summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/nit-india.html
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/nit-india.html')
-rw-r--r--talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/nit-india.html1528
1 files changed, 1528 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/nit-india.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/nit-india.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..fdcebc7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/nit-india.html
@@ -0,0 +1,1528 @@
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
+<title>Stallman's Speech at National Institute of Technology
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/nit-india.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>National Institute of Technology - Trichy - India - 17 February 2004</h2>
+
+<p>
+by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/"><strong>Richard Stallman</strong></a>
+</p>
+
+ <p><em>Transcript of the speech on &ldquo;Free Software&rdquo; by
+Dr. Richard Stallman on Feb 17, 2004 at the National Institute of
+Technology, Trichy, TN, India.</em>
+</p>
+
+ <p><b>[MOC]</b> We will be starting off with the video conferencing
+session in a short while, audience please note, the questions should
+be written on a piece of paper, and handed over to MOC desk. We have
+volunteers all around waiting with papers, so please use them to ask
+your questions. Dr. Richard Stallman has a hearing problem and
+therefore he will not be able to understand your language.
+</p>
+
+ <p>Ladies and gentlemen, I feel privileged to be given the opportunity to
+to take you through this morning session, which is a trend setter in
+many ways. This is the first time in the history of NIT, Trichy that a
+video conference is going to take place. And the ECE association,
+prides itself in taking this initiative. This wouldn't have been
+possible without the vision and hard work of the staff and the final
+years. We hope this initiative will be the first of many in the future
+and the good work is carried on in the coming years.
+</p>
+
+<p>Software, a product of digital revolution is a more like
+magic. Hundreds of copies of a software can be made at touch of a
+button. Portions of code can copied and used in another program
+without much effort. These and lot of other properties make it an
+entirely different beast. A beast that does not bow to the
+conventional copyright laws. But some people for their own selfishness
+have tamed this beast and deprived the society the benefits of
+software.
+</p>
+
+<p>Amidst this rose a man, who vowed to give back computer users their
+lost freedom. He proved to the world not by words, but by action that
+it is possible to produce software without computer users having to
+give up their freedom. A man who needs no introduction, but
+nevertheless must be introduced for sake formality. Dr. Richard
+Stallman is the founder of the GNU project, 1984 to develop the free
+operating system, GNU. And thereby give computer users the freedom,
+that most of them had lost. GNU is a free software. Everyone is free
+to copy it, and redistribute it, as well as make changes, either large
+or small.
+</p>
+
+<p>Dr. Richard Stallman graduated from Harvard in 1974, with a B.A in
+physics. During his college years he also worked as a staff hacker, at
+the <abbr title="Massachusetts Institute of Technology">MIT</abbr> AI
+lab, learning operating system development on the fly. In 1984, he
+resigned from <abbr>MIT</abbr> to start the GNU project. He has
+received numerous prizes and awards for his work, which need no
+mention.
+</p>
+
+<p>Today Linux based systems, variants of the GNU system based on the
+kernel Linux, developed by Linus Torvalds are in wide spread use. There
+are estimated to be some 20 million users of Linux based systems
+today. And the number is growing at an unprecedented rate.
+</p>
+
+<p>Ladies and gentlemen, meet the man, the driving force of the free
+software movement, Dr. Richard Stallman. [applause] [silence]
+</p>
+
+<p><b>[RMS]</b> Should I start?
+[silence]
+</p>
+
+<p>Can you hear me?
+[silence]
+</p>
+
+<p>Please raise your hands if you cannot hear me. [silence] So, if
+people could possibly be a bit quieter, I guess that I can start.
+</p>
+
+<p><b>[MOC]</b> Audience please maintain silence. Thank you.
+</p>
+
+<p><b>[RMS]</b> Or may be it is just the system that is generating noise. I
+can't tell, I can't hear, if its people talking or it's some artifact
+of the communication system. It's just coming across as lot of noise
+to me. Just turn the volume down some how, I will see how to do
+that. I don't seem to have a control for that. Don't worry about
+it. Don't turn it all the way off though. Just a little bit lower.
+</p>
+
+<p>I want to have some indication of what's going on in the room, so that
+I can hear you, but the volume may be just a bit too high, so that the
+room noise is getting tremendous.
+</p>
+
+<p>Okay. Lets see. [silence] Well I guess, I will just start, if
+that's the thing to do. My speech today well&hellip; Is it the time I
+should start. Or people are still coming into the room, should I wait
+a couple of more minutes.
+</p>
+
+<p><b>[MOC]</b> Sir, we can start.
+</p>
+
+<p><b>[RMS]</b> I see people coming in. I will wait till the people
+come in and get seated.
+</p>
+
+<p><b>[MOC]</b> Sir, it is getting late, I think we can start.
+</p>
+
+<p><b>[RMS]</b> Okay. What is free software? Free Software is software
+that respects the freedom of the users. This doesn't have anything to
+do with price, at least not directly. I am not talking about gratis
+software. I don't mean software that you get without paying. That is
+actually a side issue that is not particularly relevant. I mean
+software that you can use in freedom. Software that respects the
+freedoms of the user. Or I should be more specific. Which are the
+freedoms, that I mean.
+</p>
+
+<p>For programs to be free software, you the user must have four specific
+freedoms. There is freedom zero, the freedom to run the program, for
+whatever purpose in whatever manner. There is freedom one, the freedom
+to study the source code, to see what the program really does. And
+then change it to do, what you want. There is freedom two, which is
+the freedom to distribute copies to others, in other words the freedom
+to help your neighbor. And there is freedom three, the freedom to help
+build your community which is the freedom to publish a modified
+version, so that others can benefit from your contribution.
+</p>
+
+<p>All these freedoms, are essential. It's a mistake to think of them as
+levels of freedom, because all four must be present, in order for the
+software to be ethically legitimate.
+</p>
+
+<p>Why these particular freedoms? Freedom zero is essential so that you
+can have control over your own computer. If you are not free to use
+the program for whatever purpose in whatever manner then your use of
+your own computer, is being restricted. But freedom zero is not enough
+to have control over your own computer, because without more than that
+you can't control what the program does.
+</p>
+
+<p>Freedom one is essential, freedom one enables to see personally what
+the program really does, and then it change to do whatever you really
+want it to do. If you don't have freedom one, then you do not control
+what your computer is doing, the developer of the program controls,
+what it's going to do on your computer, and you have no recourse.
+</p>
+
+<p>In fact, its not unusual for developers put in malicious
+features. This is primarily developers nonfree software, that put in
+malicious features and they figure that you cannot take them out. They
+figure, they will get away with it. Because you are helpless. It is
+very common for nonfree programs to spy on the user. And they figure
+you might not be able to tell that its are spying on you, because you
+can't get the source code and so how would you know what it is
+reporting about you. We found out some cases, where programs spy on
+you. For example, Windows spies on you. 3 years ago there was a
+scandal, because Microsoft setup Windows to report what is installed
+on your disk. It would send this information back to Microsoft. Then
+there was a scandal there was an uproar so Microsoft took it out, and
+put it back in disguise.
+</p>
+
+<p>About a year ago, some developers&hellip; some researchers found
+out that, they figured out that, Windows XP when it asked for an
+upgrade, also reports to Microsoft, what's installed on your disk. And
+it does this secretly, it sends the list of files encrypted, so that
+it was impossible for people to tell easily that this was going
+on. They had to work hard [FIXME: 12:10] ??? to determine what
+information Windows was sending back to Microsoft. But, Windows is not
+the only software package, nonfree software package that [FIXME:
+12:30 spies] on you. Windows media player also spies on you. Every time
+you access something, it sends a report to Microsoft, saying what you
+are looking at. And Real Player also spies on you. So Microsoft is not
+the only nonfree software developer guilty of this kind of special
+mistreatment of the users. The Tivo spies on you. Some people
+enthusiastic on Tivo, because it is based on GNU and Linux to some
+extent.
