diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html')
-rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html | 2126 |
1 files changed, 2126 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..aaf0b6b --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html @@ -0,0 +1,2126 @@ +<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.79 --> +<title>Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> +<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.translist" --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> +<h2>Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation</h2> + +<blockquote><p>Transcript of +Richard M. Stallman's speech, +“Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation”, +given at New York University in New York, NY, +on 29 May 2001</p></blockquote> + +<div class="announcement"> +<blockquote><p>A <a href="/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt">plain +text</a> version of this transcript and +a <a href="/philosophy/rms-nyu-2001-summary.txt">summary</a> of the speech +are also available.</p></blockquote> +</div> + +<p><strong>URETSKY</strong>: I'm Mike Uretsky. I'm over at the Stern +School of Business. I'm also one of the Co-Directors of the Center +for Advanced Technology. And, on behalf of all of us in the Computer +Science Department, I want to welcome you here. I want to say a few +comments, before I turn it over to Ed, who is going to introduce the +speaker.</p> + +<p>The role of a university is a place to foster debate and to have +interesting discussions. And the role of a major university is to +have particularly interesting discussions. And this particular +presentation, this seminar falls right into that mold. I find the +discussion of open source particularly interesting. In a sense +… <i>[Laughter]</i></p> + +<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I do free software. Open source is a +different movement. <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i></p> + +<p><strong>URETSKY</strong>: When I first started in the field in the +'60's, basically software was free. And we went in cycles. It became +free, and then software manufacturers, in the need to expand their +markets, pushed it in other directions. A lot of the developments +that took place with the entry of the PC moved in exactly the same +kind of a cycle.</p> + +<p>There's a very interesting French philosopher, Pierre Levy, who +talks about movement to this direction and who talks about the move +into cyberspace as not only relating to technology but also relating +to social restructuring, to political restructuring, through a change +in the kinds of relationships that will improve the well-being of +mankind. And we're hoping that this debate is a movement in that +direction, that this debate is something that cuts across a lot of the +disciplines that normally act as solace within the University. We're +looking forward to some very interesting discussions. Ed?</p> + +<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: I'm Ed Schonberg from the Computer +Science Department at the Courant Institute. Let me welcome you all +to this event. Introducers are usually, and particularly, a useless +aspect of public presentations, but in this case, actually, they serve +a useful purpose, as Mike easily demonstrated, because an introducer +for instance, told him, by making inaccurate comments, can allow him +to straighten out and correct and <i>[Laughter]</i> sharpen +considerably the parameters of the debate.</p> + +<p>So, let me make the briefest possible introduction to somebody who +doesn't need one. Richard is the perfect example of somebody who, by +acting locally, started thinking globally from problems concerning the +unavailability of source code for printer drivers at the AI Lab many +years ago. He has developed a coherent philosophy that has forced all +of us to re-examine our ideas of how software is produced, of what +intellectual property means, and what the software community actually +represents. Let me welcome Richard Stallman. <i>[Applause]</i></p> + +<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Can someone lend me a +watch? <i>[Laughter]</i> Thank you. So, I'd like to thank Microsoft +for providing me the opportunity to <i>[Laughter]</i> be on this +platform. For the past few weeks, I have felt like an author whose +book was fortuitously banned somewhere. <i>[Laughter]</i> Except that +all the articles about it are giving the wrong author's name, because +Microsoft describes the GNU GPL as an open source license, and most of +the press coverage followed suit. Most people, of course just +innocently don't realize that our work has nothing to do with open +source, that in fact we did most of it before people even coined the +term open source.</p> + +<p>We are in the free software movement, and I'm going to speak about +what the free software movement is about, what it means, what we have +done, and, because this is partly sponsored by a school of business, +I'll say some things more than I usually do about how free software +relates to business, and some other areas of social life.</p> + +<p>Now, some of you may not ever write computer programs, but perhaps +you cook. And if you cook, unless you're really great, you probably +use recipes. And, if you use recipes, you've probably had the +experience of getting a copy of a recipe from a friend who's sharing +it. And you've probably also had the experience — unless you're +a total neophyte — of changing a recipe. You know, it says +certain things, but you don't have to do exactly that. You can leave +out some ingredients. Add some mushrooms, 'cause you like mushrooms. +Put in less salt because your doctor said you should cut down on salt +— whatever. You can even make bigger changes according to your +skill. And if you've made changes in a recipe, and you cook it for +your friends, and they like it, one of your friends might say, +“Hey, could I have the recipe?” And then, what do you do? +You could write down your modified version of the recipe and make a +copy for your friend. These are the natural things to do with +functionally useful recipes of any kind.</p> + +<p>Now a recipe is a lot like a computer program. A computer +program's a lot like a recipe: a series of steps to be carried out to +get some result that you want. So it's just as natural to do those +same things with computer programs — hand a copy to your friend. +Make changes in it because the job it was written to do isn't exactly +what you want. It did a great job for somebody else, but your job is +a different job. And after you've changed it, that's likely to be +useful for other people. Maybe they have a job to do that's like the +job you do. So they ask, “Hey, can I have a copy?” Of +course, if you're a nice person, you're going to give a copy. That's +the way to be a decent person.</p> + +<p>So imagine what it would be like if recipes were packaged inside +black boxes. You couldn't see what ingredients they're using, let +alone change them, and imagine if you made a copy for a friend, they +would call you a pirate and try to put you in prison for years. That +world would create tremendous outrage from all the people who are used +to sharing recipes. But that is exactly what the world of proprietary +software is like. A world in which common decency towards other +people is prohibited or prevented.</p> + +<p>Now, why did I notice this? I noticed this because I had the good +fortune in the 1970's to be part of a community of programmers who +shared software. Now, this community could trace its ancestry +essentially back to the beginning of computing. In the 1970's, +though, it was a bit rare for there to be a community where people +shared software. And, in fact, this was sort of an extreme case, +because in the lab where I worked, the entire operating system was +software developed by the people in our community, and we'd share any +of it with anybody. Anybody was welcome to come and take a look, and +take away a copy, and do whatever he wanted to do. There were no +copyright notices on these programs. Cooperation was our way of life. +And we were secure in that way of life. We didn't fight for it. We +didn't have to fight for it. We just lived that way. And, as far as +we knew, we would just keep on living that way. So there was free +software, but there was no free software movement.</p> + +<p>But then our community was destroyed by a series of calamities that +happened to it. Ultimately it was wiped out. Ultimately, the PDP-10 +computer which we used for all our work was discontinued. And you +know, our system — the Incompatible Timesharing System — +was written starting in the '60's, so it was written in assembler +language. That's what you used to write an operating system in the +'60's. So, of course, assembler language is for one particular +computer architecture; if that gets discontinued, all your work turns +into dust — it's useless. And that's what happened to us. The +20 years or so of work of our community turned into dust.</p> + +<p>But before this happened, I had an experience that prepared me, +helped me see what to do, helped prepare me to see what to do when +this happened, because at certain point, Xerox gave the Artificial +Intelligence Lab, where I worked, a laser printer, and this was a +really handsome gift, because it was the first time anybody outside +Xerox had a laser printer. It was very fast, printed a page a second, +very fine in many respects, but it was unreliable, because it was +really a high-speed office copier that had been modified into a +printer. And, you know, copiers jam, but there's somebody there to +fix them. The printer jammed and nobody saw. So it stayed jammed for +a long time.</p> + +<p>Well, we had an idea for how to deal with this problem. Change it +so that whenever the printer gets a jam, the machine that runs the +printer can tell our timesharing machine, and tell the users who are +waiting for printouts, or something like that, you know, tell them, go +fix the printer. Because if they only knew it was jammed, of course, +if you're waiting for a printout and you know that the printer is +jammed, you don't want to sit and wait forever, you're going to go fix +it.</p> + +<p>But at that point, we were completely stymied, because the software +that ran that printer was not free software. It had come with the +printer, and it was just a binary. We couldn't have the source code; +Xerox wouldn't let us have the source code. So, despite our skill as +programmers — after all, we had written our own timesharing +system — we were completely helpless to add this feature to the +printer software.</p> + +<p>And we just had to suffer with waiting. It would take an hour or +two to get your printout because the machine would be jammed most of +the time. And only once in a while — you'd wait an hour +figuring “I know it's going to be jammed. I'll wait an hour and +go collect my printout,” and then you'd see that it had been +jammed the whole time, and in fact, nobody else had fixed it. So +you'd fix it and you'd go wait another half hour. Then, you'd come +back, and you'd see it jammed again — before it got to your +output. It would print three minutes and be jammed thirty minutes. +Frustration up the whazzoo. But the thing that made it worse was +knowing that we could have fixed it, but somebody else, for his own +selfishness, was blocking us, obstructing us from improving the +software. So, of course, we felt some resentment.</p> + +<p>And then I heard that somebody at Carnegie Mellon University had a +copy of that software. So I was visiting there later, so I went to +his office and I said, “Hi, I'm from MIT. Could I have a copy of +the printer source code?” And he said “No, I promised not +to give you a copy.” <i>[Laughter]</i> I was stunned. I was so +— I was angry, and I had no idea how I could do justice to it. +All I could think of was to turn around on my heel and walk out of his +room. Maybe I slammed the door. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I thought +about it later on, because I realized that I was seeing not just an +isolated jerk, but a social phenomenon that was important and affected +a lot of people.</p> + +<p>This was — for me — I was lucky, I only got a taste of +it, but other people had to live in this all the time. So I thought +about it at length. See, he had promised to refuse to cooperate with +us — his colleagues at MIT. He had betrayed us. But he didn't +just do it to us. Chances are he did it to you too. <i>[Pointing at +member of audience.]</i> And I think, mostly likely, he did it to you +too. <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.] [Laughter]</i> And +he probably did it to you as well. <i>[Pointing to third member of +audience.]</i> He probably did it to most of the people here in this +room — except a few, maybe, who weren't born yet in 1980. +Because he had promised to refuse to cooperate with just about the +entire population of the Planet Earth. He had signed a non-disclosure +agreement.</p> + +<p>Now, this was my first, direct encounter with a non-disclosure +agreement, and it taught me an important lesson — a lesson +that's important because most programmers never learn it. You see, +this was my first encounter with a non-disclosure agreement, and I was +the victim. I, and my whole lab, were the victims. And the lesson it +taught me was that non-disclosure agreements have victims. They're +not innocent. They're not harmless. Most programmers first encounter +a non-disclosure agreement when they're invited to sign one. And +there's always some temptation — some goody they're going to get +if they sign. So, they make up excuses. They say, “Well, he's +never going to get a copy no matter what, so why shouldn't I join the +conspiracy to deprive him?” They say, “This is the way +it's always done. Who am I to go against it?” They say, +“If I don't sign this, someone else will.” Various excuses +to gag their consciences.</p> + +<p>But when somebody invited me to sign a non-disclosure agreement, my +conscience was already sensitized. It remembered how angry I had +been, when somebody promised not to help me and my whole lab solve our +problem. And I couldn't turn around and do the exact same thing to +somebody else who had never done me any harm. You know, if somebody +asked me to promise not to share some useful information with a hated +enemy, I would have said yes. You know? If somebody's done something +bad, he deserves it. But, strangers — they haven't done me any +harm. How could they deserve that kind of mistreatment? You can't +let yourself start treating just anybody and everybody badly. Then +you become a predator on society. So I said, “Thank you very +much for offering me this nice software package. But I can't accept +it in good conscience, on the conditions you are demanding, so I will +do without it. Thank you so much.” And so, I have never +knowingly signed a non-disclosure agreement for generally useful +technical information such as software.