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 --- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/nit-india.html | 1528 ++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 1528 insertions(+) create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/nit-india.html (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/nit-india.html') diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/nit-india.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/nit-india.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..fdcebc7 --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/nit-india.html @@ -0,0 +1,1528 @@ + + +Stallman's Speech at National Institute of Technology +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + +

National Institute of Technology - Trichy - India - 17 February 2004

+ +

+by Richard Stallman +

+ +

Transcript of the speech on “Free Software” by +Dr. Richard Stallman on Feb 17, 2004 at the National Institute of +Technology, Trichy, TN, India. +

+ +

[MOC] We will be starting off with the video conferencing +session in a short while, audience please note, the questions should +be written on a piece of paper, and handed over to MOC desk. We have +volunteers all around waiting with papers, so please use them to ask +your questions. Dr. Richard Stallman has a hearing problem and +therefore he will not be able to understand your language. +

+ +

Ladies and gentlemen, I feel privileged to be given the opportunity to +to take you through this morning session, which is a trend setter in +many ways. This is the first time in the history of NIT, Trichy that a +video conference is going to take place. And the ECE association, +prides itself in taking this initiative. This wouldn't have been +possible without the vision and hard work of the staff and the final +years. We hope this initiative will be the first of many in the future +and the good work is carried on in the coming years. +

+ +

Software, a product of digital revolution is a more like +magic. Hundreds of copies of a software can be made at touch of a +button. Portions of code can copied and used in another program +without much effort. These and lot of other properties make it an +entirely different beast. A beast that does not bow to the +conventional copyright laws. But some people for their own selfishness +have tamed this beast and deprived the society the benefits of +software. +

+ +

Amidst this rose a man, who vowed to give back computer users their +lost freedom. He proved to the world not by words, but by action that +it is possible to produce software without computer users having to +give up their freedom. A man who needs no introduction, but +nevertheless must be introduced for sake formality. Dr. Richard +Stallman is the founder of the GNU project, 1984 to develop the free +operating system, GNU. And thereby give computer users the freedom, +that most of them had lost. GNU is a free software. Everyone is free +to copy it, and redistribute it, as well as make changes, either large +or small. +

+ +

Dr. Richard Stallman graduated from Harvard in 1974, with a B.A in +physics. During his college years he also worked as a staff hacker, at +the MIT AI +lab, learning operating system development on the fly. In 1984, he +resigned from MIT to start the GNU project. He has +received numerous prizes and awards for his work, which need no +mention. +

+ +

Today Linux based systems, variants of the GNU system based on the +kernel Linux, developed by Linus Torvalds are in wide spread use. There +are estimated to be some 20 million users of Linux based systems +today. And the number is growing at an unprecedented rate. +

+ +

Ladies and gentlemen, meet the man, the driving force of the free +software movement, Dr. Richard Stallman. [applause] [silence] +

+ +

[RMS] Should I start? +[silence] +

+ +

Can you hear me? +[silence] +

+ +

Please raise your hands if you cannot hear me. [silence] So, if +people could possibly be a bit quieter, I guess that I can start. +

+ +

[MOC] Audience please maintain silence. Thank you. +

+ +

[RMS] Or may be it is just the system that is generating noise. I +can't tell, I can't hear, if its people talking or it's some artifact +of the communication system. It's just coming across as lot of noise +to me. Just turn the volume down some how, I will see how to do +that. I don't seem to have a control for that. Don't worry about +it. Don't turn it all the way off though. Just a little bit lower. +

+ +

I want to have some indication of what's going on in the room, so that +I can hear you, but the volume may be just a bit too high, so that the +room noise is getting tremendous. +

+ +

Okay. Lets see. [silence] Well I guess, I will just start, if +that's the thing to do. My speech today well… Is it the time I +should start. Or people are still coming into the room, should I wait +a couple of more minutes. +

+ +

[MOC] Sir, we can start. +

+ +

[RMS] I see people coming in. I will wait till the people +come in and get seated. +

+ +

[MOC] Sir, it is getting late, I think we can start. +

+ +

[RMS] Okay. What is free software? Free Software is software +that respects the freedom of the users. This doesn't have anything to +do with price, at least not directly. I am not talking about gratis +software. I don't mean software that you get without paying. That is +actually a side issue that is not particularly relevant. I mean +software that you can use in freedom. Software that respects the +freedoms of the user. Or I should be more specific. Which are the +freedoms, that I mean. +