+</p>
+
+<p>But it also contains nonfree software. And it is designed to spy
+on you, and report what you watch. I am told there are many other
+programs that are spy-ware. Then there are programs that do other
+nasty things to you. For instance there are programs that reconfigure
+your computer, so for instance that it will display ads for you all
+the time, and they don't tell you install this program and it will
+display these ads. They figure that most of the users won't notice,
+they won't will be able to figure out. They figure you will install
+several programs and you won't know which one changed your computer's
+configuration. Or that you won't know how to undo it.
+<span class="gnun-split"></span>Of course, if it
+were free software this could be fixed. I will get to that in a
+minute. But sometimes they get even worse. Sometimes programs have
+features designed to stop you from doing things. Software developers
+like to talk about how their programs could do things for you. But
+sometimes they design programs that will refuse to do things for
+you. This is often called DRM &mdash; Digital Restrictions
+Management. Where programs are designed to refuse to access files for
+you, to refuse to let you save files, or copy files or convert files.
+</p>
+
+<p>Even more bizarre, there is a malicious feature in the music
+sharing program, Kazaa, where the company&hellip; the developers sell
+time on your computer. So, other people will pay Kazaa, so that they
+can run their programs on your computer. They don't pay you. In fact,
+this was being kept secret. The developers of Kazaa didn't say to the
+users, &ldquo;By the way, we are going to be selling time on your
+computer.&rdquo; People had to figure this out.
+</p>
+
+<p>So, I am telling you examples, that I have heard of. But you never
+know, if there is some other nonfree program, how do you it has some
+malicious secret feature. The point is you can't get the
+source. Without freedom one, the freedom to help yourself, the freedom
+to study the source code and change it to do what you want, you can't
+tell what the program is really doing. All you can do is put blind
+faith in the developer. The developer says, &ldquo;The program does
+this&rdquo; Now you either believe it or you don't.
+</p>
+
+<p>Of course, not all developers of nonfree software are putting
+malicious features. Some really are sincerely doing their best to put
+in features to please the user. But, they are all human, and they all
+mistakes. These mistakes are called bugs. Well, we free software
+developers are also human, and we also make mistakes. Our programs
+have bugs too. The difference is, when you have freedom you can study
+the source code and you can find whatever is bad in the program,
+whether it is a deliberate malicious feature or an accident. Either
+way you can find it, and then you can fix the program to get rid of
+it. You can make the program better. With nonfree software you are
+just helpless. But with free software you have power over your
+computer. You are in control.
+<span class="gnun-split"></span>But freedom one is not enough. Freedom
+one is the freedom, to personally study the source code and then
+change it to do what you want. That is the freedom to help
+yourself. But freedom one is not enough, because first of all there
+are millions of people who use computers but do not know how to
+program. Freedom one is not enough for them. They don't how to
+personally study the source code and change it to do what they
+want. But even for us programmers freedom one is not enough. Because
+there are so many programs. Nobody has time to study them all, and
+master them all, to be able to make changes in each one of them.
+</p>
+
+<p>So, we need to be able to work together. And that's what freedom three
+is for. Freedom three is the freedom to help build your community, by
+publishing a modified version. So other people can use your
+version. This is what makes it possible for us all to work together
+taking control of our computers and our software.
+</p>
+
+<p>&hellip;That there are a million users and all of them want a
+certain change in a certain program. They want it to work like this
+way instead. Well, in those million people, just by luck, there will
+be a thousand who know how to program. Sooner or later there will be a
+ten of them, who read the source of the program, and made the change
+and publish a modified version that does what they want. And there are
+million other people who want the same thing. So, they will use the
+modified version. They all get a change to have what they
+want. Because a few of them made the change.
+</p>
+
+<p>With freedom three, a few people can make change and it then
+becomes available to many people. And this way, any collectivity of
+users can take control over their software. What happens if there is a
+group of people who want a change but none of them knows how to
+program. Suppose if only 500 people and none of them is a
+programmer. Now, suppose it is 10000 but they are all people who have
+stores, so that they don't know how to program. Well, with free
+software they can still make use of freedom one and three. They can
+all put together some money and when they have collected the money
+they can go to a programmer or to a programming company and say,
+&ldquo;How much would you charge, to make this particular change and
+when can you have it done?&rdquo;
+</p>
+
+<p>And if they don't like what that particular company says, they can
+go to a different company and say, &ldquo;What would you charge to
+make this change and when can you have it done?&rdquo; They can choose
+who they are going to deal with. And this illustrates the fact that
+free software means that there is a free market, for all kinds of
+services such as, to make the program do what you want. With nonfree
+software, support is a monopoly, because only the developer has the
+source code and only the developer can make any change.
+</p>
+
+<p>So if you don't like what the program does, you have to go to the
+developer and beg, &ldquo;Oh, please developer, please do my change
+for me.&rdquo; And probably the developer says, &ldquo;You are not
+important enough, why should I care about you. There are just a
+hundred thousand of you why should I care.&rdquo; But with free
+software, there is a free market for support and if the developer
+isn't interested in what you want some body else will be, especially
+if you have some money to pay.
+</p>
+
+<p>There are users of software who consider good support crucial and they
+are willing to pay money so that they could have good support. In
+general, because free software support is a free market, these users
+can expect better support for their money, if they are using free
+software.
+</p>
+
+<p>Paradoxically speaking, when you have a choice between several
+nonfree programs to do the same job, which ever one you choose the
+support for it is going to be a monopoly afterwards, so at the
+beginning you get a choice, but afterwards you are stuck in a
+monopoly. That's the paradox you have a choice between monopolies. In
+other words you get to choose who is going to be your master. But a
+choice of masters is not freedom, with free software you don't have to
+choose a master. You get to choose freedom, you don't have to choose
+between monopolies instead, you continue to have freedom for as long
+as you keep using that program you are using it in freedom.
+</p>
+
+<p>So I have explained freedom zero, one and three. These freedoms are
+all necessary so that you can have control over your computer. Freedom
+two is a different matter, Freedom two is to help your neighbor by
+distributing copies of the programs to others. Freedom two is
+essential for a basic ethical reason, so that you can live an upright
+life where you help other people.
+</p>
+
+<p>Now, the spirit&hellip; the most important resource of any society
+is the spirit of good will, the spirit of readiness to help your
+neighbors. Of course, nobody spends a 100% of time helping his
+neighbors, nobody does a 100% of whatever other people ask. And that
+is appropriate because you have to take care of yourself also. But
+only extremely bad people do zero to help their neighbors and in fact
+normally in society you have levels of helping the neighbors in
+between, not 0 and not a 100% and these levels can get bigger or
+smaller depending on social change, by how we organize society we can
+encourage people to help their neighbor and help each other some what
+more or some what less and these changes in the levels make the
+difference between a livable society and a dog eat dog jungle. And it
+is not by accident that the world's major religions for 1000 of years
+have been encouraging people to help their neighbors, encouraging a
+spirit of benevolence of good will towards your fellow human beings.
+</p>
+
+<p>So what does it mean when powerful social institutions start saying
+sharing with your neighbor is wrong, they are discouraging people from
+helping each other reducing the level of cooperation. They are
+poisoning this essential resource. What does it mean when they say if
+you help your neighbor you are a pirate. They are saying that to share
+with your neighbor is the moral equivalent of attacking a ship. That
+morality is upside down, because attacking ships are really really bad
+but helping your neighbor is good and must be encouraged and what does
+it mean when the start making harsh punishments for people who share
+with their neighbors. How much fear is it going to take before people
+are too scared to help their neighbors.
+<span class="gnun-split"></span>Do you want to be living in a
+society filled with this level of terror. The only &hellip; for what
+they are doing is terror campaign. In 2 countries so far in Argentina
+and then in Germany, these companies, the developers of nonfree
+software have sent public threats, threatening people would be raped
+in prison for using unauthorized copies of software. The only thing
+you can call it when people are threatening others will rape is a
+terror campaign and we should put and end to this terrorism, right
+away.
