diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-kernel-trap-interview.html')
-rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-kernel-trap-interview.html | 834 |
1 files changed, 834 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-kernel-trap-interview.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-kernel-trap-interview.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..7c4e8fb --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-kernel-trap-interview.html @@ -0,0 +1,834 @@ +<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.86 --> + +<title>Interview with Richard Stallman, KernelTrap.org, 2005 +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> + <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/rms-kernel-trap-interview.translist" --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> +<h2>Interview with Richard Stallman, KernelTrap.org, 2005</h2> + + +<p><em>An interview by Jeremy Andrews with Richard Stallman in +2005</em><br /> +<em>Source:</em> + <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120621163233/http://kerneltrap.org/node/4484"> + http://kerneltrap.org/node/4484</a> + [Archived]</p> +<hr class="thin"/> + +<p>Richard Stallman founded the GNU Project in 1984, and the Free +Software Foundation in 1985. He also originally authored a number of +well known and highly used development tools, including the GNU +Compiler Collection (GCC), the GNU symbolic debugger (GDB) and GNU +Emacs.</p> + +<p>To better understand Richard Stallman and the GNU project, I +recommend you begin by reviewing their philosophy page. On it you will +find a wealth of information.</p> + +<p>We began this interview via email, but later had to finish by +telephone after Richard Stallman fell and broke his arm. He was kind +enough to speak with me at length, discussing his first contact with +computers, his time in the AI Lab, the current state of the GNU Hurd, +his current role in the Free Software Foundation, the problems with +nonfree software, and much more. The following words offer much +insight into how we got here, and what challenges we still face.</p> + +<h3>Background</h3> + +<p><strong>Jeremy Andrews</strong>: When did you first start working +with computers?</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: I first read manuals and wrote +programs on paper in 1962 or so. 1969 was when I first saw and used a +real computer.</p> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: What types of programs were you writing prior +to actually seeing and using a real computer?</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: They were pretty trivial, like +things to add up a vector of numbers. About the time I first started +with a real computer I designed a computer language based on string +substitution. In some ways like SNOBOL, although I'd never used +SNOBOL.</p> + +<p>And then, the first thing I started writing when I had a real +computer to use—I'd seen the language PL/I and I was thrilled by +how many features it had. But there was a feature it didn't have: it +didn't have the summation convention used in tensor analysis. So I +started to write a pre-processor for PL/I that would implement the +summation convention. I didn't ever finish it, but I actually got some +parts of it to work. I wrote it first in PL/I, and then we discovered +that even one pass of it wouldn't fit in the machine that was +available. (I had actually written a lot of parts of this in PL/I on +paper by that point.) Then I started rewriting it in assembler +language, but I only rewrote a few passes of it in assembler +language. And then I learned about things like lists and about Lisp, +and lost interest in languages like PL/I.</p> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: When you graduated from Harvard in 1974 with a +BA in physics, how did you intend to use your degree?</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: I thought I would become a +theoretical physicist; however, the pleasure of programming, where I +could make real progress and see results, gradually grew and overtook +the pleasure of learning physics.</p> + +<h3>Life In The AI Lab</h3> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: What tasks occupied your time at the AI Lab +through the 1970's?</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: Mostly operating system +development, but I did one AI research project with Professor Sussman; +we developed dependency-directed backtracking.</p> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: What is dependency-directed backtracking?</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: You make some assumptions, and +with those together with some given facts you draw a conclusion. You +may reach a contradiction; if so, at least one of your assumptions +that led to that contradiction must be wrong. You also record which +combination of assumptions actually related to the contradiction, so +you can deduce that that combination of assumptions cannot all be +true. Then you backtrack by changing assumptions, but you never try a +set of assumptions that includes the combination that you know are +contradictory. Now, this is a technique that people had used for a +long time in thinking. It's also known as proof analysis. But it +hadn't been used in computerized reasoning.</p> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: What was the result of this research +project?</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: We published a paper. The +technique got used by other people later, so apparently it became part +of AI.</p> + +<p>Also, I learned how to understand electrical circuits better. The +program that we wrote, which used this technique, was a program for +understanding electrical circuits. By imitating the program, I could +understand circuits better than I could before.</p> + +<h3>The GNU Project And The Free Software Foundation</h3> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: The story of your encounter with nonfree +printer software in the early 80's is very well known. This incident +ultimately resulted in your founding the GNU Project in 1984, and the +Free Software Foundation in 1985. You have remained quite active in +this movement ever since, as a public speaker and a prolific author of +free software. Of which of your many achievements in the past two +decades are you the most proud?</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: What I am proud of is that we +have built a community where people can use computers and work +together in freedom.</p> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: What are the largest challenges you're facing +today?