and they were confused by that. It even took me a few years to realize that I needed to clarify this. One meaning, you see, refers to price, and another meaning refers to freedom. When we speak of free -software, we're talking about freedom, not price. So think of "free -speech," not "free beer."</p> +software, we're talking about freedom, not price. So think of “free +speech,” not “free beer.”</p> <p>Some users got their copies of GNU Emacs from me through the net, and did not pay. Some users got their copies from me on a tape, and did pay. @@ -354,10 +365,10 @@ all of them had certain essential freedoms, which are the definition of free software.</p> <p>So let me now give you the definition of free software. You see, it's -very easy to say "I'm in favor of freedom." I mean, even Bush can say +very easy to say “I'm in favor of freedom.” I mean, even Bush can say that. [Laughter] I don't think he knows what it means. But the point is, unless you make a person get more specific, it's just cheap talk. So let -me give you -- let me get more specific now, and give you the definition +me give you—let me get more specific now, and give you the definition of free software.</p> <p>A program is free software for you, a particular user, if you have @@ -378,8 +389,7 @@ freedom, they are four freedoms, all of which you must have in order for the program to qualify as free software. All of these are freedoms that no computer user should ever be denied.</p> -<p>[<a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html"> -http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html</a>]</p> +<p>[<a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html</a>]</p> <h3 id="freedom-2-moral-dilemma">7. Freedom 2 moral dilemma</h3> @@ -390,7 +400,7 @@ you can be ethical, be a good member of society. If you use a program that does not give you Freedom 2, the freedom to help your neighbor, the freedom to distribute copies to others, then you are facing a potential moral dilemma that could happen at any moment, when somebody comes up -and says, "could I have a copy of that program?" At that point, what are +and says, “could I have a copy of that program?” At that point, what are you going to do? You're forced to choose between two evils. One evil is to make a copy of the program for that person and violate the license. The other evil is to comply with the license, but be a bad neighbor. So @@ -401,19 +411,19 @@ person and violate the license. [Laughter, applause]</p> somebody who intentionally tried to divide you from the rest of society, and thus did something extremely wrong to you; and therefore deserves it. However, it's not good to live your life by lying to people. When -somebody {asks you to promise that} says, "I'll let you have a copy of -this, but you'll have to promise not to share it with anyone," the right +somebody {asks you to promise that} says, “I'll let you have a copy of +this, but you'll have to promise not to share it with anyone,” the right thing to do is say no. Once you have thought about this moral dilemma, you should anticipate that when you start using that program it's going to lead you to choose between two evils, and therefore you should refuse -to use that program. You should just say "no, thanks" to it, and that's +to use that program. You should just say “no, thanks” to it, and that's the principle that I believe in. If someone offers me a program that I'm not free to share with you, I'm going to say no, on principle.</p> <p>In fact, I was once in the audience when John Perry Barlow was giving -a speech and he said, "raise your hands if you have no unauthorized -copies of software." And he was surprised to see someone raise his hand, -until he saw it was me. And then he said, "oh, of course, you," because +a speech and he said, “raise your hands if you have no unauthorized +copies of software.” And he was surprised to see someone raise his hand, +until he saw it was me. And then he said, “oh, of course, you,” because he knew why I have no unauthorized copies; that's because all my copies of software are free software, and everybody's authorized to make copies. That's the whole point.</p> @@ -426,7 +436,7 @@ will, the willingness to help your neighbor; not necessarily every time you're asked, but fairly often. This is what makes the difference between a livable society and a dog-eat-dog jungle. This spirit is not going to be 100% and it's not going to be zero, but it's going to be -somewhere in between -- and cultural actions can influence it, can raise +somewhere in between—and cultural actions can influence it, can raise it or lower it. And it's essential to work to raise it some, because that makes life easier for everyone. So it's no accident that the world's major religions have been encouraging this spirit of good will @@ -445,9 +455,9 @@ anyone caught sharing? How much fear do you think it's going to take before everyone's too scared to help his neighbor? And do you want that terror campaign to go on in our society? I hope that the answer is no. We need to abolish the war on copying that is being imposed on our -society. We need to say, loud and clear, "copying and sharing with your +society. We need to say, loud and clear, “copying and sharing with your neighbor is good, it's legitimate, and laws that prohibit this are -wrong."</p> +wrong.”