From 1ae0306a3cf2ea27f60b2d205789994d260c2cce Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Christian Grothoff Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2020 13:29:45 +0200 Subject: add i18n FSFS --- .../blog/articles/en/google-engineering-talk.html | 1745 ++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 1745 insertions(+) create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/google-engineering-talk.html (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/google-engineering-talk.html') diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/google-engineering-talk.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/google-engineering-talk.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..0743ec5 --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/google-engineering-talk.html @@ -0,0 +1,1745 @@ + + + +GNU & The Free Software Foundation (Engineering Tech Talk at Google) +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + + +

GNU & The Free Software Foundation

+ +

Richard Stallman

+

(Engineering Tech Talk at Google, June 11, 2004)

+ +
+

Table of Contents

+ +
+
+ +

1. Introduction

+ +

ED: Well, thank you everybody for making it. I'm Ed Falk and +this man needs very little introduction; if you don't know what the +letters RMS stand for, you probably don't belong in this room.

+ +

Richard was the founder of the Free Software Foundation, in 1984 I +believe it was, and as such could be considered the father of free +software and, of course, Google's infrastructure is based on free +software. So we owe the free software movement quite a great deal of +thanks. [And my mic is dying on this microphone so I won't talk too +long.] This is Richard Stallman and we thank him for being here on short +notice and we thank our mutual friend Lile Elam who arranged all of this +and I think with no further ado, I give you Richard!

+ +

[Richard bows]

+ +

2. How it started

+ +

RICHARD: Please raise your hands if you cannot hear me. +[Laughter] Yes, somebody raised his hand.

+ +

So, the topic of my speech is free software. I didn't begin free +software; there was free software going back to the early days of +computing. As soon as there were a couple of computers of the same +model, people could try sharing software. And they did.

+ +

{This is not... This has a problem. How do we stop the feedback? Can +someone do anything? I'm willing to get some feedback, but only from +you, not from the PA system.

+ +

AUDIENCE: [unintelligible]

+ +

RICHARD: Well, that doesn't matter; I'm not an advocate of +open source and never was and never will be.}

+ +

So free software existed before I started programming and I had the +good fortune, in the 1970s, of being part of a community of programmers +who shared software. So I learned about free software as a way of life, +by living it. And I came to appreciate what it meant to be free to share +with people, not divided from the rest of the world by attitudes of +secrecy and hostility.

+ +

But that community died in the early '80s and I found myself +confronted by the prospect of spending the rest of my life in a world of +proprietary software. And, worst of all, confronted by the prospect of +signing a non-disclosure agreement {which I}. And I had concluded that +it is unethical to sign a non-disclosure agreement for generally useful +technical information, such as software. To promise not to share with +one's fellows is a violation of human solidarity. So when I saw that the +machine downstairs was asking me to sign an NDA, I just said, "I can't +sign an NDA." Well, fortunately, there was an option; they let me come +in here and speak without signing it, otherwise you would have had to go +outside to listen. [Laughter]

+ +

(They asked a couple of other interesting questions; they asked about +company, so I said I'm available tonight. [Looking at name +tag][Laughter] And they asked for my host, so I put down +fencepost.gnu.org. But that's just the hacker spirit.)

+ +

So I found myself in a situation where the only way you could get a +modern computer and start to use it was to sign a non-disclosure +agreement for some proprietary operating system. Because all the +operating systems for modern computers in 1983 were proprietary, and +there was no lawful way to get a copy of those operating systems without +signing a non-disclosure agreement, which was unethical. So I decided to +try to do something about it, to try to change that situation. And the +only way I could think of to change it was to write another operating +system, and then say as the author "this system is free; you can have it +without a non-disclosure agreement and you're welcome to redistribute it +to other people. You're welcome to study how it works. You're welcome to +change it." So, instead of being divided +and helpless, the users of this system would live in freedom. Ordinary +proprietary software is part of a scheme where users are deliberately +kept divided and helpless. The program comes with a license that says +you're forbidden to share it, and in most cases you can't get the source +code, so you can't study it or change it. It may even have malicious +features and you can't tell. With free software, we respect the user's +freedom, and that's the whole point. The reason for the free software +movement is so that the people of cyberspace can have freedom, so that +there is a way to live in freedom and still use a computer, to avoid +being kept divided and helpless.

+ +

3. GNU operating system

+ +

You can't use a computer without an operating system, so a free +software operating system was absolutely essential. And in 1983 I +announced my plan to develop one: an operating system called GNU.

+ +

I had decided to make the system UNIX-like so that it would be +portable. The operating system that we had used for many years at the +Artificial Intelligence Lab was the Incompatible Timesharing System, or +ITS. It had been written in assembler language for the PDP-10, so when +Digital discontinued the PDP-10, our many years of work turned into dust +and blew away. I didn't want to write another system and have the same +thing happen, so I decided this system had better be portable. But there +was only one successful portable operating system I knew of, and that +was UNIX. So I decided to follow the design of UNIX, figuring that way +I'd have a good chance of succeeding in making a system that was useful +and portable. And then I decided to make the system upward-compatible +with the interfaces of UNIX, and the reason for this was so that users +could switch to it without an incompatible change.

+ +

I realized that I could take the best ideas from the various systems +I had helped develop or use and add my pet ideas and make my dream +operating system. But this would have been incompatible, and the users +would mostly have rejected it, saying "it would be too much work to +switch, so we're just not going to." So, by making the system +upward-compatible with UNIX, I could spare the users that obstacle and +make more of a chance that users would actually use the system.

+ +

If the users had rejected it, I would have had a perfect excuse. I +could have said "I offered them freedom and they rejected it; it's their +fault." But I wanted to make more than just an excuse. I wanted to +build a community where people would actually live in freedom, which +meant I had to develop a system people would actually use. So I decided +to make the system upward-compatible with UNIX.

+ +

Now, UNIX consists of many components that communicate through +interfaces that are more or less documented. And the users use those +interfaces. So to be compatible with UNIX required using the same +interfaces, which meant that the initial design decisions were already +made, except one: what range of target machines to support. UNIX had +been designed to support 16-bit machines, which was a lot of extra work, +because programs had to be kept small; so I decided to save that extra +work by not supporting anything less than a 32-bit machine. I figured it +would take many years to get the system done and by then people would +normally be using 32-bit machines anyway, and that turned out to be +true.

+ +

So then the only thing that I needed before I could start work was a +name. Now, to be a hacker means to enjoy playful cleverness -- in +programming, and in other areas of life, any area of life [where] you +could be playfully clever. And there was a hacker tradition that when +you were writing a program that was similar to some existing program, +you could give your new program a name that's a recursive acronym, +saying it is not the other program.

+ +

For instance, in the '60s and '70s there were many TECO text editors, +more or less similar; typically each system would have a TECO and it +would be called something-or-other-TECO. But one clever hacker called +his program TINT, for "TINT Is Not TECO" -- the first recursive acronym. +And we thought that was very funny. So after I developed the first +Emacs extensible text editor in 1975, there were many imitations, and +some were called this-or-that-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." Then +EINE was mostly rewritten, and version two was called ZWEI for "ZWEI Was +EINE Initially." [Laughter]

+ +

So I looked for a recursive acronym for "Something is not UNIX," but +the usual four-letter method was no good, because none of those was a +word. And if it doesn't have some other meaning, it's not funny. So I +thought, "what else can I do, hmm?" Nothing came to me, so I thought, +"I'll make a contraction, then I could get a three-letter recursive +acronym." I started substituting all 26 letters: ANU, BNU, CNU, DNU, +ENU, FNU, GNU! Well, "gnu" is the funniest word in the English language, +so that had to be the choice. If you can call something "GNU," it makes +no sense to pick anything else.

+ +

So, of course, the reason why the word "gnu" is used for so much +word-play is that, according to the dictionary, it's pronounced "new." +So people started asking each other, "hey, what's g-nu," as a joke, long +before you could answer "GNU's Not UNIX." But now you can give that +answer and the best part is, it sounds like you're obnoxiously telling +the person what it isn't, instead of answering his question. But the +fact is, you're giving the exact meaning of GNU; so you are, in fact, +answering the question in the most exact possible way, but it gives the +appearance that you're refusing to.

+ +

In any case, when it's the name of our operating system, please +pronounce a hard G; don't follow the dictionary. If you talk about the +"new" operating system, you'll get people very confused. We've been +working on it for 20 years now, so it's not new anymore. But it still +is, and always will be, GNU, no matter how many people call it Linux by +mistake.