</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: Software patents. The Digital +Millennium Copyright Act. The broadcast flag. Cards with secret +specifications. Nonfree Java platforms.</p> + +<p>In other words, organized efforts by people with power to put an +end to our freedom.</p> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: Is there a plan for addressing these +issues?</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: Regarding the laws, not much of +one, in the US. In other countries that do not yet have these laws, we +can try to prevent them.</p> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: That's a bit scary.</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: It is.</p> + +<h3>“Free Software” vs. “Open Source”</h3> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: You regularly have to explain the differences +between “free software” and “open source +software,” and yet the media continues to confuse these +terms. For our readers that may therefore be confused themselves, can +you explain the differences, and why it is important to get it +right?</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: Free software and open source +are the slogans of two different movements with different +philosophies. In the free software movement, our goal is to be free to +share and cooperate. We say that nonfree software is antisocial +because it tramples the users' freedom, and we develop free software +to escape from that.</p> + +<p>The open source movement promotes what they consider a technically +superior development model that usually gives technically superior +results. The values they cite are the same ones Microsoft appeals to: +narrowly practical values.</p> + +<p>Free software and open source are also both criteria for software +licenses. These criteria are written in very different ways but the +licenses accepted are almost the same. The main difference is the +difference in philosophy.</p> + +<p>Why does the philosophy matter? Because people who don't value +their freedom will lose it. If you give people freedom but don't teach +them to value it, they won't hold on to it for long. So it is not +enough to spread free software. We have to teach people to demand +freedom, to fight for freedom. Then we may be able to overcome the +problems that today I see no way to solve.</p> + +<h3>“GNU/Linux”</h3> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: Another frequent area of confusion is the name +“GNU/Linux.” Why is the GNU project's contribution significant enough +that it should be in the name of the operating system, especially +compared to other large pieces of any Linux-kernel based operating +system, such as XFree86?</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: It's no coincidence that the +code we wrote for the GNU system is the largest single contribution to +the GNU/Linux system today. Many other people and projects have +developed free software programs now used in the system; TeX, BSD +code, X11, Linux, and Apache are noteworthy examples. But it was the +GNU Project that set out to develop a complete free operating +system. The combined system we use today is founded on GNU.</p> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: In talking about GNU Linux…</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: I prefer to pronounce it +“GNU slash Linux,” or “GNU plus Linux.” The +reason is that when you say “GNU Linux” it is very much +prone to suggest a misleading interpretation. After all, we have GNU +Emacs which is the version of +Emacs which was developed for GNU. If you say “GNU +Linux,” people will think it means a version of Linux that was +developed for GNU. Which is not the fact.</p> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: You're trying to point out instead that it's a +combination of the two.</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: Exactly. It's GNU plus Linux +together.</p> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: Which makes up the GNU+Linux operating system +that everyone uses.</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: Exactly.</p> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: What is gained by people using the term +GNU/Linux?</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: People know that Linus Torvalds +wrote his program Linux to have fun. And people know that Linus +Torvalds did not say that it's wrong to stop users for sharing and +changing the software they use. If they think that our system was +started by him and primarily owes existence to him, they will tend to +follow his philosophy, and that weakens our community.</p> + +<p>It's an interesting anecdote to think that the whole operating +system exists because an undergraduate thought that it was a fun +project. But the real story is that this system exists because of +people who were determined to fight for freedom and willing to work +for years if that's what it took. That's a story that teaches people +something worth learning.</p> + +<p>When people forget that, they start drifting toward the practical +but superficial values shared by the open source movement and +Microsoft: the idea that the only thing that matters about your +software is whether it gets your jobs done and what it costs.</p> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: Which begins to answer my next question, what +is lost when people refuse to use the term GNU/Linux?</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: What's lost is an opportunity to +teach people. The software is equally free regardless of whatever name +you call it—if, that is, the distro you're using really is +free. But the only free GNU/Linux distro I know of is Ututo. Most +versions of the GNU/Linux system are not entirely free software. All +the commercial distributors put in nonfree software. And then there's +Debian which keeps all the nonfree software clearly separated, but +does distribute it. And those who sell Debian GNU/Linux often add a +few nonfree programs as a “bonus”… They invite you +to think it's a bonus you're getting that your freedom is no longer +complete.</p> + +<p>If you happen to be running a version of GNU/Linux which doesn't +have the nonfree software, then the situation is not materially +changed by the name you use. But the situation we're likely to find +ourselves in five years from now depends on what we teach each other +today.</p> + +<p>A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, but if you called it +an onion you'd get cooks very confused.