diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/the-law-of-success-2.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/the-law-of-success-2.html | 532 |
1 files changed, 532 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/the-law-of-success-2.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/the-law-of-success-2.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..471e946 --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/the-law-of-success-2.html @@ -0,0 +1,532 @@ +<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 --> +<title>The Law of Success 2.0: An Interview with Richard Stallman +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> +<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/the-law-of-success-2.translist" --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> +<h2>The Law of Success 2.0: An Interview with Richard Stallman</h2> + +<p><em>[ This is an interview between Haegwan Kim and Richard +M. Stallman. ]</em> +</p> + +<p><img src="http://www.gnu.org/graphics/RMS.jpeg" +alt=" [Photo of Richard Stallman] " title="Richard Stallman" +width="259" height="194" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-1761" /></p> + +<p>Haegwan Kim</p> + +<p>First, you mentioned that discussing success is not useful for you +and that's really interesting to me. In this interview mainly I want to +talk about freedom and related issue. But before that, could you tell me +the reason that talking about success is not useful to you?</p> + +<p>Richard Stallman</p> + +<p>Because some activities are good for society and some are harmful for +society. Of course, many are neutral. If person A knows how to aim for +success, that may be good or bad for the rest of us. And I didn't set +out to be a success. I didn't set out to make a lot of money or become +famous. I set out to give software users freedom, which is a goal that +deserves to be done. It's a goal that's important in its own right and I +just happened to be the person trying to achieve it.</p> + +<p>And to a certain extent I have succeeded. It didn't make me rich but +it's success, to an extent, because at least there is now a large +community of people who use and contribute to free software, so in that +sense it's a success. But when I look at it I don't ask, + am I a success? I ask, do users have freedom?</p> + +<p>HK</p> + +<p>Great to hear that. Can you tell me why you are so in favour of the +freedom?</p> + +<p>RMS</p> + +<p>Partly it's because I resent being pushed around. I resent anyone +giving me orders. Partly because I grew up in the US, where people were +taught to think about freedom—or at least were. I don't know if +any of the children are taught any of these things any more. Partly +because not long before I was born, there was a World War against some +horrible dictators and partly because I had the experience of having +freedom in my use of computers when I worked at the MIT artificial +intelligence lab in the 70s.</p> + +<p>And so I was sensitised to notice the difference between free +software, freedom-respecting software and user-subjugating software. So +for ten years or so, my work was done on improving a free operating +system, most of the parts of which had been developed at MIT by the +group I was part of.</p> + +<p>So working, improving that system meant taking advantage of freedom +all the time, so I came to appreciate freedom.</p> + +<p>HK</p> + +<p>Okay, I see.</p> + +<p>RMS</p> + +<p>But that's not quite the end.</p> + +<p>HK</p> + +<p>Okay.</p> + +<p>RMS</p> + +<p>Because the community fell apart in the early 80s and it was no +longer possible to have the freedom. So I saw the contrast +between living in freedom and losing freedom, and I found non-freedom +disgusting. So I decided to do something to bring freedom back.</p> + +<p>HK</p> + +<p>Can you tell me how…? You are now trying to bring freedom +back, which conversely means there's no freedom at the moment.</p> + +<p>RMS</p> + +<p>Yes. With regard to software. First of all, this is a big question. +In regard to software, proprietary software does not respect users' +freedom because the program controls the users. If the users aren't free +to change a program and do so either individually or in groups +cooperating, then the program controls the users.</p> + +<p>Now, with typical proprietary software there is even a licence that +says what users are allowed to do with the program and what they're not +allowed to do and it can be as restrictive as the developer chooses to +make it. For instance, there is a Microsoft program for managing +webpages, websites, and its licence says it can't be used to publish +anything that criticises Microsoft. So here, nonfree software takes away +your freedom of speech.</p> + +<p>This is obviously intolerable. If you can't use your copy freely you +can't control your computing. You can only do what you're told. But +then the second level of control, through the source, through writing +the code of the program; if you use a program whose code was written by +somebody else and you can't see it or change it then that somebody +controls what you do. He could make the program do nasty things to you, +and even if you happen to find out, you still can't change it.