+ +

{[AUDIENCE: unintelligible] +[RICHARD: Thank you!]}

+ +

So, having the name I could start work. I quit my job at MIT to begin +writing pieces of the GNU operating system, in January 1984. I had to +quit my job because, had I remained an MIT employee, that would have +enabled MIT to claim to own all the code I was writing, and MIT could +have turned it into proprietary software products. And since MIT had +already done that kind of thing, I certainly couldn't trust them not to +do so here. And I didn't want to have to argue with the MIT +administration about all the details of the license I was going to use. +So, by quitting my job, I took them out of the equation, and I have +never had a job since then. However, the head of the AI Lab was nice +enough to let me keep using the facilities, so I began using a UNIX +machine at the AI Lab to start bootstrapping pieces of the GNU +system.

+ +

I had never used UNIX before that time. I was never a UNIX wizard and +I chose to follow the design of UNIX for the exact reason that I've told +you, not because UNIX was my favorite system or anything. Sometimes +people write that it was changes in UNIX's licensing policy that +inspired GNU. Well, this is not true; in fact, UNIX was never free +software. They were more or less restrictive and more or less nasty +about enforcing the requirements, but it was never free software, so +those changes actually made no difference and, in any case, they took +place long before I ever saw an actual UNIX machine.

+ +

4. GNU Emacs

+ +

So, at the time, I thought that I and the other people I was +recruiting to try to help would develop all these pieces and make a +complete system and then we'd say, "come and get it." But that's not how +it happened. In September '84, I started developing GNU Emacs, which was +my second implementation of the extensible programmable text editor. And +by early '85, it was suitable for me to do all my editing with it. Now, +that was a big relief. You see, I had absolutely no intention of +learning to use Vi. [Laughter, applause] So, until that point, I did my +editing on other machines where there was an Emacs and copied the files +through the net, in order to test them on the UNIX machine. Once GNU +Emacs was running, I could do my editing on the UNIX machine.

+ +

But other people wanted to get copies of GNU Emacs to use it for +their editing, to use it on their UNIX systems. There was no GNU system +yet, there were just a few pieces. But this one piece turned out to be +interesting by itself. People asked me for copies, so I had to work out +the details of how to distribute it. Of course, I put a copy in the +anonymous FTP server, and that was good for people on the net, but in +1985, most programmers were not on the Internet. So they asked me for +copies; what was I going to say? I could have said, "I want to spend my +time writing more pieces of the GNU system, not writing mag tapes, so +please find a friend who can download it and put it on tape for you," +and they would have found people sooner or later, because programmers +generally know other programmers.

+ +

5. Expensive habits

+ +

But I had no job, and I was looking for some way to make some money +through my work on free software. So I announced, "send me $150 and I'll +mail you a tape of GNU Emacs." And the orders began dribbling in. By the +middle of the year, they were trickling in, eight to ten orders a month, +which, if necessary, I could have lived on.

+ +

That's because I make efforts to resist expensive habits. An +expensive habit is like a trap; it's dangerous. Now most Americans have +the exact opposite attitude: if they make this much money, they look for +how to spend this much, [makes ample gesture] which is completely +imprudent. So they start buying houses and cars and boats and planes and +rare stamps and artwork and adventure travel and children, [laughter] +all sorts of expensive luxuries that use up a lot of the world's +resources, especially the children. And +then, the next thing they know, they've got to desperately struggle all +day long to get money to pay for these things, so they have no time even +to enjoy them, which is especially sad when it's a matter of children. +The other things, I guess, can get repossessed. So then they become +puppets of money, unable to decide what they're going to do with their +lives. If you don't want to be a puppet of money, then resist the +expensive habits, so that the less you need to spend to live on, the +more flexibility you've got and the less of your life you're forced to +spend to make that money.

+ +

So I still live, basically, like a student, and I want it to be that +way.

+ +

6. Definition of free software

+ +

But people sometimes used to say to me, "what do you mean, it's free +software, if it costs $150?" Well, the English word "free" has multiple +meanings and they were confused by that. It even took me a few years to +realize that I needed to clarify this. One meaning, you see, refers to +price, and another meaning refers to freedom. When we speak of free +software, we're talking about freedom, not price. So think of "free +speech," not "free beer."

+ +

Some users got their copies of GNU Emacs from me through the net, and +did not pay. Some users got their copies from me on a tape, and did pay. +And some got their copies from someone else, not from me, because +everyone who had a copy was free to redistribute it. And did they pay +that somebody else? Well, I don't know; that was between them. They +didn't have to tell me. So GNU Emacs was gratis for some users and paid +for for other users, but it was free software for all of them, because +all of them had certain essential freedoms, which are the definition of +free software.

+ +

So let me now give you the definition of free software. You see, it's +very easy to say "I'm in favor of freedom." I mean, even Bush can say +that. [Laughter] I don't think he knows what it means. But the point is, +unless you make a person get more specific, it's just cheap talk. So let +me give you -- let me get more specific now, and give you the definition +of free software.

+ +

A program is free software for you, a particular user, if you have +the following four freedoms:

+ +

Freedom 0 is the freedom to run the program however you like; +Freedom 1 is the freedom to help yourself by studying the source code to +see what the program really does and then changing it to do what you +want; +Freedom 2 is the freedom to help your neighbor by distributing copies to +others; and +Freedom 3 is the freedom to help build your community, that is the +freedom to publish a modified version so others can benefit from your +changes;

+ +

All four of these freedoms are essential. They are not levels of +freedom, they are four freedoms, all of which you must have in order for +the program to qualify as free software. All of these are freedoms that +no computer user should ever be denied.

+ +

[ +http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html]

+ +

7. Freedom 2 moral dilemma

+ +

Why these particular freedoms? Why should we define it this way?

+ +

Freedom 2 is necessary so that you can live an upright life, so that +you can be ethical, be a good member of society. If you use a program +that does not give you Freedom 2, the freedom to help your neighbor, the +freedom to distribute copies to others, then you are facing a potential +moral dilemma that could happen at any moment, when somebody comes up +and says, "could I have a copy of that program?" At that point, what are +you going to do? You're forced to choose between two evils. One evil is +to make a copy of the program for that person and violate the license. +The other evil is to comply with the license, but be a bad neighbor. So +you've got to choose the lesser evil, which is to make a copy for that +person and violate the license. [Laughter, applause]

+ +

You see, in this case, this evil is lesser because it's directed at +somebody who intentionally tried to divide you from the rest of society, +and thus did something extremely wrong to you; and therefore deserves +it. However, it's not good to live your life by lying to people. When +somebody {asks you to promise that} says, "I'll let you have a copy of +this, but you'll have to promise not to share it with anyone," the right +thing to do is say no. Once you have thought about this moral dilemma, +you should anticipate that when you start using that program it's going +to lead you to choose between two evils, and therefore you should refuse +to use that program. You should just say "no, thanks" to it, and that's +the principle that I believe in. If someone offers me a program that I'm +not free to share with you, I'm going to say no, on principle.

+ +

In fact, I was once in the audience when John Perry Barlow was giving +a speech and he said, "raise your hands if you have no unauthorized +copies of software." And he was surprised to see someone raise his hand, +until he saw it was me. And then he said, "oh, of course, you," because +he knew why I have no unauthorized copies; that's because all my copies +of software are free software, and everybody's authorized to make +copies. That's the whole point.

+ +

8. Freedom 2 spirit of good +will

+ +

The most essential resource of any society is the spirit of good +will, the willingness to help your neighbor; not necessarily every time +you're asked, but fairly often. This is what makes the difference +between a livable society and a dog-eat-dog jungle. This spirit is not +going to be 100% and it's not going to be zero, but it's going to be +somewhere in between -- and cultural actions can influence it, can raise +it or lower it. And it's essential to work to raise it some, because +that makes life easier for everyone. So it's no accident that the +world's major religions have been encouraging this spirit of good will +for thousands of years.

+ +

So what does it mean when powerful social institutions say that it's +wrong to share? They're poisoning this vital resource, something no +society can afford. Now what does it mean when they say that if you +share with your neighbor, you're a pirate? They're saying that helping +your neighbor is the moral equivalent of attacking a ship. Well, nothing +could be more wrong than that. Attacking ships is very, very bad; +helping your neighbor is good.

+ +

And what does it mean when they establish harsh punishments for +anyone caught sharing? How much fear do you think it's going to take +before everyone's too scared to help his neighbor? And do you want that +terror campaign to go on in our society? I hope that the answer is no. +We need to abolish the war on copying that is being imposed on our +society. We need to say, loud and clear, "copying and sharing with your +neighbor is good, it's legitimate, and laws that prohibit this are +wrong."

