diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-hack.html')
-rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-hack.html | 555 |
1 files changed, 555 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-hack.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-hack.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..58e62f9 --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-hack.html @@ -0,0 +1,555 @@ +<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 --> +<title>The Hacker Community and Ethics +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> + +<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/rms-hack.translist" --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> + +<h2>The Hacker Community and Ethics: An Interview with Richard M. Stallman, 2002</h2> + +<p>by <strong>Richard Stallman</strong></p> +<p><em>Published in Finnish in Tere Vadén & Richard +M. Stallman: <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20100807063010/http://www.uta.fi/%7Efiteva/koodivapaaksi.html"> +Koodi vapaaksi - Hakkerietiikan vaativuus</a>, Tampere University +Press. 2002, sivut 62-80.</em></p> + +<h3>Hackerism</h3> + +<p>Tere Vadén (<b>TV</b>): One of the most striking features of your +approach to the issues of technology and software and so on is that +you consider ethical and social matters more important than possible +technological advantages. While that maybe should be the norm, it +unfortunately is not so. The main issues seems to be one of community; +what kinds of communities different ways of using technology promote. +Am I guessing right if I believe that you are thinking of ethical +issues in terms of communities?</p> + +<p>Richard M. Stallman (<b>RMS</b>): Yes. The way I reached my +conclusions about which freedoms are essential for using software, and +which kinds of license requirements are acceptable, is by thinking +about whether they would interfere with the kinds of use of the +software that are necessary to have a functioning community.</p> + +<p><b>TV:</b> The idea of free software was born out of your +experiences at <abbr title="Massachusetts Institute of Technology"> +MIT</abbr>, and how that community was infiltrated and in some sense +destroyed by commercial interests.</p> + +<p><b>RMS:</b> Yes, that is correct. The hackers really enjoyed the freedom to +share and change software; that was the basis for our free-wheeling +community.</p> +<p> +<b>TV:</b> What does the word ‘hacker’ mean to you, +personally?</p> +<p> +<b>RMS:</b> It means someone who enjoys playful cleverness, especially +in programming but other media are also possible. In the 14th century, +Guillaume de Machaut wrote a palindromic three-part musical +composition. It sounded good, too—I think I played in it once, +because I still remember one of the parts. I think that was a good +hack. I heard somewhere that J. S. Bach did something similar.<br /> +One possible arena for playful cleverness is breaking +security. Hackers never had much respect for bureaucratic +restrictions. If the computer was sitting idle because the +administrators wouldn't let them use it, they would sometimes figure +out how to bypass the obstacles and use it anyway. If this required +cleverness, it would be fun in itself, as well as making it possible +to do other hacking (for instance, useful work) on the computer +instead of twiddling one's thumbs. But not all hackers did security +breaking. Many never were interested in that.<br /> +On the Incompatible Timesharing System, the operating system developed +by the AI lab's hackers, we made it unnecessary to break security: we +simply did not implement security in the system. The hackers realized +that security would be a mechanism for the administrators to dominate +us. So we never gave them the means.</p> +<p> +<b>TV:</b> How about the concepts of freedom and community? There's +this idea that freedom to distribute ideas, thoughts, recipes and +software creates the best kinds of communities or at least better than +those based on commercial limitations on distribution and sharing.</p> +<p> +<b>RMS:</b> I think it is a mistake to label these restrictions as +“commercial”, because that pertains to the motive for the +restrictions. The same restrictions, if imposed for a different +motive, would do the same harm. What matters is the restrictions, not +the motive. Commercial software can be free or nonfree, just as +noncommercial software can be free or nonfree. It only depends on the +license.</p> +<p> +<b>TV:</b> How would you delineate the distinction between the public +(communal, freedom-based) and the commercial spheres?</p> + +<p><b>RMS:</b> Comparing free with commercial is like comparing happiness with +purple. It doesn't make sense, because they are not answers to the same +question. They are not alternatives. The meaningful comparison is +between free and nonfree software.</p> + +<p><b>TV:</b> It seems that the distinction between “open +source” and “free software” is that the open source +movement ultimately justifies the idea on utilitarian grounds; open +source is the best way of producing functional software; while the +ultimate justification for free software is non-calculative, +non-utilitarian; freedom is unviolable. Is that a correct +interpretation?