</p> + +<p>Now there are other kinds of information which raise different +ethical issues. For instance, there's personal information. You +know, if you wanted to talk with me about what was happening between +you and your boyfriend, and you asked me not to tell anybody — +you know, I could keep — I could agree to keep that a secret for +you, because that's not generally useful technical information. At +least, it's probably not generally useful. <i>[Laughter]</i></p> + +<p>There is a small chance — and it's a possibility though +— that you might reveal to me some marvelous new sex +technique, <i>[Laughter]</i> and I would then feel a moral +duty <i>[Laughter]</i> to pass it onto the rest of humanity, so that +everyone could get the benefit of it. So, I'd have to put a proviso +in that promise, you know? If it's just details about who wants this, +and who's angry at whom, and things like that — soap opera +— that I can keep private for you, but something that humanity +could tremendously benefit from knowing, I mustn't withhold. You see, +the purpose of science and technology is to develop useful information +for humanity to help people live their lives better. If we promise to +withhold that information — if we keep it secret — then we +are betraying the mission of our field. And this, I decided I +shouldn't do.</p> + +<p>But, meanwhile my community had collapsed, and that was collapsing, +and that left me in a bad situation. You see, the whole Incompatible +Timesharing System was obsolete, because the PDP-10 was obsolete, and +so there was no way that I could continue working as an operating +system developer the way that I had been doing it. That depended on +being part of the community using the community software and improving +it. That no longer was a possibility, and that gave me a moral +dilemma. What was I going to do? Because the most obvious +possibility meant to go against that decision I had made. The most +obvious possibility was to adapt myself to the change in the world. +To accept that things were different, and that I'd just have to give +up those principles and start signing non-disclosure agreements for +proprietary operating systems, and most likely writing proprietary +software as well. But I realized that that way I could have fun +coding, and I could make money — especially if I did it other +than at MIT — but at the end, I'd have to look back at my career +and say, “I've spent my life building walls to divide +people,” and I would have been ashamed of my life.</p> + +<p>So I looked for another alternative, and there was an obvious one. +I could leave the software field and do something else. Now I had no +other special noteworthy skills, but I'm sure I could have become a +waiter. <i>[Laughter]</i> Not at a fancy restaurant; they wouldn't +hire me, <i>[Laughter]</i> but I could be a waiter somewhere. And +many programmers, they say to me, “The people who hire +programmers demand this, this and this. If I don't do those things, +I'll starve.” It's literally the word they use. Well, you know, +as a waiter, you're not going to starve. <i>[Laughter]</i> So, +really, they're in no danger. But — and this is important, you +see — because sometimes you can justify doing something that +hurts other people by saying otherwise something worse is going to +happen to me. You know, if you were <em>really</em> going to starve, +you'd be justified in writing proprietary software. <i>[Laughter]</i> +If somebody's pointing a gun at you, then I would say, it's +forgivable. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, I had found a way that I could +survive without doing something unethical, so that excuse was not +available. So I realized, though, that being a waiter would be no fun +for me, and it would be wasting my skills as an operating system +developer. It would avoid misusing my skills. Developing proprietary +software would be misusing my skills. Encouraging other people to +live in the world of proprietary software would be misusing my skills. +So it's better to waste them than misuse them, but it's still not +really good.</p> + +<p>So for those reasons, I decided to look for some other alternative. +What can an operating system developer do that would actually improve +the situation, make the world a better place? And I realized that an +operating system developer was exactly what was needed. The problem, +the dilemma, existed for me and for everyone else because all of the +available operating systems for modern computers were proprietary. +The free operating systems were for old, obsolete computers, right? +So for the modern computers — if you wanted to get a modern +computer and use it, you were forced into a proprietary operating +system. So if an operating system developer wrote another operating +system, and then said, “Everybody come and share this; you're +welcome to this” — that would give everybody a way out of +the dilemma, another alternative. So I realized that there was +something I could do that would solve the problem. I had just the +right skills to be able to do it. And it was the most useful thing I +could possibly imagine that I'd be able to do with my life. And it +was a problem that no one else was trying to solve. It was just sort +of sitting there, getting worse, and nobody was there but me. So I +felt, “I'm elected. I have to work on this. If not me, +who?” So I decided I would develop a free operating system, or +die trying … of old age, of course. <i>[Laughter]</i></p> + +<p>So, of course I had to decide what kind of operating system it +should be. There are some technical design decisions to be made. I +decided to make the system compatible with Unix for a number of +reasons. First of all, I had just seen one operating system that I +really loved become obsolete because it was written for one particular +kind of computer. I didn't want that to happen again. We needed to +have a portable system. Well, Unix was a portable system. So if I +followed the design of Unix, I had a pretty good chance that I could +make a system that would also be portable and workable. And +furthermore, why <i>[Tape unclear]</i> be compatible with it in the +details. The reason is, users hate incompatible changes. If I had +just designed the system in my favorite way — which I would have +loved doing, I'm sure — I would have produced something that was +incompatible. You know, the details would be different. So, if I +wrote the system, then the users would have said to me, “Well, +this is very nice, but it's incompatible. It will be too much work to +switch. We can't afford that much trouble just to use your system +instead of Unix, so we'll stay with Unix,” they would have +said.</p> + +<p>Now, if I wanted to actually create a community where there would +be people in it, people using this free system, and enjoying the +benefits of liberty and cooperation, I had to make a system people +would use, a system that they would find easy to switch to, that would +not have an obstacle making it fail at the very beginning. Now, +making the system upward compatible with Unix actually made all the +immediate design decisions, because Unix consists of many pieces, and +they communicate through interfaces that are more or less documented. +So if you want to be compatible with Unix, you have to replace each +piece, one by one, with a compatible piece. So the remaining design +decisions are inside one piece, and they could be made later by +whoever decides to write that piece. They didn't have to be made at +the outset.</p> + +<p>So all we had to do to start work was find a name for the system. +Now, we hackers always look for a funny or naughty name for a program, +because thinking of people being amused by the name is half the fun of +writing the program. <i>[Laughter]</i> And we had a tradition of +recursive acronyms, to say that the program that you're writing is +similar to some existing program. You can give it a recursive acronym +name which says: this one's not the other. So, for instance, there +were many Tico text editors in the '60's and '70's, and they were +generally called something-or-other Tico. Then one clever hacker +called his Tint, for Tint Is Not Tico — the first recursive +acronym. In 1975, I developed the first Emacs text editor, and there +were many imitations of Emacs, and a lot of them were called +something-or-other Emacs, but one was called Fine, for Fine Is Not +Emacs, and there was Sine, for Sine Is Not Emacs, and Eine for Eine Is +Not Emacs, and MINCE for Mince Is Not Complete +Emacs. <i>[Laughter]</i> That was a stripped down imitation. And +then, Eine was almost completely rewritten, and the new version was +called Zwei, for Zwei Was Eine Initially. <i>[Laughter]</i></p> + +<p>So I looked for a recursive acronym for Something is not Unix. And +I tried all 26 letters, and discovered that none of them was a word. +<i>[Laughter]</i> Hmm, try another way. I made a contraction. That +way I could have a three-letter acronym, for Something's not Unix. +And I tried letters, and I came across the word “GNU” +— the word “GNU” is the funniest word in the English +language. <i>[Laughter]</i> That was it. Of course, the reason it's +funny is that according to the dictionary, it's pronounced +“new”. You see? And so that's why people use it for a +lot of wordplay. Let me tell you, this is the name of an animal that +lives in Africa. And the African pronunciation had a click sound in +it. <i>[Laughter]</i> Maybe still does. And so, the European +colonists, when they got there, they didn't bother learning to say +this click sound. So they just left it out, and they wrote a +“G” which meant “there's another sound that's +supposed to be here which we are not +pronouncing.” <i>[Laughter]</i> So, tonight I'm leaving for +South Africa, and I have begged them, I hope they're going to find +somebody who can teach me to pronounce click sounds, <i>[Laughter]</i> +so that I'll know how to pronounce GNU the correct way, when it's the +animal.</p> + +<p>But, when it's the name of our system, the correct pronunciation is +“guh-NEW” — pronounce the hard “G”. If +you talk about the “new” operating system, you'll get +people very confused, because we've been working on it for 17 years +now, so it is not new any more. <i>[Laughter]</i> But it still is, +and always will be, GNU — no matter how many people call it +Linux by mistake. <i>[Laughter]</i></p> + +<p>So, in January 1984, I quit my job at MIT to start writing pieces +of GNU. They were nice enough to let me keep using their facilities +though. And, at the time, I thought we would write all these pieces, +and make an entire GNU system, and then we'd say, “Come and get +it”, and people would start to use it. That's not what +happened. The first pieces I wrote were just equally good +replacements, with fewer bugs for some pieces of Unix, but they +weren't tremendously exciting. Nobody particularly wanted to get them +and install them. But then, in September 1984, I started writing GNU +Emacs, which was my second implementation of Emacs, and by early 1985, +it was working. I could use it for all my editing, which was a big +relief, because I had no intention of learning to use VI, the Unix +editor. <i>[Laughter]</i> So, until that time, I did my editing on +some other machine, and saved the files through the network, so that I +could test them. But when GNU Emacs was running well enough for me to +use it, it was also — other people wanted to use it too.</p> + +<p>So I had to work out the details of distribution. Of course, I put +a copy in the anonymous FTP directory, and that was fine for people +who were on the net. They could then just pull over a tar file, but a +lot of programmers then even were not on the net in 1985. They were +sending me emails saying “How can I get a copy?” I had to +decide what I would answer them. Well, I could have said, I want to +spend my time writing more GNU software, not writing tapes, so please +find a friend who's on the internet and who is willing to download it +and put it on a tape for you. And I'm sure people would have found +some friends, sooner or later, you know. They would have got copies. +But I had no job. In fact, I've never had a job since quitting MIT in +January 1984. So, I was looking for some way I could make money +through my work on free software, and therefore I started a free +software business. I announced, “Send me $150, and I'll +mail you a tape of Emacs.” And the orders began dribbling in. +By the middle of the year they were trickling in.</p> + +<p>I was getting 8 to 10 orders a month. And, if necessary, I could +have lived on just that, because I've always lived cheaply. I live +like a student, basically. And I like that, because it means that +money is not telling me what to do. I can do what I think is +important for me to do. It freed me to do what seemed worth doing. +So make a real effort to avoid getting sucked into all the expensive +lifestyle habits of typical Americans. Because if you do that, then +people with the money will dictate what you do with your life. You +won't be able to do what's really important to you.</p> + +<p>So, that was fine, but people used to ask me, “What do you +mean it's free software if it costs $150?” <i>[Laughter]</i> Well, the reason they asked this was +that they were confused by the multiple meanings of the English word +“free”. One meaning refers to price, and another meaning +refers to freedom. When I speak of free software, I'm referring to +freedom, not price. So think of free speech, not free +beer. <i>[Laughter]</i> Now, I wouldn't have dedicated so many years +of my life to making sure programmers got less money. That's not my +goal. I'm a programmer and I don't mind getting money myself. I +won't dedicate my whole life to getting it, but I don't mind getting +it. And I'm not — and therefore, ethics is the same for +everyone. I'm not against some other programmer getting money either. +I don't want prices to be low. That's not the issue at all. The +issue is freedom. Freedom for everyone who's using software, whether +that person be a programmer or not.</p> + +<p>So at this point I should give you the definition of free software. +I better get to some real details, you see, because just saying +“I believe in freedom” is vacuous. There's so many +different freedoms you could believe in, and they conflict with each +other, so the real political question is: Which are the important +freedoms, the freedoms that we must make sure everybody has?