+ +

9. Freedom 0 +to run a program, Freedom 1 to modify it

+ +

So that's the reason for Freedom 2; it's essentially an ethical +reason. You can't live an ethical life if you don't have Freedom 2.

+ +

Freedom 0 is needed for a completely different reason: so you can +control your own computer. If you are restricted in when or how much or +how you can run the program, clearly you're not using your computer in +freedom. So Freedom 0 is obvious, but freedom 0 is not enough, because +with Freedom 0 all you can do is use the program the way it was +programmed by its developer. You're free to do this [makes hand sign] or +nothing. To really be free, you've got to be in control of what the +program does, so you need Freedom 1, which is the freedom to help +yourself, the freedom to study the source code and then change it to do +what you want.

+ +

If you don't have Freedom 1, you don't know what the program's doing. +The developer is saying, "just trust me" and blind faith is the only way +you can do it. And you have to be really blind, given that it's not +unusual for proprietary programs to have malicious features, features +that are put in not to serve the user, but rather to impose on, harm or +restrict the user. For instance, spyware is quite common.

+ +

[51 seconds of missing audio were filled in by RMS in Aug 2010]

+ +

Microsoft Windows spies on the user; specific spy features have been +found. Windows Media Player spies too; it reports to Microsoft +whatever the user looks at.

+ +

[End replacement for 51 seconds of missing audio]

+ +

course do it. RealPlayer, for instance, spies on you. The TiVo spies +on you. Some people were excited about the TiVo, enthusiastic about it, +because it uses some free software inside. But it also has non-free +software in it and it spies on you. So this shows it's not enough. We +shouldn't cheer when something uses some free software; we should cheer +when it respects the user's freedom.

+ +

10. DRM, back doors, bugs

+ +

But spyware is not as bad as it gets. There are non-free software +packages that are deliberately designed to refuse to work. This is +called DRM, Digital Restrictions Management, where the program says, "I +won't let you look at that file; I won't let you copy this; I won't let +you edit this." Well, who the hell is this program to stop you? And +sometimes non-free programs will reconfigure your machine, for instance +make it display advertisements, figuring that you won't know it's going +to happen and you won't know how to undo it afterward.

+ +

And sometimes they have actual back doors. For instance, Windows XP +has a back door: when it asks for an upgrade, it tells Microsoft who you +are, so Microsoft can give you an upgrade designed just for you. And +this upgrade could have secret accounts, it could have special spy +features, it could just refuse to work. And there's essentially nothing +you can do. So that's the back door that Microsoft knows about and we +know about.

+ +

[Added in 2010: We later learned that Microsoft can force "upgrades" +-- a much nastier back door.]

+ +

There might be other back doors that we don't know about and maybe +even Microsoft doesn't know about. When I was in India in January, I was +told some programmers in India had been arrested and accused of working +for Al-Qaeda, trying to introduce back doors into Windows XP. So, +apparently, that effort failed. But did some others succeed? There's no +way we can tell.

+ +

Now, I won't claim that all developers of non-free software put in +malicious features. There are some who try to put in features so that +they will be convenient for the user and only for that. But they are +humans, so they make mistakes. They can design features with all the +best will that you don't like, or they can write bugs in their code. And +when that happens, you're helpless too; you're the helpless prisoner of +any decision that they make. Whether it's malicious or made with good +will, if you don't like it, you're stuck.

+ +

Now, we, the developers of free software, are also human, we also +make mistakes. I have designed features that users didn't like. I have +written code that had bugs in it. The difference is, {with our} you're +not a prisoner of our decisions, because we don't keep you helpless. If +you don't like my decisions, you can change them, because you have the +freedom to change them. I won't blame the developers of non-free, +user-subjugating software for being human and making mistakes; I will +blame them for keeping you helpless prisoner of their mistakes by +denying you the freedom to correct those mistakes yourself.

+ +

11. Freedom 3 having no +master

+ +

But Freedom 1 is not enough. Freedom 1 is the freedom personally to +study and change the source code. Freedom 1 is not enough because there +are millions of users who use computers, but don't know how to program, +so they can't take advantage of Freedom 1, not personally. And Freedom 1 +is not enough even for us programmers, because there's just so much +software, even so much free software, that nobody has the time to study +it all and master it all and make all the changes that she wants.

+ +

So the only way we can really, fully have control over our own +software is if we do so together. And that's what Freedom 3 is for. +Freedom 3 is the freedom to publish a modified version, so others can +use it too. And this is what enables us to work together, taking control +of our software. Because I could make this change in a program and +publish the modified version, and then you could make that change and +publish the modified version, and someone else can make that change and +publish the modified version. And now we've got a version with all three +changes in it and everybody can switch to that if everybody likes +it.

+ +

With this freedom, any collectivity of users can take control +together and make the software do what they together want. Suppose there +are 1,000,000 users who would like a certain change. Well, by luck, some +of them will be programmers; let's say there are 10,000 of them who know +how to program. Well, sooner or later, a few of them will make the +change and publish the modified version and then all of those million +users can switch to it. You know, most of them don't know how to +program, but they can still switch to it. So they all get what they +want.

+ +

Now let's suppose there are only 1,000 people who want some other +change and none of them knows how to program. They can still make use of +these freedoms. They can form an organization and each put in money, so +if each puts in $100, that makes $100,000. And at that point they can go +to a programming company and say, "will you make this change for +$100,000 and when can you have it done?" And if they don't like the +answer from there, they can go to another programming company and say, +"will you make this change and when can you have it done?" Which shows +us, first of all, that these 1,000 users who don't know how to program +can, by using the four freedoms, get the change that they want. And +second, it shows that free software means a free market for support.

+ +

Proprietary software typically means a monopoly for support. Only the +developer has the source code in most cases, so only the developer can +offer any support. If you want a change, you've got to go to the +developer and beg. Now, if you're very big and important, maybe the +developer will pay attention. If you're not, the developer will say, "go +away, don't bother me." Or maybe the developer will say, "pay us and +we'll let you report a bug." And if you do that, the developer will say, +"thank you. In six months there will be an upgrade. Buy the upgrade and +you'll see if this bug was fixed and you will see what new bugs we have +for you."

+ +

But with free software, you're dealing with a free market, so that +those who really value support can, in general, get better support for +their money by using free software. Now, one paradoxical consequence of +this is, when you have a choice between several non-free programs to do +a job, this is actually a choice between monopolies. If you pick this +program, the support for it afterwards will be a monopoly. If you pick +this program, [points hand in different direction] the support for it +will be a different monopoly, and if you pick this program, [points hand +in different direction] the support for it will be yet another monopoly. +So you're choosing one of these three monopolies.

+ +

Now, what this shows is that merely having a choice between a +discrete set of options is not freedom. Freedom is something much deeper +and much broader than having a few choices you can make. Many people try +to equate freedom with having some choice and they're missing the point +completely. Freedom means that you get to make the decisions about how +to live your life. {It doesn't mean, you know} Having three choices +about being able to choose this master or this master or this master is +just a choice of masters, and a choice of masters is not freedom. +Freedom is having no master.

+ +

12. Copyleft forbidding is +forbidden

+ +

So I've explained the reasons for the four freedoms. And thus I've +explained to you what free software means. A program is free software +for you, a particular user, if you have all of these four freedoms. Why +do I define it that way? The reason is that sometimes the same code can +be free software for some users and non-free for the rest. This might +seem strange, so let me give you an example to show how it happens.

+ +

The biggest example I know of is the X Window System. It was +developed at MIT in the late '80s and released under a license that gave +the user all four freedoms, so if you got X in source code under that +license, it was free software for you. Among those who got it were +various computer manufacturers that distributed UNIX systems. They got +the source code for X, they changed it as necessary to run on their +platform, they compiled it and they put the binaries into their UNIX +system, and they distributed only the binaries to all of their customers +under the same license as the rest of UNIX -- the same non-disclosure +agreement. So, for those many users, +the X Window System was no more free than the rest of UNIX. In this +paradoxical situation, the answer to the question "is X free software or +not?" depended on where you made the measurement. If you made the +measurement coming out of the developer's group, you'd say, "I observe +all four freedoms; it's free software." If you made the measurement +among the users, you'd say, "most of them don't have these freedoms; +it's not free software."

+ +

The developers of X did not consider this a problem, because their +goal was not to give users freedom, it was to have a big success, and as +far as they were concerned, those many users who were using the X Window +System without freedom were just a part of their big success. But, in +the GNU Project, our goal specifically was to give the users freedom. If +what happened to X had happened to GNU, GNU would be a failure.