+ +

For programs to be free software, you the user must have four specific +freedoms. There is freedom zero, the freedom to run the program, for +whatever purpose in whatever manner. There is freedom one, the freedom +to study the source code, to see what the program really does. And +then change it to do, what you want. There is freedom two, which is +the freedom to distribute copies to others, in other words the freedom +to help your neighbor. And there is freedom three, the freedom to help +build your community which is the freedom to publish a modified +version, so that others can benefit from your contribution. +

+ +

All these freedoms, are essential. It's a mistake to think of them as +levels of freedom, because all four must be present, in order for the +software to be ethically legitimate. +

+ +

Why these particular freedoms? Freedom zero is essential so that you +can have control over your own computer. If you are not free to use +the program for whatever purpose in whatever manner then your use of +your own computer, is being restricted. But freedom zero is not enough +to have control over your own computer, because without more than that +you can't control what the program does. +

+ +

Freedom one is essential, freedom one enables to see personally what +the program really does, and then it change to do whatever you really +want it to do. If you don't have freedom one, then you do not control +what your computer is doing, the developer of the program controls, +what it's going to do on your computer, and you have no recourse. +

+ +

In fact, its not unusual for developers put in malicious +features. This is primarily developers nonfree software, that put in +malicious features and they figure that you cannot take them out. They +figure, they will get away with it. Because you are helpless. It is +very common for nonfree programs to spy on the user. And they figure +you might not be able to tell that its are spying on you, because you +can't get the source code and so how would you know what it is +reporting about you. We found out some cases, where programs spy on +you. For example, Windows spies on you. 3 years ago there was a +scandal, because Microsoft setup Windows to report what is installed +on your disk. It would send this information back to Microsoft. Then +there was a scandal there was an uproar so Microsoft took it out, and +put it back in disguise. +

+ +

About a year ago, some developers… some researchers found +out that, they figured out that, Windows XP when it asked for an +upgrade, also reports to Microsoft, what's installed on your disk. And +it does this secretly, it sends the list of files encrypted, so that +it was impossible for people to tell easily that this was going +on. They had to work hard [FIXME: 12:10] ??? to determine what +information Windows was sending back to Microsoft. But, Windows is not +the only software package, nonfree software package that [FIXME: +12:30 spies] on you. Windows media player also spies on you. Every time +you access something, it sends a report to Microsoft, saying what you +are looking at. And Real Player also spies on you. So Microsoft is not +the only nonfree software developer guilty of this kind of special +mistreatment of the users. The Tivo spies on you. Some people +enthusiastic on Tivo, because it is based on GNU and Linux to some +extent. +

+ +

But it also contains nonfree software. And it is designed to spy +on you, and report what you watch. I am told there are many other +programs that are spy-ware. Then there are programs that do other +nasty things to you. For instance there are programs that reconfigure +your computer, so for instance that it will display ads for you all +the time, and they don't tell you install this program and it will +display these ads. They figure that most of the users won't notice, +they won't will be able to figure out. They figure you will install +several programs and you won't know which one changed your computer's +configuration. Or that you won't know how to undo it. +Of course, if it +were free software this could be fixed. I will get to that in a +minute. But sometimes they get even worse. Sometimes programs have +features designed to stop you from doing things. Software developers +like to talk about how their programs could do things for you. But +sometimes they design programs that will refuse to do things for +you. This is often called DRM — Digital Restrictions +Management. Where programs are designed to refuse to access files for +you, to refuse to let you save files, or copy files or convert files. +

+ +

Even more bizarre, there is a malicious feature in the music +sharing program, Kazaa, where the company… the developers sell +time on your computer. So, other people will pay Kazaa, so that they +can run their programs on your computer. They don't pay you. In fact, +this was being kept secret. The developers of Kazaa didn't say to the +users, “By the way, we are going to be selling time on your +computer.” People had to figure this out. +

+ +

So, I am telling you examples, that I have heard of. But you never +know, if there is some other nonfree program, how do you it has some +malicious secret feature. The point is you can't get the +source. Without freedom one, the freedom to help yourself, the freedom +to study the source code and change it to do what you want, you can't +tell what the program is really doing. All you can do is put blind +faith in the developer. The developer says, “The program does +this” Now you either believe it or you don't. +