</p> + +<p>And now, I will give my answer to that question for the particular +area of using software. A program is free software for you, a +particular user, if you have the following freedoms:</p> + +<ul> +<li>First, Freedom Zero is the freedom to run the program for any +purpose, any way you like.</li> +<li>Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the +program to suit your needs.</li> +<li>Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing +copies of the program.</li> +<li>And Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by +publishing an improved version so others can get the benefit of your +work.</li> +</ul> + +<p>If you have all of these freedoms, the program is free software, +for you — and that's crucial. That's why I phrase it that way. +I'll explain why later, when I talk about the GNU General Public +License, but right now I'm explaining what free software means, which +is a more basic question.</p> + +<p>So, Freedom Zero's pretty obvious. If you're not even allowed to +run the program anyway you like, it is a pretty damn restrictive +program. But as it happens, most programs will at least give you +Freedom Zero. And Freedom Zero follows, legally, as a consequence of +Freedoms One, Two, and Three — that's the way that copyright law +works. So the freedoms that distinguish free software from typical +software are Freedoms One, Two, and Three, so I'll say more about them +and why they are important.</p> + +<p>Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself by changing the +software to suit your needs. This could mean fixing bugs. It could +mean adding new features. It could mean porting it to a different +computer system. It could mean translating all the error messages +into Navajo. Any change you want to make, you should be free to +make.</p> + +<p>Now, it's obvious that professional programmers can make use of +this freedom very effectively, but not just them. Anybody of +reasonable intelligence can learn a little programming. You know, +there are hard jobs, and there are easy jobs, and most people are not +going to learn enough to do hard jobs. But lots of people can learn +enough to do easy jobs, just the way, you know, 50 years ago, lots and +lots of American men learned to repair cars, which is what enabled the +U.S. to have a motorized army in World War II and win. So, very +important, having lots of people tinkering.</p> + +<p>And if you are a people person, and you really don't want to learn +technology at all, that probably means that you have a lot of friends, +and you're good at getting them to owe you favors. <i>[Laughter]</i> +Some of them are probably programmers. So you can ask one of your +programmer friends. “Would you please change this for me? Add +this feature?” So, lots of people can benefit from it.</p> + +<p>Now, if you don't have this freedom, it causes practical, material +harm to society. It makes you a prisoner of your software. I +explained what that was like with regard to the laser printer. You +know, it worked badly for us, and we couldn't fix it, because we were +prisoners of our software.</p> + +<p>But it also affects people's morale. You know if the computer is +constantly frustrating to use, and people are using it, their lives +are going to be frustrating, and if they're using it in their jobs, +their jobs are going to be frustrating; they're going to hate their +jobs. And you know, people protect themselves from frustration by +deciding not to care. So you end up with people whose attitude is, +“Well, I showed up for work today. That's all I have to do. If +I can't make progress, that's not my problem; that's the boss's +problem.” And when this happens, it's bad for those people, and +it's bad for society as a whole. That's Freedom One, the freedom to +help yourself.</p> + +<p>Freedom Two is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing +copies of the program. Now, for beings that can think and learn, +sharing useful knowledge is a fundamental act of friendship. When +these beings use computers, this act of friendship takes the form of +sharing software. Friends share with each other. Friends help each +other. This is the nature of friendship. And, in fact, this spirit +of goodwill — the spirit of helping your neighbor, voluntarily +— is society's most important resource. It makes the difference +between a livable society and a dog-eat-dog jungle. Its importance +has been recognized by the world's major religions for thousands of +years, and they explicitly try to encourage this attitude.</p> + +<p>When I was going to kindergarten, the teachers were trying to teach +us this attitude — the spirit of sharing — by having us do +it. They figured if we did it, we'd learn. So they said, “If +you bring candy to school, you can't keep it all for yourself; you +have to share some with the other kids.” Teaching us, the +society was set up to teach, this spirit of cooperation. And why do +you have to do that? Because people are not totally cooperative. +That's one part of human nature, and there are other parts of human +nature. There are lots of parts of human nature. So, if you want a +better society, you've got to work to encourage the spirit of sharing. +You know, it'll never get to be 100%. That's understandable. People +have to take care of themselves too. But if we make it somewhat +bigger, we're all better off.</p> + +<p>Nowadays, according to the U.S. Government, teachers are supposed +to do the exact opposite. “Oh, Johnny, you brought software to +school. Well, don't share it. Oh no. Sharing is wrong. Sharing +means you're a pirate.”</p> + +<p>What do they mean when they say “pirate”? They're +saying that helping your neighbor is the moral equivalent of attacking +a ship. <i>[Laughter]</i></p> + +<p>What would Buddha or Jesus say about that? Now, take your favorite +religious leader. I don't know, maybe Manson would have said +something different. <i>[Laughter]</i> Who knows what L. Ron Hubbard +would say? But …</p> + +<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i></p> + +<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Of course, he's dead. But they don't +admit that. What?</p> + +<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: So are the others, also +dead. <i>[Laughter] [Inaudible]</i> Charles Manson's also +dead. <i>[Laughter]</i> They're dead, Jesus's dead, Buddha's +dead…</p> + +<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, that's true. <i>[Laughter]</i> So +I guess, in that regard, L. Ron Hubbard is no worse than the +others. <i>[Laughter]</i> Anyway — <i>[Inaudible]</i></p> + +<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: L. Ron always used free software — +it freed him from Zanu. <i>[Laughter]</i></p> + +<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Anyway, so, I think this is actually the +most important reason why software should be free: We can't afford to +pollute society's most important resource. It's true that it's not a +physical resource like clean air and clean water. It's a +psycho-social resource, but it's just as real for all that, and it +makes a tremendous difference to our lives. You see, the actions we +take influence the thoughts of other people. When we go around +telling people, “Don't share with each other”, if they +listen to us, we've had an effect on society, and it's not a good one. +That's Freedom Two, the freedom to help your neighbor.</p> + +<p>Oh, and by the way, if you don't have that freedom, it doesn't just +cause this harm to society's psycho-social resource, it also causes +waste — practical, material harm. If the program has an owner, +and the owner arranges a state of affairs where each user has to pay +in order to be able to use it, some people are going to say, +“Never mind, I'll do without it.” And that's waste, +deliberately inflicted waste. And the interesting thing about +software, of course, is that fewer users doesn't mean you have to make +less stuff. You know, if fewer people buy cars, you can make fewer +cars. There's a saving there. There are resources to be allocated, +or not allocated, into making cars. So that you can say that having a +price on a car is a good thing. It prevents people from diverting +lots of wasted resources into making cars that aren't really needed. +But if each additional car used no resources, it wouldn't be doing any +good saving the making of these cars. Well, for physical objects, of +course, like cars, it is always going to take resources to make an +additional one of them, each additional exemplar.</p> + +<p>But for software that's not true. Anybody can make another copy. +And it's almost trivial to do it. It takes no resources, except a +tiny bit of electricity. So there's nothing we can save, no resource +we're going to allocate better by putting this financial disincentive +on the use of the software. You often find people taking economic, +the consequences of economic reasoning, based on premises that don't +apply to software, and trying to transplant them from other areas of +life where the premises may apply, and the conclusions may be valid. +They just take the conclusions and assume that they're valid for +software too, when the argument is based on nothing, in the case of +software. The premises don't work in that case. It is very important +to examine how you reach the conclusion, and what premises it depends +on, to see where it might be valid. So, that's Freedom Two, the +freedom to help your neighbor.</p> + +<p>Freedom Three is the freedom to help build your community by +publishing an improved version of the software. People used to say to +me, “If the software's free, then nobody will get paid to work +on it, so why should anybody work on it?” Well, of course, they +were confusing the two meanings of free, so their reasoning was based +on a misunderstanding. But, in any case, that was their theory. +Today, we can compare that theory with empirical fact, and we find +that hundreds of people are being paid to write free software, and +over 100,000 are doing it as volunteers. We get lots of people +working on free software, for various different motives.</p> + +<p>When I first released GNU Emacs — the first piece of the GNU +system that people actually wanted to use — and when it started +having users, after a while, I got a message saying, “I think I +saw a bug in the source code, and here's a fix.” And I got +another message, “Here's code to add a new feature.” And +another bug fix. And another new feature. And another, and another, +and another, until they were pouring in on me so fast that just making +use of all this help I was getting was a big job. Microsoft doesn't +have this problem. <i>[Laughter]</i></p> + +<p>Eventually, people noted this phenomenon. You see, in the 1980's a +lot of us thought that maybe free software wouldn't be as good as the +nonfree software, because we wouldn't have as much money to pay +people. And, of course, people like me, who value freedom and +community said, “Well, we'll use the free software +anyway.” It's worth making a little sacrifice in some mere +technical convenience to have freedom. But what people began to note, +around 1990 was that our software was actually better. It was more +powerful, and more reliable, than the proprietary alternatives.</p> + +<p>In the early '90's, somebody found a way to do a scientific +measurement of reliability of software. Here's what he did. He took +several sets of comparable programs that did the same jobs — the +exact same jobs — in different systems. Because there were +certain basic Unix-like utilities. And the jobs that they did, we +know, was all, more or less, imitating the same thing, or they were +following the POSIX spec, so they were all the same in terms of what +jobs they did, but they were maintained by different people, written +separately. The code was different. So they said, OK, we'll take +these programs and run them with random data, and measure how often +they crash, or hang. So they measured it, and the most reliable set +of programs was the GNU programs. All the commercial alternatives +which were proprietary software were less reliable. So he published +this and he told all the developers, and a few years later, he did the +same experiment with the newest versions, and he got the same result. +The GNU versions were the most reliable. People — you know +there are cancer clinics and 911 operations that use the GNU system, +because it's so reliable, and reliability is very important to +them.</p> + +<p>Anyway, there's even a group of people who focus on this particular +benefit as the reason they give, the main reason they give, why users +should be permitted to do these various things, and to have these +freedoms. If you've been listening to me, you've noticed, you've seen +that I, speaking for the free software movement, I talk about issues +of ethics, and what kind of a society we want to live in, what makes +for a good society, as well as practical, material benefits. They're +both important. That's the free software movement.</p> + +<p>That other group of people — which is called the open source +movement — they only cite the practical benefits. They deny +that this is an issue of principle. They deny that people are +entitled to the freedom to share with their neighbor and to see what +the program's doing and change it if they don't like it. They say, +however, that it's a useful thing to let people do that. So they go +to companies and say to them, “You know, you might make more +money if you let people do this.” So, what you can see is that +to some extent, they lead people in a similar direction, but for +totally different, for fundamentally different, philosophical +reasons.</p> + +<p>Because on the deepest issue of all, you know, on the ethical +question, the two movements disagree. You know, in the free software +movement we say, “You're entitled to these freedoms. People +shouldn't stop you from doing these things.” In the open source +movement, they say, “Yes, they can stop you if you want, but +we'll try to convince them to deign to let you to do these +things.” Well, they have contributed — they have convinced +a certain number of businesses to release substantial pieces of +software as free software in our community. So they, the open source +movement, has contributed substantially to our community. And so we +work together on practical projects. But, philosophically, there's a +tremendous disagreement.</p> + +<p>Unfortunately, the open source movement is the one that gets the +support of business the most, and so most articles about our work +describe it as open source, and a lot of people just innocently think +that we're all part of the open source movement. So that's why I'm +mentioning this distinction. I want you to be aware that the free +software movement, which brought our community into existence and +developed the free operating system, is still here — and that we +still stand for this ethical philosophy. I want you to know about +this, so that you won't mislead someone else unknowingly.