</p> + +<p><b>RMS:</b> More or less. I would say that freedom has value in +itself, just as powerful reliable software does.</p> + +<p><b>TV:</b> But isn't there a problem here; one of the utilitarian +calculations of “open source” is that it is more +profitable—in the sense of making more money or making better +software—to use an open source license than a copyleft +license. A company like Apple or Nokia will adapt open source up to +point, precisely the point where making it more free would turn the +profitability down.</p> + +<p><b>RMS:</b> I agree that it is wrong for these decisions (about +your freedom and mine) to be made by the software developer for the +sake of his profit, just as the decision about whether you and I have +freedom of speech should not be made by some third party for his own +interests.<br /> +I am not going to condemn someone who does the right thing for the +wrong reason, but it is true that relying on people to respect our +freedom because it is profitable for them to do so is not a reliable +system for protecting our freedom. This is the reason why we must +reduce the political power of business.</p> + +<p><b>TV:</b> The argument that a company would use, of course, is +that the profit it creates ultimately benefits the whole society. How +would you respond to that?</p> + +<p><b>RMS:</b> That is a claim with no basis. A nonfree program can +only benefit those who don't value their freedom, and thus serves as a +temptation for people to give up their freedom. That is harmful to +society.</p> + +<p><b>TV:</b> There is also this question of individual/private vs +public/communal here. It is often in the interests of the individual to +do something that threatens the community, threatens freedom.</p> + +<p><b>RMS:</b> I know. This is why we need to think about right and wrong in +making our decisions, and also the reason why societies have a notion +of punishing actions that hurt the community.</p> + +<p><b>TV:</b> Now, somebody like Torvalds—and we don't +necessarily have to use any names here—would probably share +your enthusiasm about hackerism in the sense of playful cleverness, +and would take that playful cleverness also to the area of being +clever in making money and enjoying the good life. Actually that is +what he hints at in a recent book called “The Hacker +Ethics”.</p> + +<p><b>RMS:</b> That is true. Just because someone enjoys hacking does +not mean he has an ethical commitment to treating other people +properly. Some hackers care about ethics—I do, for +instance—but that is not part of being a hacker, it is a +separate trait. Some stamp collectors care a lot about ethics, while +other stamp collectors don't. It is the same for hackers.<br /> +I agree with the person who said that there is no hacker ethic, but +rather a hacker aesthetic.</p> + +<p><b>TV:</b> Now, if one wants to avoid the negative consequences of the +profit-oriented business, it feels that one has to give the individual a +good reason for not looking after only his or her own best. And that +something, that reason, might be something in the public sphere.</p> + +<p><b>RMS:</b> Of course—but why are you treating this as if it +were a new idea that can only be hinted at. This idea is thousands of +years old. This is the basic idea of ethics.</p> + +<p><b>TV:</b> The question about hacker aesthetics—as you +explained, there is no special hacker ethics, because a hacker can act +ethically or unethically and nothing in hackerism itself necessitates +ethical behaviour.</p> + +<p><b>RMS:</b> Hacking is not primarily about an ethical issue. It is an idea of +what makes life meaningful. But he may be right that hacking tends to +lead a significant number of hackers to think about ethical questions +in a certain way. I would not want to completely deny all connection +between hacking and views on ethics.</p> +<p> +Although someone said that there was a hacker aesthetic rather than a +hacker ethic, I think “aesthetic” is not quite the right +word either. An aesthetic is an idea of what is beautiful. This is an +idea of what is exciting and meaningful. Is there a word for that? I +can think of “the hacker way”, but that sounds rather +pompous and new-age.</p> + +<h3>Community</h3> + +<p><b>TV:</b> Now that brings to mind several questions. For the +first, one could maybe inquire after an ideal society or do forth, but +let's leave that for the moment.</p> + +<p><b>RMS:</b> I approach these issues incrementally. I don't think I +could try to design an ideal society and have any confidence in the +conclusion. Attempts to propose a society quite different from the +ones we know often tend to be disastrously flawed. So instead I +propose local changes which I have some reason to believe are +good. Note that I didn't imagine the free software community on my +own—if I had, I would not be so confident it is a good idea. I +knew that from having tried it.</p> + +<p><b>TV:</b> Is there something that digitalization offers for +community-building, something that other media (like printed books) +could not offer, or does digitalization mean ‘just’ and +effectivization of existing means?</p> + +<p><b>RMS:</b> Computers and the web make it much easier to work +collaboratively and continuing to improve publications. I think that +this will become even more true in the future, as people develop +better ways to do it. The proprietary mindset might as well be +precisely calculated to deprive us of this benefit of the +Internet.