</p> + +<h3>GNU/Hurd</h3> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: The GNU Hurd has been under development for +over a decade. There was talk of a 1.0 release over a year ago, but +this was delayed due to a couple of lacking features. What is the +current status of this project?</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: The Hurd runs, and missing +features are gradually being added. However, for practical use today, +you would use a Linux-based version of GNU.</p> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: Do you have any predictions as to when we're +going to see a 1.0 release?</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: No, I'm afraid I don't, I'm sad +to say. A lot of the Hurd developers seem to have decided that they +should re-write it to work with a different micro-kernel (L4). I was +disappointed to hear this, but now it looks like it will be some more +years before the Hurd is usable.</p> + +<p>At least we do have a free kernel that works with GNU.</p> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: Will the GNU Project focus solely on a GNU +system built around the GNU Hurd when it is released, or will it +continue to support a widening range of free-software kernels?</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: We will keep supporting +Linux-based versions of the GNU system for as long as they remain +popular.</p> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: How will we refer to a Hurd-based operating +system? Is it GNU Hurd, or GNU slash Hurd?</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: It's the GNU operating system, +and the Hurd is its kernel. But because it's so common for people to +use version of GNU that are based on Linux as the kernel, it's useful +to contrast the two, and talk about GNU/Linux and GNU/Hurd, which are +two different versions of the GNU system with different kernels.</p> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: What would the advantages of using a GNU/Hurd +system be over say a GNU/Linux system?</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: There's probably no gigantic +advantage that jumps out at the user's face if you're not writing +interesting programs. The Hurd offers interesting, powerful +capabilities. For instance, you can write your own filesystem, so you +could implement any sort of behavior you want and package it as a +file. It offers the possibility of implementing sandboxes, where you +can run a program but have another program monitoring all its I/O to +make sure it doesn't start writing in files it wasn't expected to.</p> + +<p>These things may be doable with a kernel that doesn't have the +Hurd's architecture, but with the Hurd it's trivial and the most +natural thing in the world.</p> + +<h3>Writing Code vs. Management</h3> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: How much source code do you write these +days?</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: I myself? Only a little, on +Emacs. I was involuntarily self-promoted into management.</p> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: That's an interesting description. How did +this happen?</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: The amount of management and +activism that had to be done got more and more, and so I had to find +other people to take over more and more of my programming +responsibilities.</p> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: Do you miss the programming?</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: Yes. It's fun.</p> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: Is the management/activist role something you +desire to remain in?</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: I wouldn't say I desire to, but +it's necessary that I do so. At the moment we don't have anyone to +replace me. We're actually thinking about how we could try and +develop people who could do this, so that I will not be +indispensable.</p> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: What is your role these days?</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: Partly it is being a very firm +and determined leader. Partly it is being an orator. Partly it is +advising other people on how to be activists or how to contribute to +free software. I've learned something that a lot of people could +usefully know: how to be extremely persistent and whenever one avenue +was blocked find another.</p> + +<p>I've also learned the spirit of what you do when you're fighting +for freedom. When it's a fight that you can't ever give up as +lost.</p> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: Many of the programs you were the original +author for are key components of much software development today (free +and nonfree alike), such as the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC), the +GNU symbolic debugger (GDB), and GNU Emacs. All of these projects have +remained under constant development over the years. How closely have +you followed the many projects you've started, and how do you feel +about the directions they've taken?</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: I don't follow GCC and GDB in +technical detail nowadays—other people now have that +responsibility. I still supervise Emacs development.</p> + +<h3>GNU Emacs</h3> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: Then you are still working on Emacs at a code +level?</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: Yes, although now with my broken +arm I really have no time to program anything. I will when my arm is +better and I can type for myself again.</p> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: May I ask what happened to your arm?</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: I fell and broke my arm, and I +needed surgery. It hurts, and I think it will never be normal +again. But I think it will work for typing. (Later: it works fine for +typing, but it tingles all the time.)</p> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: I'm sorry to hear about your arm, and I wish +you a speedy recovery.</p> + +<p>I recently reread Cliff Stoll's “The Cuckoo's Egg.” Are +you familiar with the book?</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: I have a vague memory of it.</p> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: A quick summary, he talks about a spy that +breaks into a university computer system, initially using a security +hole in GNU Emacs…</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: Well, whether it's really a +security hole, or whether he had made a mistake by installing a +certain program setuid is subject to argument.