</p> + +<p>But also, so that you can think about where you stand.</p> + +<p>You know, which movement you support is up to you. You might agree +with the free software movements and my views. You might agree with +the open source movement. You might disagree with them both. You +decide where you stand on these political issues.</p> + +<p>But if you agree with the free software movement — if you see +that there's an issue here that the people whose lives are controlled +and directed by this decision deserve a say in it — then I hope +you'll say that you agree with the free software movement, and one way +you can do that is by using the term free software and just helping +people know we exist.</p> + +<p>So, Freedom Three is very important both practically and +psycho-socially. If you don't have this freedom, it causes practical +material harm, because this community development doesn't happen, and +we don't make powerful, reliable software. But it also causes +psycho-social harm, which affects the spirit of scientific cooperation +— the idea that we're working together to advance human +knowledge. You see, progress in science crucially depends on people +being able to work together. And nowadays though, you often find each +little group of scientists acting like it's a war with each other gang +of scientists and engineers. And if they don't share with each other, +they're all held back.</p> + +<p>So, those are the three freedoms that distinguish free software +from typical software. Freedom One is the freedom to help yourself, +making changes to suit your own needs. Freedom Two is the freedom to +help your neighbor by distributing copies. And Freedom Three is the +freedom to help build your community by making changes and publishing +them for other people to use. If you have all of these freedoms, the +program is free software for you. Now, why do I define it that way in +terms of a particular user? Is it free software for +you? <i>[Pointing at member of audience.]</i> Is it free software for +you? <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</i> Is it free +software for you? <i>[Pointing at another member of audience.]</i> +Yes?</p> + +<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you explain a bit about the +difference between Freedom Two and Three? <i>[inaudible]</i></p> + +<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, they certainly relate, because if +you don't have freedom to redistribute at all, you certainly don't +have freedom to distribute a modified version, but they're different +activities.</p> + +<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Oh.</p> + +<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Freedom Two is, you know, read it, you +make an exact copy, and hand it to your friends, so now your friend +can use it. Or maybe you make exact copies and you sell them to a +bunch of people, and then they can use it.</p> + +<p>Freedom Three is where you make improvements — or at least +you think they're improvements, and some other people may agree with +you. So that's the difference. Oh, and by the way, one crucial +point. Freedoms One and Three depend on your having access to the +source code. Because changing a binary-only program is extremely +hard. <i>[Laughter]</i> Even trivial changes like using four digits +for the date, <i>[Laughter]</i> if you don't have source. So, for +compelling, practical reasons, access to the source code is a +precondition, a requirement, for free software.</p> + +<p>So, why do I define it in terms of whether it's free software for +<em>you</em>? The reason is that sometimes the same program can be +free software for some people, and nonfree for others. Now, that +might seem like a paradoxical situation, so let me give you an example +to show you how it happens. A very big example — maybe the +biggest ever — of this problem was the X Window System which was +developed at MIT and released under a license that made it free +software. If you got the MIT version with the MIT license, you had +Freedoms One, Two, and Three. It was free software for you. But +among those who got copies were various computer manufacturers that +distributed Unix systems, and they made the necessary changes in X to +run on their systems. You know, probably just a few thousand lines +out of the hundreds of thousands of lines of X. And, then they +compiled it, and they put the binaries into their Unix system and +distributed it under the same non-disclosure agreement as the rest of +the Unix system. And then, millions of people got these copies. They +had the X Window System, but they had none of these freedoms. It was +not free software for <em>them</em>.</p> + +<p>So, the paradox was that whether X was free software depended on +where you made the measurement. If you made the measurement coming +out of the developers' group, you'd say, “I observe all these +freedoms. It's free software.” If you made the measurements +among the users you'd say, “Hmm, most users don't have these +freedoms. It's not free software.” Well, the people who +developed X didn't consider this a problem, because their goal was +just popularity, ego, essentially. They wanted a big professional +success. They wanted to feel, “Ah, lots of people are using our +software.” And that was true. Lots of people were using their +software but didn't have freedom.</p> + +<p>Well, in the GNU project, if that same thing had happened to GNU +software, it would have been a failure, because our goal wasn't just +to be popular; our goal was to give people liberty, and to encourage +cooperation, to permit people to cooperate. Remember, never force +anyone to cooperate with any other person, but make sure that +everybody's allowed to cooperate, everyone has the freedom to do so, +if he or she wishes. If millions of people were running nonfree +versions of GNU, that wouldn't be success at all. The whole thing +would have been perverted into nothing like the goal.</p> + +<p>So, I looked for a way to stop that from happening. The method I +came up with is called “copyleft”. It's called copyleft +because it's sort of like taking copyright and flipping it +over. <i>[Laughter]</i> Legally, copyleft works based on copyright. +We use the existing copyright law, but we use it to achieve a very +different goal. Here's what we do. We say, “This program is +copyrighted.” And, of course, by default, that means it's +prohibited to copy it, or distribute it, or modify it. But then we +say, “You're authorized to distribute copies of this. You're +authorized to modify it. You're authorized to distribute modified +versions and extended versions. Change it any way you +like.”</p> + +<p>But there is a condition. And the condition, of course, is the +reason why we go to all this trouble, so that we could put the +condition in. The condition says: Whenever you distribute anything +that contains any piece of this program, that whole program must be +distributed under these same terms, no more and no less. So you can +change the program and distribute a modified version, but when you do, +the people who get that from you must get the same freedom that you +got from us. And not just for the parts of it — the excerpts +that you copied from our program — but also for the other parts +of that program that they got from you. The whole of that program has +to be free software for them.</p> + +<p>The freedoms to change and redistribute this program become +inalienable rights — a concept from the Declaration of +Independence. Rights that we make sure can't be taken away from you. +And, of course, the specific license that embodies the idea of +copyleft is the GNU General Public License, a controversial license +because it actually has the strength to say no to people who would be +parasites on our community.</p> + +<p>There are lots of people who don't appreciate the ideals of +freedom. And they'd be very glad to take the work that we have done, +and use it to get a head start in distributing a nonfree program and +tempting people to give up their freedom. And the result would be +— you know, if we let people do that — that we would be +developing these free programs, and we'd constantly have to compete +with improved versions of our own programs. That's no fun.</p> + +<p>And, a lot of people also feel — you know, I'm willing to +volunteer my time to contribute to the community, but why should I +volunteer my time to contribute to that company's, to improving that +company's, proprietary program? You know, some people might not even +think that that's evil, but they want to get paid if they're going to +do that. I, personally, would rather not do it at all.</p> + +<p>But both of these groups of people — both the ones like me +who say, “I don't want to help that nonfree program to get a +foothold in our community” and the ones that say, “Sure, +I'd work for them, but then they better pay me” — both of +us have a good reason to use the GNU General Public License. Because +that says to that company, “You can't just take my work, and +distribute it without the freedom.” Whereas, the non-copyleft +licenses, like the X Windows license, do permit that.</p> + +<p>So that is the big division between the two categories of free +software — license-wise. There are the programs that are +copylefted so that the license defends the freedom of the software for +every user. And there are the non-copylefted programs for which +nonfree versions are allowed. Somebody <em>can</em> take those +programs and strip off the freedom. You may get that program in a +nonfree version.</p> + +<p>And that problem exists today. There are still nonfree versions +of X Windows being used on our free operating systems. There is even +hardware — which is not really supported — except by a +nonfree version of X Windows. And that's a major problem in our +community. Nonetheless, I wouldn't say that X Windows is a bad thing, +you know. I'd say that the developers did not do the best possible +thing that they could have done. But they <em>did</em> release a lot +of software that we could all use.</p> + +<p>You know, there's a big difference between less than perfect, and +evil. There are many gradations of good and bad. We have to resist +the temptation to say, if you didn't do the absolute best possible +thing, then you're no good. You know, the people that developed X +Windows made a big contribution to our community. But there's +something better that they could have done. They could have +copylefted parts of the program and prevented those freedom-denying +versions from being distributed by others.</p> + +<p>Now, the fact that the GNU General Public License defends your +freedom, uses copyright law to defend your freedom, is, of course, why +Microsoft is attacking it today. See, Microsoft would really like to +be able to take all the code that we wrote and put it into proprietary +programs, have somebody make some improvements, or even just +incompatible changes is all they need. <i>[Laughter]</i></p> + +<p>You know, with Microsoft's marketing clout, they don't need to make +it better to have their version supplant ours. They just have to make +it different and incompatible. And then, put it on everybody's +desktop. So they really don't like the GNU GPL. Because the GNU GPL +won't let them do that. It doesn't allow “embrace and +extend”. It says, if you want to share our code in your +programs, you can. But, you've got to share and share alike. The +changes that you make we have to be allowed to share. So, it's a +two-way cooperation, which is real cooperation.</p> + +<p>Many companies — even big companies like IBM and HP are +willing to use our software on this basis. IBM and HP contribute +substantial improvements to GNU software. And they develop other free +software. But, Microsoft doesn't want to do that, so they give it out +that businesses just can't deal with the GPL. Well, if businesses +don't include IBM, and HP and SUN, then maybe they're +right. <i>[Laughter]</i> More about that later.</p> + +<p>I should finish the historical story. You see, we set out in 1984 +not just to write some free software but to do something much more +coherent: to develop an operating system that was entirely free +software. So that meant we had to write piece after piece after +piece. Of course, we were always looking for shortcuts. The job was +so big that people said we'd never be able to finish. And, I thought +that there was at least a chance that we'd finish it but, obviously, +it's worth looking for shortcuts. So we kept looking around. Is there +any program that somebody else has written that we could manage to +adapt, to plug into here, and that way we won't have to write it from +scratch? For instance, the X Window system. It's true it wasn't +copylefted, but it was free software, so we could use it.</p> + +<p>Now, I had wanted to put a window system into GNU from day one. I +wrote a couple of window systems at MIT before I started GNU. And so, +even though Unix had no window system in 1984, I decided that GNU +would have one. But, we never ended up writing a GNU window system, +because X came along. And I said, Goody! One big job we don't have +to do. We'll use X. So I basically said, let's take X, and put it +into the GNU system. And we'll make the other parts of GNU, you know, +work with X, when appropriate. And we found other pieces of software +that had been written by other people, like the text formatter TeX, +some library code from Berkeley. At that time there was Berkeley +Unix, but it was not free software. This library code, initially, was +from a different group at Berkeley, that did research on floating +point. And, so, we kept, we fit in these pieces.</p> + +<p>In October 1985, we founded the Free Software Foundation. So +please note, the GNU project came first. The Free Software Foundation +came after, about almost two years after the announcement of the +Project. And the Free Software Foundation is a tax-exempt charity +that raises funds to promote the freedom to share and change software. +And in the 1980's, one of the main things we did with our funds was to +hire people to write parts of GNU. And essential programs, such as +the shell and the C library were written this way, as well as parts of +other programs. The <code>tar</code> program, which is absolutely +essential, although not exciting at all <i>[Laughter]</i> was written +this way. I believe GNU grep was written this way. And so, we're +approaching our goal.