+ +

Of course, not all developers of nonfree software are putting +malicious features. Some really are sincerely doing their best to put +in features to please the user. But, they are all human, and they all +mistakes. These mistakes are called bugs. Well, we free software +developers are also human, and we also make mistakes. Our programs +have bugs too. The difference is, when you have freedom you can study +the source code and you can find whatever is bad in the program, +whether it is a deliberate malicious feature or an accident. Either +way you can find it, and then you can fix the program to get rid of +it. You can make the program better. With nonfree software you are +just helpless. But with free software you have power over your +computer. You are in control. +But freedom one is not enough. Freedom +one is the freedom, to personally study the source code and then +change it to do what you want. That is the freedom to help +yourself. But freedom one is not enough, because first of all there +are millions of people who use computers but do not know how to +program. Freedom one is not enough for them. They don't how to +personally study the source code and change it to do what they +want. But even for us programmers freedom one is not enough. Because +there are so many programs. Nobody has time to study them all, and +master them all, to be able to make changes in each one of them. +

+ +

So, we need to be able to work together. And that's what freedom three +is for. Freedom three is the freedom to help build your community, by +publishing a modified version. So other people can use your +version. This is what makes it possible for us all to work together +taking control of our computers and our software. +

+ +

…That there are a million users and all of them want a +certain change in a certain program. They want it to work like this +way instead. Well, in those million people, just by luck, there will +be a thousand who know how to program. Sooner or later there will be a +ten of them, who read the source of the program, and made the change +and publish a modified version that does what they want. And there are +million other people who want the same thing. So, they will use the +modified version. They all get a change to have what they +want. Because a few of them made the change. +

+ +

With freedom three, a few people can make change and it then +becomes available to many people. And this way, any collectivity of +users can take control over their software. What happens if there is a +group of people who want a change but none of them knows how to +program. Suppose if only 500 people and none of them is a +programmer. Now, suppose it is 10000 but they are all people who have +stores, so that they don't know how to program. Well, with free +software they can still make use of freedom one and three. They can +all put together some money and when they have collected the money +they can go to a programmer or to a programming company and say, +“How much would you charge, to make this particular change and +when can you have it done?” +

+ +

And if they don't like what that particular company says, they can +go to a different company and say, “What would you charge to +make this change and when can you have it done?” They can choose +who they are going to deal with. And this illustrates the fact that +free software means that there is a free market, for all kinds of +services such as, to make the program do what you want. With nonfree +software, support is a monopoly, because only the developer has the +source code and only the developer can make any change. +

+ +

So if you don't like what the program does, you have to go to the +developer and beg, “Oh, please developer, please do my change +for me.” And probably the developer says, “You are not +important enough, why should I care about you. There are just a +hundred thousand of you why should I care.” But with free +software, there is a free market for support and if the developer +isn't interested in what you want some body else will be, especially +if you have some money to pay. +

+ +

There are users of software who consider good support crucial and they +are willing to pay money so that they could have good support. In +general, because free software support is a free market, these users +can expect better support for their money, if they are using free +software. +

+ +

Paradoxically speaking, when you have a choice between several +nonfree programs to do the same job, which ever one you choose the +support for it is going to be a monopoly afterwards, so at the +beginning you get a choice, but afterwards you are stuck in a +monopoly. That's the paradox you have a choice between monopolies. In +other words you get to choose who is going to be your master. But a +choice of masters is not freedom, with free software you don't have to +choose a master. You get to choose freedom, you don't have to choose +between monopolies instead, you continue to have freedom for as long +as you keep using that program you are using it in freedom. +

+ +

So I have explained freedom zero, one and three. These freedoms are +all necessary so that you can have control over your computer. Freedom +two is a different matter, Freedom two is to help your neighbor by +distributing copies of the programs to others. Freedom two is +essential for a basic ethical reason, so that you can live an upright +life where you help other people. +

+ +

Now, the spirit… the most important resource of any society +is the spirit of good will, the spirit of readiness to help your +neighbors. Of course, nobody spends a 100% of time helping his +neighbors, nobody does a 100% of whatever other people ask. And that +is appropriate because you have to take care of yourself also. But +only extremely bad people do zero to help their neighbors and in fact +normally in society you have levels of helping the neighbors in +between, not 0 and not a 100% and these levels can get bigger or +smaller depending on social change, by how we organize society we can +encourage people to help their neighbor and help each other some what +more or some what less and these changes in the levels make the +difference between a livable society and a dog eat dog jungle. And it +is not by accident that the world's major religions for 1000 of years +have been encouraging people to help their neighbors, encouraging a +spirit of benevolence of good will towards your fellow human beings. +