</p> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: That's exactly what I was curious about, just +what your reaction would have been to the book when it came out.</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: His book made it sound like +Emacs, or actually Movemail I think it was… His book made it sound +like it was normal to install Movemail setuid. I think some people +sometimes did that, as there was a certain problem you could get +around by doing that, but that wasn't the normal way to install it. So +in fact, people installing Emacs the usual way would not have had that +problem.</p> + +<p>On the other hand, it certainly was useful to make Emacs more +bulletproof, so that that problem couldn't happen even if you +installed Movemail as setuid.</p> + +<p>That was ages ago.</p> + +<h3>Nonfree Software</h3> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: What is your reaction to tools such as GCC, +GDB and GNU Emacs being used for the development of nonfree +software?</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: Any development of nonfree +software is harmful and unfortunate, whether it uses GNU tools or +other tools. Whether it is good or bad, in the long term, for the +future of computer users' freedom that one can use these tools to +develop nonfree software is a question whose answer I could only +guess at.</p> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: How do you react to the opinion that nonfree +software is justified as a means for raising dollars that can then be +put into the development of completely new software, money that +otherwise may not have been available, and thus creating software that +may have never been developed?</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: This is no justification at +all. A nonfree program systematically denies the users the freedom to +cooperate; it is the basis of an antisocial scheme to dominate +people. The program is available lawfully only to those who will +surrender their freedom. That's not a contribution to society, it's a +social problem. It is better to develop no software than to develop +nonfree software.</p> + +<p>So if you find yourself in that situation, please don't follow that +path. Please don't write the nonfree program—please do +something else instead. We can wait till someone else has the chance +to develop a free program to do the same job.</p> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: What about the programmers…</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: What about them? The programmers +writing nonfree software? They are doing something antisocial. They +should get some other job.</p> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: Such as?</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: There are thousands of different +jobs people can have in society without developing nonfree +software. You can even be a programmer. Most paid programmers are +developing custom software—only a small fraction are developing +nonfree software. The small fraction of proprietary software jobs are +not hard to avoid.</p> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: What is the distinction there?</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: Nonfree software is meant to be +distributed to the public. Custom software is meant to be used by one +client. There's no ethical problem with custom software as long as +you're respecting your client's freedom.</p> + +<p>The next point is that programmers are a tiny fraction of +employment in the computer field. Suppose somebody developed an AI and +no programmers were needed anymore. Would this be a disaster? Would +all the people who are now programmers be doomed to unemployment for +the rest of their lives? Obviously not, but this doesn't stop people +from exaggerating the issue.</p> + +<p>And what if there aren't any programming jobs in the US +anymore?</p> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: You mean what if all the programming jobs were +outsourced to foreign countries?</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: Yes, what if they all go? This +may actually happen. When you start thinking about things like total +levels of employment, you've got think about all the factors that +affect it, not blame it all on one factor. The cause of unemployment +is not someone or society deciding that software should be free. The +cause of the problem is largely economic policies designed to benefit +only the rich. Such as driving wages down.</p> + +<p>You know, it's no coincidence that we're having all this +outsourcing. That was carefully planned. International treaties were +designed to make this happen so that people's wages would be +reduced.</p> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: Can you cite specific examples?</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: FTAA. The World Trade +Organization. NAFTA. These treaties are designed to reduce wages by +making it easy for a company to say to various countries, “Which +of you will let us pay people the least? That's were we're +headed.” And if any country starts having a somewhat increased +standard of living, companies say, “Oh, this is a bad labor +climate here. You're not making a good climate for business. All the +business is going to go away. You better make sure that people get +paid less. You're following a foolish policy arranging for workers of +your country to be paid more. You've got to make sure that your +workers are the lowest paid anywhere in the world, then we'll come +back. Otherwise we're all going to run away and punish you.”</p> + +<p>Businesses very often do it, they move operations out of a country +to punish that country. And I've recently come to the conclusion that +frictionless international trade is inherently a harmful thing, +because it makes it too easy for companies to move from one country to +another. We have to make that difficult enough that each company can +be stuck in some country that can regulate it.</p> + +<p>The book No Logo explains that the Philippines have laws that +protect labor standards, but these laws count for nothing any +more. They decided to set up “enterprise zones”—that's +the euphemism they used for “sweat shop zones”—where +companies are exempt from these rules for the first two years. And as +a result, no company lasts for more than two years. When their +exemption runs out, the owners shut it down and they start +another.</p> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: How does free software address this?