diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/luispo-rms-interview.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/luispo-rms-interview.html | 448 |
1 files changed, 448 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/luispo-rms-interview.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/luispo-rms-interview.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..561de14 --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/luispo-rms-interview.html @@ -0,0 +1,448 @@ +<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 --> +<title>Interview: Richard M. Stallman +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> +<style type="text/css" media="screen"><!-- +blockquote { + font-style: italic; + margin-top: 2em; +} +--></style> +<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/luispo-rms-interview.translist" --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> +<h2>Interview: Richard M. Stallman</h2> + +<p> +<i>This is an interview between Louis Suarez-Potts and Richard +M. Stallman.</i> +</p> +<hr class="thin" /> + +<p> +Richard M. Stallman is the most forceful and famous +practitioner/theorist of +<a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">free +software</a>, a term he coined. “Free” here means free +as in “free speech,” not free as in “free +beer.” Stallman's most famous intervention in the “free +software” movement has surely been the GNU General Public +License (<a href="/licenses/gpl.html">GPL</a>), which +Stallman created around 1985 as a general license that could be +applied to any program. The license codifies the concept of +“<a href="/licenses/copyleft.html">copyleft</a>,” +the “central idea” of which Stallman has described as +giving “everyone permission to run the program, copy the +program, modify the program, and distribute modified versions, but not +permission to add restrictions of their own. Thus, the crucial +freedoms that define ‘free software’ are guaranteed to +everyone who has a copy; they become inalienable rights” +(Stallman, “The GNU Operating System and the Free Software +Movement,” in DiBona, <cite>Open Sources: Voices from the Open +Source Revolution</cite>) +</p> +<p> +Every free-software license since probably owes its existence to +Stallman's vision, including those licenses by which OpenOffice.org code +is governed. Stallman's work is of course resolutely practical. A short +list of his coding accomplishments would include Emacs as well as most +of the components of the GNU/Linux system, which he either wrote or +helped write. In 1990, Stallman received a <a +href="https://www.macfound.org/programs/fellows/strategy/">McArthur +Foundation</a> fellowship; he has used the funds given him to further +his free software work. (See Moody, <cite>Rebel Code</cite> for a good +account of Stallman's mission.) +</p> +<p> +The opportunity for this interview arose when I saw Stallman lecture +at Sun's Cupertino campus in May. At that time, I requested an email +interview with Stallman. He assented, and shortly after, I submitted +the series of questions below, to which he responded, often at length. +However, my efforts for a follow-up failed, so this interview is only +the first pass. As a consequence, I was unable to extend (and +challenge) some interesting avenues; I have also provided as much +context as possible for Stallman's politics in the links. It goes +without saying that Stallman's views are his own and do not +necessarily represent mine or those of OpenOffice.org. +</p> +<p> +For more information, readers are encouraged to visit the +<a href="/home.html">GNU website</a>, as well as +<a href="https://www.stallman.org">Stallman's personal site</a>. +</p> +<div class="column-limit"></div> + +<blockquote><p> + I would like, in this interview, to focus on your current + work, and on the problematic of what kind of society we should + like to live in. Your focus now—and for at least the + last seventeen years—has been on working to make the + social arrangements for using software more ethical. +</p> +<p> + But, [briefly,] what do you mean by the notion of a what I call here + a more ethical society? +</p></blockquote> + +<p> +We need to encourage the spirit of cooperation, by respecting other +people's freedom to cooperate and not advancing schemes to divide and +dominate them. +</p> + +<blockquote><p> + This takes us to a point that is quite important and that I am + hoping you can clarify for our readers. The term you prefer + for your ethic is “free software,” where the word + “free” means freedom from constraints and not free + to take. But the term that more and more people are using is + “Open Source,” a term of quite recent vintage + (1998), and, from your perspective, filled with significant + problems. Of the two, free software is a term that implies an + ethic of living and holds out the promise of a more just + society; the other, “open source,” does not. +</p> +<p> + Is that a fair statement? Would you address that issue, and clarify + the distinctions for our readers? +</p></blockquote> + +<p> +That is exactly right. Someone once said it this way: open source is a +development methodology; free software is a political philosophy (or a +social movement). +</p> +<p> +The <a href="https://opensource.org">open source movement</a> focuses +on convincing business that it can profit by respecting the users' +freedom to share and change software. We in the +<a href="https://www.fsf.org/">free software movement</a> appreciate those +efforts, but we believe that there is a more important issue at stake: +all programmers [owe] an ethical obligation to respect those freedoms +for other people. Profit is not wrong in itself, but it can't justify +mistreating other people. +</p> + +<blockquote><p> + Along these lines, there has been considerable confusion over how to + name your idea of an ethical society. Mistakenly, many would assert + that you are suggesting a <a + href="https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm">communism</a>. +</p></blockquote> + +<p> +Anyone who criticizes certain business practices can expect to be +called “communist” from time to time. This is