</p> + +<p><b>TV:</b> Now, from a historical and philosophical perspective it +seems that many a good invention or technological advance has resulted +in the intensification of colonialization </p> + +<p><b>RMS:</b> In general, technology is a good thing, and we +shouldn't turn it down. Technology tends to cause cultural +change. This is not necessarily a bad thing, and we should not condemn +it in a blanket fashion. There are just certain specific kinds of +cultural change that we need to oppose.</p> + +<p><b>TV:</b> I do not necessarily want to get stuck on this +public/commercial issue, but if we say that we need communal +agreements, values and systems that tone down the selfishness of the +individual, and we say that the commercial world systematically has a +tendency to promote selfishness, then I guess we have to conclude that +there is a crucial distinction between the communal and the +commercial?</p> + +<p><b>RMS:</b> I would agree. One person can belong to a community and +work in a business at the same time. Nevertheless, there is a +fundamental conflict between the communitarian attitude and the +commercial attitude. I would not say that the communitarian attitude +is good and the commercial attitude is bad. It makes no sense to aim +to eliminate the commercial attitude, because that is simply +selfishness, and selfishness is vital. People must be selfish to a +certain extent, just as they ought to be altruistic to a certain +extent. To abolish selfishness would not make sense, even if it were +possible.</p> + +<p><b>TV:</b> I mean, in many ways one could say that the communities +in the post-industrial countries these days are based on +commercialism, i.e., people get together, work, communicate +etc. mostly because of commercial reasons.</p> + +<p><b>RMS:</b> This is a rather weak and ineffective kind of +community, hardly worthy of the name.</p> + +<p><b>TV:</b> And, furthermore, like you know, the research and university +community is also very tightly bound to the economical interests of the +nations, states and of the companies.</p> + +<p><b>RMS:</b> Universities ought to resist being turned to commercial +purposes, for the sake of their integrity. They have failed to resist. +People will always be partly selfish; to keep selfishness from +engulfing society, we need unselfish institutions such as universities +and democratic governments to balance the selfishness and put a check +on it. The problem today is that organized selfishness is taking over +society, crushing the other institutions that were designed to put a +check on it.</p> + +<p><b>TV:</b> But, the counter argument goes, a free market economy +that seeks to maximize profit, is the only way of producing wealth and +functioning democratic communities.</p> + +<p><b>RMS:</b> The free software community shows, as cooperatives in +Sweden showed, that this is not true. There are other ways of +producing wealth. But beyond that, producing wealth is not the be-all +and end-all of a good society. There is no need to bend every aspect +of life to maximizing the total wealth. The idea of sacrificing +everything else to the production of wealth—regardless of who +gets to share in it!—is exactly what's wrong with the WTO. As +for producing functioning democratic communities, allowing commerce to +dominate not only fails to do that, it is directly antagonistic to +that.</p> + +<p><b>TV:</b> If ethics applies to everyone, and ethics is based on +community, does this mean that there is an ideal community to which +everyone should belong?</p> + +<p><b>RMS:</b> I don't think that follows.</p> + +<h3>Copyleft</h3> + +<p><b>TV:</b> The concept of copyleft is a brilliant tool for the +communal purposes. Could you tell a little on how you arrived at the +idea?</p> + +<p><b>RMS:</b> I had seen simple notices of the form “verbatim +copying permitted provided this notice is preserved”, and +investigated extending this to handle modification as well.</p> + +<p><b>TV:</b> Let's take a case here. I can see that a free software +developer might be able to make a living by doing free software, +because people would pay for the software, pay for the manuals, pay +for the joy of being a part of the community, and so on. I don't think +that is impossible. The same might go for certain musicians, even +scientists and so on. But how about a writer, a poet, even a musician +that works in a very limited language area—say, +Finnish. Making free software or free music or free poetry will not be +a viable option, because the community is too small to support that +kind of activity.</p> + +<p><b>RMS:</b> The current system does rather a bad job of supporting +these activities. To replace it with nothing at all would not make +things much worse for these people. However, I think that voluntary +methods of support could do just as good a job as the present +system—maybe better.</p> + +<p><b>TV:</b> This seems to lead to some kind of +“americanization” or “anglization”.</p> + +<p><b>RMS:</b> You can't be serious, can you? Don't you realize that the +media-copyright complex is fueling the americanization of culture +around the world? Disconnecting that complex would do a lot to improve +the situation.