+ +

So what does it mean when powerful social institutions start saying +sharing with your neighbor is wrong, they are discouraging people from +helping each other reducing the level of cooperation. They are +poisoning this essential resource. What does it mean when they say if +you help your neighbor you are a pirate. They are saying that to share +with your neighbor is the moral equivalent of attacking a ship. That +morality is upside down, because attacking ships are really really bad +but helping your neighbor is good and must be encouraged and what does +it mean when the start making harsh punishments for people who share +with their neighbors. How much fear is it going to take before people +are too scared to help their neighbors. +Do you want to be living in a +society filled with this level of terror. The only … for what +they are doing is terror campaign. In 2 countries so far in Argentina +and then in Germany, these companies, the developers of nonfree +software have sent public threats, threatening people would be raped +in prison for using unauthorized copies of software. The only thing +you can call it when people are threatening others will rape is a +terror campaign and we should put and end to this terrorism, right +away. +

+ +

Now, why did I say that freedom two, the freedom to help your +neighbor is necessary to live an upright life. Because if you agree to +license for a nonfree program, you have partly participated in the +evil. You have put yourself in a bad moral situation. By using a +program that does not give you freedom two, the freedom to help your +neighbor, you have put yourself in a moral dilemma, potentially. It +may never happen, but as soon as somebody comes to you and says, could +I have a copy of this program. You are now in a moral dilemma, where +you have to choose between two evils. One evil is make a copy help +your neighbor, but you violate the license, the other evil is you +follow the license but you are a bad neighbor. +They are both wrong, so +you have to choose the lesser evil, the lesser evil in my opinion is +to share with your neighbor and violate the license. Because your +neigh deserves… presuming this person had done nothing wrong, +hasn't mistreated you, then he deserves your cooperation. Where as, +who ever tried to divide you from your neighbors is doing something +very very wrong and doesn't deserve your cooperation, so if you got to +do something wrong, you got to do it to somebody who deserves it. +

+ +

However, once you recognize this, once you realize, that using this +nonfree program means you are liable to end up with a choice between +two evils, what you should really do is to refuse to get into that +situation, by refusing to use the nonfree program, refusing to have +the nonfree program. If you insist on using and having only free +software then you cant ever get into this moral dilemma. Because when +ever your friend asks you for a copy of the program, you will be able +to say “sure,” and it wont be any evil because free +software means you are free to distribute copies. It means you have +not promised that you refuse to share with other people. You can share +and there is nothing bad about the situation. So once you recognize +that, using and having the nonfree program means putting yourself in +a potential moral dilemma, you say no to it. And that way you avoid +the moral dilemma. You stay in a position where you can live in a +upright life and you are not going to find yourself forced to do +something wrong. +

+ +

Once I was in the audience when John Perry Barlow was giving his +speech, and he asked raise your hand if you don't have any +unauthorized copies of software and only one person in the audience +raised his hand, it was me. And he saw that and he said, “Oh, of +course you.” He knew that all my copies were legal authorized +copies because the programs were all free software. There are people +who made copies from me were all authorized to copy the program and +give me a copy. And all my copies were authorized. +

+ +

The information police, who are trying to put people in prison for +having unauthorized copies, are doing something wrong. What they are +doing is something illegitimate, what ah… what is it +called… NASCOM, what they are doing is wrong, but at the same +time I don't want to have to be sneaking when I give you copies of the +software, so I would rather use the free software and then I can stand +up even with the police watching. And I can give you a copy and I +don't have to be scared we don't have to live in fear, by choosing +free software. So these are the reasons that the four freedoms that +define free software. Freedom zero is the freedom to run the program +as you seek it. Freedom one is the freedom to help yourself by +studying the source code and changing it to do what you want. Freedom +two is to distribute copies to others, and freedom three is the +freedom to build your community by publishing an improved version, so +as to help the other users of software. +

+ +

Now, none of these is a question of price. Free software does not mean +you can get it at zero price. In fact it is perfectly legitimate for +people to sell copies. That's an example of freedom two, freedom two is +the freedom to make copies and distribute it to others. That includes +selling them if you wish. You are free to make copies and sell +them. It is true that typically people won't pay a large amount of +money for their copies, because they know that can find someone else +can give him a copy, so most people won't pay very much for a +copy. They might pay a certain amount you know if the price is small +enough, if it is easier them for them to pay it, than to go hunt +around and go to the trouble of getting a copy gratis. There are +people sell copies, and they make some money with it. +But people +generally can't do is hold the users to ransom, squeezing a lots of +painful money out of them, because at that point the users will +redistribute copies to each other, they will make the effort. So free +software can't be used to squeeze money out of people in a way that +hurts society. But it doesn't mean that no money ever changes hands it +does not mean gratis. Sometimes people in India refer it to as Mukth +software or Swatantra software, to emphasis that we are not talking +about gratis. But it is true that the savings that users can have +because they are not forced to pay for permission, can be important +for encouraging computer use, in a country with lots of poor people, +because authorized copies of the software can cost more than the +computer. +