+</p>
+
+<p>Now, why did I say that freedom two, the freedom to help your
+neighbor is necessary to live an upright life. Because if you agree to
+license for a nonfree program, you have partly participated in the
+evil. You have put yourself in a bad moral situation. By using a
+program that does not give you freedom two, the freedom to help your
+neighbor, you have put yourself in a moral dilemma, potentially. It
+may never happen, but as soon as somebody comes to you and says, could
+I have a copy of this program. You are now in a moral dilemma, where
+you have to choose between two evils. One evil is make a copy help
+your neighbor, but you violate the license, the other evil is you
+follow the license but you are a bad neighbor.
+<span class="gnun-split"></span>They are both wrong, so
+you have to choose the lesser evil, the lesser evil in my opinion is
+to share with your neighbor and violate the license. Because your
+neigh deserves&hellip; presuming this person had done nothing wrong,
+hasn't mistreated you, then he deserves your cooperation. Where as,
+who ever tried to divide you from your neighbors is doing something
+very very wrong and doesn't deserve your cooperation, so if you got to
+do something wrong, you got to do it to somebody who deserves it.
+</p>
+
+<p>However, once you recognize this, once you realize, that using this
+nonfree program means you are liable to end up with a choice between
+two evils, what you should really do is to refuse to get into that
+situation, by refusing to use the nonfree program, refusing to have
+the nonfree program. If you insist on using and having only free
+software then you cant ever get into this moral dilemma. Because when
+ever your friend asks you for a copy of the program, you will be able
+to say &ldquo;sure,&rdquo; and it wont be any evil because free
+software means you are free to distribute copies. It means you have
+not promised that you refuse to share with other people. You can share
+and there is nothing bad about the situation. So once you recognize
+that, using and having the nonfree program means putting yourself in
+a potential moral dilemma, you say no to it. And that way you avoid
+the moral dilemma. You stay in a position where you can live in a
+upright life and you are not going to find yourself forced to do
+something wrong.
+</p>
+
+<p>Once I was in the audience when John Perry Barlow was giving his
+speech, and he asked raise your hand if you don't have any
+unauthorized copies of software and only one person in the audience
+raised his hand, it was me. And he saw that and he said, &ldquo;Oh, of
+course you.&rdquo; He knew that all my copies were legal authorized
+copies because the programs were all free software. There are people
+who made copies from me were all authorized to copy the program and
+give me a copy. And all my copies were authorized.
+</p>
+
+<p>The information police, who are trying to put people in prison for
+having unauthorized copies, are doing something wrong. What they are
+doing is something illegitimate, what ah&hellip; what is it
+called&hellip; NASCOM, what they are doing is wrong, but at the same
+time I don't want to have to be sneaking when I give you copies of the
+software, so I would rather use the free software and then I can stand
+up even with the police watching. And I can give you a copy and I
+don't have to be scared we don't have to live in fear, by choosing
+free software. So these are the reasons that the four freedoms that
+define free software. Freedom zero is the freedom to run the program
+as you seek it. Freedom one is the freedom to help yourself by
+studying the source code and changing it to do what you want. Freedom
+two is to distribute copies to others, and freedom three is the
+freedom to build your community by publishing an improved version, so
+as to help the other users of software.
+</p>
+
+<p>Now, none of these is a question of price. Free software does not mean
+you can get it at zero price. In fact it is perfectly legitimate for
+people to sell copies. That's an example of freedom two, freedom two is
+the freedom to make copies and distribute it to others. That includes
+selling them if you wish. You are free to make copies and sell
+them. It is true that typically people won't pay a large amount of
+money for their copies, because they know that can find someone else
+can give him a copy, so most people won't pay very much for a
+copy. They might pay a certain amount you know if the price is small
+enough, if it is easier them for them to pay it, than to go hunt
+around and go to the trouble of getting a copy gratis. There are
+people sell copies, and they make some money with it.
+<span class="gnun-split"></span>But people
+generally can't do is hold the users to ransom, squeezing a lots of
+painful money out of them, because at that point the users will
+redistribute copies to each other, they will make the effort. So free
+software can't be used to squeeze money out of people in a way that
+hurts society. But it doesn't mean that no money ever changes hands it
+does not mean gratis. Sometimes people in India refer it to as Mukth
+software or Swatantra software, to emphasis that we are not talking
+about gratis. But it is true that the savings that users can have
+because they are not forced to pay for permission, can be important
+for encouraging computer use, in a country with lots of poor people,
+because authorized copies of the software can cost more than the
+computer.
+</p>
+
+<p>Now the computer can cost this much and the authorized
+copies of software can cost this much. Well, there are lots of people
+in India who might be able to afford the computer, but couldn't
+possibly afford the software, because they can just barely afford a
+computer. So free software can make a big difference in terms of who
+in India can get a computer and run it. We don't see this yet, because
+a lot of people in India are using unauthorized copies. I don't think
+it is wrong to use unauthorized copies, but we can see the developers
+of nonfree software are trying to make this impossible. They have two
+different ways, one is the terror campaign you know threatening to
+rape people in prison, and the other one is technical changes that can
+prevent the unauthorized copies from running, making people register
+in order for the software to run, you can see this in Windows XP, and
+there are more such measures coming.
+<span class="gnun-split"></span>So what we can expect is, that it
+would be harder and harder in India to get by using unauthorized
+copies. And that means computer use in India and computer users in
+India are heading for a train wreck. They are on a course that leads
+to disaster and the thing that India needs to build is, start making
+effort to get on to the other track, to get on to the free software
+track, the track that escapes from this problem. So every social
+institutions in India, every government agency, every school, every
+organization, should be working as quickly as feasible, to switch
+people from the nonfree track to the free track.
+</p>
+
+<p>But this is not what they are doing. And you can see easily if you
+look around easily, government organization in India are mostly using
+nonfree software. And schools in India are using nonfree
+software. This is a terrible mistake, it is a foolish and disastrous
+policy, governments of course deserves to use free software. Every
+computer user deserves to have the four freedoms, and that includes
+government agencies that use software. But when it is a government
+agency it has a responsibility, a duty to choose free
+software. Because government agency does data processing for the
+public, and they have a responsibility to maintain control over their
+computers, to make sure that the data processing that they are doing
+is right. They do not, they cannot legitimately allow the processing
+of data to fall into private hands, so our private parties to have
+control over what their computers are doing.
+</p>
+
+<p>I see a lot of people moving around, what's happening&hellip;
+what's happening&hellip; I can't hear you, the sound is turned off
+apparently&hellip;
+</p>
+
+<p><b>[MOC]</b> Sir, we are collecting questions.
+</p>
+
+<p><b>[RMS]</b> Any way I hope it is over now. I will continue. So
+government agencies have a duty to make sure that they continue to
+control, what's going on in their own computers.
+</p>
+
+<p>So I see, you are collecting the questions already. But I am not
+even finished yet! Anyway&hellip; I am probably about a half
+finished. OK, now I understand. So okay, I will continue.
+</p>
+
+<p>Because remember, if you are using a nonfree program, you don't
+really know what it does and you have no control over what it really
+does. You can't tell if there is a back door. There are people who
+suspect that Microsoft has put a back door into Windows or other
+software. We don't know, because we can't see the source code, there
+is no way to find out, if there is a back door. And it is possible
+also, that some of Microsoft employees put in a back door without
+being asked to. I heard some of the people working on Windows XP, were
+arrested, accused of working a terrorist organization and accused of
+trying to put in a back door. Now, this means, if you are using
+nonfree software, you have be scared that the company, that is the
+developer put in a back door, and you also have to be scared that some
+developers secretly put in a back door, that even the company doesn't
+know about. The point is, that because you can't get the source code,
+study it and change it, you are helpless either way.
+</p>
+
+<p>And Microsoft did something really stupid. Well, really
+absurd. Supposedly, they offered various governments access to the
+source code. But they did it in a way that is fraudulent. For
+instance, they offered the Indian government access to the source code
+of Windows. But, that doesn't mean that they offered a copy of the
+source code to Indian government. Oh No! They offered access to a
+special server site, where a few chosen people from the government
+will be able to login and then single step through programs. And
+supposedly, see what's going on in the source code. But there would be
+no way they could guarantee that the source code they are looking at
+in the server, is the same thing that is running on their own
+machines. So the whole this is a fraud. A joke. Except, the joke would
+be on the Indian government, if it said yes to this project.