</p> + +<p>Finding out is difficult because you don't have the source code. +Sometimes you will notice some sign that it's doing a nasty thing. +Other times you won't notice. For instance, Windows has spy features +which send information about the use of the machine to Microsoft and +users can't see that this is happening. It was not easy to find out that +these spy features are there, but people found out. They had to be +somewhat clever, in some cases, to discover these spy features.</p> + +<p>And then there is a back door in Windows which allows Microsoft to +forcibly install software changes. It doesn't have to ask permission, it +can just sneak them in. So this is what I mean when I say a program +controls the users. But even if there's no back door to allow the +developer to install changes, it's still the case that the program does +what the developer chose to make it do, and if you don't like that, you +can't change it. So you're stuck with it.</p> + +<p>So the back door is sort of icing on the cake for his power, because +it means that even if he forgot to do something nasty, he can put it in +retroactively. Without that kind of back door, he's limited to the nasty +things that he thought of in advance.</p> + +<p>There are many proprietary programs that are widely used, that do +surveillance; there are many that are specifically designed to restrict +what users could do. Those restrictions which limit what users could do +on the data in their machines are known as digital restrictions +management or DRM, also sometimes referred to as digital handcuffs. So +the point is, using those programs is like being handcuffed because you +can't just move your hands around anywhere you like, the program is +stopping you.</p> + +<p>And these are intentional features. Of course, programs also have +bugs, and if you don't have the source code you can't fix the bugs. So +the users, in order to be free, must have the source code, and they must +be able to run their own modified versions of the source code in place +of the original. And they have to be free also to distribute their +modified versions. Because if you don't have that freedom then you +could fix a problem for yourself but you couldn't fix it for anyone +else, which means that each individual user would have to fix the +problem. It would have to be fixed over and over and over.</p> + +<p>Also with the freedom to distribute your modified version, the people +who don't know how to program can benefit.</p> + +<p>HK</p> + +<p>I understand a bit about freedom for software now.</p> + +<p>RMS</p> + +<p>So if I'm using the free program and I make a change in it, which I +know how to do, then I could publish my modified version and then you. +Perhaps you're not a programmer; you would still be able to get the +benefit of the change I make. Not only that, you could pay somebody to +change the program for you, or you could join an organisation whose goal +is to change a certain program in a certain way, and all the members +would put in their money, and that's how they would hire a programmer to +change it.</p> + +<p>So the definition of free software is the four freedoms that are +needed for the users to have control of their computing. Freedom zero is +the freedom to run the program. Freedom one is the freedom to study the +source code and change it so it does your computing as you wish. Freedom +two is the freedom to help others, which is the freedom to redistribute +exact copies. And freedom three is the freedom to contribute to your +community, which is the freedom to distribute copies of your modified +versions. So these four freedoms ensure that the users, both +individually and collectively, control the program. If the users don't +control the program then the program controls the users. That's +proprietary software and that is what makes it evil.</p> + +<p>HK</p> + +<p>Sounds similar to Creative Commons—verifying the types of +copyrights.</p> + +<p>RMS</p> + +<p>Yes. Creative commons publishes various licences.</p> + +<p>HK</p> + +<p>Yes. Do you agree with all those kind of activities on freedom?</p> + +<p>RMS</p> + +<p>They don't have a position on that.</p> + +<p>HK</p> + +<p>Position?</p> + +<p>RMS</p> + +<p>Creative commons licences grant the users varying amounts of freedom. +Two of their licences qualify as free by our criteria. Those are the +creative commons attribution licence and the attribution share-alike +licence, those. And I think maybe there's also the CC zero licence, +which I usually don't think about. But I think those three are all free +licences.</p> + +<p>The other creative commons licences do not go far enough to make the +work free. However, I wouldn't say that all published works must be +free. I think the published works that must be free are the ones that +you use to do practical jobs. So that means software, recipes for +cooking—and recipes for cooking are a good examples because, as +I'm sure you know, cooks frequently share and modify recipes.