a way of +changing the subject and evading the issue. If people believe the +charges, they don't listen to what the critics really say. (It is much +easier to attack communism than to attack the views of the free +software movement.) +</p> + +<blockquote> + <p>Pekka Himanen, in his recent work, the <cite>Hacker Ethic</cite>, has + rightly countered these claims. I would go further: that what you suggest is + close to what political theorists such as <a + href="https://web.archive.org/web/20010604041229/http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/etzioni/index.html"> + Amitai Etzioni</a> would describe as a communitarianism (see, for instance, <a + href="https://communitariannetwork.org/about">https://communitariannetwork.org/about</a>). + And communitarianism is by no means hostile to the market economy that most + people associate with capitalism. Quite the opposite. Would you speak to what + could be called the politics of your ethical system?</p> +</blockquote> + +<p> +There is a place in life for business, but business should not be +allowed dominate everyone's life. The original idea of democracy was +to give the many a way to check the power of the wealthy few. +</p> + +<p> +Today business (and its owners) has far too much political power, and +this undermines democracy in the US and abroad. Candidates face an +effective veto by business, so they dare not disobey its orders. +</p> +<p> +The power to make laws is being transferred from elected legislatures to +nondemocratic bodies such as the <a +href="https://www.fpif.org/reports/world_trade_organization"> +World Trade Organization</a>, +which was designed <a +href="https://web.archive.org/web/20090210222102/https://www.citizen.org/trade/wto/Qatar/seattle_mini/articles.cfm?ID=5468"> +to subordinate public health, +environmental protection, labor standards, and the general standard of +living to the interests of business</a>. Under +<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20140328210905/http://www.citizen.org/trade/article_redirect.cfm?ID=6473"> +NAFTA [North +American Free Trade Associtation]</a>, a Canadian company which was +convicted in Mississippi of anticompetitive practices is +<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20051229084719/http://www.citizen.org:80/trade/nafta/chapter11/articles.cfm?ID=1173">suing</a> +for Federal compensation for its lost business due to the +conviction. They claim that NAFTA takes away states' right to make laws +against anticompetitive practices. +</p> +<p> +But business is not satisfied yet. The proposed +<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20190515002131/http://www.ftaa-alca.org/"> +FTAA [Free Trade Area of the +Americas]</a> would require all governments to privatize their [public +facilities] such as schools, water supply, record keeping, even social +security. This is what Bush wants +“<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_%28trade%29">fast +track</a>” authority to push through. +</p> +<p> +<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20130607095126/http://www.canadians.org/trade/issues/FTAA/Quebec/index.html"> +Peaceful protestors against the FTAA in Quebec were violently +attacked by police</a>, +who then blamed the fighting on the protestors. One protestor +standing on the street was shot in the throat with a plastic bullet at a +range of 20 feet. He is maimed for life, and seeks to press charges of +attempted murder—if the cops will reveal who shot him. +</p> +<p> +One protest organizer was attacked on the street by a gang that got +out of a van, knocked him down, and beat him up. When his friends came +to the rescue, the gang revealed itself as undercover police and took +him away. +</p> +<p> +Whatever democracy survives the globalization treaties is likely to be +crushed by the efforts to suppress <a +href="https://web.archive.org/web/20010515200253/http://stopftaa.org/"> +opposition to them</a>. +</p> +<blockquote><p> +The most immediate criticism of your insistence on ethics would be +that the ethic of free software is fine, but not relevant to the real +world of business. +</p></blockquote> +<p> +With over half the world's Web sites running on GNU/Linux and +<a href="https://www.apache.org">Apache</a>, that is evidently just FUD. +You should not give such falsehoods credibility by appearing to take them +seriously yourself. +</p> +<blockquote><p> +I think it is worse to leave implicit lies unanswered than to address +them directly. The thrust of my argument was that Microsoft, for +instance, would and does claim that free software does not make money +and rather loses money. They argue it's a bad idea all around. I don't +think that Microsoft is to be ignored, just as the WTO should not be +ignored. But: my question was to suggest a rebuttal this self-evident +FUD, not to credit the errors of others. +</p> +<p> + So, I'll rephrase my question: Microsoft has attacked the GPL + as business foolishness that is also bad for + “America” (whatever that means). They don't care + about community ethics. How do you then counter their FUD, or + for that matter, the FUD of those who share Microsoft's views? +</p></blockquote> + +<p> + Stallman did not respond to this query for clarification, but as it + happened, a <a href="/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt">speech</a> + he recently presented at New York University responded to + Microsoft's propaganda. The Free Software Foundation has presented a + <a href="/press/2001-05-04-GPL.html">defense</a>, of free software, + as well. +</p> + +<p> + [To return to the interview…] +</p> +<blockquote><p> + On a more individual level, how would you address the criticism of + person who would like to follow your ethical standards but feels she + cannot because she wants also to make money from her intellectual + work? +</p></blockquote> + +<p> +This hypothetical person appears to believe that developing free +software is incompatible with being paid. If so, she is +misinformed—hundreds of people are now paid to develop free +software. Some of them work for Sun. She is challenging us to solve a +problem that doesn't really