+ +

So I looked for a way to stop this from happening. And the method I +came up with is called copyleft. Copyleft is based legally on copyright +law, and you can think of it as taking copyright and flipping it over to +get copyleft.

+ +

Here's how it works: we start with a copyright notice which legally +doesn't actually make a difference anymore, but it reminds people that +the program is copyrighted, which means that, by default, it's +prohibited to copy, distribute or modify this program. +But then we say, "you are authorized to +make copies, you are authorized to distribute them, you are authorized +to modify this program and you are authorized to publish modified or +extended versions." But there is a condition, and the condition says +that any program you distribute that contains any substantial part of +this must, as a whole, be distributed under these conditions, no more +and no less. Which means that, no matter how many people modify the +program or how much, as long as any substantial amount of our code is in +there, that program must be free software in the same way. In effect, we +guarantee that nobody can put himself between you and me and strip off +the freedom and pass the code on to you missing the freedom. In other +words, forbidding is forbidden.

+ +

13. GNU General Public License

+ +

Copyleft makes the four freedoms into inalienable rights for all +users, so that wherever the code goes, the freedom goes with it. The +specific license that we use to implement the general concept of +copyleft is called the GNU General Public License, or GNU GPL for short. +This license is used for around two thirds or three quarters of all free +software packages. But that still leaves a substantial number that have +other licenses. Some of those licenses are copyleft licenses, some are +not. So we have copylefted free software and we have non-copylefted free +software. In both cases, the developers +have respected your freedom; they have not tried to trample your +freedom. The difference is, with copyleft we go further and we actively +defend your freedom against anyone who would try to be a middleman and +take it away from you, whereas the developers of non-copylefted free +software don't do that. They have not tried to take away your freedom, +but they don't actively protect your freedom from anyone else. So I +think that they could do more for the sake of freedom. But they haven't +done anything bad; insofar as they have done things, those things are +good. So I won't say that they are wrong, I will just say that they +could do more. I think that they're making a mistake.

+ +

But their work is free software, so it does contribute to our +community and, in fact, that software can be part of a free operating +system such as GNU.

+ +

13a. Developing GNU

+ +

During the 1980s, our work on the GNU Project was to develop or find +all these pieces of GNU so that we could have a complete GNU system. In +some cases, someone else wrote a program and made it free software and +we were able to use it, and that was good because it shortened the work +that we had to do. For instance, the X Window System is one of the +programs that was developed by others for reasons of their own, but they +did make it free software, so we could use it.

+ +

Now, people were saying the job was so big, we'd never finish it. +Well, I thought we would eventually get a free operating system but I +agreed the job was big; we had to look for shortcuts. So, for instance, +I always wanted to have windowing facilities in GNU. I had written a +couple of window systems at the AI LAB before even starting GNU, so of +course I wanted that in the system. But we never developed a GNU window +system because someone else developed X first. I looked at it and I +said, "well, it's not copylefted, but it is free, it's popular, it's +powerful, so let's just use it." And so we saved one big chunk of work. +So we took it, X, and we put it into the GNU system and we started +making other pieces of GNU work with X. Because the goal was to have a +free operating system, not to have a free operating system every piece +of which had been written purposely by us just for that.

+ +

14. Making money off free +software

+ +

However, it only happened occasionally that someone else released +some free software that was useful in GNU and when it happened, it was a +coincidence, because they were not writing this software in order to +have a free operating system. So when it happened, that was great, but +there were lots of other pieces we had to develop. Some were developed +by staff of the Free Software Foundation. The Free Software Foundation +is a tax-exempt charity to promote free software which we founded in +October, '85, after GNU Emacs' popularity suggested that people might +actually start donating money to the GNU project. +So we founded the Free Software +Foundation and it asked for donations, but also took over selling the +tapes of GNU Emacs. And it turns out that most of the FSF's income for +the first many years came from that, from selling things, from selling +copies of software and manuals that everyone was free to copy. Now this +is interesting, because this was supposedly impossible; but we did it +anyway.

+ +

Now that meant I had to find some other way to make a living. As the +president of the FSF, I did not want to compete with it; I thought that +would be unfair and not correct behavior. So I started making my living +by commissions to change the software I had written and teaching classes +about it. So people would want some change to be made in Emacs or GCC, +and they would think of hiring me, because they figured I was the author +so I could do a better job faster. So I started charging as much as $250 +an hour and I calculated I could make a living in 7 weeks of paid work +per year -- and that meant enough money to spend, an equal amount to +save, and an equal amount for taxes. And [when I reached] that point I +figured, "I won't take any more paid work this year, I've got other, +better things to do."

+ +

So I've actually had three different free software businesses during +the period I've been working on GNU. I've described two of them; the +third one is, I get paid for some of my speeches. Whether I get paid for +this speech, I don't yet know. [Laughter] I said, "please pay me what +you can." Now, I think Google ought to be able to afford to pay me some +handsome amount, but whether it will, I don't know. Anyway, I figured +it's worth doing the speech just for the good it will do for the +movement.

+ +

15. Why write free software

+ +

So this raises the question of why people develop free software. You +see, there are people who believe that no one would ever write software +except to get paid, that that's the only motive that anyone would ever +have to write code. It's amazing, the kind of utterly stupid, simplistic +theories that people will sometimes believe because that's part of a +prevailing ideology.

+ +

Now, human nature is very complex. Whatever it is people are doing, +they might do for various reasons. In fact, one person will often have +multiple motives simultaneously for a single act. Nonetheless, there are +people who say, "if the software is free, that means nobody's paid to +write it, so no one will write it." Now, obviously they were confusing +the two meanings of the word "free," so their theory was based on a +confusion. In any case, we can compare their theory with empirical fact +and we can see that at least hundreds, maybe thousands of people are +paid to work on free software, including some people here, I believe, +and there are about a million or so people developing free software at +all for the many different reasons they have. {So to say that nobody} +This simplistic theory about motivation is absurd.

+ +

So let's see what motivates people to write free software; what are +the real motives? Well, I don't necessarily know about them. There could +always be a person who has a motive that I don't know about or I've +forgotten about. I can only tell you the motives that I recall +encountering.

+ +

One motive is political idealism: making the world a better place +where we can live together in freedom. Now, that's a very important +motive for me, but it's not my only motive. And there are others who +write free software and don't agree with that motive at all.

+ +

Another motive that's very important is fun. Programming is +tremendous fun. Not for everybody, of course, but for a lot of the best +programmers. And these are the people whose contributions we want most. +In fact, it's so much fun, it's especially fun, when no one can tell you +what to do, which is why so many people who have jobs programming like +to write free software in their spare time.

+ +

But this is not the only motive; another motive is to be appreciated. +If 1% of our community is using your program, that's hundreds of +thousands of users. That's a lot of people admiring you.

+ +

Another related, but different, motive is professional reputation. If +1% of our community is using your program, you can put that on your +resume and it proves you're a good programmer. You don't even have to go +to school.

+ +

Another motivation is gratitude. If you've been using the community's +free software for years and appreciating it, then when you write a +program, that's your opportunity to pay something back to the community +that has given you so much.

+ +

Another motivation is hatred for Microsoft. [Laughter] Now, this is a +rather foolish motive, because Microsoft is really just one of many +developers of non-free software and they're all doing the same evil +thing. It's a mistake to focus [solely] on Microsoft, and this mistake +can have bad consequences. When people focus too much on Microsoft, they +start forgetting that all the others are doing something just as bad. +And they may end up thinking that anything that competes with Microsoft +is good, even if it is also non-free software and thus inherently just +as evil. Now, it's true that these +other companies have not subjugated as many users as Microsoft has, but +that's not for want of trying; they just haven't succeeded in +mistreating as many people as Microsoft has, which is hardly, ethically +speaking, an excuse. Nonetheless, {when this particular motive +motivates} this motive does motivate people to develop free software, so +we have to count it as one of the motives that has this result.

+ +

And another motive is money. When people were being paid to develop +free software, that's part of their motive for the work that they're +doing. In fact, when I was paid to make improvements in various programs +I had written, that money was part of my motive for doing those +particular jobs, too.

+ +

[RMS, 2010: A motive I forgot to mention is improving a free program +because you want to use the improvement yourself.]

+ +

So there are many possible motives to write free software. And, +fortunately, there are many developers of free software and a lot of +free software is being developed.

+ +

16. The Kernel, Linux

+ +

So, during the 1980s we were filling in these missing pieces of the +GNU operating system. By the early '90s we had almost everything +necessary. Only one important piece was missing, one essential piece for +an initial system, and that was the kernel. We started developing a +kernel in 1990. {I was looking for some way to} I was looking for some +shortcut, some way we could start from something existing. I thought +that debugging a kernel would be painful, because you don't get to do it +with your symbolic debugger, and when it crashes, it's sort of +annoying.