</p> <h3 id="freedom-0-to-run-a-program-freedom-1-to-modify-it">9. Freedom 0 to run a program, Freedom 1 to modify it</h3> @@ -467,7 +477,7 @@ yourself, the freedom to study the source code and then change it to do what you want.</p> <p>If you don't have Freedom 1, you don't know what the program's doing. -The developer is saying, "just trust me" and blind faith is the only way +The developer is saying, “just trust me” and blind faith is the only way you can do it. And you have to be really blind, given that it's not unusual for proprietary programs to have malicious features, features that are put in not to serve the user, but rather to impose on, harm or @@ -483,19 +493,19 @@ whatever the user looks at.</p> <p>course do it. RealPlayer, for instance, spies on you. The TiVo spies on you. Some people were excited about the TiVo, enthusiastic about it, -because it uses some free software inside. But it also has non-free +because it uses some free software inside. But it also has nonfree software in it and it spies on you. So this shows it's not enough. We shouldn't cheer when something uses some free software; we should cheer when it respects the user's freedom.</p> <h3 id="drm-back-doors-bugs">10. DRM, back doors, bugs</h3> -<p>But spyware is not as bad as it gets. There are non-free software +<p>But spyware is not as bad as it gets. There are nonfree software packages that are deliberately designed to refuse to work. This is -called DRM, Digital Restrictions Management, where the program says, "I +called DRM, Digital Restrictions Management, where the program says, “I won't let you look at that file; I won't let you copy this; I won't let -you edit this." Well, who the hell is this program to stop you? And -sometimes non-free programs will reconfigure your machine, for instance +you edit this.” Well, who the hell is this program to stop you? And +sometimes nonfree programs will reconfigure your machine, for instance make it display advertisements, figuring that you won't know it's going to happen and you won't know how to undo it afterward.</p> @@ -507,8 +517,8 @@ features, it could just refuse to work. And there's essentially nothing you can do. So that's the back door that Microsoft knows about and we know about.</p> -<p>[Added in 2010: We later learned that Microsoft can force "upgrades" --- a much nastier back door.]</p> +<p>[Added in 2010: We later learned that Microsoft can force +“upgrades”—a much nastier back door.]</p> <p>There might be other back doors that we don't know about and maybe even Microsoft doesn't know about. When I was in India in January, I was @@ -517,7 +527,7 @@ for Al-Qaeda, trying to introduce back doors into Windows XP. So, apparently, that effort failed. But did some others succeed? There's no way we can tell.</p> -<p>Now, I won't claim that all developers of non-free software put in +<p>Now, I won't claim that all developers of nonfree software put in malicious features. There are some who try to put in features so that they will be convenient for the user and only for that. But they are humans, so they make mistakes. They can design features with all the @@ -531,7 +541,7 @@ make mistakes. I have designed features that users didn't like. I have written code that had bugs in it. The difference is, {with our} you're not a prisoner of our decisions, because we don't keep you helpless. If you don't like my decisions, you can change them, because you have the -freedom to change them. I won't blame the developers of non-free, +freedom to change them. I won't blame the developers of nonfree, user-subjugating software for being human and making mistakes; I will blame them for keeping you helpless prisoner of their mistakes by denying you the freedom to correct those mistakes yourself.</p> @@ -572,10 +582,10 @@ want.</p> change and none of them knows how to program. They can still make use of these freedoms. They can form an organization and each put in money, so if each puts in $100, that makes $100,000. And at that point they can go -to a programming company and say, "will you make this change for -$100,000 and when can you have it done?" And if they don't like the +to a programming company and say, “will you make this change for +$100,000 and when can you have it done?” And if they don't like the answer from there, they can go to another programming company and say, -"will you make this change and when can you have it done?" Which shows +“will you make this change and when can you have it done?” Which shows us, first of all, that these 1,000 users who don't know how to program can, by using the four freedoms, get the change that they want. And second, it shows that free software means a free market for support.</p> @@ -584,17 +594,17 @@ second, it shows that free software means a free market for support.</p> developer has the source code in most cases, so only the developer can offer any support. If you want a change, you've got to go to the developer and beg. Now, if you're very big and important, maybe the -developer will pay attention. If you're not, the developer will say, "go -away, don't bother me." Or maybe the developer will say, "pay us and -we'll let you report a bug." And if you do that, the developer will say, -"thank you. In six months there will be an upgrade. Buy the upgrade and +developer will pay attention. If you're not, the developer will say, “go +away, don't bother me.” Or maybe the developer will say, “pay us and +we'll let you report a bug.” And if you do that, the developer will say, +“thank you. In six months there will be an upgrade. Buy the upgrade and you'll see if this bug was fixed and you will see what new bugs we have -for you."