</p> + +<p><b>TV:</b> I was just thinking of the fact that in a small language +area something like copyrights actually do some good for creative +work.</p> + +<p><b>RMS:</b> Not much good, though. How many Finnish writers make a +living from copyright today? Note that I don't advocate the simple and +total abolition of copyright for all kinds of works. See my +speech, <a href="/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.html">Copyright +and Globalization</a>.</p> + +<h3>Globalization </h3> + +<p><b>TV:</b> You have touched on some issues of globalization is some +recent interviews. One of the problems is that copyright laws put many +third world countries in an unfavourable position. Do you think that +those countries should not follow the copyright laws?</p> + +<p><b>RMS:</b> The US when it was a developing country did not +recognize foreign copyrights. So why should anyone else? Of course, we +know the reason why: it is part of a system of economic domination +that the wealthiest business owners have imposed on the rest of the +world.</p> + +<p><b>TV:</b> And, furthermore, could one see this issue also in terms +of communities? If I remember correctly, you have said that +globalization in the economic sense does not seem to be a good way of +promoting or distributing well-being.</p> + +<p><b>RMS:</b> There is nothing wrong with globalization in the +abstract. What makes today's form of globalization so bad is not +really the global aspect of it. It is that the WTO/IMF system +subordinates all other interests to the interests of business. Laws to +protect the environment, public health, workers' rights, and the +general standard of living, are regularly swept aside. The result is a +major transfer of wealth from most people to business +owners. Paradoxically, it seems to be accompanied by reduced growth as +well. +<span class="gnun-split"></span>The best way to understand today's “globalization” +is as a system to transfer power from democratic governments to +business, which only incidentally happens to be global. Elimination of +trade barriers could be a good thing if accompanied by global labor +standards, global environmental standards, global health care, a +global minimum wage (even if not uniform), and global income taxes. If +these were enforced world-wide with the same energy that the US +pressures countries to use for copyright enforcement, we could have +global trade, clean factories, and high wages. The world-wide free +software community is an example of beneficial globalization: people +share knowledge with the whole world.</p> + +<h3>Ethics</h3> + +<p><b>TV:</b> How is ethical “work” best done? It seems +that you often invoke teachers like Buddha or Jesus as examples of a +ethical way of life.</p> + +<p><b>RMS:</b> I never invoke Jesus. I am not a Christian and I don't +especially admire Jesus. I admire Buddha somewhat more, but I don't +invoke any teacher or hero as an <b>authority</b>, only perhaps as an +<b>example</b>.</p> + +<p><b>TV:</b> It is also clear that one of the fascinating and +influential features of your work is that you live as you teach. Is +that a conscious decision in the sense that you think that ethics is +something that can be taught best through example?</p> + +<p><b>RMS:</b> Not at all. I do write about my ethical ideas, and I +would like to do it more and better if I could. Of course, it is +necessary to live in conformity with one's principles, or one is a +hypocrite and people can see that.</p> + +<p><b>TV:</b> If we say that the reason for ethical behavior must be +given in the public sphere, let's say through a social contract or +something similar, and if we at the same time notice that the +economical/commercial sphere is driven by “maximum +profit”-type of principles, then we have to have some sort of +separation between the public and the commercial world.</p> + +<p><b>RMS:</b> I don't follow this reasoning—I see no +separation. Ethics applies to everyone, and the whole point of ethics +is that some things you might selfishly wish to do are wrong, so you +may not do them. This applies to group selfishness just as as to +personal selfishness.</p> + +<p><b>TV:</b> … and then the commercial world would be +something that almost by necessity corrupts the idea of freedom.</p> + +<p><b>RMS:</b> Business does have that tendency. Corporations provide +a mechanism to distill the selfishness out of people who, as +individuals, are partly selfish but also have ethics to limit their +selfishness. The result is selfishness that can often be unchecked by +any ethics. To change this will require taking away the power of +global business over governments.</p> + +<p><b>TV:</b> Reading Steven Levy's Hackers once again, I was struck +by one issue: the hackers as displayed in the book are mostly +concerned with the hacker ethic in so far as it concerns “tools +to make tools”.</p> + +<p><b>RMS:</b> I don't think so. A number of our programs were tools +for making programs, but very few were specifically “tools to +make tools”. Why were many of them tools? Because hackers +writing programs get ideas for better ways to do that. What computer +hackers do is program. So they get excited about anything that makes +programming easier.