+</p>
+
+<p>And, meanwhile, even if one organization got access to the source
+code, if your organization doesn't have access to the source code,
+that doesn't help you.
+</p>
+
+<p>Every school in India should be using free software. So as, to teach
+the children of India to grow up to be free software users. You see,
+teaching these children to become users of nonfree software is
+guiding them on to the track that leads to the train wreck. So schools
+have to be teaching these children to grow up to be free software
+users.
+</p>
+
+<p>It should be no surprise, that Microsoft is offering gratis copies of
+Windows to schools in India. They are doing this for the same reason
+that tobacco companies used to offer gratis packs of cigarettes to
+children. They are trying to get children hooked. They are not doing
+this, to be helpful to anybody. They are doing this so as to have more
+of their grip around these children. So, they are asking the schools
+to become accessories, in maintaining their grip. And this should not
+be surprising. If you compare Microsoft with other forms of
+colonialism, you will see a lot of similarities. Because you see,
+nonfree software is a system of colonialism. The developers&hellip;
+Instead of one country colonizing another, it is various companies
+trying to colonize the whole world. And they do this, using divide
+conquer tactics. Keeping the user divided and helpless.
+<span class="gnun-split"></span>And if you
+think about it, that is what a nonfree program does, it keeps the
+users divided and helpless. Divided, because you are forbidden to
+distribute copies to other people, forbidden to help your
+neighbor. And helpless, because you can't get the source code and
+change it. So, with this divide and conquer policy, you also see the
+policy of using the local [45:20] ???? to keep everyone else
+inline. So Microsoft offers special deals, to whoever seems to have
+special influence, to get them to use Windows, and thus keep everyone
+else inline. Governments are being used in this way. And schools are
+being used in this way. The schools of India should reject nonfree
+software, and thus refuse to be used to keep the population of India
+inline and under the domination of the developers of nonfree
+software.
+</p>
+
+<p>But there are two even deeper reasons, why schools in India should
+insist on free software. One reason is for the sake of education. As
+people reach their teenage years, some of them are going to be
+fascinated by computers. They are going want to learn everything about
+what is going on inside that computer. They are going to want to learn
+how does this program work. If they are using nonfree software, the
+teacher has to tell them, &ldquo;Sorry, you can't learn that, I can't
+learn that. It's a secret. Nobody is allowed to learn that.&rdquo;
+Non-free software prohibits education. But with free software, the
+teacher can say, &ldquo;Go ahead. Here's the source code for this
+program. Read it. You can learn. And then, now that you have read the
+source code, try making a change, try making a small change in this
+program. And then try making another. Try changing that program. Try
+changing that program.&rdquo; And this way the students who are
+fascinated by computers will learn to write good software.
+</p>
+
+<p>As far as I can tell, some people are born with the skill program,
+are born with their brains growing so that they will have the skill to
+program. They will be natural programmers. But writing clear
+understandable software is something you have to learn. That's
+judgment. The way you learn is by reading lots of source and by
+changing lots of programs. That way you learn what makes a program
+easy to understand and easy to change. Every time you try to read a
+program and it is hard to figure out a certain part, you learn this is
+not the way to write clear code. Non-free software doesn't help you do
+this. Non-free software just keeps you in the dark. But if the schools
+of India switched to free software, then they can offer the students
+the opportunity to learn to be good programmers. To learn the same way
+I learnt.
+<span class="gnun-split"></span>In the 1970s, I had a special opportunity. I worked at the
+AI lab at <abbr>MIT</abbr>. And there, we had our own time sharing
+system, which was free software. We would share with anybody. In fact,
+we were delighted anytime when somebody was interested in any part of
+it. We were delighted anytime somebody wanted to join us in using it
+and then help develop it. And so I had the opportunity to read all
+these different programs that were part of the system, and make
+changes in them. And by doing this over and over again, for years, I
+learnt to be a good programmer. I had to go to one particular place on
+earth, to have this opportunity, which was very unusual, very
+rare. Today any PC running the GNU plus Linux operating system, will
+offer you this opportunity. Every school in India that has a computer
+can offer its students the same opportunity, that I could only get at
+<abbr>MIT</abbr>.
+</p>
+
+<p>So schools should use free software for the sake of education, but
+there is an even deeper reason, because schools are not supposed to
+teach just facts, just skills, but even more deep, they are supposed
+to teach the spirit of goodwill, the habit of cooperating with other
+people. So schools shall have a rule: If you bring software to class,
+you are not allowed to keep it for yourself, you must let the other
+kids copy it. A rule of good citizenship. Of course, the school has to
+practice its on own. So, the school also should only bring free
+software to class. The software running on computers in class should
+all be free software and this way the schools can teach good
+citizenship.
+</p>
+
+<p>Three weeks ago&hellip; No it was two weeks ago, when i met with
+Dr. Kalam and explained to him about why schools should use free
+software and about how nonfree software is colonial system, I was
+really delighted, because he understood it instantly. He recognized
+the analogy, how the colonial powers tried to recruit the [FIXME:
+51:40 weaks] ??? to become their assistants for keeping the rest of
+the population inline. And then, the most delightful part was that
+some people from Microsoft were waiting to see him next. I am sure
+when he spoke with them&hellip; that this comparison will go through
+his mind, as they try to convince him to do something or other, as
+they offered some kind of inducement to help keep India inline.
+<span class="gnun-split"></span>What
+happened in that meeting, of course I don't know; because I wasn't
+there in his subsequent meeting with Microsoft. But I'm sure with this
+analogy running through his minds, he would have had some effect and I
+hope it will have some effect on you. When you, as part of the Indian
+[FIXME: 52:30] ??? are invited to help keep India inline. That you
+recognize that it's your duty to say no. When somebody invites you to
+join in a free software movement, where we weave our own code
+together, that you'll recognize that this is the way to put an end to
+colonialism.
+</p>
+
+<p>Well, when somebody says, &ldquo;What?! we have an office in India;
+we were spending a million dollars a year paying a few people in
+India. Doesn't this make it okay for us the colonizer of the rest of
+India.&rdquo; Well, you will recognize how stupid is this. The British
+employed people in India too, but that didn't make colonialism a good
+thing; didn't make it legitimate; didn't make it ethical. Because
+every computer user deserves freedom.
+</p>
+
+<p>So I've been explaining why software should be free. So what do we do
+about it? I was thinking about these issues in 1983 and I reached the
+conclusion that software should be free; that the only way to live in
+freedom is to insist on free software. But what can i do about it? If
+you want to get a computer and run it, the first thing you need is an
+operating system and in 1983 all the operating systems for modern
+computers were nonfree, were proprietary. So what can I do? The only
+way you can get a modern computer and run it was to sign a contract
+promising to betray your neighbors. How could there be an alternative?
+The only way to have an alternative, the only way to use a computer
+and within freedom, was to write a free operating system.
+<span class="gnun-split"></span>So I decided
+I would do that. I was an operating system developer, I've the skills
+to undertake this project. So I decided I would write free operating
+system, or die trying, presumably of old age. Because at that time,
+the free software movement which was just beginning, had no
+enemies. We just had a lot of work to do. So I decided that I would
+develop a free operating system and I decided to make it a Unix like
+operating system. So that it would be portable and so that Unix users
+would be having easy times switching over to this operating system
+that would give them freedom.
+</p>
+
+<p>I figured, by making it compatible with some existing popular
+systems, we'll have more users and thus the community of freedom, the
+free world would grow bigger. And I gave the system the name GNU,
+which stands for GNU's Not Unix. It's a humorous way of giving credit
+to the ideas of Unix. It's a recursive acronym and that was a
+traditional programmers of having fun and giving credit at the same
+time. At the same time the word GNU, is used for lots of word plays,
+it's a word that has a lot of humor associated with it which makes it
+the best possible name for anything. I should explain that the word
+GNU is the name of an animal that was in Africa. We use the animal as
+our symbol. So if you see a smiling animal with some horns that is
+associated with our software, that's a gnu.