</p> + +<p>By 1991, there was just one major piece missing, and that was the +kernel. Now, why did I put off the kernel? Probably because it +doesn't really matter what order you do the things in, at least +technically it doesn't. You've got to do them all anyway. And partly +because I'd hoped we'd be able to find a start at a kernel somewhere +else. And we did. We found Mach, which had been developed at +Carnegie Mellon. And it wasn't the whole kernel; it was the bottom +half of the kernel. So we had to write the top half, but I figured, +you know, things like the file system, the network code, and so on. +But running on top of Mach they're running essentially as user +programs, which ought to make them easier to debug. You can debug +with a real source-level debugger running at the same time. And so, I +thought that way we'd be able to get these, the higher level parts of +the kernel, done in a short time. It didn't work out that way. These +asynchronous, multi-threaded processes, sending messages to each other +turned out to be very hard to debug. And the Mach-based system that +we were using to bootstrap with had a terrible debugging environment, +and it was unreliable, and various problems. It took us years and +years to get the GNU kernel to work.</p> + +<p>But, fortunately, our community did not have to wait for the GNU +kernel. Because in 1991, Linus Torvalds developed another free kernel +called Linux. And he used the old-fashioned monolithic design and it +turns out that he got his working much faster than we got ours +working. So maybe that's one of the mistakes that I made: that design +decision. Anyway, at first, we didn't know about Linux, because he +never contacted us to talk about it. Although he did know about the +GNU Project. But he announced it to other people and other places on +the net. And so other people then did the work of combining Linux +with the rest of the GNU system to make a complete free operating +system. Essentially, to make the GNU plus Linux combination.</p> + +<p>But, they didn't realize that's what they were doing. You see, +they said, We have a kernel — let's look around and see what +other pieces we can find to put together with the kernel. So, they +looked around — and lo and behold, everything they needed was +already available. What good fortune, they said. <i>[Laughter]</i> +It's all here. We can find everything we need. Let's just take all +these different things and put it together, and have a system.</p> + +<p>They didn't know that most of what they found was pieces of the GNU +system. So they didn't realize that they were fitting Linux into the +gap in the GNU system. They thought they were taking Linux and making +a system out of Linux. So they called it a Linux system.</p> + +<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i></p> + +<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Can't hear you — what?</p> + +<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i></p> + +<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, it's just not — you know, +it's provincial.</p> + +<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: But it's more good fortune then finding +X and Mach?</p> + +<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. The difference is that the +people who developed X and Mach didn't have the goal of making a +complete free operating system. We're the only ones who had that. +And, it was our tremendous work that made the system exist. We +actually did a larger part of the system than any other project. No +coincidence, because those people — they wrote useful parts of +the system. But they didn't do it because they wanted the system to +be finished. They had other reasons.</p> + +<p>Now the people who developed X — they thought that designing +across the network window system would be a good project, and it was. +And it turned out to help us make a good free operating system. But +that's not what they hoped for. They didn't even think about that. +It was an accident. An accidental benefit. Now, I'm not saying that +what they did was bad. They did a large free software project. +That's a good thing to do. But they didn't have that ultimate vision. +The GNU Project is where that vision was.</p> + +<p>And, so, we were the ones whose — every little piece that +didn't get done by somebody else, we did it. Because we knew that we +wouldn't have a complete system without it. And even if it was +totally boring and unromantic, like <code>tar</code> +or <code>mv</code>. <i>[Laughter]</i> We did it. Or <code>ld</code>, you know +there's nothing very exciting in <code>ld</code> — but I wrote +one. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I did make efforts to have it do a minimal +amount of disk I/O so that it would be faster and handle bigger +programs. But, you know, I like to do a good job. I like to improve +various things about the program while I'm doing it. But the reason +that I did it wasn't that I had brilliant ideas for a +better <code>ld</code>. The reason I did it is that we needed one +that was free. And we couldn't expect anyone else to do it. So, we +had to do it, or find someone to do it.</p> + +<p>So, although at this point thousands of people in projects have +contributed to this system, there is one project which is the reason +that this system exists, and that's the GNU Project. It <em>is</em> +basically the GNU System, with other things added since then.</p> + +<p>So, however, the practice of calling the system Linux has been a +great blow to the GNU Project, because we don't normally get credit +for what we've done. I think Linux, the kernel, is a very useful +piece of free software, and I have only good things to say about it. +But, well, actually, I can find a few bad things to say about +it. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, basically, I have good things to say about +it. However, the practice of calling the GNU system, Linux, is just a +mistake. I'd like to ask you please to make the small effort +necessary to call the system GNU/Linux, and that way to help us get a +share of the credit.</p> + +<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You need a mascot! Get yourself a +stuffed animal! <i>[Laughter]</i></p> + +<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We have one.</p> + +<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You do?</p> + +<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We have an animal — a +gnu. <i>[Laughter]</i> Anyway. So, yes, when you draw a penguin, +draw a gnu next to it. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, let's save the +questions for the end. I have more to go through.</p> + +<p>So, why am I so concerned about this? You know, why do I think it +is worth bothering you and perhaps giving you a, perhaps lowering your +opinion of me, <i>[Laughter]</i> to raise this issue of credit? +Because, you know, some people when I do this, some people think that +it's because I want my ego to be fed, right? Of course, I'm not +saying — I'm not asking you to call it “Stallmanix,” +right? <i>[Laughter] [Applause]</i></p> + +<p>I'm asking you to call it GNU, because I want the GNU Project to +get credit. And there's a very specific reason for that, which is a +lot more important than anybody getting credit, in and of itself. You +see, these days, if you look around in our community most of the +people talking about it and writing about it don't ever mention GNU, +and they don't ever mention these goals of freedom — these +political and social ideals, either. Because the place they come from +is GNU.</p> + +<p>The ideas associated with Linux — the philosophy is very +different. It is basically the apolitical philosophy of Linus +Torvalds. So, when people think that the whole system is Linux, they +tend to think: “Oh, it must have been all started by Linux +Torvalds. His philosophy must be the one that we should look at +carefully”. And when they hear about the GNU philosophy, they +say: “Boy, this is so idealistic, this must be awfully +impractical. I'm a Linux-user, not a +GNU-user.” <i>[Laughter]</i></p> + +<p>What irony! If they only knew! If they knew that the system they +liked — or, in some cases, love and go wild over — is our +idealistic, political philosophy made real.</p> + +<p>They still wouldn't have to agree with us. But at least they'd see +a reason to take it seriously, to think about it carefully, to give it +a chance. They would see how it relates to their lives. You know, if +they realized, “I'm using the GNU system. Here's the GNU +philosophy. This philosophy is <em>why</em> this system that I like +very much exists,” they'd at least consider it with a much more +open mind. It doesn't mean that everybody will agree. People think +different things. That's OK. You know, people should make up their +own minds. But I want this philosophy to get the benefit of the +credit for the results it has achieved.</p> + +<p>If you look around in our community, you'll find that almost +everywhere, the institutions are calling the system Linux. You know, +reporters mostly call it Linux. It's not right, but they do. The +companies mostly say it that package the system. Oh, and most of +these reporters, when they write articles, they usually don't look at +it as a political issue, or social issue. They're usually looking at +it purely as a business question or what companies are going to +succeed more or less, which is really a fairly minor question for +society. And, if you look at the companies that package the GNU/Linux +system for people to use, well, most of them call it Linux. And they +<em>all</em> add nonfree software to it.</p> + +<p>See, the GNU GPL says that if you take code, and some code out of a +GPL-covered program, and add some more code to make a bigger program, +that whole program has to be released under the GPL. But you could +put other separate programs on the same disk (of either kind, hard +disk, or CD), and they can have other licenses. That's considered +mere aggregation, and, essentially, just distributing two programs to +somebody at the same time is not something we have any say over. So, +in fact, it is not true — sometimes, I wish it were true — +that if a company uses a GPL-covered program in a product that the +whole product has to be free software. It's not — it doesn't go +to that range — that scope. It's the whole program. If there +are two separate programs that communicate with each other at arm's +length — like by sending messages to each other — then, +they're legally separate, in general. So, these companies, by adding +nonfree software to the system, are giving the users, philosophically +and politically, a very bad idea. They're telling the users, +“It is OK to use nonfree software. We're even putting it on +this as a bonus.”</p> + +<p>If you look at the magazines about the use of the GNU/Linux system, +most of them have a title like “Linux-something or other”. +So they're calling the system Linux most of the time. And they're +filled with ads for nonfree software that you could run on top of the +GNU/Linux system. Now those ads have a common message. They say: +Nonfree Software Is Good For You. It's So Good That You Might Even +<em>Pay</em> To Get It. <i>[Laughter]</i></p> + +<p>And they call these things “value-added packages”, +which makes a statement about their values. They're saying: Value +practical convenience, not freedom. And, I don't agree with those +values, so I call them “freedom-subtracted +packages”. <i>[Laughter]</i> Because if you have installed a +free operating system, then you now are living in the free world. You +enjoy the benefits of liberty that we worked for so many years to give +you. Those packages give you an opportunity to buckle on a chain.</p> + +<p>And then if you look at the trade shows — about the use of +the, dedicated to the use of, the GNU/Linux system, they all call +themselves “Linux” shows. And they're filled with booths +exhibiting nonfree software, essentially putting the seal of approval +on the nonfree software. So, almost everywhere you look in our +community, the institutions are endorsing the nonfree software, +totally negating the idea of freedom that GNU was developed for. +And the only place that people are likely to come across the idea of +freedom is in connection with GNU, and in connection with free +software, the term, free software. So this is why I ask you: please +call the system GNU/Linux. Please make people aware where the system +came from and why.</p> + +<p>Of course, just by using that name, you won't be making an +explanation of the history. You can type four extra characters and +write GNU/Linux; you can say two extra syllables. But, GNU/Linux is +fewer syllables than Windows 2000. <i>[Laughter]</i> But, you're not +telling them a lot, but you're preparing them, so that when they hear +about GNU, and what it's all about, they'll see how that connects to +them and their lives. And that, indirectly, makes a tremendous +difference. So please help us.</p> + +<p>You'll note that Microsoft called the GPL an “open source +license”. They don't want people to be thinking in terms of +freedom as the issue. You'll find that they invite people to think in +a narrow way, as consumers, and, of course, not even think very +rationally as consumers, if they're going to choose Microsoft +products. But they don't want people to think as citizens or +statesmen. That's inimical to them. At least it's inimical to their +current business model.</p> + +<p>Now, how does free software…well, I can tell you about how +free software relates to our society. A secondary topic that might be +of interest to some of you is how free software relates to business. +Now, in fact, free software is <em>tremendously</em> useful for +business. After all, most businesses in the advanced countries use +software. Only a tiny fraction of them develop software.</p> + +<p>And free software is tremendously advantageous for any company that +uses software, because it means that you're in control. Basically, +free software means the users are in control of what the program does. +Either individually, if they care enough to be, or, collectively, when +they care enough to be. Whoever cares enough can exert some +influence. If you don't care, you don't buy. Then you use what other +people prefer. But, if you do care, then you have some say. With +proprietary software, you have essentially no say.</p> + +<p>With free software, you can change what you want to change. And it +doesn't matter that there are no programmers in your company; that's +fine. You know, if you wanted to move the walls in your building, you +don't have to be a carpentry company. You just have to be able to go +find a carpenter and say, “What will you charge to do this +job?” And if you want to change around the software you use, you +don't have to be a programming company. You just have to go to a +programming company and say, “What will you charge to implement +these features? And when will you have it done?” And if they +don't do the job, you can go find somebody else.