+ +

So I was looking for a way to bypass that work, and I found one +eventually, a microkernel called Mach that had been developed as a +funded project at Carnegie Mellon. Now, Mach doesn't have all the +features of UNIX; the idea is, it provides certain general low-level +features and you implement the rest in user programs. Well, that, I +thought, would be easy to debug, because they're user programs; when +they crash, the system isn't dead. So people began working on those user +programs, which we called the GNU Hurd, because it's a herd of GNU +servers (you see, gnus live in herds).

+ +

Anyway, I thought that this design would enable us to get the job +done faster, but it didn't work out that way; it actually took many +years to get the Hurd to run, partly because Mach was unreliable, partly +because the debugging environment wasn't very good, partly because it's +hard to debug these multithreaded, asynchronous programs and partly +because this was somewhat of a research project. At least that's as far +as I can tell; I was never involved in the actual development of the +Hurd.

+ +

Fortunately, we didn't have to wait for that, because in 1991, Linus +Torvalds, a Finnish college student, developed his own kernel, using the +traditional monolithic design, and he got it to barely run in less than +a year. Initially, Linux --that's what this kernel's name was-- was not +free, but in 1992 he re-released it under the GNU General Public License +and at that point it was free software. And so it was possible, by +combining Linux and the GNU system, to make a complete free operating +system. And thus, the goal we had set out for, that I had announced in +1983, had been reached: there was, for the first time, a complete modern +operating system for modern computers, and it was possible to get a +modern computer and run it without betraying the rest of humanity, +without being subjugated. You could do this by installing the GNU + +Linux operating system.

+ +

17. GNU vs. Linux +confusion problem freedom

+ +

But the people who combined GNU and Linux got confused and they +started naming the entire thing Linux, which was actually the name of +one piece. And somehow that confusion spread faster than we have been +able to correct it. So I'm sure you've heard many people speaking of +Linux as an operating system, an operating system {most of which} which +basically started in 1984 under the name of the GNU Project.

+ +

Now, this clearly isn't right. This system isn't Linux; it contains +Linux, Linux is the kernel, but the system as a whole is basically GNU. +So I ask you: please don't call it Linux. If you call it Linux, you're +giving Linus Torvalds credit for our work. Now, he contributed one +important piece of the system, but he didn't contribute the biggest part +and the overall vision was there long before he got involved. We started +developing the system when he was in junior high school. So please give +us equal mention; surely we deserve at least that. You can do that by +calling the system GNU/Linux, or GNU+Linux, or GNU&Linux, whichever +punctuation mark you feel expresses it best.

+ +

[http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html]

+ +

Now, of course, part of the reason why I'm asking for this is that we +deserve credit, but that's not really a very important thing. If it were +just a matter of credit, it wouldn't be worth making a fuss about. But +there more at stake here. You see, when people think that the system is +Linux, they then assume incorrectly that it was mainly developed and +started by Linus Torvalds and then they assume incorrectly that the +overall vision came from him, so they look at his vision and follow +that. Now, his vision is apolitical. He's not motivated to fight for +freedom. He doesn't believe that computer users deserve the freedom to +share and change software. He has never supported our philosophy. Well, +he has a right to his views and the fact that he disagrees with us +doesn't reduce the value of his contribution.

+ +

The reason we have the GNU+Linux system is because of a many-year +campaign for freedom. We in the GNU Project didn't develop Linux, just +as we didn't develop X, or TeX, or various other free programs that are +now important parts of the system. But people who didn't share our +values, who weren't motivated by the determination to live in freedom, +would have seen no reason to aim for a complete system, and they would +never have done so, and never have produced such a thing, if not for +us.

+ +

But this tends to be forgotten nowadays. You will see, if you look +around, most of the discussion of the GNU system calls it Linux, and +tends to refer to it as "open source" rather than as "free software", +and doesn't mention freedom as an issue. This issue, which is the reason +for the system's existence, is mostly forgotten. You see many techies +who prefer to think of technical questions in a narrowly technical +context, without looking beyond at social effects of their technical +decisions. Whether the software tramples your freedom or respects your +freedom, that's part of the social context. That's exactly what techies +tend to forget or devalue. We have to +work constantly to remind people to pay attention to freedom and, +unfortunately, while we keep doing this, the users of our system often +don't pay attention because they don't know it's our system. They don't +know it's the GNU system, they think it's Linux. And that's why it makes +a real difference if you remind people where the system came from.

+ +

People will say to me that it doesn't look good to ask for credit. +Well, I'm not asking for credit for me personally; I'm asking for credit +for the GNU Project, which includes thousands of developers. But they +are right, it's true: people who are looking for some reason to see evil +can see evil in that. So they go on and say, "you should let it drop, +and when people call the system Linux, you can smile to yourself and +take pride in a job well done." That would be very wise advice if the +assumption were correct: the assumption that the job is done.

+ +

We've made a great beginning, but that's all. We haven't finished the +job. We will have finished the job when every computer is running a free +operating system and free application programs exclusively. The job is +to liberate the inhabitants of cyberspace. We've made a great beginning; +we've developed free operating systems and free GUI desktops and free +office suites and there are now tens of millions of users of these. But +there are hundreds of millions of users of proprietary systems, so we +have a long way to go. And, despite this wide range of free software, +there are still a lot of application things that there is no free +software to do; so we have a lot more work ahead of us.

+ +

We've come in view of finishing the job, you know. Maybe we're only +one order of magnitude away, having come through many orders of +magnitude. But that doesn't mean that what's left is easy. And today we +have something that we didn't have before: we have enemies; powerful, +rich enemies, powerful enough to buy governments.

+ +

18. Enemies of free software

+ +

At the beginning, GNU and the free software movement had no enemies. +There were people who weren't interested, lots of them, but nobody was +actively trying to stop us from developing and releasing a free +operating system. Nowadays, they are trying to stop us and the main +obstacle we face is this, rather than the work itself.

+ +

In the US, there are two different laws that prohibit various kinds +of free software.

+ +

One of them is the DMCA, which has been used to prohibit the free +software to play a DVD. If you buy a DVD, it's lawful for you to view it +in your computer, but the free software that would enable you to do this +on your GNU/Linux system has been censored in the US. Now, this affects +a fairly narrow range of software: software to view encrypted media. But +many users may want to do that, and if they can't do that with free +software, they may take that as a reason to use non-free software, if +they don't value their freedom.

+ +

But the big danger comes from patent law, because the US allows +software ideas to be patented. Now, writing a non-trivial program means +combining hundreds of different ideas. It's very hard to do that if any +one of those ideas might be someone's monopoly. It makes software +development like crossing a mine field, because at each design decision, +probably nothing happens to you, but there's a certain chance that you +will step on a patent and it will blow up your project. And, considering +how many steps you have to take, that adds up into a serious problem. We +have a long list of features that free software packages don't have, +because we're scared to implement them.

+ +

[http://endsoftpatents.org]

+ +

And now, the FCC is considering applying the broadcast flag +regulation to software. The FCC adopted a regulation {prohibiting +digital TV tuners unless} requiring digital TV tuners to have a +mechanism to block copying and this has to be tamper-resistant, meaning +it can't be implemented in free software. They haven't finished deciding +whether this applies to software or not, but if they do, they will have +prohibited GNU Radio, which is free software that can decode digital TV +broadcasts.

+ +

Then, there's the threat from hardware that has secret specifications +or is designed to interfere with the user's control. Nowadays there are +many pieces of hardware you can get for your PC whose specifications are +secret. They'll sell you the hardware, but they won't tell you how to +run it. So how do we write free software to run it? Well, we either have +to figure out the specs by reverse engineering or we have to put market +pressure on those companies. And in both cases, we are weakened by the +fact that so many of the users of GNU/Linux don't know why this system +was developed and have never heard of these ideas that I'm telling you +today. And the reason is that, when they hear about the system, they +hear it called Linux and it's associated with the apolitical philosophy +of Linus Torvalds. Linus Torvalds is +still working on developing Linux. {which is, you know} Developing the +kernel was an important contribution to our community. At the same time, +he is setting a very public bad example by using a non-free program to +do the job. Now, if he were using a non-free program privately, I would +never even have heard about it and I wouldn't make a fuss about it. But +by inviting the other people who work on Linux to use it with him, he's +setting a very public example legitimizing the use of non-free software. +So when people see that, you know, if they think that's okay, they can't +possibly believe that non-free software is bad. So then, when these +companies say, "yes, {we support} our hardware supports Linux, here is +this binary-only driver you can install, and then it will work," these +people see nothing wrong in that, so they don't apply their market +pressure and they don't feel motivated to help in reverse +engineering.