</p> +for you.”</p> <p>But with free software, you're dealing with a free market, so that those who really value support can, in general, get better support for their money by using free software. Now, one paradoxical consequence of -this is, when you have a choice between several non-free programs to do +this is, when you have a choice between several nonfree programs to do a job, this is actually a choice between monopolies. If you pick this program, the support for it afterwards will be a monopoly. If you pick this program, [points hand in different direction] the support for it @@ -619,7 +629,7 @@ forbidden</h3> explained to you what free software means. A program is free software for you, a particular user, if you have all of these four freedoms. Why do I define it that way? The reason is that sometimes the same code can -be free software for some users and non-free for the rest. This might +be free software for some users and nonfree for the rest. This might seem strange, so let me give you an example to show how it happens.</p> <p>The biggest example I know of is the X Window System. It was @@ -630,15 +640,15 @@ various computer manufacturers that distributed UNIX systems. They got the source code for X, they changed it as necessary to run on their platform, they compiled it and they put the binaries into their UNIX system, and they distributed only the binaries to all of their customers -under the same license as the rest of UNIX -- the same non-disclosure +under the same license as the rest of UNIX—the same non-disclosure agreement. <span class="gnun-split"></span>So, for those many users, the X Window System was no more free than the rest of UNIX. In this -paradoxical situation, the answer to the question "is X free software or -not?" depended on where you made the measurement. If you made the -measurement coming out of the developer's group, you'd say, "I observe -all four freedoms; it's free software." If you made the measurement -among the users, you'd say, "most of them don't have these freedoms; -it's not free software."</p> +paradoxical situation, the answer to the question “is X free software or +not?” depended on where you made the measurement. If you made the +measurement coming out of the developer's group, you'd say, “I observe +all four freedoms; it's free software.” If you made the measurement +among the users, you'd say, “most of them don't have these freedoms; +it's not free software.”</p> <p>The developers of X did not consider this a problem, because their goal was not to give users freedom, it was to have a big success, and as @@ -656,10 +666,10 @@ get copyleft.</p> doesn't actually make a difference anymore, but it reminds people that the program is copyrighted, which means that, by default, it's prohibited to copy, distribute or modify this program. -<span class="gnun-split"></span>But then we say, "you are authorized to +<span class="gnun-split"></span>But then we say, “you are authorized to make copies, you are authorized to distribute them, you are authorized to modify this program and you are authorized to publish modified or -extended versions." But there is a condition, and the condition says +extended versions.” But there is a condition, and the condition says that any program you distribute that contains any substantial part of this must, as a whole, be distributed under these conditions, no more and no less. Which means that, no matter how many people modify the @@ -712,8 +722,8 @@ I always wanted to have windowing facilities in GNU. I had written a couple of window systems at the AI LAB before even starting GNU, so of course I wanted that in the system. But we never developed a GNU window system because someone else developed X first. I looked at it and I -said, "well, it's not copylefted, but it is free, it's popular, it's -powerful, so let's just use it." And so we saved one big chunk of work. +said, “well, it's not copylefted, but it is free, it's popular, it's +powerful, so let's just use it.” And so we saved one big chunk of work. So we took it, X, and we put it into the GNU system and we started making other pieces of GNU work with X. Because the goal was to have a free operating system, not to have a free operating system every piece @@ -747,16 +757,16 @@ about it. So people would want some change to be made in Emacs or GCC, and they would think of hiring me, because they figured I was the author so I could do a better job faster. So I started charging as much as $250 an hour and I calculated I could make a living in 7 weeks of paid work -per year -- and that meant enough money to spend, an equal amount to +per year—and that meant enough money to spend, an equal amount to save, and an equal amount for taxes. And [when I reached] that point I -figured, "I won't take any more paid work this year, I've got other, -better things to do."</p> +figured, “I won't take any more paid work this year, I've got other, +better things to do.”