+<span class="gnun-split"></span>So 20 years and 1 month
+ago, in January 1984, I quit my job at <abbr>MIT</abbr> and began
+developing the GNU system. I didn't do it all myself, of course, I was
+also trying to recruit other people to help and gradually over the
+years more and more people joined in. During the 1980s, well we had
+only a few parts of the GNU system; some of these parts were superior
+and so people would take them and install them on their nonfree
+systems. For instance, the GNU Emacs text editor and the GNU C
+compiler. These were programs that people would learn even on top of
+their nonfree Unix system. But our real goal was not just to have a
+few popular programs, the goal was to make a complete system. So that
+we should reject the nonfree systems; reject nonfree software,
+escape from the bondage of nonfree software. So we kept filling in
+these gaps in the system and by the early 90s we had just one
+important gap remaining and that was the kernel.
+</p>
+
+<p>In 1991, a college student in Finland, wrote a free kernel and
+released it under the name Linux. Actually in 1991, it was not
+free. Initially it was released under a license which was little too
+restrictive and did not qualify as free. But in 1992, he changed the
+license and he made it free software. At that point it was possible to
+take this kernel and fit it into the gap in the GNU system and make a
+complete system. The system which is a combination of GNU and
+Linux. This GNU plus Linux operating system now has tens of millions
+of users.
+</p>
+
+<p>Unfortunately, most of them don't know that it's basically the GNU
+system. They think the whole system is Linux. That's the result of a
+confusion. The people who combined the Linux and the GNU system, they
+didn't realize that they were using Linux to fill this gap. They
+thought that they were starting with Linux, and adding all the other
+components that were needed to make a complete system. Well, all the
+other components were pretty much the GNU system. But they did not
+recognize that. They thought they were starting with Linux and turning
+it into a complete system. So, they started speaking of this entire
+system as Linux. Even though it was actually more GNU. The result is
+the confusion that you will see today. Many people when they talk
+about the GNU system call it Linux. In fact, if you see someone
+talking about Linux, then unless he is talking about an embedded
+system, he almost certainly means the GNU system with Linux added. But
+sometimes he is talking about embedded systems, and there maybe he really
+means Linux. Because in embedded systems, sometimes people use Linux
+by itself, without the rest of the operating system. You don't need a
+whole operating system in an embedded computer.
+</p>
+
+<p>So there is a lot of confusion. People say Linux, and sometimes
+they mean an entire operating system that you could run on a desktop
+or a server, and sometimes they mean just this kernel, which is enough
+for a embedded machine and that's all. So, if you want to avoid
+confusing people, you need to distinguish them, use different names
+for different things. When you are talking about the kernel, please
+call it &lsquo;Linux&rsquo;. That was written by a person, who chose
+the name Linux. And we ought to use the name he chose. When you are
+talking of the operating system, that's mostly GNU. And when I started
+developing it, I chose the name GNU. So please call this combination
+GNU plus Linux. All I am asking for, is a equal mention, for the
+principle developers of the system, the GNU project. We wrote the
+largest part of the system, and we had the vision for doing this whole
+job. Please give us equal mention. We need it. We need it, so that we
+can spread the philosophy. Teach people the ethical reasons. The
+social and political issues that are stake here. Why software should
+be free.
+</p>
+
+<p>Now, it was suggested I should talk about, some issues having to do
+with hardware. Sometimes, people ask whether hardware also should be
+free. Well, the issue only partly is meaningful. Because you see, what
+does it mean for software to be free. It means that, you are free to
+use it if you wish, study what it does, and change it. And copy it,
+and distribute copies, including modified copies. But you see,
+ordinary users of hardware, can't copy the hardware. There are no
+copiers. If I am ordinary user of software, I can copy it. Because
+every computer is a copier for software. And I don't need any special
+facilities to be able to study the plans and change them. I just need
+to understand programming. Then I can read the source code, as long as
+the developer will let me have a copy of the source code.
+<span class="gnun-split"></span>But hardware
+isn't made by copying. You don't make computers, by putting them into
+a universal copier. You know, if somebody gives you one CPU chip, you
+can't copy that CPU chip to make another identical chip. Nobody can do
+that. There are no copiers. Now what about modifying it. Nobody can
+modify a chip. Once it's made, it's made. There are chips that are
+customizable. But to actually go in and modify the hardware of the
+chip, is impossible. For those chips that are customizable, suppose
+it is a microcodable chip, or a programmable gate array, the
+microcode, that's software, that's not hardware. The pattern of gates
+circuitry that goes in a programmable gate array chip, that pattern is
+software. That pattern can easily be changed and can easily be
+copied, because it is software.
+</p>
+
+<p>So that will help you understand, how these issues relate to various
+situations. The pattern that you load into something, that's
+software. And the physical object, that's the hardware. The physical
+object that can't just be copied, but has to be made in a factory.
+</p>
+
+<p>But sometimes, there is a different issue that does make sense for
+hardware. And that is the design spec, visible. You know, can the
+public get copies of design, to find out what the hardware does. Well,
+this is necessary in certain cases, so that you can check for
+malicious features. This is a fairly new issue. In the past, you know,
+if you go to disk controller, you know, it's a card, you are going to
+put it in your computer, you didn't have to worry very much. Is there
+a danger that there will be malicious feature on this disk
+controller. Because there wasn't really much danger. There wasn't much
+scope for putting in malicious feature into people's disk
+controllers. Because, how would they send a command to your disk
+controller. It just wasn't really feasible, to do those things. But,
+as these controllers get to be more&hellip; as the hardware gets more
+and more powerful hardware can be put in a smaller place, it becomes
+feasible, that somebody could put back doors, into your disk
+controller, into your CPU, into your network card. Now, how do you
+know that your network card isn't setup to receive some secret
+message, which is going to tell it to start spying on you somehow.
+</p>
+
+<p>So these issues start mattering, once the hardware becomes powerful
+enough, we need to insist that we can control what's really inside
+it. But you noticed, that the lot of stuff inside this so called
+hardware, is really software. A lot of device controllers nowadays,
+have computers in them. And there is software to get downloaded into
+this computer, and that software should be free. That's the only way
+we can trust it. That's the only way we can tell that it doesn't have
+some secret back door feature, to spy on us. It has got to be free
+software.
+</p>
+
+<p>So, the general rule is, if people ask me the question, &ldquo;Does
+this apply to computers that are embedded?&rdquo; I thought about this
+and I reached the conclusion, that if new software can be loaded into
+this computer, then it's visibly a computer, it really is a computer,
+for you the user. And that means you must have the freedom to control
+the software. But more recently, another issue is arising, that if the
+device can talk to the network, whether that's the Internet, or the
+cell phone network, or whatever. If it can talk to other people, then
+you don't know whether it is spying on you. So, it has to be free
+software. Consider for instance, portable phones. You shouldn't use a
+portable, unless the software is free. There really have been
+dangerous malicious features, in portable phones.
+<span class="gnun-split"></span>There are portable
+phones in Europe which have this feature, that somebody can remotely
+tell the phone to listen to you. It really is a spy device, in the
+most classical sense. And if you have a portable phone, do you know
+who could be spying on you at any time? You don't unless you
+are&hellip; unless the software in your portable phone is a free
+software. So, we must insist on free software for this portable
+phones. That's just one of the reasons I won't use a portable
+phone. Because the portable phone network is a surveillance device. It
+can keep records of where you go. It can keep a permanent record of
+where you have been at all the time. And I think this is so dangerous
+such as threat to our freedom, that we must refuse to have these
+phones. They're dangerous, they're poison.
+</p>
+
+<p>Any way for more information I would like to refer you the gnu
+projects web site, which is www.gnu.org and also to the web site of
+the free software foundation of India, which is FSFIndia no
+sorry&hellip; I &hellip; no it's&hellip; It's gnu.org.in that's
+gnu.org.in. If you would like to help free software in India, please
+get in touch with FSF-India so that you can combine your efforts with
+other people and together you can fight for freedom.
+</p>
+
+<p>From now I'll accept questions.
+</p>
+
+<p>Oh boy, am I sleepy!