+ +

So when we face the various dangers that we must confront, we are +weakened by the lack of resolve. Now, having strong motivation to fight +for freedom won't guarantee that we win all of these fights, but it will +sure help. It will make us try harder, and if we try harder, we'll win +more of them.

+ +

19. Treacherous computing

+ +

We are going to have to politically organize to keep from being +completely prohibited from writing free software.

+ +

Today, one of the most insidious threats to the future of free +software comes from treacherous computing, which is a conspiracy of many +large corporations. They call it "trusted computing," but what do they +mean by that? What they mean is that an application developer can trust +your computer to obey him and disobey you. So, from your point of view, +it's _treacherous computing_, because your computer won't obey you +anymore. The purpose of this plan is that you won't control your +computer.

+ +

[ +http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html]

+ +

And there are various different things that treacherous computing can +be used to do, things like prohibit you from running any program that +hasn't been authorized by the operating system developer. That's one +thing they could do. But they may not feel they dare go that far. But +another thing that they plan to do is to have data that's only available +to a particular application. The idea is that an application will be +able to write data in an encrypted form, such that it can only be +decrypted by the same application, such that nobody else can +independently write another program to access that data. And, of course, +they would use that for limiting access to published works, you know, +something to be a replacement for DVDs so that it would be not only +illegal, but impossible to write the free software to play it.

+ +

But they don't have to stop at doing this to published data. They +could do it to your data too. Imagine if treacherous computing is common +in 10 years and Microsoft decides to come out with a new version of Word +format that uses treacherous computing to encrypt your data. Then it +would be impossible to write free software to read word files. Microsoft +is trying every possible method to prevent us from having free software +to read Word files. First, they switched to a secret Word format, so +people had to try to figure out the format. Well, we more or less have +figured it out. There are free programs that will read most Word files +(not all). But then they came up with +another idea. They said, "let's use XML." Now here's what Microsoft +means when they speak of using XML. The beginning of the file has a +trivial thing that says "this is XML and here comes binary Word format +data," and then there's the binary Word format data and then there's +something at the end that says, "that was binary Word format data." And +they patented this. {so that... I'm not sure} I don't know exactly what +the patent does and doesn't cover, but, you know, there are things we +could do, either reading or writing that file format, probably they +could try suing us about. And I'm sure that, if treacherous computing is +available for them to use, they'll use that too.

+ +

This is why we have a campaign to refuse to read Word files. Now +there are many reasons you should refuse to read Word files. One is, +they could have viruses in them. If someone sends you a Word file, you +shouldn't look at it. But the point is, you shouldn't even try to look +at it. Nowadays there are free programs that will read most Word files. +But it's really better, better than trying to read the file is if you +send a message back saying, "please send that to me in a format that +isn't secret. It's not a good idea to send people Word files." And the +reason is, we have to overcome the tendency in society for people to use +these secret formats for communication. +We have to convince people to insist on +publicly documented standard formats that everyone is free to implement. +And Word format is the worst offender and so that's the best place to +start. If somebody sends you a Word file, don't try to read it. Write +back, saying "you really shouldn't do that." And there's a page in +www.gnu.org/philosophy which is good to reference. It gives an +explanation of why this is an important issue.

+ +

[ +http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html]

+ +

20. Help GNU

+ +

Now, www.gnu.org is the website of the GNU Project. So you can go +there for more information. In the /gnu directory you'll find the +history and in the /philosophy directory you'll find articles about the +philosophy of free software and in the /directory you'll find the Free +Software Directory, which now lists over 3,000 usable free software +packages that will run the on GNU/Linux system.

+ +

[It is now over 6000, and located in directory.fsf.org]

+ +

Now, I'm about to close my speech, but before I do, I'd like to +mention that I've got some stickers here to give away. These stickers +show a flying gnu and a flying penguin, both rather unrealistic, but +they're superheroes. And {I also have some things} if people don't mind, +I've got some things I'm selling on behalf of the Free Software +Foundation, so if you buy them, you're supporting us. I've got these +buttons that say, "ask me about free software -- it's all about freedom" +and I've got some GNU keyrings and GNU pins that are sort of pretty. So +you can buy those. You can also support us by becoming an associate +member. Now, you can do that just through our website, but I also have +some cards you can have if you would like to join [right now].

+ +

21. Saint Ignucius

+ +

So now I will close my speech by presenting my alter ego. See, people +sometimes accuse me of having a "holier than thou" attitude. Now, I hope +that's not true. I'm not going to condemn somebody just for not being as +firmly committed as I am. I will try to encourage him to become more so, +but that's different. So I don't think I really have a "holier than +thou" attitude, but I have a holy attitude because I'm a saint; it's my +job to be holy.

+ +

[Dons a black robe and a magnetic disk halo]
+[Laughter, applause]
+[Richard holds a laptop like a holy book and waves]

+ +

I am Saint Ignucius of the Church of Emacs. I bless your computer, my +child.

+ +

Emacs started out as a text editor which became a way of life for +many computer users and then a religion. Does anyone know what the +alt.religion.emacs newsgroup was used for? I know it existed, but since +I'd never read net news, I don't know what was said in it.

+ +

In any case, now we even have a great schism between two rival +versions of Emacs, and we also have saints; no gods, though.

+ +

To be a member of the Church of Emacs, you must recite the Confession +of the Faith: you must say, "There is no system but GNU, and Linux is +one of its kernels."

+ +

The Church of Emacs has advantages compared with other churches I +might name. To be a saint in the Church of Emacs does not require +celibacy. So if you're looking for a church in which to be holy, you +might consider ours.

+ +

However, it does require making a commitment to live a life of moral +purity. You must exorcise the evil proprietary operating systems that +possess all the computers under either your practical control or your +authority, and you must install a wholly [i.e., holy] free operating +system, where "wholly" can be spelled in more than one way, and then +only install free software on top of that. If you make this commitment +and live by it, then you, too, will be a saint and you, too, may +eventually have a halo -- if you can find one, because they don't make +them anymore.

+ +

Sometimes people ask me if, in the Church of Emacs, it is a sin to +use Vi. Well, it's true that VI-VI-VI is the editor of the Beast, +[laughter] but using a free version of Vi is not a sin, it's a +penance.

+ +

And sometimes people ask me if my halo is really an old computer +disk. [Points at halo] This is no computer disk, this is my halo. But it +was a computer disk in a previous existence.

+ +

So, thank you everyone.

+ +

[Applause]

+ +

22. About anonymity, +credit cards, cell phones

+ +

So I can answer questions for a while.

+ +

AUDIENCE: Yeah, do you know, or can you tell us why Linus +Torvalds, who has very very different attitudes with yours, released +Linux under your [unintelligible]? What motivated him?

+ +

RICHARD: I don't know why Linus Torvalds switched to the GNU +GPL for Linux. You'd have to ask him that. I don't recall ever seeing +the reason for that. I don't know.

+ +

AUDIENCE: Can you say something about the current effort to +put security in the network itself?

+ +

RICHARD: I don't know... he said, "efforts to plug security +into the network." I don't know what that means.

+ +

AUDIENCE: [unintelligible] remove anonymity from the network +itself.

+ +

RICHARD: Remove anonymity? Well, I don't know about those +efforts, but I think it's horrible. I don't do e-commerce because I +don't like to buy things with credit cards. I want to buy things +anonymously and I do so by paying cash in a store. I don't like giving +Big Brother any records about me. For the same reason, I do not have a +cell phone. I don't want to carry a personal tracking device. We have to +fight more to preserve our privacy from surveillance systems. So, +although I'm not familiar with the specific efforts you're talking +about, I find them dangerous, much more dangerous than computer +insecurity. Now, perhaps that's because I'm not a Windows user; so I +have less problem to deal with.

+ + + +

AUDIENCE: [unintelligible]

+ +

RICHARD: No, we can't. Basically he's asking if we can +monopolize file formats. Well, the answer is, we can't do so using our +copyright-based licenses, because copyright does not cover any idea, +principle, method of operation or system; it only covers the details of +expression of a work of authorship. So we can't, using our licenses like +the GNU GPL, prohibit anyone from writing his own code to handle the +same format.