</p> <p>So I've actually had three different free software businesses during the period I've been working on GNU. I've described two of them; the third one is, I get paid for some of my speeches. Whether I get paid for -this speech, I don't yet know. [Laughter] I said, "please pay me what -you can." Now, I think Google ought to be able to afford to pay me some +this speech, I don't yet know. [Laughter] I said, “please pay me what +you can.” Now, I think Google ought to be able to afford to pay me some handsome amount, but whether it will, I don't know. Anyway, I figured it's worth doing the speech just for the good it will do for the movement.</p> @@ -773,9 +783,9 @@ prevailing ideology.</p> <p>Now, human nature is very complex. Whatever it is people are doing, they might do for various reasons. In fact, one person will often have multiple motives simultaneously for a single act. Nonetheless, there are -people who say, "if the software is free, that means nobody's paid to -write it, so no one will write it." Now, obviously they were confusing -the two meanings of the word "free," so their theory was based on a +people who say, “if the software is free, that means nobody's paid to +write it, so no one will write it.” Now, obviously they were confusing +the two meanings of the word “free,” so their theory was based on a confusion. In any case, we can compare their theory with empirical fact and we can see that at least hundreds, maybe thousands of people are paid to work on free software, including some people here, I believe, @@ -817,12 +827,12 @@ that has given you so much.</p> <p>Another motivation is hatred for Microsoft. [Laughter] Now, this is a rather foolish motive, because Microsoft is really just one of many -developers of non-free software and they're all doing the same evil +developers of nonfree software and they're all doing the same evil thing. It's a mistake to focus [solely] on Microsoft, and this mistake can have bad consequences. When people focus too much on Microsoft, they start forgetting that all the others are doing something just as bad. And they may end up thinking that anything that competes with Microsoft -is good, even if it is also non-free software and thus inherently just +is good, even if it is also nonfree software and thus inherently just as evil. <span class="gnun-split"></span>Now, it's true that these other companies have not subjugated as many users as Microsoft has, but that's not for want of trying; they just haven't succeeded in @@ -878,7 +888,7 @@ Hurd.</p> <p>Fortunately, we didn't have to wait for that, because in 1991, Linus Torvalds, a Finnish college student, developed his own kernel, using the traditional monolithic design, and he got it to barely run in less than -a year. Initially, Linux --that's what this kernel's name was-- was not +a year. Initially, Linux—that's what this kernel's name was—was not free, but in 1992 he re-released it under the GNU General Public License and at that point it was free software. And so it was possible, by combining Linux and the GNU system, to make a complete free operating @@ -911,7 +921,7 @@ calling the system GNU/Linux, or GNU+Linux, or GNU&Linux, whichever punctuation mark you feel expresses it best.</p> <p>[<a -href="/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html">http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html</a>]</p> +href="/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html">gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html</a>]</p> <p>Now, of course, part of the reason why I'm asking for this is that we deserve credit, but that's not really a very important thing. If it were @@ -937,7 +947,7 @@ us.</p> <p>But this tends to be forgotten nowadays. You will see, if you look around, most of the discussion of the GNU system calls it Linux, and -tends to refer to it as "open source" rather than as "free software", +tends to refer to it as “open source” rather than as “free software,” and doesn't mention freedom as an issue. This issue, which is the reason for the system's existence, is mostly forgotten. You see many techies who prefer to think of technical questions in a narrowly technical @@ -955,9 +965,9 @@ a real difference if you remind people where the system came from.</p> Well, I'm not asking for credit for me personally; I'm asking for credit for the GNU Project, which includes thousands of developers. But they are right, it's true: people who are looking for some reason to see evil -can see evil in that. So they go on and say, "you should let it drop, +can see evil in that. So they go on and say, “you should let it drop, and when people call the system Linux, you can smile to yourself and -take pride in a job well done." That would be very wise advice if the +take pride in a job well done.” That would be very wise advice if the assumption were correct: the assumption that the job is done.</p> <p>We've made a great beginning, but that's all. We haven't finished the @@ -994,7 +1004,7 @@ in your computer, but the free software that would enable you to do this on your GNU/Linux system has been censored in the US. Now, this affects a fairly narrow range of software: software to view encrypted media. But many users may want to do that, and if they can't do that with free -software, they may take that as a reason to use non-free software, if +software, they may take that as a reason to use nonfree software, if they don't value their freedom.</p> <p>But the big danger comes from patent law, because the US allows @@ -1009,7 +1019,7 @@ have a long list of features that free software packages don't have, because we're scared to implement them.