</p> + +<p>HK</p> + +<p>Sure, yes.</p> + +<p>RMS</p> + +<p>And it would be a tremendous outrage to stop them. So in effect, +cooks treat recipes as free. But let's look at some more works that are +used for practical jobs. Educational works are used for practical jobs; +to teach yourself or teach others. Reference works are used for +practical jobs; to look up some information. And then there are text +fonts, which we use to display or print text so it can be read. These +are examples of works of practical use. These are not the only examples. +I m sure you can find some more. Anyway, works of practical use are the +ones that I believe must be free.</p> + +<p>However there are other kinds of works. For instance, there are +essays of opinion and scientific papers and there are artistic works, +and their contributions to society are of a different kind. They don't +contribute through helping you do practical jobs. They are useful in +other ways. So I draw different conclusions about them. I think the +crucial conclusion for those other works is the freedom to +non-commercially redistribute exact copies, in other words the freedom +to share.</p> + +<p>HK</p> + +<p>I'm interested in what you're doing. You're travelling around the +world, like me, and you're contributing to others, not for yourself. +And I love that way you live and I respect it so much. So I was just +wondering, how you describe yourself?</p> + +<p>RMS</p> + +<p>I describe myself as a free software activist.</p> + +<p>HK</p> + +<p>Activist?</p> + +<p>RMS</p> + +<p>Yes.</p> + +<p>HK</p> + +<p>Activists means the ones who change the world?</p> + +<p>RMS</p> + +<p>First of all, we haven't changed the whole world, not even in this +regard, we've only changed a part of it.</p> + +<p>HK</p> + +<p>Ok.</p> + +<p>RMS</p> + +<p>As you can see, most computer users are still running proprietary +systems such as Windows and Macintosh. And then if they have +smartphones, those smartphones are running proprietary software and it +typically has malicious features too. We have a long way to go to +achieve victory. And the other thing is that what we have achieved, I +did not achieve by myself. But I did start this movement.</p> + +<p>HK</p> + +<p>Your activities have lasted for a long time, what would be your +advice for being an activist?</p> + +<p>RMS</p> + +<p>I was rather lucky, in a sense. I was in a position to do something +that would forward my cause just working by myself. As other people +showed up who were interested they could join. So it's generally good to +look for a way to do things that way, in other words don't set out at +first to make a large organisation and then begin to achieve something. +Start doing things such that you alone, or a small group of people who +support you, can achieve something, and by achieving something you can +attract the attention of others who might want to join.</p> + +<p>HK</p> + +<p>Great idea.</p> + +<p>RMS</p> + +<p>In fact, I've read that advice in a book. I don't remember where, +because that was a long time ago, but it fit what I had alreasy done. I +can't say I thought of this as a general principle, but it did work well +in my case.</p> + +<p>And the other thing is, don't design your activism with the idea that +first you will raise a lot of money and then with the money you'll be +able to do such-and-such, because on that path you almost never get +anywhere. It's so unlikely you will succeed in raising that money that +chances are you'll spend all your time trying and failing, and never +start doing anything about your cause.</p> + +<p>So design your plans so that you can start doing things for the cause +soon and that way you'll spend your time getting a certain amount done +for your cause, which is better than nothing.</p> + +<p>HK</p> + +<p>Fair enough.</p> + +<p>RMS</p> + +<p>And of the ones who follow the raise-money-first path, those few that +succeed in raising the money will find that their years of focusing on +making that money have changed their goals. By the time they have that +money they will be used to trying to do everything to get money. Few +people have the ability to turn around and start directing their efforts +toward something other than getting and keeping a lot of money.</p> + +<p>HK</p> + +<p>Indeed. Can you tell me how did you gather great people when you +launched the Free Software Foundation?</p> + +<p>RMS</p> + +<p>I don't know if I always gathered great people. Some who came to us +were good and some were not but I couldn't tell very well in advance, I +didn't know how to judge that. But enough of them were good that they've +managed to achieve a lot.</p> + +<p>HK</p> + +<p>So did you gather people or did people automatically come to your +place?</p> + +<p>RMS</p> + +<p>Mostly people had seen what we had already done and found it +interesting, and they would either help or, in some cases, come back +when the FSF was hiring and we would say we were looking for someone to +hire. Maybe we knew them already—who was a good +programmer—by their contributing as a volunteer, so we knew if we +hired them, they would be good.