+ +

Now the computer can cost this much and the authorized +copies of software can cost this much. Well, there are lots of people +in India who might be able to afford the computer, but couldn't +possibly afford the software, because they can just barely afford a +computer. So free software can make a big difference in terms of who +in India can get a computer and run it. We don't see this yet, because +a lot of people in India are using unauthorized copies. I don't think +it is wrong to use unauthorized copies, but we can see the developers +of nonfree software are trying to make this impossible. They have two +different ways, one is the terror campaign you know threatening to +rape people in prison, and the other one is technical changes that can +prevent the unauthorized copies from running, making people register +in order for the software to run, you can see this in Windows XP, and +there are more such measures coming. +So what we can expect is, that it +would be harder and harder in India to get by using unauthorized +copies. And that means computer use in India and computer users in +India are heading for a train wreck. They are on a course that leads +to disaster and the thing that India needs to build is, start making +effort to get on to the other track, to get on to the free software +track, the track that escapes from this problem. So every social +institutions in India, every government agency, every school, every +organization, should be working as quickly as feasible, to switch +people from the nonfree track to the free track. +

+ +

But this is not what they are doing. And you can see easily if you +look around easily, government organization in India are mostly using +nonfree software. And schools in India are using nonfree +software. This is a terrible mistake, it is a foolish and disastrous +policy, governments of course deserves to use free software. Every +computer user deserves to have the four freedoms, and that includes +government agencies that use software. But when it is a government +agency it has a responsibility, a duty to choose free +software. Because government agency does data processing for the +public, and they have a responsibility to maintain control over their +computers, to make sure that the data processing that they are doing +is right. They do not, they cannot legitimately allow the processing +of data to fall into private hands, so our private parties to have +control over what their computers are doing. +

+ +

I see a lot of people moving around, what's happening… +what's happening… I can't hear you, the sound is turned off +apparently… +

+ +

[MOC] Sir, we are collecting questions. +

+ +

[RMS] Any way I hope it is over now. I will continue. So +government agencies have a duty to make sure that they continue to +control, what's going on in their own computers. +

+ +

So I see, you are collecting the questions already. But I am not +even finished yet! Anyway… I am probably about a half +finished. OK, now I understand. So okay, I will continue. +

+ +

Because remember, if you are using a nonfree program, you don't +really know what it does and you have no control over what it really +does. You can't tell if there is a back door. There are people who +suspect that Microsoft has put a back door into Windows or other +software. We don't know, because we can't see the source code, there +is no way to find out, if there is a back door. And it is possible +also, that some of Microsoft employees put in a back door without +being asked to. I heard some of the people working on Windows XP, were +arrested, accused of working a terrorist organization and accused of +trying to put in a back door. Now, this means, if you are using +nonfree software, you have be scared that the company, that is the +developer put in a back door, and you also have to be scared that some +developers secretly put in a back door, that even the company doesn't +know about. The point is, that because you can't get the source code, +study it and change it, you are helpless either way. +

+ +

And Microsoft did something really stupid. Well, really +absurd. Supposedly, they offered various governments access to the +source code. But they did it in a way that is fraudulent. For +instance, they offered the Indian government access to the source code +of Windows. But, that doesn't mean that they offered a copy of the +source code to Indian government. Oh No! They offered access to a +special server site, where a few chosen people from the government +will be able to login and then single step through programs. And +supposedly, see what's going on in the source code. But there would be +no way they could guarantee that the source code they are looking at +in the server, is the same thing that is running on their own +machines. So the whole this is a fraud. A joke. Except, the joke would +be on the Indian government, if it said yes to this project. +

+ +

And, meanwhile, even if one organization got access to the source +code, if your organization doesn't have access to the source code, +that doesn't help you. +

+ +

Every school in India should be using free software. So as, to teach +the children of India to grow up to be free software users. You see, +teaching these children to become users of nonfree software is +guiding them on to the track that leads to the train wreck. So schools +have to be teaching these children to grow up to be free software +users. +

