diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/ough-interview.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/ough-interview.html | 1073 |
1 files changed, 1073 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/ough-interview.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/ough-interview.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f456e28 --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/ough-interview.html @@ -0,0 +1,1073 @@ +<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.90 --> +<title>An interview for OUGH! +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> +<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/ough-interview.translist" --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> +<h2>An interview for OUGH!</h2> + +<p><em>This is a transcript of an interview with Richard +Stallman conducted by Theodoros Papatheodorou [<a href="#f1">1</a>] +in May, 2012.</em></p> +<hr class="thin" /> + +<p>Richard Stallman, the free software activist and software +developer, maintains a legendary status in the computing community. He +addresses all our questions in an interview of epic proportions that he +gave to OUGH! in two parts.</p> + +<h3>PART ONE</h3> + +<p>While working as a “system hacker” in MIT's AI Lab (i.e. +a member of the team developing the Lab's own operating system) he +experienced the profound change that overtook the software industry. Up +until that point the general practice was for people to freely share, +modify and reuse operating system software developed for the machines of +the day. In the 1970's the software industry stopped distributing the +source code of these programs, making it impossible for computer users +to study and modify them. Furthermore new copyright laws made it +illegal to do so.</p> + +<p>The change struck him as unethical, and it affected him personally as +the hacker community in which he thrived was broken up as two competing +companies hired most of the talent in the Lab to develop nonfree +products. Stallman went against the trend and decided to devote his +life to the development of free software, where the user has the right +to use the program in any way he sees fit, study the source code, modify +it and even redistribute his modified versions to others. In 1984 he +quit the MIT AI Lab and started developing GNU, the first free operating +system which today, with the addition of a piece of software developed +by a young Finish student, Linus Torvalds, forms GNU/Linux.</p> + +<p>Today, it is run on the majority of servers on the Internet, academic +institutions, large enterprises, the military, and on desktops of +millions of people around the world who have rejected software licenses +that come with Windows and Mac OS. They choose to run a system that was +started by Stallman and further developed by thousands of others over +the Internet. GNU/Linux is superior to proprietary software from a +technical point of view, and it's available gratis, but Stallman insists +that these are welcome, but secondary features. Freedom is the key. We +start the conversation talking about electronic rights.</p> + +<dl> +<dt>You've said “in the Internet age we have less rights that in +the physical world.”</dt> + +<dd> +<p>Yes. For instance in The US, Internet service providers can +disconnect you without going to court, they don't have to prove that +there is a reason. And as a result they can censor you. If you want to +print papers and stand on the street handing them out you can do that, +you don't have to beg some company to “please cooperate” so +that you can do it. But to do this on the Internet you need the +cooperation of an ISP and a domain name registrar and maybe a hosting +service, and if they don't like what you're doing or somebody threatens +them who has a lot of power and doesn't like what you're doing, then they +can just terminate your service and censor you.</p> + +<p>People should have a legal right to continued service of any of these +kinds as long as they fulfill their side of the bargain. I believe it's +the case in the US that the phone company can't arbitrarily disconnect +your phone line as long as you continue paying your bill and so on, then +they have to keep giving you phone service, it's not their choice. It +should be the same with Internet connectivity. It shouldn't be their +choice, they shouldn't be allowed to set their own conditions for +continuing to give you service.</p> +</dd> + +<dt>They should provide the service as a public utility?</dt> + +<dd><p>Exactly.</p></dd> + +<dt>This dependence on a corporation also extends to financial transactions.</dt> + +<dd> +<p>That's the other aspect in which the digital world gives us less +rights than the physical world. Suppose in addition to handing out +papers on the street, you'd like to ask people to give money to the +cause. They can give cash, and you can accept the cash, and you don't +need the cooperation of any company in order to do so. Once you receive +the cash, it's valid money, and you can spend it. But, to do the same +thing in the digital world you need the services of a payment company, +and those companies might arbitrarily disconnect you also.</p> +</dd> + +<dt>This is what happened with <em>WikiLeaks</em>. After it released information +that embarrassed the US government (among others), <em>MasterCard</em> +and <em>Visa</em> stop accepting donations for the site.</dt> + +<dd> +<p>Exactly. <em>WikiLeaks</em> showed all these vulnerabilities +because the US government decided to silence them and did everything +they could to do so. It has caused a lot of harm although you can still +access the <em>WikiLeaks</em> pages if you use the right domain name. +They did manage to cut off most of the donations to <em>WikiLeaks</em>, +and now it's having trouble operating.