exist. +</p> +<p> +But what if she can't get one of these free software jobs? That could +happen—not everybody can get them today. But it doesn't excuse +developing proprietary software. A desire for profit is not wrong in +itself, but it isn't the sort of urgent overriding cause that could +excuse mistreating others. Proprietary software divides the users and +keeps them helpless, and that is wrong. Nobody should do that. +</p> +<p> +So what should she do instead? Anything else. She could get a job in +another field. But she doesn't have to go that far—most software +development is custom software, not meant to be published either as +free software or as proprietary software. In most cases, she can do +that without raising an ethical issue. It isn't heroism, but it isn't +villainy either. +</p> + +<blockquote><p> + But copyright can be thought of as an author's friend. +</p></blockquote> + +<p> +In the age of the printing press, that was true: +<a href="https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140603093549/http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-about/c-history.htm">copyright</a> +was an industrial restriction on publishers, requiring them to pay the +author of a book. It did not restrict the readers, because the actions +it restricted were things only a publisher could do. +</p> +<p> +But this is not true any more. Now copyright is a restriction on the +public, for the sake of the publishers, who give the authors a small +handout to buy their support against the public. +</p> + +<blockquote><p> + In the current situation, then, who benefits most from copyright? +</p></blockquote> + +<p> +The publishers. +</p> + +<blockquote><p> + Were I freelancing again, I would not want to release my works without + the minimal security of payment for my labor copyright affords. +</p></blockquote> + +<p> +You could do that without copyright. It is part of your business +dealings with the magazine you are writing for. +</p> + +<p> +But please note that I don't say copyright should be entirely +abolished. You can disagree with what I said, but it makes no sense to +attack me for things I did not say. What I said in my speech was that +software which is published should be free. +</p> + +<blockquote><p> + For a more detailed accounting of Stallman's views regarding + copyright as extended to fields outside of software, readers + are urged to go to the <a href="/home.html">GNU web site</a>, + and to Stallman's <a href="https://www.stallman.org">personal + site</a>. In particular, readers might want to look at + “<a href="/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.html">Copyright + and Globalization in the Age of Computer Networks</a>” + presented at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in + Cambridge, Massachusetts on 19 April 2001. Discussing his + views on copyright as extended to non-software fields, + Stallman mentioned, in the interview, “Those are ideas + that I came to after some years of working on free software. + People asked me the question, ‘How do these ideas extend + to other kinds of information,’ so in the 90s I started + thinking about the question. This speech gives my thought on + the question.” +</p></blockquote> + +<p> +On another point: recently, Argentina became the first country to +consider requiring all government offices to use free software (see, +for instance, +<a href="https://archive.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2001/05/43529"> +https://archive.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2001/05/43529</a>). +</p> +<p> +I think the regulation is still being discussed—not adopted yet. +</p> + +<blockquote><p> + As far as I know, that is still the case… However, + whether the legislation has been implemented or not, the news + is still encouraging, as at least free software is being + considered seriously as a legitimate option. What does this + (and other news) suggest regarding your future efforts? That + is, are you going to pitch the cause more strongly to + developing nations? +</p></blockquote> + +<p> +Yes. I am on my way to South Africa in two weeks [from the time of +this writing, mid-May], and a Free Software Foundation is being +started in India. There is also great interest in Brazil. +</p> + +<blockquote><p> + A last point. The so-called “Open Source” movement + is by and large devoid of humor. Not so the “Free + Software” movement. You, in your lectures and in your + song, provide a gratifying humorousness. I'd like to finish by + asking, What do you accomplish by this? +</p></blockquote> + +<p> +I accomplish mirth. That's the hacker spirit—Ha Ha, Only Serious. +</p> + +</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --> +<div id="footer"> +<div class="unprintable"> + +<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to +<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>. +There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> +the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent +to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p> + +<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph, + replace it with the translation of these two: + + We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality + translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection. + Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard + to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"> + <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p> + + <p>For information on coordinating and submitting 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 +of this article.</p> +</div> + +<!-- 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 © 2001, 2007, 2013, 2016, 2019 Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p> + +<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license" +href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative +Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p> + +<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --> + +<p class="unprintable">Updated: +<!-- timestamp start --> +$Date: 2019/06/24 11:03:15 $ +<!-- timestamp end --> +</p> +</div> +</div> +</body> +</html> |