</p> <p>[<a -href="http://endsoftpatents.org">http://endsoftpatents.org</a>]</p> +href="https://endsoftwarepatents.org">endsoftwarepatents.org</a>]</p> <p>And now, the FCC is considering applying the broadcast flag regulation to software. The FCC adopted a regulation {prohibiting @@ -1034,15 +1044,15 @@ hear it called Linux and it's associated with the apolitical philosophy of Linus Torvalds. <span class="gnun-split"></span>Linus Torvalds is still working on developing Linux. {which is, you know} Developing the kernel was an important contribution to our community. At the same time, -he is setting a very public bad example by using a non-free program to -do the job. Now, if he were using a non-free program privately, I would +he is setting a very public bad example by using a nonfree program to +do the job. Now, if he were using a nonfree program privately, I would never even have heard about it and I wouldn't make a fuss about it. But by inviting the other people who work on Linux to use it with him, he's -setting a very public example legitimizing the use of non-free software. +setting a very public example legitimizing the use of nonfree software. So when people see that, you know, if they think that's okay, they can't -possibly believe that non-free software is bad. So then, when these -companies say, "yes, {we support} our hardware supports Linux, here is -this binary-only driver you can install, and then it will work," these +possibly believe that nonfree software is bad. So then, when these +companies say, “yes, {we support} our hardware supports Linux, here is +this binary-only driver you can install, and then it will work,” these people see nothing wrong in that, so they don't apply their market pressure and they don't feel motivated to help in reverse engineering.</p> @@ -1060,15 +1070,15 @@ completely prohibited from writing free software.</p> <p>Today, one of the most insidious threats to the future of free software comes from treacherous computing, which is a conspiracy of many -large corporations. They call it "trusted computing," but what do they +large corporations. They call it “trusted computing,” but what do they mean by that? What they mean is that an application developer can trust your computer to obey him and disobey you. So, from your point of view, it's _treacherous computing_, because your computer won't obey you anymore. The purpose of this plan is that you won't control your computer.</p> -<p>[<a href="/philosophy/can-you-trust.html"> -http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html</a>]</p> +<p>[<a +href="/philosophy/can-you-trust.html">gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html</a>]</p> <p>And there are various different things that treacherous computing can be used to do, things like prohibit you from running any program that @@ -1093,12 +1103,12 @@ to read Word files. First, they switched to a secret Word format, so people had to try to figure out the format. Well, we more or less have figured it out. There are free programs that will read most Word files (not all). <span class="gnun-split"></span>But then they came up with -another idea. They said, "let's use XML." Now here's what Microsoft +another idea. They said, “let's use XML.” Now here's what Microsoft means when they speak of using XML. The beginning of the file has a -trivial thing that says "this is XML and here comes binary Word format -data," and then there's the binary Word format data and then there's -something at the end that says, "that was binary Word format data." And -they patented this. {so that... I'm not sure} I don't know exactly what +trivial thing that says “this is XML and here comes binary Word format +data,” and then there's the binary Word format data and then there's +something at the end that says, “that was binary Word format data.” And +they patented this. {so that… I'm not sure} I don't know exactly what the patent does and doesn't cover, but, you know, there are things we could do, either reading or writing that file format, probably they could try suing us about. And I'm sure that, if treacherous computing is @@ -1110,20 +1120,20 @@ they could have viruses in them. If someone sends you a Word file, you shouldn't look at it. But the point is, you shouldn't even try to look at it. Nowadays there are free programs that will read most Word files. But it's really better, better than trying to read the file is if you -send a message back saying, "please send that to me in a format that -isn't secret. It's not a good idea to send people Word files." And the +send a message back saying, “please send that to me in a format that +isn't secret. It's not a good idea to send people Word files.” And the reason is, we have to overcome the tendency in society for people to use these secret formats for communication. <span class="gnun-split"></span>We have to convince people to insist on publicly documented standard formats that everyone is free to implement. And Word format is the worst offender and so that's the best place to start. If somebody sends you a Word file, don't try to read it. Write -back, saying "you really shouldn't do that." And there's a page in +back, saying “you really shouldn't do that.” And there's a page in www.gnu.org/philosophy which is good to reference. It gives an explanation of why this is an important issue.