</p> + +<p>There's a free market for support. So, any business that cares +about support will find a tremendous advantage in free software. With +proprietary software, support is a monopoly, because one company has +the source code, or maybe a small number of companies that paid a +gigantic amount of money have the source code, if it's Microsoft's +shared source program, but, it's very few. And so, there aren't very +many possible sources of support for you. And that means, that unless +you're a real giant, they don't care about you. Your company is not +important enough for them to care if they lose your business, or what +happens. Once you're using the program, they figure you're locked in +to getting the support from them, because to switch to a different +program is a gigantic job. So, you end up with things like paying for +the privilege of reporting a bug. <i>[Laughter]</i> And once you've +paid, they tell you, “Well, OK, we've noted your bug report. +And in a few months, you can buy an upgrade, and you can see if we've +fixed it.” <i>[Laughter]</i></p> + +<p>Support providers for free software can't get away with that. They +have to please the customers. Of course, you can get a lot of good +support gratis. You post your problem on the Internet. You may get +an answer the next day. But that's not guaranteed, of course. If you +want to be confident, you better make an arrangement with a company +and pay them. And this is, of course, one of the ways that free +software business works.</p> + +<p>Another advantage of free software for businesses that use software +is security and privacy. And this applies to individuals as well, but +I brought it up in the context of businesses. You see, when a program +is proprietary, you can't even tell what it really does.</p> + +<p>It could have features, deliberately put in that you wouldn't like +if you knew about them, like it might have a backdoor to let the +developer get into your machine. It might snoop on what you do and +send information back. This is not unusual. Some Microsoft software +did this. But it's not only Microsoft. There are other proprietary +programs that snoop on the user. And you can't even tell if it does +this. And, of course, even assuming that the developer's totally +honest, every programmer makes mistakes. There could be bugs that +affect your security which are nobody's fault. But the point is: If +it's not free software, you can't find them. And you can't fix +them.</p> + +<p>Nobody has the time to check the source of every program he runs. +You're not going to do that. But with free software there's a large +community, and there are people in that community who are checking +things. And you get the benefit of their checking, because if there's +an accidental bug, there surely are, from time to time, in any +program, they might find it and fix it. And people are much less +likely to put in a deliberate Trojan horse, or a snooping feature, if +they think they might get caught. The proprietary software developers +figure they won't get caught. They'll get away with it undetected. +But a free software developer has to figure that people will look at +that and see it's there. So, in our community, we don't feel we can +get away with ramming a feature down the users' throats that the users +wouldn't like. So we know that if the users don't like it, they'll +make a modified version which doesn't have it. And then, they'll all +start using that version.</p> + +<p>In fact, we can all reason enough, we can all figure this out +enough steps ahead, that we probably won't put in that feature. After +all, you're writing a free program; you want people to like your +version; you don't want to put in a thing that you know a lot of +people are going to hate, and have another modified version catch on +instead of yours. So you just realize that the user is king in the +world of free software. In the world of proprietary software, the +customer is <em>not</em> king. Because you are only a customer. You +have no say in the software you use.</p> + +<p>In this respect, free software is a new mechanism for democracy to +operate. Professor Lessig, now at Stanford, noted that code functions +as a kind of law. Whoever gets to write the code that just about +everybody uses for all intents and purposes is writing the laws that +run people's lives. With free software, these laws get written in a +democratic way. Not the classical form of democracy — we don't +have a big election and say, “Everybody vote which way should +this feature be done.” <i>[Laughter]</i> Instead we say, +basically, those of you who want to work on implementing the feature +this way, do it. And if you want to work on implementing the feature +that way, do it. And, it gets done one way or the other, you know? +And so, if a lot of people want it this way, it'll get done this way. +So, in this way, everybody contributes to the social decision by +simply taking steps in the direction that he wants to go.</p> + +<p>And you're free to take as many steps, personally, as you want to +take. A business is free to commission as many steps as they find +useful to take. And, after you add all these things up, that says +which direction the software goes.</p> + +<p>And it's often very useful to be able to take pieces out of some +existing program, presumably usually large pieces, of course, and then +write a certain amount of code of your own, and make a program that +does exactly what you need, which would have cost you an arm and a leg +to develop, if you had to write it all from scratch, if you couldn't +cannibalize large pieces from some existing free software package.</p> + +<p>Another thing that results from the fact that the user is king is +that we tend to be very good about compatibility and standardization. +Why? Because users like that. Users are likely to reject a program +that has gratuitous incompatibilities in it. Now, sometimes there's a +certain group of users which actually have a need for a certain kind +of incompatibility, and then they'll have it. That's OK. But when +users want is to follow a standard, we developers have to follow it, +and we know that. And we do it. By contrast, if you look at +proprietary software developers, they often find it advantageous to +deliberately <em>not</em> follow a standard, and not because they +think that they're giving the user an advantage that way, but rather +because they're imposing on the user, locking the user in. And you'll +even find them making changes in their file formats from time to time, +just to force people to get the newest version.</p> + +<p>Archivists are finding a problem now, that files written on +computers ten years ago often can't be accessed; they were written +with proprietary software that's essentially lost now. If it were +written with free software, then it could be brought up-to-date and +run. And those things would not, those records would not be lost, +would not be inaccessible. They were even complaining about this on +NPR recently in citing free software as a solution. And so, in +effect, by using a nonfree program to store your own data, you are +putting your head in a noose.</p> + +<p>So, I've talked about how free software affects most business. But +how does it affect that particular narrow area which is software +business? Well, the answer is mostly not at all. And the reason is +that 90% of the software industry, from what I'm told, is development +of custom software, software that's not meant to be released at all. +For custom software, this issue, or the ethical issue of free or +proprietary, doesn't arise. You see, the issue is, are you users free +to change, and redistribute, the software? If there's only one user, +and that user owns the rights, there's no problem. That +user <em>is</em> free to do all these things. So, in effect, any +<em>custom</em> program that was developed by one company for use +in-house is free software, as long as they have the sense to insist on +getting the source code and all the rights.</p> + +<p>And the issue doesn't really arise for software that goes in a +watch or a microwave oven or an automobile ignition system. Because +those are places where you don't download software to install. It's +not a real computer, as far as the user is concerned. And so, it +doesn't raise these issues enough for them to be ethically important. +So, for the most part, the software industry will go along, just as +it's been going. And the interesting thing is that since such a large +fraction of the jobs are in that part of the industry, even if there +were no possibilities for free software business, the developers of +free software could all get day jobs writing custom +software. <i>[Laughter]</i> There's so many; the ratio is so big.</p> + +<p>But, as it happens, there is free software business. There are +free software companies, and at the press conference that I'm going to +have, people from a couple of them will join us. And, of course, +there are also companies which are <em>not</em> free software +businesses but do develop useful pieces of free software to release, +and the free software that they produce is substantial.</p> + +<p>Now, how do free software businesses work? Well, some of them sell +copies. You know, you're free to copy it but they can still sell +thousands of copies a month. And others sell support and various +kinds of services. I, personally, for the second half of the '80's, I +sold free software support services. Basically I said, for $200 an +hour, I'll change whatever you want me to change in GNU software that +I'd written. And, yes, it was a stiff rate, but if it was a program +that I was the author of, people would figure that I might get the job +done in a lot fewer hours. <i>[Laughter]</i> And I made a living that +way. In fact, I'd made more than I'd ever made before. I also taught +classes. And I kept doing that until 1990, when I got a big prize and +I didn't have to do it any more.</p> + +<p>But, 1990 was when the first corporation free software business was +formed, which was Cygnus Support. And their business was to do, +essentially, the same kind of thing that I'd been doing. I certainly +could have worked for them, if I had needed to do that. Since I +didn't need to, I felt it was good for the movement if I remained +independent of any one company. That way, I could say good and bad +things about the various free software and nonfree software +companies, without a conflict of interest. I felt that I could serve +the movement more. But, if I had needed that to make a living, sure, +I would have worked for them. It's an ethical business to be in. No +reason I would have felt ashamed to take a job with them. And that +company was profitable in its first year. It was formed with very +little capital, just the money its three founders had. And it kept +growing every year and being profitable every year until they got +greedy, and looked for outside investors, and then they messed things +up. But it was several years of success, before they got greedy.</p> + +<p>So, this illustrates one of the exciting things about free +software. Free software demonstrates that you don't need to raise +capital to develop free software. I mean, it's useful; +it <em>can</em> help. You know, if you do raise some capital, you can +hire people and have them write a bunch of software. But you can get +a lot done with a small number of people. And, in fact, the +tremendous efficiency of the process of developing free software is +one of the reasons it's important for the world to switch to free +software. And it also belies what Microsoft says when they say the +GNU GPL is bad, because it makes it harder for them to raise capital +to develop nonfree software and take our free software and put our +code into their programs that they won't share with us. Basically, we +don't need to have them raising capital that way. We'll get the job +done anyway. We are getting the job done.</p> + +<p>People used to say we could never do a complete free operating +system. Now we've done that and a tremendous amount more. And I +would say that we're about an order of magnitude away from developing +all the general purpose published software needs of the world. And +this is in a world where more than 90% of the users don't use our free +software yet. This is in a world where, although in certain areas of +business, you know, more than half of all the web servers in the world +are running on GNU/Linux with Apache as the web server.</p> + +<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i> … What did you +say before, Linux?</p> + +<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I said GNU/Linux.</p> + +<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You did?</p> + +<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, if I'm talking about the kernel, I +call it Linux. You know, that's it's name. The kernel was written by +Linus Torvalds, and we should only call it by the name that he chose, +out of respect for the author.</p> + +<p>Anyway, but in general, in business most users are not using it. +Most home users are not using our system yet. So, when they are, we +should automatically get 10 times as many volunteers and 10 times as +many customers for the free software businesses that there will be. +And so that will take us that order of magnitude. So at this point, I +am pretty confident that we <em>can</em> do the job.</p> + +<p>And, this is important, because Microsoft asks us to feel +desperate. They say, The only way you can have software to run, the +only way you can have innovation, is if you give us power. Let us +dominate you. Let us control what you can do with the software you're +running, so that we can squeeze a lot of money out of you, and use a +certain fraction of that to develop software, and take the rest as +profit.</p> + +<p>Well, you shouldn't ever feel that desperate. You shouldn't ever +feel so desperate that you give up your freedom. That's very +dangerous.</p> + +<p>Another thing that Microsoft, well, not just Microsoft, people who +don't support free software generally adopt a value system in which +the only thing that matters is short-term practical benefits: How much +money am I going to make this year? What job can I get done today? +Short-term thinking and narrow thinking. Their assumption is that it +is ridiculous to imagine that anybody ever might make a sacrifice for +the sake of freedom.</p> + +<p>Yesterday, a lot of people were making speeches about Americans who +made sacrifices for the freedom of their compatriots. Some of them +made great sacrifices. They even sacrificed their lives for the kinds +of freedom that everyone in our country has heard about, at least. +(At least, in some of the cases; I guess we have to ignore the war in +Vietnam.)</p> + +<p><i>[Editor's note: The day before was “Memorial Day” in +the USA. Memorial Day is a day where war heros are +commemorated.]