</p> + +<p>HK</p> + +<p>I see. Thank you so much for your time. As a final question, I want +to ask you about what we should do to spread the freedom.</p> + +<p>RMS</p> + +<p>The big enemy of freedom is governments taking too much power over +society. They do that with two excuses: the excuse is terrorists or +child pornographers. But we have to realise that anti-freedom is a +bigger danger than either of those. For instance, censoring the +internet. We must not accept laws allowing punishment without a fair +trial.</p> + +<p>The US set a horrible example when it started grabbing people from +all around the world without a trial. Even now, Obama is continuing +pushing military commissions, which are simply trials that don't live up +to the standards for trials. They're not fair trials.</p> + +<p>We know a lot of the prisoners were in Guantanamo because somebody +told a malicious rumour about them, and we can't rely on military +tribunals to distinguish between real evidence and malicious rumour or +the fact that somebody was tortured and eventually said whatever his +torturer wanted.</p> + +<p>Right now, I'm told the Iraqi Government is still committing torture +and I was told 30,000 prisoners who are without trial. This is a monster +that the US created. Governments around the world keep looking for more +power. The problem is, they have too much already.</p> + +<p>HK</p> + +<p>That's true. How can we get the power back from the governments?</p> + +<p>RMS</p> + +<p>I wish I knew.</p> + +<p>HK</p> + +<p>(Laughter)</p> + +<p>RMS</p> + +<p>I do know something about how we can teach people the need for this. +Governments get their power by focusing people's attention on some +secondary problem.</p> + +<p>For instance, in the US, how did the Government get its power to +torture and imprison people and even just bomb them? The US practises +targeted killing. There's a list of people who are marked for death and +the US Government will drop bombs on them rather than try to arrest +them. Now, how did all this get started? It's because the US focused +people's attention on the secondary danger of terrorists carrying out +the September 11th attacks in the US.</p> + +<p>Now, Bush didn't want an investigation of those attacks. Eventually +he was forced to allow an investigation, but he weakened it and +corrupted the investigators, so we can't trust the results. There has +never been a proper investigation of how those attacks were carried out +and who was responsible. So maybe it was planned by a bunch of +terrorists as the Government says, or maybe Cheney was involved, as some +other people say. Without a real investigation, we'll never know.</p> + +<p>But given that excuse, George Bush went on to demonstrate that +tyranny is worse than terrorism, because those terrorist attacks killed +under 3,000 people, and they were used as the excuse for the conquest of +Iraq, in which 4500 or so Americans were killed. So even if we only +consider who's more dangerous to Americans, the answer is Bush.</p> + +<p>HK</p> + +<p>(Laughter) People can't judge what's right or wrong when the +condition is getting complex and excited too much…</p> + +<p>RMS</p> + +<p>And that ignored the million or so Iraqis that Bush killed and that +Bush prevented us from counting. But by preventing them from being +accurately counted, Bush made it possible for low estimates such as that +of Iraq Body Count to seem plausible.</p> + +<p>I read recently some journalists went to look for oil buried just +below the beach in Florida, and some sort of Federal agents ordered them +not to, because they don't want news that the oil is there. They're +hoping to cover up the effects so as to get it out of people's minds. +And whether they're doing that for BP or for Obama or both, it's +offensive to try to stop the public from knowing.</p> + +<p>HK</p> + +<p>Do you believe that the internet has the possibility to change this +phenomenon?</p> + +<p>RMS</p> + +<p>That's a different question. The internet is useful for various +things like sharing valuable information. But it's also useful for +surveillance. So the internet can be used for good things and bad +things. So how do we make sure that we are free to share? How do we +limit the surveillance? It's a matter of stopping the Government from +doing things that are unjust.</p> + +<p><em>Richard Stallman is a software freedom activist and the president +of the Free Software Foundation.</em></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 © 2010, 2013, 2019 Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p> + +<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license" +href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative +Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p> + +<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --> + +<p class="unprintable">Updated: +<!-- timestamp start --> +$Date: 2019/01/05 18:25:49 $ +<!-- timestamp end --> +</p> +</div> +</div> +</body> +</html> |