</p> +</dd> + +<dt>The organization has received a lot of bad publicity in the US. +What's your view?</dt> + +<dd> +<p><em>WikiLeaks</em> is doing something heroic. A lot of the press in +the US is subservient to the government, this is true in a lot of +countries. Or you might better say that it's subservient to business, +but the US government works for business, so business wants to say good +things about it. I think we need laws stopping the payment companies +from disconnecting anybody's service, except when they prove that they +have cause.</p> +</dd> + +<dt>Technology has spawned new forms of control, but it has also +resulted in new ways of protest, self-organization, and dissent. +<em>Anonymous</em> stands out as an example of hacktivists.</dt> + +<dd> +<p><em>Anonymous</em> does various different things. Most often +<em>Anonymous</em> has a lot of people go to the door of an +organization's website, they're a crowd, and so they may get in +somebody's way. This is comparable to protesting in front of the +organization's building in the physical world. And that we recognize as +democratic political activity. So <em>Anonymous</em>' web protests are +also democratic political activity. Of course, the forces of oppression +want to define this as a crime rather than a protest, and they're using +the change in technology as an opportunity effectively to criminalize +protests.</p> + +<p>Another thing that I think maybe <em>Anonymous</em>' members have +done, is changing the text in the websites so as to criticize the +organization whose site it is. This is the virtual equivalent of +writing a critical slogan on a poster, which is pretty normal democratic +political activity, but they call it “attacking” the site. +The word “attack” is meant to give people the idea that this +is something other than a political protest and put people in prison for +protesting.</p> +</dd> + +<dt>Among hackers the term “hacker” means something +completely different than what it means to the general public. Could +you explain that difference?</dt> + +<dd> +<p>Starting from 40 years ago, when I joined the hacker community at +MIT, I've been proud to call myself a hacker. I was hired by MIT to be +a system hacker, meaning to make the system better. At the time, we +used an operating system called ITS, the Incompatible Timesharing +System, which had been developed by the team of hackers at the +Artificial Intelligence Lab; and then they hired me to be part of the +team. My job was to make the system better. Hacking had a more general +meaning, which meant basically being playfully clever and pushing the +limits of what was possible.</p> +</dd> + +<dt>Hacking doesn't even have to involve computers.</dt> + +<dd> +<p>Hacking was not limited in improving the operating system. You could +hack in any media, it didn't have to involve computers. Hacking, as a +general concept, is an attitude towards life. What's fun for you? If +finding playful clever ways that were thought impossible is fun then +you're a hacker. One thing that was supposed to be impossible was +breaking the security on computers. So some people who were inclined to +be hackers got into that medium of breaking security. Then journalists +found about hackers around 1981, misunderstood them, and they thought +hacking was breaking security. That's not generally true: first of all, +there are many ways of hacking that have nothing to do with security, +and second, breaking security is not necessarily hacking. It's only +hacking if you're being playfully clever about it.</p> +</dd> +</dl> + +<h4>Software Patents</h4> + +<dl> + +<dt>Apart from electronic rights you are also a campaigner against +software patents. Companies like Amazon, Google, and Apple, to name a +few, are currently engaged in heated patent wars.</dt> + +<dd> +<p>Patents are like land mines for software developers. It doesn't +surprise me that a product such as an <em>Android</em> phone is accused +of violating a tremendous number of patents, because it's a complicated +software system. Any such complicated software system is going to have +thousands of ideas in it, and if 10% of these ideas are patented that +means hundreds of those ideas are patented. So any large program is +likely to run afoul of hundreds of patents, and a system that's a +combination of many programs is likely to run afoul of thousands of +patents or more.</p> +</dd> + +<dt>As the law stands, these patents have an expiration date of 20 years +from the moment they were filed.</dt> + +<dd> +<p>This is a very long time in the software field. Keep in mind that +any time the technological context changes, then we need to adapt our +way of doing many things to fit the new context. Which means they will +all need new ideas, and if those new ideas are patented it's yet another +disaster.</p> +</dd> + +<dt>What's special about software that you think it should not have the +patent system apply to it?</dt> + +<dd> +<p>Software is not the usual kind of case for patents. Let's look at +the usual case: patents for something that's made in a factory. Those +patents only affect the companies that have the factories and make the +products. If they can all live with the patent system the rest of us +have no reason to care. But with software, the problem is that it is +much more complicated than anything else. The reason is software is +inherently easier to design than physical products.</p> + +<p>Software is simply mathematics, whereas physical products have to +cope with the perversity of matter. And lots of unexpected things will +happen, we have models to try to predict what will happen with physical +systems, but they're not guaranteed to be right.</p> + +<p>With software you're using mathematical constructs, and they do what +they're defined to do, and if they don't then you go to the compiler +developer, and you say, “There's a bug in your compiler. Fix it +so that this construct does what is supposed to do.”