<br /> +If a hacker does square dancing, he would get excited about anything +on the computer that is helpful for square dancing. He might write a +program to help people learn square dancing. This indeed has +happened. A few computer hackers do square dancing, but all computer +hackers program. So a few are interested in writing programs for +square dancing, but many are interested in programs they can use while +programming.</p> + +<p><b>TV:</b> Levy is not too hard on the point, but the +unscrupulousness with which the early <abbr>MIT</abbr> hackers +accepted the Department of Defence funding is a case in point.</p> + +<p><b>RMS:</b> Some of the hackers were uncomfortable with DoD funding +at the time, but they did not go so far as to rebel against it (by +quitting, say). I disagreed with them I don't think it was wrong to +accept that funding, and I did not think it wrong at the +time. Corporate funding is far more dangerous.<br /> +So I would not call them unscrupulous for having accepted this funding.</p> + +<p><b>TV:</b> This reminds of the “instrumental +rationality” that the Frankfurt school of critical theorists +talked about; rationality that pertains to tools, but not goals.</p> + +<p><b>RMS:</b> Engineers of all kinds are famous for this; I am not +sure it is more true of hackers than others.</p> + +<p><b>TV:</b> So, this brings me to the question, if ethics is about +goals and about content, what exactly is the society or community that +Free Software promotes?</p> + +<p><b>RMS:</b> My goal is that we help each other to live better together. +Advancing human knowledge is a part of this; making sure it is +available to everyone is a part of this; encouraging the spirit of +cooperation is a part of this. Those goals apply to various parts of +life, but in the area of software they direct one towards free software.</p> + +<p><b>TV:</b> When and how did you notice that the Tools to Make +Tools-attitude is not enough?</p> + +<p><b>RMS:</b> That just tools without thinking of what to do with +them is one I picked up this idea in my teens, I think. It was well +known in the 60s; one did not have to be especially searching to +happen across it then. I think of the Tom Lehrer song, “Werner +von Braun”:</p> +<blockquote><p> +I send rockets up, but where they come down<br /> +is not my department, says Werner von Braun. +</p></blockquote> +<p>Lots of people heard this song.</p> + +<p><b>TV:</b> And, maybe most interestingly, how do you combine the +two, the hacking that is intense and interesting and the ethical +real-world work, that is often tenuous and boring? </p> + +<p><b>RMS:</b> Here you seem to assume that hacking is neither ethical nor +real-world. I disagree with both assumptions. By the way, some parts of +developing and releasing a working program are tedious; they are not +merely boring, they are frustrating. But hackers by the thousands in +the free software community do these tasks in order to release working +and reliable free software.</p> + +<p><b>TV:</b> I think this is even quite common in fields like +computer science, physics, mathematics, philosophy, where the +austerity and purity of the formalism give an intense pleasure of a +‘non-earthly’ kind. Is there a link? Should there be? And +how do you bridge the two?</p> + +<p><b>RMS:</b> Is there a link between the pleasure of pure math and +the rest of life? No, I see very little connection, and why should +there be one?</p> + +<p>I enjoy folk dancing, as well as pure math. There is very little +link between either of those pleasures and the rest of what I do. Why +should there be? They are both harmless. Is there a “gap” +that I need to “bridge”?</p> + +</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --> +<div id="footer"> +<div class="unprintable"> + +<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to +<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>. +There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> +the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent +to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p> + +<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph, + replace it with the translation of these two: + + We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality + translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection. + Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard + to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"> + <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p> + + <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of + our web pages, see <a + href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations + README</a>. --> +Please see the <a +href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations +README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations +of this article.</p> +</div> + +<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to + files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should + be under CC BY-ND 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 © 2002 Richard Stallman</p> + +<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license" +href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative +Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>.</p> + +<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --> + +<p class="unprintable">Updated: +<!-- timestamp start --> +$Date: 2014/04/12 12:40:45 $ +<!-- timestamp end --> +</p> +</div> +</div> +</body> +</html> |