</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: Free software doesn't address +this. Free software addresses the issue of how computer users can have +freedom to cooperate and to control their own computers. This is the +larger issue that becomes relevant when you start talking about +“How are people going to have jobs that pay them +decently?” The answer is: in the world of the low wage treaties, +they're not going to.</p> + +<p>It's inconsistent and futile to subject millions of people to the +loss of freedom that nonfree software imposes, just so that a tiny +segment of society will have better paying jobs, when we're ignoring +all the rest of society with their lousy jobs.</p> + +<p>If you want to start doing something about that problem, do it at +the right level, which is the level of the power balance between +corporations and countries. Corporations are too powerful now. We have +to knock them down. I don't believe in abolishing business or even in +abolishing corporations, but we've got to make sure that no +corporation is powerful enough that it can say to all the countries in +the world, “I'll punish any country that doesn't +obey.”</p> + +<p>That is the way it works now. And it was deliberately set up by +people such as Reagan, and Clinton, and Bush and Bush.</p> + +<h3>New Technologies</h3> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: I have read that the free software model tends +to imitate existing software, rather than blaze new trails and +developing completely new technologies.</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: To speak of a free software +“model” is somewhat misleading. The open source movement +speaks of a “development model,” but our concern is for +the user's freedom, not how the program is developed.</p> + +<p>Free software doesn't always imitate, but often it does. There's a +good reason for this: freedom is the main goal, and innovation is +secondary.</p> + +<p>Our goal is to develop free software so that we can use computers +exclusively with free software. In 1984, we started with nearly zero +(we had TeX, nothing else). We had a lot of catching up to do, so we +have done it. Even if GNU/Linux had no technical innovations compared +with Unix, it would be completely superior because it respects your +freedom as Unix does not.</p> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: Do you believe that free software has caught +up with nonfree software?</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: To a large extent, but not +totally.</p> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: Would you say that we're going to start seeing +a lot of technical innovations originating from free software as +things are catching up?</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: We already have. We already have +seen technical innovations in free software. A lot of them help make +up the world wide web.</p> + +<h3>The Internet</h3> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: Does the importance of using only free +software apply to the Internet?</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: I don't understand the +question.</p> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: Software not only runs on personal computers, +but also on the computers that comprise the Internet…</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: That may mean your computer. If +your computer is on the Internet, then that's one of the computers +you're talking about.</p> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: You're correct. At this very moment my +computer is part of the Internet. And my computer is comprised +entirely of free software. However there are plenty of computers on +the Internet that are not comprised of free software.</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: I think you meant to say, +“not running entirely free software.” There are many +computers on the net that are not running free software, and that +means the people who use and own those computers have lost this aspect +of their freedom. That's a problem.</p> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: Do you consider it proper for people who are +trying to only use free software to utilize…</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: To connect to a server that's +running nonfree software?</p> + +<p>I don't feel I need to refuse to connect to a server that is +running nonfree software. For that matter, I won't refuse to type on +a computer that's running nonfree software. If I were visiting your +house for a little and you had a Windows machine, I would use it if it +were important for me to use it. I wouldn't be willing to have Windows +on my computer, and you shouldn't have it on yours, but I can't change +that by refusing to touch the machine.</p> + +<p>If you connect to a server that runs nonfree software, you're not +the one whose freedom is harmed. It's the server operator who has lost +freedom to the restrictions on the software he runs. This is +unfortunate, and I hope that he switches to free software; we're +working to bring that about. But I don't feel you have to boycott his +site until he switches. He isn't making you use the nonfree +software.</p> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: Back to my earlier question, as a specific +example do you use tools such as Google when attempting to locate +online content?</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: I have nothing against +communicating with Google's network server, but for Google's sake I +hope they have the freedom to study, change and redistribute the +software used on their server. Having the freedom to do so does not +imply the obligation to do so; Google doesn't have to change or +redistribute the software they run. But they ought to be free to do +this, just as you and I should be free to do this with the software on +our machines.</p> + +<h3>The Workplace</h3> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: What if your job requires you to use nonfree +software?</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: I would quit that job. Would you +participate in something anti-social just because somebody pays you +to? What if the job involves hitting people on the head in the street +and taking their wallets? What if it involves spreading the word that +Democrats should vote on Wednesday instead of Tuesday? Some people +seriously claim that you can't criticize what someone does if it is +part of their job. From my point of view, the fact that somebody is +being paid to do something wrong is not an excuse.</p> + +<h3>Embedded Applications</h3> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: Embedded applications have become more and +more prevalent in society. Is it possible to completely avoid nonfree +software and still remain in touch with current technologies?