</p> + +<p>You can't do that to the physical world, but you can do that to the +compiler developer. Because of this it's easier to design software, but +people push every ability to its limit. So you give people an easier +kind of design, and they make bigger systems.</p> + +<p>So with software, a few people in a few years can design something +that has a million elements in its design. That would be a mega-project +if it had to be made with physical matter. So you make the system so +complicated, and it's going to have lots of ideas in it, and that means +that it's going to infringe lots of patents or at least be accused of +infringing lots of patents.</p> + +<p>In other words, the burden of the patent system on software is much +higher that it is on anything else. All software developers are in +danger, and what you see with the patent wars that have broken out in +the past year or so is if you develop a big complicated software package +you're going to be sued.</p> +</dd> + +<dt>How is it different, say, to the patent for a drug?</dt> + +<dd> +<p>Patents on medicine are another special case. Because when you force +poor countries to have patents on medicines, which is what the World +Trade Organization does, that makes medicine so expensive that people +can't afford it and they die.</p> + +<p>The people who founded the WTO and its executives should be sent to +the Hague to be tried for mass murder. We should organize to demand +that our governments stop their support for the WTO; there are thousands +of reasons for that. That organization's purpose is to give business +more power to turn democracy into a sham.</p> + +<p>All so-called “free trade treaties” are actually aimed to +weaken democracy and transfer political power to business. Therefore in +the name of democracy we must abolish those treaties. There are good +arguments that international trade can make both countries wealthier, +and if these countries are democratic enough that the wealth will spread +to everyone in both countries then they really are better off. However, +the so-called “free trade treaties” are designed to make the +countries less democratic and ensure that the wealth won't spread +around.</p> + +<p>That means that they cancel out whatever benefit they might produce +<em>even if the GNP of both countries increases</em>. What good is that +if the increases all go to the rich, which is what they've done in the +US <em>at least</em> since 1980.</p> +</dd> + +<dt>These patent wars have seen companies buying up an arsenal of +software patents just to protect themselves from litigation…</dt> + +<dd> +<p>You know they might be, but it could be that <em>Google</em> has +fewer patents because it hasn't existed so long. This may be one case +where they're not all in the same position and not all interdependent, +and if so, that would be unfortunate, because after all <em> +Android</em> is the only smartphone operating system still in use that +is mostly free software, and that at least gives us a starting point to +try to run phones without proprietary software.</p> + +<p>If <em>Android</em> becomes dangerous and is crushed by patents, then +we might never be able to run smartphones with free software.</p> +</dd> + +<dt>Google is about to buy Motorola, which is not doing great +financially, just in order to get access to its patents.</dt> + +<dd> +<p>This shows how the patent system becomes an obstruction to progress. +When there are enough patents applying to one product it becomes hard to +cope with the patent system at all. I hope that they (Google) succeed +that way, in protecting themselves, because by doing so they are to some +extent sheltering the free software community as well.</p> +</dd> + +<dt>Do you believe in the complete abolition of software patents?</dt> + +<dd> +<p>Right, patents should not apply to software. Keep in mind that you +can't always classify patents as either software patents or non-software +patents. Sometimes the same patent will apply both to programs and to +circuits. What I recommend is to change the law to say “by +definition, if it's a program, it does not infringe any +patents.”</p> +</dd> +</dl> + +<h4>P2P File Sharing and the Music/Film Industry</h4> + +<dl> +<dt>You've often spoken against the use of the word +“piracy”.</dt> + +<dd> +<p>It's a smear term! They want to say that sharing is the moral +equivalent of attacking ships. I don't agree with that position, so I +don't call sharing “piracy”. I call it +“sharing”.</p> + +<p>I am not against profit in general. I'm against mistreating people. +Any given way of doing business may or may not involve mistreating +people.</p> + +<p>The example of the struggling artist is a ridiculous example because +the existing system does very little for struggling artists. It's +lousy. And if we just legalize sharing it won't make any difference to +struggling artists. It might even help them.</p> + +<p>I think artists should release music with licenses that explicitly +permit sharing, and some of them do. The point is that this argument +against sharing is bogus.</p> + +<p>These giant multinational companies want more money for themselves, +and they use the artist as an excuse. Little bit trickles down to the +artists, and then there are few stars that get treated very well. But +we don't need to make them richer.</p> +</dd> + +<dt>People should have the right to non-commercially share and +redistribute music?</dt> + +<dd> +<p>Music and any published work. Because sharing is good, sharing +builds community, so sharing must be legal, now that sharing is feasible +and easy.