+ +

We could conceivably get patents; however, it turns out patents are +very, very different from copyright; they have almost nothing in common, +and it turns out it costs a lot of money to get a patent and even more +money to keep the patent going. And the other thing is, {Microsoft +doesn't need to get} you shouldn't assume that what Microsoft is getting +a patent on is important because it's a big improvement. It just has to +be different. Microsoft can get a patent on something about a file +format that's different and then they can force most users to switch +over to a new format that uses that idea. And Microsoft can do this +because of its market power, its control.

+ +

We can't do that. The whole thing about the free software is, the +developers don't have any power; the users are in control. We can't +force users to switch over to anything, not even for their own +safety.

+ +

You know, we've been trying since around 1992 or so to convince users +to stop using GIF format, because that format is patented and some users +will get sued. So we said, "everybody please stop using GIF format for +the sake of those who get sued if the public uses this format." And +people haven't listened. So the thing is, we can't do what Microsoft +does, because that's based on using the power that they have, and since +we have chosen to respect people's freedom, we don't have power over the +public.

+ +

24. Dangers of webmail +loss of freedom

+ +

AUDIENCE: So, when somebody's using Google, they don't have +access to the source code that we use, so they have no way of +[unintelligible] what we do, so using that violates their freedom.

+ +

RICHARD: When a person is accessing the Google server, they +don't have either the binaries or the source code of the program that +Google is using, because it's Google that's using the program; that +person is not using the program. So I wouldn't expect to have the +authority to change the software that's running on your computer. You +should have the freedom to change the software that's running on your +computer, but I would never expect that I would have the freedom to go +into your computer and change the software there. Why should you let me +do that? So that's the way I see it when a person is using Google +server to do a search.

+ +

Now, there is a possible danger there. The danger doesn't come from +things like Google. The danger comes from things like Hotmail. When +people start using a server on the net to store their data and to do the +jobs that they really could be doing on their own computer, that +introduces a danger. I've never understood the people who said that thin +clients were the future, because I can't imagine why I would ever do +things that way. I've got a PC and it's capable of doing things like +running a mail reader; I'm going to have the mail on my own computer, +I'm not going to leave it on anybody's server. Especially not a server I +have no reason to trust. And these days, of course, if you allow your +personal data to be on somebody's server, you might as well be handing +it straight to Ashcroft and his gestapo.

+ +

[RMS, 2010: Gmail is comparable to Hotmail in this regard. See also + +http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html +for another issue that applies to some, but not all, network services.]

+ +

AUDIENCE: unintelligible

+ +

RICHARD: He's asking, "if people were using a thin client and +all the computation were done on a remote server." Yes, it does mean +that people lose freedom, because, clearly, you can't change the +software that's set up on somebody else's server, so if you're using the +software on somebody else's server, instead of running it on your own +computer, you lose control. Now, I don't think that's a good thing, and +therefore I'm going to encourage people not to go along with it. People +will keep on developing the software to do these jobs on your own +machine.

+ +

{Leaving so soon? [Laughter] I hope it wasn't something I said. And +gee, now I won't get to meet her. Anyway.}

+ + + +

AUDIENCE: Are the Creative Commons a different denomination of +the same religion or a different religion?

+ +

RICHARD: {Creative Commons} Well, first of all, this isn't a +religion, except as a joke. The Church of Emacs is a joke. Please keep +in mind, taking any church too seriously can be hazardous to your +health, even the Church of Emacs. So this has nothing to do with +religion.

+ +

This is a matter of ethics. It's a matter of what makes for a good +society and what kind of society we want to live in. These are not +questions of dogma, these are questions of philosophy and politics.

+ +

The Creative Commons licenses are designed for artistic works, and I +think that they are good for artistic works. The issue for artistic +works is not exactly the same as for software.

+ +

Software is an example of a practical, functional work. You use it do +to a job. The main purpose of a program is not that people will read the +code and think, "boy, how fascinating, what a great job they did." The +main purpose of software is, you run it and it does something. And yes, +those people who are interested in software will also read it and learn, +but that's not the main purpose. It's interesting because of the job it +will do, not just because of how nice it is to read. Whereas with art, +the main use of art is the sensation that you get when you look at it or +listen to it. So these are very different ways of being used and, as a +result, the ethical issues about copying and modification are +different.

+ +

For practical, functional works, people have to be free with the four +freedoms, including free to publish a modified version. But for art I +wouldn't say that. I think that there's a certain minimum freedom that +we must always have for using any published work, and that is the +freedom to non-commercially distribute verbatim, exact copies. But I +wouldn't say that it has to go further than that necessarily. So I think +the Creative Commons licenses are a very useful and good thing to use +for art.

+ +

26. Malicious free software

+ +

AUDIENCE: Since everybody has the freedom to modify the code +and republish it, how do you keep out saboteurs?

+ +

RICHARD: Well, you don't. The point is, you can't ever. So you +just look at these different versions and you see which one you actually +like. You can't keep the saboteurs out of non-free software either; in +fact, the developer could be the saboteur. The developers often put in, +as I said, malicious features. And then you're completely helpless. At +least with free software, you can read the source code, you can compare +the two versions. If you're thinking of switching from this version to +that version, you can compare them and see what's different and look for +some malicious code.

+ +

27. Patented file formats

+ +

AUDIENCE: Do you happen to know which popular file formats are +secret and which ones are public?

+ +

RICHARD: Well, of the popular file formats, the only ones that +I know of that are secret are some Microsoft ones. But, on the other +hands, there are others that have patent problems. For instance, there's +still a patent covering LZW compression, which is used in GIF format. +And someone has a patent he claims covers JPEG format and is actually +suing a bunch of companies. And then there's a patent on MP3 audio, so +that the free software MP3 encoders have been driven underground in the +US [1]. That's why people should switch to Ogg Vorbis format. And then, if +you look at, say, MPEG-2 video, there are 39 different US patents said +to cover aspects of MPEG-2. So there are a lot of such problems.

+ +

28. Games as free software

+ +

AUDIENCE: Is there any software that sort of mixes between the +Creative Commons and functional software, such as games or...?

+ +

RICHARD: Well, {you can say that a game} in many cases you can +look at a game as the combination of a program and a scenario. And then +it would make sense to treat the program like a program and the scenario +like a work of fiction. On the other hand, what you see is that it's +quite useful for the users to edit and republish modified versions of +these scenarios. So, although those are like fiction and art, not like +software, it really seems to be useful for users to be free to change +them.

+ +

29. GPL freedoms for cars, +saving seeds

+ +

AUDIENCE: Do you envision this free software philosophy to go +across, off the boundary to products, commodities...

+ +

RICHARD: When you say, "products, commodities," could you be +concrete?

+ +

AUDIENCE: [unintelligible] cars

+ +

RICHARD: So should the free software philosophy apply to cars? +Okay, well the free software philosophy is, you should be free to copy +and modify them. So, if you have a car copier, I think you should be +free to copy any car. But there are no car copiers, so that really is a +meaningless question. And then, second, modifying. Well, yeah, I think +if you've got a car, you should be free to modify it and, in fact, lots +of people do modify their cars. So, there may be some restrictions on +that, but to a large extent that freedom exists. So what you see is that +this isn't really a meaningful question when you're talking about +physical objects. There are, in general, no copiers for physical +objects.

+ +

If we imagine, someday in the future, that such copiers exist, well +that will be a different situation and yeah, that change would have +consequences for ethics and politics. If we had food copiers, I'm sure +that agribusiness would be trying to forbid people from having and using +food copiers. And that would be a tremendous political issue, just as +today there's a tremendous political issue about whether farmers ought +to be allowed to save seeds. Now, I believe that they have a fundamental +right to save seeds and that it's tyranny to stop them. A democratic +government would never do that.

+ +

30. No software is +better than non-free software

+ +

AUDIENCE: [roughly] Do you see a problem with free software +being under-produced because nobody wants to invest money +[unintelligible]?

+ +

RICHARD: I don't know what you mean by "under-produced." We +see that some people develop free software and some don't. So we could +imagine more people developing free software and, if so, we'd have more +of it. But, you see, the tragedy of the commons really is a matter of +overuse. And that's something that can happen maybe with a field, but it +doesn't happen with software; you can't overuse a program, you don't +wear it out. So, really, there's no analogy there.

+ +

AUDIENCE: Well, the example you gave is, let's say there's a +useful program and a thousand people want a change to it. You said they +could get their money together and go hire a programmer to make the +change. But each individual in that group can say, "well, I'll just let +the 999 pay for the change."