+ +

It should be no surprise, that Microsoft is offering gratis copies of +Windows to schools in India. They are doing this for the same reason +that tobacco companies used to offer gratis packs of cigarettes to +children. They are trying to get children hooked. They are not doing +this, to be helpful to anybody. They are doing this so as to have more +of their grip around these children. So, they are asking the schools +to become accessories, in maintaining their grip. And this should not +be surprising. If you compare Microsoft with other forms of +colonialism, you will see a lot of similarities. Because you see, +nonfree software is a system of colonialism. The developers… +Instead of one country colonizing another, it is various companies +trying to colonize the whole world. And they do this, using divide +conquer tactics. Keeping the user divided and helpless. +And if you +think about it, that is what a nonfree program does, it keeps the +users divided and helpless. Divided, because you are forbidden to +distribute copies to other people, forbidden to help your +neighbor. And helpless, because you can't get the source code and +change it. So, with this divide and conquer policy, you also see the +policy of using the local [45:20] ???? to keep everyone else +inline. So Microsoft offers special deals, to whoever seems to have +special influence, to get them to use Windows, and thus keep everyone +else inline. Governments are being used in this way. And schools are +being used in this way. The schools of India should reject nonfree +software, and thus refuse to be used to keep the population of India +inline and under the domination of the developers of nonfree +software. +

+ +

But there are two even deeper reasons, why schools in India should +insist on free software. One reason is for the sake of education. As +people reach their teenage years, some of them are going to be +fascinated by computers. They are going want to learn everything about +what is going on inside that computer. They are going to want to learn +how does this program work. If they are using nonfree software, the +teacher has to tell them, “Sorry, you can't learn that, I can't +learn that. It's a secret. Nobody is allowed to learn that.” +Non-free software prohibits education. But with free software, the +teacher can say, “Go ahead. Here's the source code for this +program. Read it. You can learn. And then, now that you have read the +source code, try making a change, try making a small change in this +program. And then try making another. Try changing that program. Try +changing that program.” And this way the students who are +fascinated by computers will learn to write good software. +

+ +

As far as I can tell, some people are born with the skill program, +are born with their brains growing so that they will have the skill to +program. They will be natural programmers. But writing clear +understandable software is something you have to learn. That's +judgment. The way you learn is by reading lots of source and by +changing lots of programs. That way you learn what makes a program +easy to understand and easy to change. Every time you try to read a +program and it is hard to figure out a certain part, you learn this is +not the way to write clear code. Non-free software doesn't help you do +this. Non-free software just keeps you in the dark. But if the schools +of India switched to free software, then they can offer the students +the opportunity to learn to be good programmers. To learn the same way +I learnt. +In the 1970s, I had a special opportunity. I worked at the +AI lab at MIT. And there, we had our own time sharing +system, which was free software. We would share with anybody. In fact, +we were delighted anytime when somebody was interested in any part of +it. We were delighted anytime somebody wanted to join us in using it +and then help develop it. And so I had the opportunity to read all +these different programs that were part of the system, and make +changes in them. And by doing this over and over again, for years, I +learnt to be a good programmer. I had to go to one particular place on +earth, to have this opportunity, which was very unusual, very +rare. Today any PC running the GNU plus Linux operating system, will +offer you this opportunity. Every school in India that has a computer +can offer its students the same opportunity, that I could only get at +MIT. +

+ +

So schools should use free software for the sake of education, but +there is an even deeper reason, because schools are not supposed to +teach just facts, just skills, but even more deep, they are supposed +to teach the spirit of goodwill, the habit of cooperating with other +people. So schools shall have a rule: If you bring software to class, +you are not allowed to keep it for yourself, you must let the other +kids copy it. A rule of good citizenship. Of course, the school has to +practice its on own. So, the school also should only bring free +software to class. The software running on computers in class should +all be free software and this way the schools can teach good +citizenship. +

+ +

Three weeks ago… No it was two weeks ago, when i met with +Dr. Kalam and explained to him about why schools should use free +software and about how nonfree software is colonial system, I was +really delighted, because he understood it instantly. He recognized +the analogy, how the colonial powers tried to recruit the [FIXME: +51:40 weaks] ??? to become their assistants for keeping the rest of +the population inline. And then, the most delightful part was that +some people from Microsoft were waiting to see him next. I am sure +when he spoke with them… that this comparison will go through +his mind, as they try to convince him to do something or other, as +they offered some kind of inducement to help keep India inline. +What +happened in that meeting, of course I don't know; because I wasn't +there in his subsequent meeting with Microsoft. But I'm sure with this +analogy running through his minds, he would have had some effect and I +hope it will have some effect on you. When you, as part of the Indian +[FIXME: 52:30] ??? are invited to help keep India inline. That you +recognize that it's your duty to say no. When somebody invites you to +join in a free software movement, where we weave our own code +together, that you'll recognize that this is the way to put an end to +colonialism. +