+</p>
+
+<p><b>[MOC]</b> Sir, we will be reading out the questions one by one
+collected from the audience, and&hellip; then you can answer the
+questions.
+</p>
+
+<p><b>[RMS]</b> Okay, if one person asks multiple questions, please
+give them to me one at a time.
+</p>
+
+<p><b>[MOC]</b> Yes, sir.
+</p>
+
+<p>The first question comes from H. Sundar Raman. His question is,
+&ldquo;What is the difference between Open Source Software and Free
+Software?&rdquo;
+</p>
+<p>[RMS yawns]
+</p>
+
+<p><b>[RMS]</b> I should first explain that Free Software and Open
+Source each has two related meanings.
+</p>
+
+<p>I am looking at a mirror image of myself. So it's hard to me to see
+where to put my hands.
+</p>
+
+<p>Each one refers to a categorical software and each one refers to a
+philosophical movement. So there is the free software&hellip; the free
+software is a category of licenses. And there is the free software
+movement and it's philosophy. Likewise open source is a category of
+licenses and a philosophy. For we can compare the free software
+movement and the open source movement&hellip; sorry, we can compare
+free software as a category of software with open source as a category
+of software. And we can compare the free software movement philosophy
+with the open source philosophy. And what you find is as categories of
+software they are very close together. Open source is a category of
+licenses just as free software is a category of licenses. And these
+two categories are defined with very different language. But so far
+practically speaking they are pretty similar. There are some licenses
+that qualify as open source but do not qualify as free software. How
+ever they are not used very much. So, if you know that of certain
+program is open source and that's all you know, you can't be sure it's
+free software but it probably is free software.
+</p>
+
+<p>Meanwhile, there are also the two movements and their philosophies.
+And these are very far apart. In the free software movement we have a
+philosophy based on freedom and ethics. We say that you must insist on
+free software so that you can live an up-right life and have freedom
+to help other people. The open source movement was formed specifically
+to avoid saying that, to reject our ethical principles. The open
+source movement doesn't say you should insist on open source
+software. They say that it may be convenient or advantageous. They
+sight practical values only. They say that they have a superior
+design&hellip; sorry a superior development model &mdash; superior in
+its shallow technical sense, that it usually produces technically
+better software.
+<span class="gnun-split"></span>But that's the most they will say. They won't say
+that this is an ethical imperative, they won't say that software
+should be open source, they won't say that closed source software is
+an attempt to colonize you and you should escape. They won't say
+anything like that and in-fact the reason for their movement is
+specifically not to say that; to cover that up. And so when it comes
+to the philosophical foundation what they say and what we say are as
+different as night and day. And that's why I am always very unhappy
+when anybody associates me or my work with open source.
+</p>
+
+<p>The people who developed, who are motivated by the open source
+movement, they are usually contributing to our community because
+usually their software is free. And that can be a good
+contribution. But I disagree with their philosophy completely. I think
+it is shallow. And I am very unhappy when people label me by their
+slogan and give people the impression I agree with that philosophy.
+</p>
+
+<p>So next question please.
+</p>
+
+<p><b>[MOC]</b> The next question comes from Advait Thumbde. His
+question is freedom to copy may not generate enough money; which is
+essential to fund resources for technological development. Where as
+many rival firms&hellip;
+</p>
+
+<p><b>[RMS interrupts]</b> No. That's false. That's false. Money is
+not essential for technological development, not in the software
+field. May be in an other field it is because other fields are much
+more difficult. It cause a lot of money to setup a factory to build
+hardware. Well, that requires an investment. But we have proved, in
+the free software movement we have proved that we can develop a wide
+range of software with out any investment. We proved this by doing
+it. There are about a million people contributing to the free software
+and most of them are volunteers. Large programs has been developed by
+volunteers, which proves that its not necessary to raise a lot of
+money. It's not necessary to have any money.
+<span class="gnun-split"></span>Now I suppose that these
+volunteers are not starving, they are not living on the streets. They
+must have jobs. I don't know what their jobs are, but remember that if
+you look at all computer related employment, only a small fraction of
+that is programming. And most of that is custom software design, only
+a small fraction of that is developing software for publication. To be
+made available to the public. So there are lots of jobs these people
+might have to support themselves. So that they can spend some of their
+free time developing our free software. And this is not a problem as
+long as we develop lots of free software. And we do. The fact is we
+know this is not a problem.
+</p>
+
+<p>So, the people who say that free software won't work because we can't
+raise enough money, that's like people saying air planes won't work
+because of we don't have anti-gravity. Well, air planes do work which
+proves we don't need anti-gravity. I should also point out there are
+also people who are getting payed to develop free software. The money
+comes from in-various ways. Sometimes these people are extending
+existing free programs to meet the demands of clients. Sometimes, they
+are getting funding from universities or governments.
+</p>
+
+<p>Governments fund the large fraction of all the software developments
+in the world and except in the rare cases where the software has to be
+kept secret. It could just as well be free software. So we should be
+spreading the word in academia. When you have a project to develop
+some software, it must be free software. It's an ethical requirement
+to make it free software.
+</p>
+
+<p>Finally, I should say that you might want to get money to do
+something; you might want to make money out of an activity. And this
+is not wrong, not in itself. But if the activity itself is wrong then
+you can't justify it by saying I'm going to get money. You know, the
+[FIXME 81:00] get money; but that's no excuse for robing
+people. Non-free software is ethically poison. It's a scheme to keep
+people divided and helpless. It's a form of colonization. And that's
+wrong. So when a person says to me &ldquo;I'm going to make my program
+proprietary so that I can get money, so that I can work full time
+developing the program&rdquo; I say to him &ldquo;That's like saying
+you're going to rob people so that you can get money, so that you can
+spend full time robing people.&rdquo; It's all wrong. And you
+shouldn't do it.
+</p>
+
+<p>I believe that people who contribute to society made it&hellip;
+Well&hellip; People contribute to society it's a good idea if we
+reward them for it. And when people are doing things that harm
+society, it's a good idea if we find ways to punish them for it. That
+will encourage people to do things that contribute to society and not
+to do things that hurt society. And therefore people who develop free
+software should be rewarded and people who develop nonfree software
+should be punished. Because, free software is a contribution to
+society but nonfree software is a scheme to colonize society and that
+deserves punishment not reward.
+<span class="gnun-split"></span>Another way to look at it is to
+realize that to use a nonfree program is either to be foolish or
+unethical or both. Which means that, for me, these nonfree program
+&hellip;is&hellip; might as well be nothing because I am not going to
+use it. Ethical people, people who insists on living an up-right life
+are going to reject it any way. So his program is only avail&hellip;
+only going to be of used to suckers. Who don't have well trained
+consciousness. And what good is that? So the person says to me
+&ldquo;I can only develop this program if I make it proprietary;
+that's the only way I can bring in enough money so that I can spend
+the time developing this program.&rdquo; I'm not going to tell him
+that can't be true because I don't know his circumstances.
+<span class="gnun-split"></span>If he says
+that there is no way he can develop this program unless he has paid
+full time and if he says that he doesn't know any way to get payed
+full time except to make the program proprietary; I'm not going to
+tell him this is false because he knows his situation. What I will
+tell him is, &ldquo;Please don't develop the program.&rdquo;
+Developing the program in that way would be evil or would be
+harmful. So it's better if you don't do it at all. Do something
+else. Because a few years from now sooner or later some one else will
+be in a different situation. Some one will be able to write this
+program with out subjugating the users. And we could afford to wait a
+few years so that we keep our freedom. Freedom is worth a small
+sacrifice. We can wait a few years.
+</p>
+
+<p>So next question.
+</p>
+
+<p><b>[MOC]</b> His next question is &ldquo;All intellectual work like
+books are proprietary&rdquo;. Is it not justified in case of software?
+</p>
+
+<p><b>[RMS]</b> Well, he is mistaken. There are plenty of free books
+as well. In fact more and more the movement is catching on to makes
+books free, free as in freedom I mean. Now, we started doing this in
+the 1980's. The manuals for GNU software that are developed by the GNU
+project are all free in the sense that you are free to copy them. They
+are not gratis at-least not always. We print copies and we sell them
+and we sell them for more than the production cost because we're
+trying to raise money. So, you know, of course this was to produce
+re-charge this much because we're trying to raise substantial money
+with these books. But you are free to copy and change them. And you
+could even get the source code through the Internet, the source code
+for the books.