</p> + +<p>Fifty years ago making copies and redistributing them +non-commercially was so hard that it didn't matter whether it was legal +or not. But now that it's so easy, to stop people from doing it can +only be achieved using nasty, draconian measures, and even those don't +always work.</p> + +<p>But, I guess, when they get nasty enough they may work, but why +should we tolerate such nastiness?</p> +</dd> + +<dt>The music and film industry campaigned very hard on PIPA, SOPA, and +ACTA.</dt> + +<dd> +<p>They want unjust laws all around the world, and in some countries +they've succeeded getting them. I read that Ireland adopted a law +similar to SOPA, at least described that way, but I don't know any +details yet.</p> + +<p>These laws are an injustice. They are meant to subject people more +to the media companies, so of course they're wrong, of course people +hate them. The only question is; is there enough democracy left in any +given country for people to be able to stop them?</p> + +<p>European citizens should take action and organize with others so as +to get your country not to ratify ACTA and convince the European +Parliament to vote it down. Save the world from that injustice.</p> +</dd> + +<dt>Recently government agencies acted to shut down a few sites, such as +Mega-Upload.</dt> + +<dd> +<p>I don't know whether Mega-Upload ultimately would deserve to be shut +down. Remember Mega-Upload is a business, not an example of sharing. +Sharing means non-commercial redistribution of exact copies. So I don't +have a conclusion about Mega-Upload in particular.</p> + +<p>I do think there was something outrageous about the way it was shut +down, before a court got to decide whether it's legal or not. But +meanwhile there's been a law suit against (I guess it's called) Hotfile +and the plaintiffs are claiming that “this has to be bad because +it's similar to Mega-Upload which we shut down.” Which is a +swindle because no court has decided whether Mega-Upload was legal. So +they're citing this premature shutdown as proof that it's bad.</p> + +<p>I don't know, maybe it is bad. That's not the issue I'm strongly +concerned with. I'm more concerned with peer-to-peer sharing because +that's clearly good.</p> +</dd> +</dl> + +<h4>On Privacy</h4> + +<dl> +<dt>What about services like Facebook and Gmail?</dt> + +<dd> +<p>There are many issues of freedom in life, and having control of your +computing is my contribution—I hope—to the idea of what +human rights are. There are many other human rights people deserve, and +many of them that apply in other areas of life carry over to the virtual +world.</p> + +<p>So for instance, what are the bad things about Facebook? Well, it +gives people a false impression of privacy. It lets you think that you +can designate something as to be seen only by your friends, not +realizing that it's actually to be seen by your Facebook friends and not +your actual friends. And any of them could publish it, so it could be +seen by anybody; it could be published in the newspaper. Facebook can't +prevent that.</p> + +<p>What it could do is warn the users every time they start a session +“Watch out, anything you post here—even if you say that only +certain people should see it—it could get published due to events +beyond your control. So think twice about anything you are going to +post here. And remember that, the next time you try to apply for a job, +the company might demand that you show everything in your account. Your +school might also demand this. And if you really want your +communication to be private, do not send it this way.” That's one +thing that they should do.</p> + +<p>Facebook is a surveillance engine and collects tremendous amounts of +personal data, and its business model is to abuse that data. So you +shouldn't use Facebook at all.</p> + +<p>And worse than that, Facebook even does surveillance on people that +don't have Facebook accounts. If you see a “Like” button in +a page then Facebook knows that your computer visited that page. And +it's not the only company that's doing this; I believe that Twitter does +this and Google+ does this, so it's a practice that's being imitated. +And it's wrong no matter who does it.</p> + +<p>The other thing that Facebook does, is that it uses people's pictures +in commercial advertisement and gives them no way to refuse.</p> +</dd> + +<dt>Eric Schmidt of Google fame said a couple of years ago that if you +have something you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be +doing it.</dt> + +<dd> +<p>That's ridiculous. What kind of things would you not anyone to +know?</p> + +<p>Maybe you are planning a protest. It is common nowadays for +governments to label dissidents as terrorists and use electronic +surveillance on them to sabotage their protests in order to effectively +sabotage democracy.</p> +</dd> + +<dt>These social media also claim that they have had a very strong, +subversive role in the Middle-East uprisings.</dt> + +<dd> +<p>Maybe they do, but remember that these are not located in these +Middle-Eastern countries so they have no strong motive to care to those +governments.</p> + +<p>When, say, the US government wants to crush dissent these companies +are likely to volunteer to help. If they don't, they will be compelled +to anyway.</p> +</dd> + +<dt>You're also known to not use a mobile phone in order to protect your +privacy.</dt> + +<dd> +<p>Of course. Every mobile phone is a tracking and surveillance device. +You could stop your phone from transmitting your GPS location if you've +got a phone that's controlled by free software, although those are very +few. Still the system can determine pretty accurately where the phone +is even without any active cooperation from the phone.</p> + +<p>The US government says it should be able to collect all that +information without even a warrant. Not even a court order, that is. +So that shows how much US government respects human rights.