</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: I don't know if it is possible, +but if it is not, that is something we need to change. Once an +embedded system can talk to a network, or users normally load software +into it, its software needs to be free. For instance, if it uses +nonfree software to talk to the network, you can't trust it not to +spy on you.</p> + +<h3>SCO</h3> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: How do you react to SCO's recent accusations +about the Linux kernel?</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: The vague and cagey nature of +their statements, coupled with having seen that the only specific +facts they produced proved to be false, suggests they have no real +case.</p> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: What impact do you expect this to have on free +software?</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: I don't expect it to have a big +impact because I don't think they have a case. They're trying to +create FUD and they may scare some timid people off.</p> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: Do you expect this to bring the GPL into the +courtroom?</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: I don't know.</p> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: Is that a concern for you?</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: We think the GPL will stand up +in court, but no wise person is eager to get into a battle, even if he +thinks he's well enough armed that he'd probably win.</p> + +<p>The arguments that SCO have been making are so laughably absurd +that they lend support to the idea that SCO has no real case, that +they're only interested in creating FUD.</p> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: To what end?</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: They hope some companies will +pay them money, and Microsoft already did.</p> + +<p>To people who know almost nothing about copyright law, anything +sounds as plausible as anything else. When they hear what SCO says, +they don't know how ridiculous it is. So they think, “SCO says +this, IBM says that, how do I know who's right?”</p> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: What's in store for the GNU General Public +License (GPL)? Are there plans for a version 3?</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: Yes, but we are not really sure +what will change. What we can say is that the changes will be +details.</p> + +<h3>Getting Involved</h3> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: Is there any other current event that you'd +like to address?</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: The FCC last year decided to +require digital restrictions management in all receivers of digital +TV. And not only that, to require that they be made not modifiable by +the user. I think they have not yet decided whether this device is +software controlled. If they make it software controlled then for the +first time there will be a government policy explicitly banning free +software for a job that millions of people are going to want to +do.</p> + + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: Are you optimistic about this?</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: I don't know. I am a pessimist +by nature. Many people can only keep on fighting when they expect to +win. I'm not like that, I always expect to lose. I fight anyway, and +sometimes I win.</p> + +<p>I'm not the main leader in this particular battle. The Electronic +Frontier Foundation is fighting. Public Knowledge is fighting. People +need to get involved politically. At this point people should go to +the EFF website and the Public Knowledge website, and continue doing +so over the coming weeks to see how they can get involved in this +coming campaign. It's going to take a lot of people spending probably +at least twenty minutes. If you care enough about your freedom to +spend twenty minutes on it, if you can tear yourself away from +whatever little job it is you're doing this week, and next week, and +so on. Spend a little time fighting for your freedom, and we can +win.</p> + +<p><strong>JA</strong>: Thank you.</p> + +<p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: Happy hacking!</p> + +</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --> +<div id="footer"> +<div class="unprintable"> + +<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to +<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>. +There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> +the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent +to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p> + +<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph, + replace it with the translation of these two: + + We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality + translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection. + Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard + to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"> + <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p> + + <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of + our web pages, see <a + href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations + README</a>. --> +Please see the <a +href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations +README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations +of this article.</p> +</div> + +<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to + files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should + be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this + without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first. + Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the + document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the + document was modified, or published. + + If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too. + Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying + years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable + year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including + being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system). + + There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers + Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --> + +<p>Copyright © 2005, 2017, 2018 Richard Stallman, Jeremy Andrews</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: 2018/12/15 14:02:38 $ +<!-- timestamp end --> +</p> +</div> +</div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include --> +</body> +</html> |