+<span class="gnun-split"></span>And now we are not the only ones. There is now a
+movement for free text books. In-fact there are projects in India and
+elsewhere to develop free educational materials to make available to
+schools. A complete curriculum of free educational materials. Because
+educational materials should be free. And so I suggest that you look
+at the site <a href="http://gnowledge.org">gnowledge.org</a>. That's
+like knowledge but spells with a &lsquo;g&rsquo; instead of a
+&lsquo;k&rsquo;. And you will see one of these initiatives being
+carried out by Prof. Nagarjuna in Mumbai.
+</p>
+
+<p>Also, I should mention the free encyclopedia &mdash;
+Wikipedia. It's the largest encyclopedia in history. I believe, it now
+has more than a hundred and sixty thousand entries. Which is far more
+than any other encyclopedia has ever had. Like around twice. And this
+has been done in just a few years; by the public.
+</p>
+
+<p>So, if we were to believe these threats, ???? people say the only way
+to develop these things, the only way to write and update an
+encyclopedia is proprietary, they are making a threat. They're saying
+if you don't agree to give up your freedom, you won't get the
+encyclopedia, you won't get the software. They're asking us to feel
+helpless and feel desperate. And that's really foolish.
+</p>
+
+<p>[RMS yawns]
+</p>
+
+<p>Next question.
+</p>
+
+<p><b>[MOC]</b> The next question is from Ganapathy. He says &ldquo;I
+believe the greatest challenge to free software lies in getting
+quality software which means quality software developers. But enough
+drive has to be there for them to spend time and brain. So what do you
+suggest for getting enthusiastic developers.&rdquo;
+</p>
+
+<p><b>[RMS interrupts]</b> That's not true.
+</p>
+
+<p>Well, you know I keep getting questions from people who believe things
+that are demonstrably false. People who are making guesses about our
+community and they're guessing wrong.
+</p>
+
+<p>The fact is free software has a reputation for high quality. The
+GNU plus Linux operating system initially began catching on back in
+the 90's because of its high quality. People discovered that it would
+stay up for months. That they would find&hellip; the only time the
+system went down is when the power failed. And this contrasts with
+nonfree software that's often quite unreliable. So you see this
+often, you will see people foolishly making the assumptions that free
+software can't work. They don't know any thing but they're making it
+all up. Now, why is this? I guess because nonfree software is so
+common, they make the assumption it must work well.
+</p>
+
+<p>Do you think that people use Windows because it is good? What a
+ridiculous idea. People use Windows because other people use Windows
+and that's the only reason. Well, no that's not the only
+reason&hellip; they use Windows because it comes on their
+computers. These are the two reasons. The only reason that&hellip; let
+any one&hellip; one thing in the usual thing why does some alternative
+survive; only because it's better. Free software has to be twice as
+good. In order to get practically minded people to choose it. Of
+course you can hear my scorn in the term practically minded. These are
+people who don't value their freedom.
+<span class="gnun-split"></span>They're fools. A fool and this
+freedom are soon parted. But there are plenty of fools; especially in
+a lot of organizations are people who believe that they are not
+supposed to pay attention to ethics or freedom. They are only supposed
+to pay attention to short-term practicalities. Which is a recipe for
+making bad decisions. For hurting society. But that's the way they
+are. So why is it that even those people some times choose free
+software? Because it has practical advantages. For instances it's
+powerful and it's reliable.
+</p>
+
+<p>Next question
+</p>
+
+<p><b>[MOC]</b> The next question is from Subramani. Distributing the
+software as a free copy is user friendly but is it business
+friendly. Don't you think it will disturb the economic balance in the
+software.
+</p>
+
+<p><b>[RMS]</b> This is utterly foolish. First of all, remember that I
+explain that free software is a matter of freedom not price. Free
+software does not mean that it is gratis. But sometimes it's
+gratis. On the other hand some time you can get nonfree software
+gratis. That doesn't make it ethically legitimate, because it's still
+tramples your freedom. It still keeps you divided and helpless, even
+if you didn't have to pay. Schools in India can get Windows
+gratis. But it's still harmful. So the issue is not about price. The
+issue is about whether the software respects your freedom. And
+this&hellip; this&hellip; idea there is some kind of balance. I don't
+know what in the world he is talking about? But remember if a business
+is making money by subjugating people, that's bad, that's some thing
+we should bring to an end.
+<span class="gnun-split"></span>There are many businesses that operate by
+mistreating people. And those businesses are bad. They don't have a
+right to continue. They deserved to be brought to an end. I won't say
+that nonfree software is the biggest such problem. Because, you know
+child labor is very common but I don't think that's mostly free
+software development. I think it's mostly other things. There are many
+ways that a business can be&hellip; can operate that is harmful to
+society. And we have to put in an end to that.
+</p>
+
+<p>Or in looking at Coca Cola, poisoning people, while draining away the
+water supply from the people. And not only that; they murder union
+organizers in Colombia. So, there is a world wide boycott of Coca Cola
+company. Coca Cola company is, by the way, being sued in the U.S. for
+arranging with paramilitary [FIXME: subs..94:07] to murder union
+organizers in Colombia. So join the boycott. Don't buy Coke.
+</p>
+
+<p>So I hope&hellip; I said this basically to illustrate that there
+are many ways a business can conduct itself unethically. And
+businesses that conduct itself unethically don't have a right to
+continue. They're not legitimate and they shouldn't be treated as
+legitimate. Non-free software development is an example because what
+ever the program itself does, the license subjugate the users. And
+that's wrong.
+</p>
+
+<p>Next question.
+</p>
+
+<p><b>[MOC]</b> Windows is supporting regional languages and it's
+helping the people of India but GNU doesn't have this feature. What is
+your suggestion in this regard?
+</p>
+
+<p><b>[RMS]</b> He is mistaken. You know, I have never given a speech
+where so many questions that make false statements, criticizing the
+free software movement in a ways that are not true. Why is it&hellip;
+you know I can understand not knowing. Every one of us is born
+completely ignorant. And every one of us, in any particular subject
+starts out knowing nothing. But why are peoples here are so ready to
+make assumptions when they don't know. Why do not admit you don't
+know? Why these people believes things which are false. Which clearly
+they don't have good evidence for.
+</p>
+
+<p>Actually, Windows&hellip; doesn't it support all the Indian
+languages? And are the other hand free software does. And it is not
+just Windows by the way, there are many other nonfree software
+packages and nonfree means you can't change it. With free software
+you can change it. So if you want a program to support your favorite
+language and it's nonfree, you have to beg and plead with that
+developer to cater to you. But if the program is free software, you
+don't have to beg anybody. You can just do it. And this is what
+happening. People in India are adapting GNU/Linux to various different
+Indian languages. And if they haven't yet done your favorite language,
+you can start the project. You are not helpless. Launch the project to
+support your favorite language. You know, even tribal people can
+localize the system to their language. You don't have to have the one
+of the major recognized languages. In order to get support in free
+software, you just have to be willing to do the work.
+</p>
+
+<p>Next question please.
+</p>
+<p><b>[MOC]</b> Sir, we would like to know how long can we continue this
+question and answer session?
+</p>
+<p><b>[RMS]</b> Well, certainly I'll do another fifteen minutes.
+</p>
+<p><b>[MOC]</b> Yes sir.
+</p>
+<p><b>[RMS]</b> Oh, Please don't call me sir. I believe in
+equality. And it's really a sort of bad for me if you call me sir. It
+might make me get in over inflated estimate of how important I am. And
+that will be bad for me, as well as bad for you.
+</p>
+<p>The important thing here is freedom. I am just its representative.