</p> +</dd> + +<dt>Some people have been using <em>TOR</em> and other software to hide +their identities online.</dt> + +<dd> +<p><em>TOR</em> is a very good thing. It helps protect people from Big +Brother. And by Big Brother I mean perhaps the government of Iran or +Syria or the US or any other country that doesn't recognize human +rights.</p> +</dd> +</dl> + +<h3>PART TWO</h3> + +<p>The second part of the interview is about free software and its +functions.</p> + +<p>In the second part of the interview we started off by speaking about +free software and asked for a definition.</p> + +<p>Free software means software that respects user's freedom and user's +community. With software there are just two possibilities; either the +user controls the program or the program controls the users.</p> + +<p>The first case is free software because, in order for the users to +have effective control of the programs, we need certain freedoms. Those +freedoms are the criteria of free software.</p> + +<p>If the users don't control the program, then the program controls the +users, and the developer controls the program. That means that program +is an instrument of unjust power.</p> + +<p>So free software is software that respects user's freedom, and the +idea of the free software movement is: nonfree software is an injustice, +let's put an end to it. First let's escape, and then let's help +everyone else escape. Let's put an end to that injustice.</p> + +<dl> +<dt>And by free of course, you don't just mean just +“gratis”, you mean a lot more than that.</dt> + +<dd> +<p>I mean “free” as in freedom.</p> +</dd> + +<dt>You mentioned that there are certain freedoms that a piece +of software should respect in order to be called free. What are these +freedoms?</dt> + +<dd> +<dl> +<dt>Freedom zero</dt> +<dd>The freedom to run the program as you wish.</dd> + +<dt>Freedom one</dt> +<dd>The Freedom to study the source code and change it to make the +program do your computing the way you wish.</dd> + +<dt>Freedom two</dt> +<dd>The freedom to help others, which means, redistribute exact copies +when you wish.</dd> + +<dt>Freedom three</dt> +<dd>The freedom to contribute to your community—the freedom to +distribute copies of your modified versions when you wish. (That's +assuming that you've made modified version, because not everybody does +that.)</dd> +</dl> +</dd> + +<dt>And in order to support this you started a foundation, the Free +Software Foundation.</dt> + +<dd> +<p>Well, remember the goal is not just theoretical. I wanted to make it +possible to use a computer in freedom. That's impossible if you're +required to use nonfree software, and when I started this in 1983 that +was the only way you could make a computer run. It had to have an +operating system, and all the operating systems were proprietary, so you +had to have nonfree software. (Proprietary means nonfree; they're +synonymous.)</p> + +<p>So to make freedom a real option it was necessary to develop a free +software operating system. I wanted to make it a real possibility to +use a computer and have freedom, and that meant launching a software +developing project to develop all the software that you need to have, +and that's an operating system called GNU. That's why there was actual +work to be done. I wanted to go beyond simply stating a philosophical +point in the abstract, and proceed to the practical work of making +freedom a real possibility.</p> +</dd> + +<dt>And why do you feel that it's an inherent right of people to have +access to the source code of a program?</dt> + +<dd> +<p>Why should people be free? There are people that don't believe in +freedom, and you can't logically argue with them. There's a fundamental +difference in values. Once you recognize that having control over your +software is the only way to live in freedom and use computers, if you +want freedom you've got to insist on free software.</p> +</dd> + +<dt>But why is software unlike other products? When a vendor sells a +chair he expects… [Stallman interrupts]</dt> + +<dd> +<p>Software isn't like those things. Software does complicated things, +and chairs don't. There's no way to design a chair to do things to you +and control what you do. You normally sit on a chair and you control +how you sit. The chair might be more or less comfortable, but it's not +going to move you into a different building or dump you into the street +or all sorts of other surprising things that you might not expect. It's +not likely to have a needle hidden in it which would inject some kind of +drug into you.</p> + +<p>Software, on the other hand, does things far more complicated than +that, and proprietary software commonly has malicious features +comparable to that needle. In Windows, people have found spy features. +There are also back doors which allow those who know how to control them +to do things to the user.</p> + +<p>In other words, Microsoft can do absolutely anything to the users of +Windows: it has total control over their computers, it can take anything +from them, it can sabotage them in any way at all. If you use nonfree +programs you are defenseless against its developer, and the developers +basically say “you should simply trust us because of course a big +corporation like this would never hurt you.”</p> +</dd> + +<dt>Apart from software, companies today try to interfere with what +users can actually store in their devices. One of their tools for +controlling the user is by using proprietary e-book formats.</dt> + +<dd> +<p>These are attacks on the traditional freedoms of readers. The +example I would use is the Amazon “<a +href="/philosophy/why-call-it-the-swindle.html">Swindle</a>” +(a play on words +on Amazon's e-book tablet, the “Kindle”) because that's the +one I know the most facts about. I call it the “swindle” +because it is set up so that it swindles readers out of the traditional +freedoms of readers of books.