</p> -<p>[<a href="/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html"> -http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html</a>]</p> +<p>[<a +href="/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html">gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html</a>]</p> <h3 id="help-gnu">20. Help GNU</h3> @@ -1142,7 +1152,7 @@ show a flying gnu and a flying penguin, both rather unrealistic, but they're superheroes. And {I also have some things} if people don't mind, I've got some things I'm selling on behalf of the Free Software Foundation, so if you buy them, you're supporting us. I've got these -buttons that say, "ask me about free software -- it's all about freedom" +buttons that say, “ask me about free software—it's all about freedom” and I've got some GNU keyrings and GNU pins that are sort of pretty. So you can buy those. You can also support us by becoming an associate member. Now, you can do that just through our website, but I also have @@ -1151,11 +1161,11 @@ some cards you can have if you would like to join [right now].</p> <h3 id="saint-ignucius">21. Saint Ignucius</h3> <p>So now I will close my speech by presenting my alter ego. See, people -sometimes accuse me of having a "holier than thou" attitude. Now, I hope +sometimes accuse me of having a “holier than thou” attitude. Now, I hope that's not true. I'm not going to condemn somebody just for not being as firmly committed as I am. I will try to encourage him to become more so, -but that's different. So I don't think I really have a "holier than -thou" attitude, but I have a holy attitude because I'm a saint; it's my +but that's different. So I don't think I really have a “holier than +thou” attitude, but I have a holy attitude because I'm a saint; it's my job to be holy.</p> <p>[Dons a black robe and a magnetic disk halo]<br /> @@ -1174,8 +1184,8 @@ I'd never read net news, I don't know what was said in it.</p> versions of Emacs, and we also have saints; no gods, though.</p> <p>To be a member of the Church of Emacs, you must recite the Confession -of the Faith: you must say, "There is no system but GNU, and Linux is -one of its kernels."</p> +of the Faith: you must say, “There is no system but GNU, and Linux is +one of its kernels.”</p> <p>The Church of Emacs has advantages compared with other churches I might name. To be a saint in the Church of Emacs does not require @@ -1186,10 +1196,10 @@ might consider ours.</p> purity. You must exorcise the evil proprietary operating systems that possess all the computers under either your practical control or your authority, and you must install a wholly [i.e., holy] free operating -system, where "wholly" can be spelled in more than one way, and then +system, where “wholly” can be spelled in more than one way, and then only install free software on top of that. If you make this commitment and live by it, then you, too, will be a saint and you, too, may -eventually have a halo -- if you can find one, because they don't make +eventually have a halo—if you can find one, because they don't make them anymore.</p> <p>Sometimes people ask me if, in the Church of Emacs, it is a sin to @@ -1221,8 +1231,8 @@ the reason for that. I don't know.</p> <p><b>AUDIENCE:</b> Can you say something about the current effort to put security in the network itself?</p> -<p><b>RICHARD:</b> I don't know... he said, "efforts to plug security -into the network." I don't know what that means.</p> +<p><b>RICHARD:</b> I don't know… he said, “efforts to plug security +into the network.” I don't know what that means.</p> <p><b>AUDIENCE:</b> [unintelligible] remove anonymity from the network itself.</p> @@ -1270,8 +1280,8 @@ safety.</p> <p>You know, we've been trying since around 1992 or so to convince users to stop using GIF format, because that format is patented and some users -will get sued. So we said, "everybody please stop using GIF format for -the sake of those who get sued if the public uses this format." And +will get sued. So we said, “everybody please stop using GIF format for +the sake of those who get sued if the public uses this format.” And people haven't listened. So the thing is, we can't do what Microsoft does, because that's based on using the power that they have, and since we have chosen to respect people's freedom, we don't have power over the @@ -1310,13 +1320,13 @@ it straight to Ashcroft and his gestapo.</p> <p>[RMS, 2010: Gmail is comparable to Hotmail in this regard. See also <a href="/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html"> -http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html</a> +gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html</a> for another issue that applies to some, but not all, network services.]</p> <p><b>AUDIENCE:</b> unintelligible</p> -<p><b>RICHARD:</b> He's asking, "if people were using a thin client and -all the computation were done on a remote server." Yes, it does mean +<p><b>RICHARD:</b> He's asking, “if people were using a thin client and +all the computation were done on a remote server.” Yes, it does mean that people lose freedom, because, clearly, you can't change the software that's set up on somebody else's server, so if you're using the software on somebody else's server, instead of running it on your own @@ -1349,7 +1359,7 @@ works is not exactly the same as for software.