</i></p> + +<p>But, fortunately, to maintain our freedom in using software, +doesn't call for big sacrifices. Just tiny, little sacrifices are +enough, like learning a command-line interface, if we don't have a GUI +interface program yet. Like doing the job in this way, because we +don't have a free software package to do it that way, yet. Like, +paying some money to a company that's going to develop a certain free +software package, so that you can have it in a few years. Various +little sacrifices that we can all make. And, in the long run, even we +will have benefited from it. You know, it is really an investment +more than a sacrifice. We just have to have enough long-term view to +realize it's good for us to invest in improving our society, without +counting the nickels and dimes of who gets how much of the benefit +from that investment.</p> + +<p>So, at this point, I'm essentially done.</p> + +<p>I'd like to mention that there's a new approach to free software +business being proposed by Tony Stanco, which he calls “Free +Developers”, which involves a certain business structure which +hopes eventually to pay out a certain share of the profits to every, +to all the authors of the free software who've joined the +organization. And they're looking at the prospects of getting me some +rather large government software development contracts in India now, +because they're going to be using free software as the basis, having +tremendous cost savings that way.</p> + +<p>And so now I guess that I should ask for questions.</p> + +<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: <i>[Inaudible]</i></p> + +<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Could you speak up a bit louder please? +I can't really hear you.</p> + +<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: How could a company like Microsoft +include a free software contract?</p> + +<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, actually, Microsoft is planning to +shift a lot of its activity into services. And what they're planning +to do is something dirty and dangerous, which is tie the services to +the programs, one to the next, in a sort of zigzag, you know? So that +to use this service, you've got to be using this Microsoft program, +which is going to mean you need to use this service, to this Microsoft +program, so it's all tied together. That's their plan.</p> + +<p>Now, the interesting thing is that selling those services doesn't +raise the ethical issue of free software or nonfree software. It +might be perfectly fine for them to have the business for those +businesses selling those services over the net to exist. However, +what Microsoft is planning to do is to use them to achieve an even +greater lock, an even greater monopoly, on the software and the +services, and this was described in an article, I believe in Business +Week, recently. And, other people said that it is turning the net +into the Microsoft Company Town.</p> + +<p>And this is relevant because, you know, the trial court in the +Microsoft antitrust trial recommended breaking up the company, +Microsoft. But in a way, that makes no sense — it wouldn't do +any good at all — into the operating part and the applications +part.</p> + +<p>But having seen that article, I now see a useful, effective way to +split up Microsoft into the services part and the software part, to +require them to deal with each other only at arm's length, that the +services must publish their interfaces, so that anybody can write a +client to talk to those services, and, I guess, that they have to pay +to get the service. Well, that's OK. That's a totally different +issue.</p> + +<p>If Microsoft is split up in this way […] services and +software, they will not be able to use their software to crush +competition with Microsoft services. And they won't be able to use +the services to crush competition with Microsoft software. And we +will be able to make the free software, and maybe you people will use +it to talk to Microsoft services, and we won't mind.</p> + +<p>Because, after all, although Microsoft is the proprietary software +company that has subjugated the most people — the others have +subjugated fewer people, it's not for want of +trying. <i>[Laughter]</i> They just haven't succeeded in subjugating +as many people. So, the problem is not Microsoft and only Microsoft. +Microsoft is just the biggest example of the problem we're trying to +solve, which is proprietary software taking away users' freedom to +cooperate and form an ethical society. So we shouldn't focus too much +on Microsoft, you know, even though they did give me the opportunity +for this platform. That doesn't make them all-important. They're not +the be-all and end-all.</p> + +<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Earlier, you were discussing the +philosophical differences between open source software and free +software. How do you feel about the current trend of GNU/Linux +distributions as they head towards supporting only Intel platforms? +And the fact that it seems that less and less programmers are +programming correctly, and making software that will compile anywhere? +And making software that simply works on Intel systems?</p> + +<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I don't see an ethical issue there. +Although, in fact, companies that make computers sometimes port the +GNU/Linux system to it. HP apparently did this recently. And, they +didn't bother paying for a port of Windows, because that would have +cost too much. But getting GNU/Linux supported was, I think, five +engineers for a few months. It was easily doable.</p> + +<p>Now, of course, I encourage people to use <code>autoconf</code>, +which is a GNU package that makes it easier to make your programs +portable. I encourage them to do that. Or when somebody else fixes +the bug that it didn't compile on that version of the system, and +sends it to you, you should put it in. But I don't see that as an +ethical issue.</p> + +<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Two comments. One is: Recently, you +spoke at MIT. I read the transcript. And someone asked about +patents, and you said that “patents are a totally different +issue. I have no comments on that.”</p> + +<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. I actually have a lot to say +about patents, but it takes an hour. <i>[Laughter]</i></p> + +<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: I wanted to say this: It seems to me +that there is an issue. I mean, there is a reason that companies call +both patents and copyrights things like hard property in trying to get +this concept which is, if they want to use the power of the State to +create a course of monopoly for themselves. And so, what's common +about these things is not that they revolve around the same issues, +but that motivation is not really the public service issues but the +motivation of companies to get a monopoly for their private +interests.</p> + +<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I understand. But, well, I want to +respond because there's not too much time. So I'd like to respond to +that.</p> + +<p>You're right that that's what they want. But there's another +reason why they want to use the term intellectual property. It's that +they don't want to encourage people to think carefully about copyright +issues or patent issues. Because copyright law and patent law are +totally different, and the effects of software copyrighted and +software patents are totally different.</p> + +<p>Software patents are a restriction on programmers, prohibiting them +from writing certain kinds of programs, whereas copyright doesn't do +that. With copyright, at least if you wrote it yourself, you're +allowed to distribute it. So, it's tremendously important to separate +these issues.</p> + +<p>They have a little bit in common, at a very low level, and +everything else is different. So, please, to encourage clear +thinking, discuss copyright or discuss patents. But don't discuss +intellectual property. I don't have an opinion on intellectual +property. I have opinions on copyrights and patents and software.</p> + +<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You mentioned at the beginning that a +functional language, like recipes, are computer programs. There's a +cross a little bit different than other kinds of language created on. +This is also causing a problem in the DVD case.</p> + +<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: The issues are partly similar but partly +different, for things that are not functional in nature. Part of the +issue transfers but not all of it. Unfortunately, that's another hour +speech. I don't have time to go into it. But I would say that all +functional works ought to be free in the same sense as software. You +know, textbooks, manuals, dictionaries, and recipes, and so on.</p> + +<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: I was just wondering on online +music. There are similarities and differences created all through.</p> + +<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. I'd say that the minimum freedom +that we should have for any kind of published information is the +freedom to non-commercially redistribute it, verbatim. For functional +works, we need the freedom to commercially publish a modified version, +because that's tremendously useful to society. For non-functional +works, you know, things that are to entertain, or to be aesthetic, or +to state a certain person's views, you know, perhaps they shouldn't be +modified. And, perhaps that means that it's OK, to have copyright +covering all commercial distribution of them.</p> + +<p>Please remember that according to the U.S. Constitution, the +purpose of copyright is to benefit the public. It is to modify the +behavior of certain private parties, so that they will publish more +books. And the benefit of this is that society gets to discuss issues +and learn. And, you know, we have literature. We have scientific +works. The purpose is encourage that. Copyrights do not exist for +the sake of authors, let alone for the sake of publishers. They exist +for the sake of readers and all those who benefit from the +communication of information that happens when people write and others +read. And that goal I agree with.</p> + +<p>But in the age of the computer networks, the method is no longer +tenable, because it now requires draconian laws that invade +everybody's privacy and terrorize everyone. You know, years in prison +for sharing with your neighbor. It wasn't like that in the age of the +printing press. Then copyright was an industrial regulation. It +restricted publishers. Now, it's a restriction imposed by the +publishers on the public. So, the power relationship is turned around +180 degrees, even if it's the same law.</p> + +<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: So you can have the same thing — +but like in making music from other music?</p> + +<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Right. That is an interesting +…</p> + +<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: And unique, new works, you know, it's +still a lot of cooperation.</p> + +<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: It is. And I think that probably +requires some kind of fair use concept. Certainly making a few +seconds of sample and using that in making some musical work, +obviously that should be fair use. Even the standard idea of fair use +includes that, if you think about it. Whether courts agree, I'm not +sure, but they should. That wouldn't be a real change in the system +as it has existed.</p> + +<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: What do you think about publishing +public information in proprietary formats?</p> + +<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh, it shouldn't be. I mean, the +government should never require citizens to use a nonfree program to +access, to communicate with the government in any way, in either +direction.</p> + +<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: I have been, what I will now say, a +GNU/Linux user…</p> + +<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Thank you. <i>[Laughter]</i></p> + +<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: …for the past four years. The one +thing that has been problematical for me and is something that is +essential, I think, to all of us, is browsing the web.</p> + +<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes.</p> + +<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: One thing that has been decidedly a +weakness in using a GNU/Linux system has been browsing the web, +because the prevailing tool for that, Netscape…</p> + +<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: …is not free software.</p> + +<p>Let me respond to this. I want to get to the point, for the sake +of getting in more. So, yes. There has been a terrible tendency for +people to use Netscape Navigator on their GNU/Linux systems. And, in +fact all the commercially packaged systems come with it. So this is +an ironic situation: we worked so hard to make a free operating +system, and now, if you go to the store, and you can find versions of +GNU/Linux there, most of them are called Linux, and they're not free. +Oh, well, part of them is. But then, there's Netscape Navigator, and +maybe other nonfree programs as well. So, it's very hard to actually +find a free system, unless you know what you're doing. Or, of course, +you can not install Netscape Navigator.</p> + +<p>Now, in fact, there have been free web browsers for many years. +There is a free web browser that I used to use called Lynx. It's a +free web browser that is non-graphical; it's text-only. This has a +tremendous advantage, in you don't see the ads. <i>[Laughter] +[Applause]</i></p> + +<p>But anyway, there is a free graphical project called Mozilla, which +is now getting to the point where you can use it. And I occasionally +use it.</p> + +<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Konqueror 2.01 has been very good.</p> + +<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh, OK. So that's another free +graphical browser. So, we're finally solving that problem, I +guess.</p> + +<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you talk to me about that +philosophical/ethical division between free software and open source? +Do you feel that those are irreconcilable? …</p> + +<p><i>[Recording switches tapes; end of question and start of answer +is missing]</i></p> + +<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: … to a freedom, and ethics. Or +whether you just say, Well, I hope that you companies will decide it's +more profitable to let us be allowed to do these things.