</p> + +<p>For instance, there is the freedom to own a book, which Amazon says +the users can't. They can only get a license to read the book under +Amazon's choice of conditions. Then there's the freedom to acquire the +book anonymously, which is basically impossible for most well-known +books with the “Swindle”.</p> + +<p>They're only available from Amazon, and Amazon requires users to +identify themselves, as it doesn't allow any way to pay anonymously with +cash, the way you could buy a printed book. As a result Amazon +maintains a database showing all the books that each user has ever read. +That database is a threat to human rights. Then there's the freedom to +give the book to someone else, perhaps after reading it, the freedom to +lend the book to people when you wish, and the freedom to sell the book +to a used book store.</p> + +<p>Amazon eliminates these freedoms, partially by means of digital +handcuffs (malicious features in the software designed to restrict users +so they can't do these things) and partially through having said that +users can't own a book, because Amazon makes them sign a contract saying +they won't give away, lend or sell the book. And then there's the +freedom to keep the book as long as you wish.</p> +</dd> + +<dt>There was an Orwellian twist to the tale…</dt> +<dd> +<p>Yes, because they deleted thousands of copies of “1984”. +That was in 2009. Those copies were authorized copies until the day +Amazon decided to delete them. After this, there was a lot of +criticism, and so Amazon promised it would never do this again unless +ordered to by the state. I do not find that comforting.</p> + +<p>Any one of these makes the “Swindle”—an outrageous +attack on our freedom and something that we must refuse to use. I don't +know all the details about the competitors, but all of them share at +least some of these unacceptable characteristics. Except for some where +you can only install books that are in documented, non-secret +formats.</p> + +<p>Some of them maybe you could buy with cash somewhere if the author is +selling copies. But the problem is, for digital books in general, there +is no way to buy them for cash, or anonymously, because of the fact that +there is no anonymous payment system on the Internet.</p> + +<p>Bitcoin can be used for that, but Bitcoin is somewhat speculative +because its value fluctuates. I don't think it has arrived at the point +of being a convenient easy, anonymous, digital payment system.</p> + +<p>And it's not inherently anonymous. You can make a Bitcoin payment +anonymously but you have to go to some extra trouble. I don't remember +the details, but it was complicated enough that I didn't think I would +do it. I would just continue not buying things online.</p> +</dd> + +<dt>There is another aspect to using nonfree software: you are being a +bad neighbor as well.</dt> + +<dd> +<p>When you are asked to promise not to share with other people, what +does that mean? You are being asked to betray your community. Now, +what's your community? It's the people you know, the people you +normally cooperate with. These software licenses invite you to betray +the people you normally cooperate with.</p> +</dd> + +<dt>People use the terms free & open source indiscriminately, but +they are different things.</dt> + +<dd> +<p>The term “open source” was coined in 1998 by people in +the free software community. Remember that I started the free software +movement in 1983. By 1998 we had already achieved a considerable +amount, there were many people writing free software and many people +using it.</p> + +<p>But not all of them agreed with the philosophy of the free software +movement. Many of them, although they liked using and developing free +software, considered our philosophy too radical and shocking. They +coined a different term so that they could avoid any reference to our +philosophy and avoid presenting the issue as a matter of justice versus +injustice.</p> + +<p>So that's the purpose of the term “open source”. It's to +talk about more or less the same category of software but without +presenting it as an ethical issue. They don't say that if a program is +not open source then it's an injustice and you must try to escape from +it.</p> +</dd> + +<dt>You've said in the past that the “the agenda of the free +software movement has been subverted and even nearly lost.” Are +you referring to cases such as Android (the mobile phone operating +system)?</dt> + +<dd> +<p>Android is just one example of the general tendency for most people +in a community not to think of this in terms of freedom and justice. +“Open source” is a large part of that too.</p> + +<p>And then look at the more than 1000 different distributions of the +GNU/Linux OS: there around ten of them which are entirely free software, +whose developers keep them free software as a matter of principle, and +the other thousand-or-so include nonfree software or steer the user +towards nonfree software, which in an instant grants legitimacy to the +nonfree software and directly rejects the philosophy of the free +software movement.</p> + +<p>And these speak a very loud voice. Most people coming into the +community formulate their ideas of what it's all about based on those +distributions and from other people who are happy with those, and +basically only a minority of the free software community regards nonfree +software as an injustice that we shouldn't tolerate. And these views, +of course, propagate.</p> + +<p>Strictly speaking Android is free software but it's not complete: in +order to actually run a phone you need other software which isn't free. +Every Android phone needs some nonfree software too.