</p> <p>Software is an example of a practical, functional work. You use it do to a job. The main purpose of a program is not that people will read the -code and think, "boy, how fascinating, what a great job they did." The +code and think, “boy, how fascinating, what a great job they did.” The main purpose of software is, you run it and it does something. And yes, those people who are interested in software will also read it and learn, but that's not the main purpose. It's interesting because of the job it @@ -1375,7 +1385,7 @@ and republish it, how do you keep out saboteurs?</p> <p><b>RICHARD:</b> Well, you don't. The point is, you can't ever. So you just look at these different versions and you see which one you actually -like. You can't keep the saboteurs out of non-free software either; in +like. You can't keep the saboteurs out of nonfree software either; in fact, the developer could be the saboteur. The developers often put in, as I said, malicious features. And then you're completely helpless. At least with free software, you can read the source code, you can compare @@ -1402,7 +1412,7 @@ to cover aspects of MPEG-2. So there are a lot of such problems.</p> <h3 id="games-as-free-software">28. Games as free software</h3> <p><b>AUDIENCE:</b> Is there any software that sort of mixes between the -Creative Commons and functional software, such as games or...?</p> +Creative Commons and functional software, such as games or…?</p> <p><b>RICHARD:</b> Well, {you can say that a game} in many cases you can look at a game as the combination of a program and a scenario. And then @@ -1417,9 +1427,9 @@ them.</p> saving seeds</h3> <p><b>AUDIENCE:</b> Do you envision this free software philosophy to go -across, off the boundary to products, commodities...</p> +across, off the boundary to products, commodities…</p> -<p><b>RICHARD:</b> When you say, "products, commodities," could you be +<p><b>RICHARD:</b> When you say, “products, commodities,” could you be concrete?</p> <p><b>AUDIENCE:</b> [unintelligible] cars</p> @@ -1447,13 +1457,13 @@ right to save seeds and that it's tyranny to stop them. A democratic government would never do that.</p> <h3 id="no-software-is-better-than-non-free-software">30. No software is -better than non-free software</h3> +better than nonfree software</h3> <p><b>AUDIENCE:</b> [roughly] Do you see a problem with free software being under-produced because nobody wants to invest money [unintelligible]?</p> -<p><b>RICHARD:</b> I don't know what you mean by "under-produced." We +<p><b>RICHARD:</b> I don't know what you mean by “under-produced.” We see that some people develop free software and some don't. So we could imagine more people developing free software and, if so, we'd have more of it. But, you see, the tragedy of the commons really is a matter of @@ -1464,8 +1474,8 @@ wear it out. So, really, there's no analogy there.</p> <p><b>AUDIENCE:</b> Well, the example you gave is, let's say there's a useful program and a thousand people want a change to it. You said they could get their money together and go hire a programmer to make the -change. But each individual in that group can say, "well, I'll just let -the 999 pay for the change."</p> +change. But each individual in that group can say, “well, I'll just let +the 999 pay for the change.”</p> <p><b>RICHARD:</b> Well, they can do that, but that would be pretty stupid, because if they saw that the result was, it wasn't getting done, @@ -1477,14 +1487,14 @@ get it, that's good, and if they don't join and they don't pay for that change, that's good too; I guess they didn't want it enough. Either one's okay.</p> -<p>Non-free software is evil and we're better off with nothing than with -non-free software. The tragedy of the commons can happen either through +<p>Nonfree software is evil and we're better off with nothing than with +nonfree software. The tragedy of the commons can happen either through overuse or under-contribution, but overuse is impossible in software. Under-contribution happens when a program is proprietary. Then it's a failure to contribute to the commons. And so I would like that -proprietary software to stop being developed. A non-free program is +proprietary software to stop being developed. A nonfree program is worse than no program, because neither one allows you to get a job done -in freedom, but the non-free program might tempt people to give up their +in freedom, but the nonfree program might tempt people to give up their freedom and that's really bad.</p> <h3 id="portability-of-free-software">31. Portability of free @@ -1515,13 +1525,13 @@ software obfuscated on purpose?</h3> <p><b>RICHARD:</b> Well, I disagree with you. Please, this is silly. If you're saying a program is hard to understand, that's not the same as -the people are restricting it. It's not the same as saying, "you're -forbidden to see it." Now, if you find it unclear, you can work on +the people are restricting it. It's not the same as saying, “you're +forbidden to see it.” Now, if you find it unclear, you can work on making it clearer. The fact is, the developers probably are trying to keep it clear, but it's a hard job and, unless you want to compare our software with proprietary software and see which one is clearer, you have no basis to make the claim that you're making. From what I hear, -non-free software is typically much worse and the reason is that the +nonfree software is typically much worse and the reason is that the developers figure no one will ever see it, so they'll never be embarrassed by how bad it is.</p> @@ -1536,8 +1546,8 @@ device [unintelligible].