+ +

Well, when somebody says, “What?! we have an office in India; +we were spending a million dollars a year paying a few people in +India. Doesn't this make it okay for us the colonizer of the rest of +India.” Well, you will recognize how stupid is this. The British +employed people in India too, but that didn't make colonialism a good +thing; didn't make it legitimate; didn't make it ethical. Because +every computer user deserves freedom. +

+ +

So I've been explaining why software should be free. So what do we do +about it? I was thinking about these issues in 1983 and I reached the +conclusion that software should be free; that the only way to live in +freedom is to insist on free software. But what can i do about it? If +you want to get a computer and run it, the first thing you need is an +operating system and in 1983 all the operating systems for modern +computers were nonfree, were proprietary. So what can I do? The only +way you can get a modern computer and run it was to sign a contract +promising to betray your neighbors. How could there be an alternative? +The only way to have an alternative, the only way to use a computer +and within freedom, was to write a free operating system. +So I decided +I would do that. I was an operating system developer, I've the skills +to undertake this project. So I decided I would write free operating +system, or die trying, presumably of old age. Because at that time, +the free software movement which was just beginning, had no +enemies. We just had a lot of work to do. So I decided that I would +develop a free operating system and I decided to make it a Unix like +operating system. So that it would be portable and so that Unix users +would be having easy times switching over to this operating system +that would give them freedom. +

+ +

I figured, by making it compatible with some existing popular +systems, we'll have more users and thus the community of freedom, the +free world would grow bigger. And I gave the system the name GNU, +which stands for GNU's Not Unix. It's a humorous way of giving credit +to the ideas of Unix. It's a recursive acronym and that was a +traditional programmers of having fun and giving credit at the same +time. At the same time the word GNU, is used for lots of word plays, +it's a word that has a lot of humor associated with it which makes it +the best possible name for anything. I should explain that the word +GNU is the name of an animal that was in Africa. We use the animal as +our symbol. So if you see a smiling animal with some horns that is +associated with our software, that's a gnu. +So 20 years and 1 month +ago, in January 1984, I quit my job at MIT and began +developing the GNU system. I didn't do it all myself, of course, I was +also trying to recruit other people to help and gradually over the +years more and more people joined in. During the 1980s, well we had +only a few parts of the GNU system; some of these parts were superior +and so people would take them and install them on their nonfree +systems. For instance, the GNU Emacs text editor and the GNU C +compiler. These were programs that people would learn even on top of +their nonfree Unix system. But our real goal was not just to have a +few popular programs, the goal was to make a complete system. So that +we should reject the nonfree systems; reject nonfree software, +escape from the bondage of nonfree software. So we kept filling in +these gaps in the system and by the early 90s we had just one +important gap remaining and that was the kernel. +

+ +

In 1991, a college student in Finland, wrote a free kernel and +released it under the name Linux. Actually in 1991, it was not +free. Initially it was released under a license which was little too +restrictive and did not qualify as free. But in 1992, he changed the +license and he made it free software. At that point it was possible to +take this kernel and fit it into the gap in the GNU system and make a +complete system. The system which is a combination of GNU and +Linux. This GNU plus Linux operating system now has tens of millions +of users. +

+ +

Unfortunately, most of them don't know that it's basically the GNU +system. They think the whole system is Linux. That's the result of a +confusion. The people who combined the Linux and the GNU system, they +didn't realize that they were using Linux to fill this gap. They +thought that they were starting with Linux, and adding all the other +components that were needed to make a complete system. Well, all the +other components were pretty much the GNU system. But they did not +recognize that. They thought they were starting with Linux and turning +it into a complete system. So, they started speaking of this entire +system as Linux. Even though it was actually more GNU. The result is +the confusion that you will see today. Many people when they talk +about the GNU system call it Linux. In fact, if you see someone +talking about Linux, then unless he is talking about an embedded +system, he almost certainly means the GNU system with Linux added. But +sometimes he is talking about embedded systems, and there maybe he really +means Linux. Because in embedded systems, sometimes people use Linux +by itself, without the rest of the operating system. You don't need a +whole operating system in an embedded computer. +