+ +

RICHARD: Well, they can do that, but that would be pretty +stupid, because if they saw that the result was, it wasn't getting done, +then if it's of some importance to them, then they're much better off +joining and contributing their money so that the change gets made. And +whether they do this or not, either way I won't agree that anything +tragic has happened. If they join and they pay for their change and they +get it, that's good, and if they don't join and they don't pay for that +change, that's good too; I guess they didn't want it enough. Either +one's okay.

+ +

Non-free software is evil and we're better off with nothing than with +non-free software. The tragedy of the commons can happen either through +overuse or under-contribution, but overuse is impossible in software. +Under-contribution happens when a program is proprietary. Then it's a +failure to contribute to the commons. And so I would like that +proprietary software to stop being developed. A non-free program is +worse than no program, because neither one allows you to get a job done +in freedom, but the non-free program might tempt people to give up their +freedom and that's really bad.

+ +

31. Portability of free +software

+ +

AUDIENCE: Is their a potential conflict between the free +software philosophy and the portability of [unintelligible]?

+ +

RICHARD: No, {I don't see} this makes no sense to me at all. I +see no conflict between the philosophy of free software and portability. +And in the free software world we've worked very hard to achieve +portability from all sides. We make our software very portable and we +make our software standardized so that other people can easily have +portability, so we are aiding portability from every possible direction. +Meanwhile, you see Microsoft deliberately introducing incompatibilities +and deliberately blocking interoperability. Microsoft can do that +because it has power. We can't do that. If we make a program +incompatible and the users don't like it, they can change it. They can +change it to be compatible. So we are not in a position where we could +impose incompatibility on anybody, because we have chosen not to try to +have power over other people.

+ +

32. Is some free +software obfuscated on purpose?

+ +

AUDIENCE: Something [unintelligible] obfuscated +[unintelligible] understand it.

+ +

RICHARD: Well, I disagree with you. Please, this is silly. If +you're saying a program is hard to understand, that's not the same as +the people are restricting it. It's not the same as saying, "you're +forbidden to see it." Now, if you find it unclear, you can work on +making it clearer. The fact is, the developers probably are trying to +keep it clear, but it's a hard job and, unless you want to compare our +software with proprietary software and see which one is clearer, you +have no basis to make the claim that you're making. From what I hear, +non-free software is typically much worse and the reason is that the +developers figure no one will ever see it, so they'll never be +embarrassed by how bad it is.

+ +

33. Proprietary keeping an +edge

+ +

AUDIENCE: You hear the argument a lot from people who +manufacture devices or [unintelligible] hardware that they need to have +proprietary software in order to give them an edge, because, if they +gave away the software for free, then a competitor could manufacture the +device [unintelligible].

+ +

RICHARD: I don't believe this. I think it's all bullshit, +because there they are competing with each other and each one's saying, +"we need to make the software proprietary to have an edge over the +others." Well, if none of them did it, they might all lose their edge? +I mean, so what? We shouldn't buy this. And I mean, we shouldn't buy +what they're saying and we shouldn't buy their products either.

+ +

34. Forbidding is +forbidden how is this freedom?

+ +

AUDIENCE: I might be saying [unintelligible]

+ +

RICHARD: Please don't. The issue that you want to raise may be +a good issue, but please try to raise it in a neutral way, rather than +raising it with an attack.

+ +

AUDIENCE: There's something in my mind, so I'll just speak up. +The thing is, by actually registering [unintelligible] thing and saying +that "you can redistribute this software but you have to comply with +these four freedoms," is that not restricting my freedom too?

+ +

RICHARD: No, it's restricting you from having power. To stop A +from subjugating B is not a denial of freedom to A, because to subjugate +others is not freedom. That's power.

+ +

Now, there may be people who would like to exercise power and we're +stopping them, but that's good and that's not denying anyone +freedom.

+ +

I mean, you could just as well say if you're overthrowing a dictator, +the dictator's saying, "you're taking away my freedom to dictate to +everyone!" But that's not freedom, that's power.

+ +

So I'm making the distinction between freedom, which is having +control over your own life, and power, which is having control over +other people's lives. We've got to make this distinction; if we ignore +the difference between freedom and power, then we lose the ability to +judge whether a society is free or not. You know, if you lose this +distinction, then you look at Stalinist Russia and you say, "well, there +was just as much freedom there, it's just that Stalin had it all." No! +In Stalinist Russia, Stalin had power and people did not have freedom; +the freedom wasn't there, because it's only freedom when it's a matter +of controlling your own life. Controlling other people's lives is not +freedom at all, not for either of the people involved.

+ +

35. Can Google help free +software

+ +

AUDIENCE: In your opinion, is there anything that Google as a +company could do better in the spirit of free software?

+ +

RICHARD: I actually don't know enough about what Google is +doing to have any opinion. But if Google would like to donate some money +to the Free Software Foundation, we would gladly accept it. {I gather +that, I mean} I met some people here who are working on a particular +free program, namely Linux, the kernel. And I didn't ask actually if +they publish their improvements. [AUDIENCE: They do] Oh good, so +that's contributing. I mean, if you want to contribute to other pieces +of free software, that would be nice too, but I don't know if you have a +need to do that. And, of course, if you ever have a chance to release +some other generally useful new piece of free software, that would be +good too.

+ +

[RMS, 2010: Google now distributes some large nonfree programs. Some +are written in Javascript, and servers install them without your +noticing.]

+ +

36. Free software on +windows, good or bad

+ +

I'll take three more questions.

+ +

AUDIENCE: So, if I develop free software for a proprietary +system such as Windows, essentially I'm supporting the proprietary +system. Am I doing a good or a bad thing here?

+ +

RICHARD: Well, there's a good aspect and a bad aspect. In +regard to the use of your code, you're respecting other people's +freedom, so that's good, but the fact that it only runs on Windows is +bad. So, really, you shouldn't develop it on Windows. You shouldn't use +Windows. Using Windows is bad. {That is, in itself} It's not as bad as +being the developer of Windows, but it's still bad and you shouldn't do +that.

+ +

AUDIENCE: So you're saying, just don't do it at all.

+ +

RICHARD: Yeah, don't use Windows. Use GNU/Linux and develop +your free program for GNU/Linux instead. And then it will be good in +both ways.

+ +

AUDIENCE: But couldn't it open Windows users to this +ideology?

+ +

RICHARD: It could, but there's enough free software available +for use on Windows to have that effect. And the thing is, developing +software for Windows is going to create a practical incentive for people +to use Windows, rather than use GNU/Linux. So, please don't.

+ +

[RMS, 2010: to put it more clearly, making free programs run also on +Windows can be useful as he said; however, writing a free program only +for Windows is a waste.]

+ +

37. SCO's suit

+ +

AUDIENCE: What would be the impact of SCO winning their +argument against Linux? So what would be the impact on...

+ +

RICHARD: I don't know, it depends. It would have no effect on +the GPL. But {it might have some effect} some code might have to be +removed from Linux. And whether that would be a big problem or a tiny +problem depends on what code, so there's no way of saying. But I don't +think SCO is a real problem. I think software patents and treacherous +computing and hardware with secret specs, those are the real problems. +That's what we've got to be fighting against.

+ +

38. Stallman's problem typing

+ +

AUDIENCE: I have a non-ideology question. I'm personally very +interested in your battle with repetitive stress injuries and the impact +that it had on the development of GNU Hurd.

+ +

RICHARD: None, because I was never working on the GNU Hurd. +{I've never} We hired a person to write the GNU Hurd. I had nothing to +do with writing it. And there were a few years when I couldn't type much +and then we hired people to type for me. And then I found, by using +keyboards with a light touch, I could type again.

+ +

39. Open source, good or +bad Pat-riot Act.

+ +

AUDIENCE: Can you give us your opinion of open source?

+ +

RICHARD: Well, the open source movement is sort of like the +free software movement, except with the philosophical foundation +discarded. So they don't talk about right and wrong, or freedom, or +inalienable rights, they just don't present it in ethical terms. They +say that they have a development methodology that they say typically +results in technically superior software. So they only appeal to +practical, technical values.

+ +

And what they're saying may be right and if this convinces some +people to write free software, that's a useful contribution. But I think +they're missing the point when they don't talk about freedom, because +that's what makes our community weak, that we don't talk about and think +about freedom enough. People who don't think about freedom won't value +their freedom and they won't defend their freedom and they'll lose it. +Look at the USA Pat-riot Act. You know, people who don't value their +freedom will lose it.

+ +

40. The end

+ +

So thank you, and if anyone wants to buy any of these FSF things +or...

+ +

[Applause]

+ +

Footnote

+ +
    +
  1. All the patents on MP3 will have expired by 2018.
    2. +
+ + + + + + + -- cgit v1.2.3