</p> <p><b>RICHARD:</b> I don't believe this. I think it's all bullshit, because there they are competing with each other and each one's saying, -"we need to make the software proprietary to have an edge over the -others." Well, if none of them did it, they might all lose their edge? +“we need to make the software proprietary to have an edge over the +others.” Well, if none of them did it, they might all lose their edge? I mean, so what? We shouldn't buy this. And I mean, we shouldn't buy what they're saying and we shouldn't buy their products either.</p> @@ -1552,8 +1562,8 @@ raising it with an attack.</p> <p><b>AUDIENCE:</b> There's something in my mind, so I'll just speak up. The thing is, by actually registering [unintelligible] thing and saying -that "you can redistribute this software but you have to comply with -these four freedoms," is that not restricting my freedom too?</p> +that “you can redistribute this software but you have to comply with +these four freedoms,” is that not restricting my freedom too?</p> <p><b>RICHARD:</b> No, it's restricting you from having power. To stop A from subjugating B is not a denial of freedom to A, because to subjugate @@ -1564,16 +1574,16 @@ stopping them, but that's good and that's not denying anyone freedom.</p> <p>I mean, you could just as well say if you're overthrowing a dictator, -the dictator's saying, "you're taking away my freedom to dictate to -everyone!" But that's not freedom, that's power.</p> +the dictator's saying, “you're taking away my freedom to dictate to +everyone!” But that's not freedom, that's power.</p> <p>So I'm making the distinction between freedom, which is having control over your own life, and power, which is having control over other people's lives. We've got to make this distinction; if we ignore the difference between freedom and power, then we lose the ability to judge whether a society is free or not. You know, if you lose this -distinction, then you look at Stalinist Russia and you say, "well, there -was just as much freedom there, it's just that Stalin had it all." No! +distinction, then you look at Stalinist Russia and you say, “well, there +was just as much freedom there, it's just that Stalin had it all.” No! In Stalinist Russia, Stalin had power and people did not have freedom; the freedom wasn't there, because it's only freedom when it's a matter of controlling your own life. Controlling other people's lives is not @@ -1639,7 +1649,7 @@ for Windows is a waste.]</p> <h3 id="scos-suit">37. SCO's suit</h3> <p><b>AUDIENCE:</b> What would be the impact of SCO winning their -argument against Linux? So what would be the impact on...</p> +argument against Linux? So what would be the impact on…</p> <p><b>RICHARD:</b> I don't know, it depends. It would have no effect on the GPL. But {it might have some effect} some code might have to be @@ -1686,19 +1696,20 @@ freedom will lose it.</p> <h3 id="the-end">40. The end</h3> <p>So thank you, and if anyone wants to buy any of these FSF things -or...</p> +or…</p> <p>[Applause]</p> +<div class="column-limit"></div> -<h4>Footnote</h4> - +<h3 class="footnote">Footnote</h3> <ol> <li id="ft1">All the patents on MP3 will have expired by 2018.</li> </ol> +</div> </div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --> <!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --> -<div id="footer"> +<div id="footer" role="contentinfo"> <div class="unprintable"> <p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to @@ -1716,17 +1727,34 @@ to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p> to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"> <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p> - <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of + <p>For information on coordinating and contributing translations of our web pages, see <a href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations README</a>. --> Please see the <a href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations -README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations +README</a> for information on coordinating and contributing translations of this article.</p> </div> -<p>Copyright © 2004, 2010, 2015, 2016, 2018 Richard Stallman</p> +<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to + files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should + be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this + without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first. + Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the + document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the + document was modified, or published. + + If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too. + Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying + years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable + year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including + being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system). + + There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers + Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --> + +<p>Copyright © 2004, 2021 Richard Stallman</p> <p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative @@ -1736,7 +1764,7 @@ Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p> <p class="unprintable">Updated: <!-- timestamp start --> -$Date: 2018/12/15 14:02:38 $ +$Date: 2021/10/01 17:02:54 $ <!-- timestamp end --> </p> </div> |