</p> + +<p>In addition, many of those are “tyrant products” which +don't allow users to replace the system. So the software in them may +have been made from free source code, but if the user can't replace the +software, then those executable programs are not free.</p> +</dd> + +<dt>Despite your technical achievements when it comes to coding, one of +your greatest hacks was the inception of GNU GPL, a seminal license that +influenced a lot of others.</dt> + +<dd> +<p>Well, it's better to say that most other free software licenses were +written as reaction against the ideas of GNU GPL.</p> + +<p>You see, the GNU GPL is a copyleft license. Every free software +license, in order to be one, has to give you the four freedoms. The +only way to get these freedoms is if the work is released under a +license that gives them to you.</p> + +<p>Copyright law today has been made too restricted, everything is +copyrighted by default. Therefore the only way a program can be free is +if the copyright holders put on a formal declaration that gives the four +freedoms. This formal declaration is what we call a free software +license.</p> + +<p>There are many ways to do that. Copyleft says that there is a +condition placed on freedoms two and three (remember those were the +freedoms to distribute exact copies and copies of your modified +versions). The condition which is copyleft says that when you're +distributing them, you have to do it respecting the same freedoms for +the next person.</p> + +<p>So people who get copies from you, whether they're modified or not, +must get the same four freedoms. If you put some of this code into +another program with other code so that you've made changes, the +conditions say that that entire program must give people the four +freedoms, so you cannot convert the code into effectively proprietary with +the excuse that you've made some changes in it. If you want to use any +of this code in your program, you must make your whole program free.</p> + +<p>I did this because I realized that there was a choice: either people +would be able to convert my code into nonfree software and use it to +subjugate others, perhaps by making changes in it, or I would stop them +from doing that.</p> + +<p>I realized then, if I didn't stop them, then my code would be +converted to nonfree software, users would get my code, but they +wouldn't get freedom, and that would be self defeating, it would defeat +the whole purpose of writing the code, which was to make a system that +they could use in freedom.</p> + +<p>So I invented a way to prevent that, and that way is copyleft.</p> +</dd> + +<dt>And how do these ideas of copyleft translate in today's world of +web services and so called “cloud computing”?</dt> + +<dd> +<p>These issues apply to a program, which is a work you can have a copy +of; but a service isn't something you get a copy of, so these issues +don't apply to it.</p> + +<p>On the other hand, when you're doing your own computing you must not +use any web service to do that, because if you do so you lose control of +that computing. If your computing is done on somebody else's server, he +controls it and you don't.</p> + +<p>So the general issue that the user should have control on their +computing does apply to web services but in a different way.</p> +</dd> + +<dt>Despite it's practical advantages there isn't yet mass migration to +free software in the public sector.</dt> + +<dd> +<p>Proprietary software developers have lots of money. They use that +money to buy governments. There are two ways that they can use money to +influence governments.</p> + +<p>One way is by bribing specific officials. That's typically illegal +but in many countries they can do it anyway.</p> + +<p>The other way is bribing the state itself or some other jurisdiction, +and that's not illegal, but it is equally corrupt.</p> +</dd> + +<dt>Despite being in dire financial straights, there is no national +policy in Greece regarding the use of free software in the public +sector.</dt> + +<dd> +<p>I don't want to focus narrowly on the agendas of possibly saving +money because that's a secondary reason. The real reason why the Greek +and any other government should insist on using free software is to have +control of its own computing, in other words, its information and +computing sovereignty. And this is worth spending money for.</p> +</dd> + +<dt>Let's talk a bit about the role that free software should have in +education. There's been a lot of debate recently.</dt> + +<dd> +<p>Schools must teach exclusively free software because schools have a +social mission: to educate good citizens for a strong, capable, +independent, cooperating and free society. In the computing field that +means teaching people to be skilled free software users.</p> + +<p>Teaching the proprietary program is implanting dependence. Why do +you think many software companies hand gratis copies of their nonfree +programs to schools? Because they want schools to spread this +dependence. That's the opposite of the social mission of schools, they +shouldn't do it.</p> + +<p>It's like giving students addictive drugs. The companies that make +these drugs would love the schools to do that, but it's the school's +responsibility to refuse even if the drugs are gratis. But there is a +deeper reason too: for education and citizenship.</p> + +<p>Schools are supposed to teach not just facts and skills, but also the +spirit of good will. A habit of helping others. Every class should +have this rule: “Students, if you bring software to class you may +not keep it for yourself. You must share copies with the rest of the +class, including the source code, in case someone here wants to learn +about that software. Which means bringing nonfree software to class is +not permitted.” For the school to set a good example, it must +follow its own rule: it should bring only free software and share copies +with everyone in the class.