</p> + +<p>But, as I said, in a lot of practical work, it doesn't really +matter what a person's politics are. When a person offers to help the +GNU project, we don't say: “You have to agree with our +politics.” We say that in a GNU package, you've got to call the +system GNU/Linux, and you've got to call it free software. What you +say when you're not speaking to the GNU Project, that's up to you.</p> + +<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: The company, IBM, started a campaign for +government agencies, to sell their big new machines, that they used +Linux as selling point, and say Linux.</p> + +<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, of course, it's really the +GNU/Linux systems. <i>[Laughter]</i></p> + +<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: That's right! Well, tell the top sales +person. He doesn't know anything for GNU.</p> + +<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: I have to tell who?</p> + +<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: The top sales person.</p> + +<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Oh yes. The problem is that they've +already carefully decided what they want to say for reasons of their +advantage. And the issue of what is a more accurate, or fair, or +correct way to describe it is not the primary issue that matters to a +company like that. Now, some small companies, yes, there'll be a +boss. And if the boss is inclined to think about things like that, he +might make a decision that way. Not a giant corporation though. It's +a shame, you know.</p> + +<p>There's another more important and more substantive issue about +what IBM is doing. They're saying that they're putting a billion +dollars into “Linux”. But perhaps, I should also put +quotes around “into”, as well, because some of that money +is paying people to develop free software. That really is a +contribution to our community. But other parts is paying to pay +people to write proprietary software, or port proprietary software to +run on top of GNU/Linux, and that is <em>not</em> a contribution to +our community. But IBM is lumping that altogether into this. Some of +it might be advertising, which is partly a contribution, even if it's +partly wrong. So, it's a complicated situation. Some of what they're +doing is contribution and some is not. And some is sort is somewhat, +but not exactly. And you can't just lump it altogether and think, +Wow! Whee! A billion dollars from IBM. <i>[Laughter]</i> That's +oversimplification.</p> + +<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Can you talk a little bit more about the +thinking that went into the General Public License?</p> + +<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, here's the — I'm sorry, I'm +answering his question now. <i>[Laughter]</i></p> + +<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Do you want to reserve some time for +the press conference? Or do you want to continue here?</p> + +<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Who is here for the press conference? +Not a lot of press. Oh, three — OK. Can you afford if we +— if I go on answering everybody's questions for another ten +minutes or so? OK. So, we'll go on answering everybody's +questions.</p> + +<p>So, the thinking that went into the GNU GPL? Part of it was that I +wanted to protect the freedom of the community against the phenomena +that I just described with X Windows, which has happened with other +free programs as well. In fact, when I was thinking about this issue, +X Windows was not yet released. But I had seen this problem happen in +other free programs. For instance, TeX. I wanted to make sure that +the users would all have freedom. Otherwise, I realized that I might +write a program, and maybe a lot of people would use the program, but +they wouldn't have freedom. And what's the point of that?</p> + +<p>But the other issue I was thinking about was, I wanted to give the +community a feeling that it was not a doormat, a feeling that it was +not prey to any parasite who would wander along. If you don't use +copyleft, you are essentially saying: <i>[speaking meekly]</i> +“Take my code. Do what you want. I don't say no.” So, +anybody can come along and say: <i>[speaking very firmly]</i> +“Ah, I want to make a nonfree version of this. I'll just take +it.” And, then, of course, they probably make some improvements, +those nonfree versions might appeal to users, and replace the free +versions. And then, what have you accomplished? You've only made a +donation to some proprietary software project.</p> + +<p>And when people see that that's happening, when people see, other +people take what I do, and they don't ever give back, it can be +demoralizing. And, this is not just speculation. I had seen that +happen. That was part of what happened to wipe out the old community +that I belonged to the '70's. Some people started becoming +uncooperative. And we assumed that they were profiting thereby. They +certainly acted as if they thought they were profiting. And we +realized that they can just take off cooperation and not give back. +And there was nothing we could do about it. It was very discouraging. +We, those of us who didn't like the trend, even had a discussion and +we couldn't come up with any idea for how we could stop it.</p> + +<p>So, the GPL is designed to stop that. And it says, Yes, you are +welcome to join the community and use this code. You can use it to do +all sorts of jobs. But, if you release a modified version, you've got +to release that to our community, as part of our community, as part of +the free world.</p> + +<p>So, in fact, there are still many ways that people can get the +benefit of our work and not contribute, like you don't have to write +any software. Lots of people use GNU/Linux and don't write any +software. There's no requirement that you've got to do anything for +us. But if you do a certain kind of thing, you've got to contribute +to it. So what that means is that our community is not a doormat. +And I think that that helped give people the strength to feel, Yes, we +won't just be trampled underfoot by everybody. We'll stand up to +this.</p> + +<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Yes, my question was, considering free +but not copylefted software, since anybody can pick it up and make it +proprietary, is it not possible also for someone to pick it up and +make some changes and release the whole thing under the GPL?</p> + +<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Yes, it is possible.</p> + +<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Then, that would make all future copies +then be GPL'ed.</p> + +<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: From that branch. But here's why we +don't do that.</p> + +<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Hmm?</p> + +<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Here's why we don't generally do that. +Let me explain.</p> + +<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: OK, yes.</p> + +<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We could, if we wanted to, take X +Windows, and make a GPL-covered copy and make changes in that. But +there's a much larger group of people working on improving X Windows +and <em>not</em> GPL-ing it. So, if we did that, we would be forking +from them. And that's not very nice treatment of them. And, they +<em>are</em> a part of our community, contributing to our +community.</p> + +<p>Second, it would backfire against us, because they're doing a lot +more work on X than we would be. So, our version would be inferior to +theirs, and people wouldn't use it, which means, why go to the trouble +at all?</p> + +<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Mmm hmm.</p> + +<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: So when a person has written some +improvement to X Windows, what I say that person should do is +cooperate with the X development team. Send it to them and let them +use it their way. Because they are developing a very important piece +of free software. It's good for us to cooperate with them.</p> + +<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Except, considering X, in particular, +about two years ago, the X Consortium that was far into the nonfree +open source…</p> + +<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, actually it <em>wasn't</em> open +sourced. It wasn't open sourced, either. They may have said it was. +I can't remember if they said that or not. But it wasn't open +source. It was restricted. You couldn't commercially distribute, I +think. Or you couldn't commercially distribute a modified version, or +something like that. There was a restriction that's considered +unacceptable by both the Free Software movement and the Open Source +movement.</p> + +<p>And yes, that's what using a non-copyleft license leaves you open +to. In fact, the X Consortium, they had a very rigid policy. They +say: If your program if copylefted even a little bit, we won't +distribute it at all. We won't put it in our distribution.</p> + +<p>So, a lot of people were pressured in this way into not +copylefting. And the result was that all of their software was wide +open, later on. When the same people who had pressured a developer to +be too all-permissive, then the X people later said, All right, now we +can put on restrictions, which wasn't very ethical of them.</p> + +<p>But, given the situation, would we really want to scrape up the +resources to maintain an alternate GPL-covered version of X? And it +wouldn't make any sense to do that. There are so many other things we +need to do. Let's do them instead. We can cooperate with the X +developers.</p> + +<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: Do you have a comment, is the GNU a +trademark? And is it practical to include it as part of the GNU +General Public License allowing trademarks?</p> + +<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: We are, actually, applying for trademark +registration on GNU. But it wouldn't really have anything to do with +that. It's a long story to explain why.</p> + +<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: You could require the trademark be +displayed with GPL-covered programs.</p> + +<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: No, I don't think so. The licenses +cover individual programs. And when a given program is part of the +GNU Project, nobody lies about that. The name of the system as a +whole is a different issue. And this is an aside. It's not worth +discussing more.</p> + +<p><strong>QUESTION</strong>: If there was a button that you could +push and force all companies to free their software, would you press +it?</p> + +<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: Well, I would only use this for +published software. You know, I think that people have the right to +write a program privately and use it. And that includes companies. +This is privacy issue. And it's true, there can be times when it is +wrong to do that, like if it is tremendously helpful to humanity, and +you are withholding it from humanity. That is a wrong but that's a +different kind of wrong. It's a different issue, although it's in the +same area.</p> + +<p>But yes, I think all published software should be free software. +And remember, when it's not free software, that's because of +government intervention. The government is intervening to make it +nonfree. The government is creating special legal powers to hand out +to the owners of the programs, so that they can have the police stop +us from using the programs in certain ways. So I would certainly like +to end that. </p> + +<p><strong>SCHONBERG</strong>: Richard's presentation has invariably +generated an enormous amount of intellectual energy. I would suggest +that some of it should be directed to using, and possibly writing, +free software.</p> + +<p>We should close the proceedings shortly. I want to say that +Richard has injected into a profession which is known in the general +public for its terminal apolitical nerditude a level of political and +moral discussion which is, I think, unprecedented in our profession. +And we owe him very big for this. I'd like to note to people that +there is a break.</p> + +<p><i>[Applause]</i></p> + +<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: You are free to leave at any time, you +know. <i>[Laughter]</i> I'm not holding you prisoner here.</p> + +<p><i>[Audience adjourns…]</i></p> + +<p><i>[overlapping conversations…]</i></p> + +<p><strong>STALLMAN</strong>: One final thing. Our website: +www.gnu.org</p> + +</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --> +<div id="footer"> +<div class="unprintable"> + +<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to +<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>. +There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> +the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent +to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p> + +<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph, + replace it with the translation of these two: + + We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality + translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection. + Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard + to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"> + <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p> + + <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of + our web pages, see <a + href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations + README</a>. --> +Please see the <a +href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations +README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations +of this article.</p> +</div> + +<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to + files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should + be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this + without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first. + Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the + document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the + document was modified, or published. + + If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too. + Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying + years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable + year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including + being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system). + + There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers + Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --> + +<p>Copyright © 2001, 2005, 2006, 2014, 2015, 2016 Richard M. Stallman</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: 2016/11/22 00:58:41 $ +<!-- timestamp end --> +</p> +</div> +</div> +</body> +</html> |