+</p>
+<p><b>[MOC]</b> The next question is from Vijay Anand. The question
+is, &ldquo;There are lots of incompatible GNU/Linux distributions. Is
+this a drawback to the free software movement?&rdquo;
+</p>
+<p>Well, we shouldn't over estimate the extent to which they're
+incompatible. At the source level they are almost all&hellip; they are
+mostly compatible, unless you are doing very obscure things. You don't
+need to worry about the variations when you are writing source
+code. They will have different binary and different packaging but
+that's not a very big difficulty. So, I say, no It's not a major
+drawback. Of course you know, having different versions of the system
+can be good if users&hellip; different users want them. Now let's
+contrast this with the kind of incompatibility that we have, that we
+find in the nonfree world. You'll find that Microsoft makes gross
+incompatibilities in each version of its systems. They makes&hellip;
+they deliberately make formats incompatible with everything else and
+protocols incompatible with everything else. They try many different
+ways to prevent other people from inter operating with them. And each
+version of a Microsoft package is likely to be incompatible with the
+previous version.
+</p>
+
+<p>They impose incompatibility because they have power and they think
+they can get away with it. Whereas in free software world we
+developers don't have power. If I make a decision that you don't like,
+you are not stuck with it. Because you have the source code, you can
+change it, you can change any of my decisions. Whether I make this
+decision&hellip; you know, if hypothetically I choose to impose
+incompatibility on you, you could change it, you could take my program
+and modify it to compatible with whatever. Where is&hellip; you know,
+&hellip;even if I made a decision that you just don't like for some
+other reason, you can still change it. You can change any of my
+decisions regardless of why I made the decision, regardless of why you
+don't like it; you can change it. So I don't have any power over you
+when I develop free software. You, the users are in control of your
+software. So it will you generally do what you want more or less. But
+the developers of nonfree software, they do have power over you. And
+so you are stuck with their decisions.
+</p>
+
+<p>Next question please.
+</p>
+
+<p><b>[MOC]</b> The next question is from Rakesh. &ldquo;Since the
+source code of free software is available, it is possible for a
+cracker to introduce malicious code into the program and distribute
+binaries, so that it looks like the original. Is this a drawback to
+the free software movement?&rdquo;
+</p>
+
+<p><b>[RMS]</b> Well, we have ways of protecting against this. For
+instance you can get your copies from a reputable distributor and we
+use digital signatures to sign our co&hellip; and we use &hellip; you
+know, cryptographic [FIXME: catches 1:42:48] the checksums. So that
+you can see the checksum that the developer publish and thus get an
+assurance that the version you have is the correct version.
+</p>
+<p>[silence]</p>
+
+<p><b>[MOC]</b> The next question is from Krishnan. The question is,
+&ldquo;When do you expect the GNU HURD to be available to the public
+for normal use?&rdquo;
+</p>
+
+<p><b>[RMS]</b> I have learned I should not try to predict that. A few
+months ago, the HURD developers concluded that they really should
+switch to a different micro kernel. And it's going to take a
+substantial amount of work to do that. So I'm&hellip; I'm disappointed
+by this delay. But it looks like that will mean some delay.
+</p>
+
+<p>Next question please.</p>
+
+<p><b>[MOC]</b> The next question is from Manu Meta&hellip;
+Metallurgy. The question is, &ldquo;Is developing free software on
+nonfree operating systems wrong?&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p><b>[RMS]</b> Well, it's not exactly wrong. But it's foolish to use
+the nonfree operating system because you can't live in freedom as
+long as you do that. And your software, although it be free, is not a
+contribution to the free world when it doesn't&hellip; if it doesn't
+run on a free operating system.</p>
+
+<p>And in particular you should be careful about Sun's Java
+platform. Never use Sun's Java platform to develop software. And at
+least not develop free software because Sun's Java program is not
+free. There are free Java platforms, but they don't have all the
+capabilities of the Sun's Java platform. So the danger is if you are
+using the Sun's Java platform you might use some features we don't
+have yet. And you wouldn't even know it. You won't notice because you
+won't notice a problem because it will work. It will work on Sun's
+platform. So then several months later you'll try the program on our
+platform and find that you did months work based on a feature we don't
+have and you will say &ldquo;Oh! it would be so much work to redo
+that; that I can't do it.&rdquo;
+<span class="gnun-split"></span>So then your program won't run on a
+free platform at all. At least not until years go by and we have
+implemented a replacement for that feature. So you should use our free
+Java platform to develop that. Use the GNU Java platform&hellip; the
+GNU Java compiler and use the GNU Classpath as the libraries. Don't
+use Sun's Java Libraries, they are not free. So this way if you ever
+start to use a standard Java feature that we don't have, you'll find
+out immediately. And you'll be able to choose some other way of
+solving the problem with out wasting a lot of time.</p>
+
+<p>Next question please.</p>
+
+<p><b>[MOC]</b> What do you think is the greatest obstacle for free
+software in India? How do we break them up?</p>
+
+<p><b>[RMS</b> I'd say the biggest obstacle for free software in India
+right now is the tendency of government agencies and schools to use
+nonfree software. It's vital to convince the schools to teach the
+children in India to grow up living in freedom. When Windows&hellip;
+Microsoft offers the schools gratis copies of Windows, the schools
+have to say &ldquo;We are not going to accept them; we are not going
+to participate in teaching our kids to be addicts.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p>Next question please.</p>
+
+<p><b>[MOC]</b> The next question is from Pankaj. The question is
+&ldquo;Does the availability of source code make them more vulnerable
+to attacks?&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p><b>[RMS]</b> Well, [FIXME 108:00] speaking the answer is just
+opposite. Our software is much more secure. People have various
+speculations about why that is the case. I don't know why, but that's
+what people observe. </p>
+
+<p>Next question.</p>
+
+<p><b>[MOC]</b> This is the last question of this conference.</p>
+
+<p><b>[RMS]</b> Okay.</p>
+
+<p><b>[MOC]</b> The question is, &ldquo;There was a recent controversy
+over the GFDL. What was the controversy?&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p><b>[RMS]</b> Sorry, controversy over what?</p>
+
+<p><b>[MOC]</b> The GFDL; License.</p>
+
+<p><b>[RMS]</b> Oh, There are some people who don't like some of the
+provisions of the GFDL. The GFDL arose non-technical sections,
+sections that give your opinions about the&hellip; the field and so
+on, which are in-variant. They can't be changed or removed. The GFDL
+says that the actual subject matter of the work, it's designed for
+manuals. And the GFDL says that the actual documentation has to be
+free, but you could also have opinion sections which don't have any
+documentation but they give your opinion about the ethics of the field
+and so on. And those have to be preserved and can't be changed. There
+are people who think that this is wrong. I think that they are being
+too rigid in their understanding of the freedoms. People need the
+freedom to change the technical substance of the work. And the GFDL
+provides that freedom. But having the authors opinion in there
+somewhere doesn't interfere with your user of the work to do with
+technical job and doesn't interfere with your changing in the work to
+do a different technical job.</p>
+
+<p>So if that was the last question then I guess we're done.</p>
+
+<p><b>[MOC]</b> We thank you sir, for this inspiring and interesting
+session.</p>
+
+<p><b>[RMS interrupts]</b> Please don't call me sir.</p>
+
+<p><b>[MOC]</b> We thank you Richard, for this inspiring and
+interesting session. You have provided us with immense knowledge over
+free software. And cleared many doubts pertaining to the movement. We
+now fully understand the importance of using free software. We assure
+this would have earned you many followers among the students community
+of our college. We find ourself&hellip;</p>
+
+<p><b>[RMS interrupts]</b> Happy Hacking and Good Night.</p>
+
+<p><b>[MOC]</b> A very Good Night to you sir.</p>
+
+<p>[applause]</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+<p>Contributors (in alphabetical order): Krishnan, Saravana
+Manickam, Vijay Kumar, Vimal Joseph.</p>
+</blockquote>
+
+</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 &amp; GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org">&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;</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">&lt;webmasters@gnu.org&gt;</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">
+ &lt;web-translators@gnu.org&gt;</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 3.0 US. 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 &copy; 2004 Richard M. Stallman, Vijay Kumar</p>
+
+<p>Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is
+permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2014/04/12 12:40:29 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>