</p> + +<p>There is also another reason, for the sake of education, specifically +education of the best programmers. For natural born programmers to +become good programmers, they need to read lots of code and write lots +of code. Only free software gives you the chance to read the code of +large programs that people really use. Then you have to write lots of +code. Which means you've got to write code in large programs.</p> + +<p>You have to start small. That doesn't mean writing small programs, +because small programs do not even start to present the difficulties of +large programs. So the way you start small is by writing small changes +in existing large programs, and only free software gives you the chance +to do that.</p> + +<p>So, for several reasons, doing an ethical and good education means +doing education with free software and only free software. There are +many who say, “Let's give the children Windows and the GNU+Linux +system so that they can learn both.” This is like saying +“let's give children at lunchtime some whiskey or ouzo as well as +water, so they can learn both.”</p> + +<p>The school is supposed to teach good habits, not addiction, not +dependence. Microsoft knows that if you deliver computer with Windows +and GNU+Linux, most of the kids in their families see Windows in use, so +they are going to mostly use Windows.</p> + +<p>We need to change that, that's a bad habit of society, it's +dependence. A school should actively put an end to that dependence. +They should redirect society down to a path where people have +freedom.</p> + +<p>But remember, the problem we want to correct is bigger than +Microsoft. Apple is actually nastier than Microsoft, and it seems to be +having a very disappointing success in the area of mobile devices with +the iThings.</p> + +<p>And remember that the iThings pioneered a tyrannical practice that +Microsoft only tried afterwards. That is designing products as jails, +so that users can't even choose what applications to install freely, +they can only install programs that have been approved by the +dictator.</p> + +<p>And the horrible thing is that the evil genius Steve Jobs found a way +to make lots of people clamor to be imprisoned by these products. He +made jails and made them so shiny that people want to be locked up.</p> + +<p>There's been a tremendous PR industry keen to make him sound good, +and Apple was working very hard to take advantage of his death. Of +course Apple's PR worked while he was alive also, and there seem to be a +lot of people in magazines and newspapers who want to direct the public +attention away from these issues of freedom.</p> +</dd> + +<dt>Speaking of education, when you were part of the MIT AI Lab, +you were part of a community. This was eventually broken up and you +were the only one to go against the trend and not work for a big +company developing proprietary software. What gave you the strength to +fight, alone, like a guerrilla in the mountains?</dt> + +<dd> +<p>I was alone already. The community I've been part of had already +split up in a rather hostile fashion. So I was most definitely alone no +matter what I was going to do.</p> + +<p>But the other thing was that the revulsion of my mind to the idea of +using and developing proprietary software meant that that was even +worse. I had no alternative that would lead to a life I wouldn't be +ashamed of and disgusted with.</p> </dd> + +<dt>What were your major influences in your upbringing and education +would you credit for influencing your belief system?</dt> + +<dd> +<p>I don't know. I guess the ideas of free software were +formulated from the community around me at MIT, because we practiced +free software, and they were doing that before I joined them.</p> + +<p>What was different for me was that whereas the others liked doing +free software, but they were willing to do nonfree software when that +was somehow more convenient or satisfied other goals such as to make the +software successful or whatever.</p> + +<p>For me that was the thing that made it good rather than bad, and it +was useless to throw that away. But it took years for me to formulate +those ideas, something like ten years. In the mid-70's, even late 70's, +I still hadn't reached the conclusion that nonfree software was simply +unjust.</p> +</dd> + +<dt>You've described yourself as a pessimist so I won't ask you to look +into your crystal ball…</dt> + +<dd> +<p>I wouldn't see anything, anyway. The future depends on you. If I +could tell you what's going to happen then it would be futile for you to +try to change it.</p> +</dd> + +<dt>So, what software projects or social movements are you excited to +see emerging?</dt> + +<dd> +<p>At the moment there isn't an existing software project that's making +me excited, but I'm trying to convince someone to work on a particular, +rather specialized piece of free software that is the last thing we need +in order to make the use of ATI video accelerators possible in the Free +World.</p> + +<p>As for social movements, I'm very excited by the Occupy movement, by +the opposition to austerity in Greece and Spain, and the movements +against corporate tax-evasion, and basically I'm excited to see more +people fighting against the domination of society by the rich few.</p> +</dd> +</dl> + +<div class="column-limit"></div> +<h3 style="font-size: 1.2em">Footnote</h3> +<ol> + <li id="f1">Theodoros Papatheodorou <<a +href="mailto:marinero@gmail.com">marinero@gmail.com</a>> holds a PhD +in Computer Science, and is teaching at the Athens School of Fine Arts.</li> +</ol> + +</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 © 2012, 2019 Richard Stallman, Theodoros Papatheodorou</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: 2019/12/30 11:28:30 $ +<!-- timestamp end --> +</p> +</div> +</div> +</body> +</html> |