+ +

So there is a lot of confusion. People say Linux, and sometimes +they mean an entire operating system that you could run on a desktop +or a server, and sometimes they mean just this kernel, which is enough +for a embedded machine and that's all. So, if you want to avoid +confusing people, you need to distinguish them, use different names +for different things. When you are talking about the kernel, please +call it ‘Linux’. That was written by a person, who chose +the name Linux. And we ought to use the name he chose. When you are +talking of the operating system, that's mostly GNU. And when I started +developing it, I chose the name GNU. So please call this combination +GNU plus Linux. All I am asking for, is a equal mention, for the +principle developers of the system, the GNU project. We wrote the +largest part of the system, and we had the vision for doing this whole +job. Please give us equal mention. We need it. We need it, so that we +can spread the philosophy. Teach people the ethical reasons. The +social and political issues that are stake here. Why software should +be free. +

+ +

Now, it was suggested I should talk about, some issues having to do +with hardware. Sometimes, people ask whether hardware also should be +free. Well, the issue only partly is meaningful. Because you see, what +does it mean for software to be free. It means that, you are free to +use it if you wish, study what it does, and change it. And copy it, +and distribute copies, including modified copies. But you see, +ordinary users of hardware, can't copy the hardware. There are no +copiers. If I am ordinary user of software, I can copy it. Because +every computer is a copier for software. And I don't need any special +facilities to be able to study the plans and change them. I just need +to understand programming. Then I can read the source code, as long as +the developer will let me have a copy of the source code. +But hardware +isn't made by copying. You don't make computers, by putting them into +a universal copier. You know, if somebody gives you one CPU chip, you +can't copy that CPU chip to make another identical chip. Nobody can do +that. There are no copiers. Now what about modifying it. Nobody can +modify a chip. Once it's made, it's made. There are chips that are +customizable. But to actually go in and modify the hardware of the +chip, is impossible. For those chips that are customizable, suppose +it is a microcodable chip, or a programmable gate array, the +microcode, that's software, that's not hardware. The pattern of gates +circuitry that goes in a programmable gate array chip, that pattern is +software. That pattern can easily be changed and can easily be +copied, because it is software. +

+ +

So that will help you understand, how these issues relate to various +situations. The pattern that you load into something, that's +software. And the physical object, that's the hardware. The physical +object that can't just be copied, but has to be made in a factory. +

+ +

But sometimes, there is a different issue that does make sense for +hardware. And that is the design spec, visible. You know, can the +public get copies of design, to find out what the hardware does. Well, +this is necessary in certain cases, so that you can check for +malicious features. This is a fairly new issue. In the past, you know, +if you go to disk controller, you know, it's a card, you are going to +put it in your computer, you didn't have to worry very much. Is there +a danger that there will be malicious feature on this disk +controller. Because there wasn't really much danger. There wasn't much +scope for putting in malicious feature into people's disk +controllers. Because, how would they send a command to your disk +controller. It just wasn't really feasible, to do those things. But, +as these controllers get to be more… as the hardware gets more +and more powerful hardware can be put in a smaller place, it becomes +feasible, that somebody could put back doors, into your disk +controller, into your CPU, into your network card. Now, how do you +know that your network card isn't setup to receive some secret +message, which is going to tell it to start spying on you somehow. +

+ +

So these issues start mattering, once the hardware becomes powerful +enough, we need to insist that we can control what's really inside +it. But you noticed, that the lot of stuff inside this so called +hardware, is really software. A lot of device controllers nowadays, +have computers in them. And there is software to get downloaded into +this computer, and that software should be free. That's the only way +we can trust it. That's the only way we can tell that it doesn't have +some secret back door feature, to spy on us. It has got to be free +software. +

+ +

So, the general rule is, if people ask me the question, “Does +this apply to computers that are embedded?” I thought about this +and I reached the conclusion, that if new software can be loaded into +this computer, then it's visibly a computer, it really is a computer, +for you the user. And that means you must have the freedom to control +the software. But more recently, another issue is arising, that if the +device can talk to the network, whether that's the Internet, or the +cell phone network, or whatever. If it can talk to other people, then +you don't know whether it is spying on you. So, it has to be free +software. Consider for instance, portable phones. You shouldn't use a +portable, unless the software is free. There really have been +dangerous malicious features, in portable phones. +There are portable +phones in Europe which have this feature, that somebody can remotely +tell the phone to listen to you. It really is a spy device, in the +most classical sense. And if you have a portable phone, do you know +who could be spying on you at any time? You don't unless you +are… unless the software in your portable phone is a free +software. So, we must insist on free software for this portable +phones. That's just one of the reasons I won't use a portable +phone. Because the portable phone network is a surveillance device. It +can keep records of where you go. It can keep a permanent record of +where you have been at all the time. And I think this is so dangerous +such as threat to our freedom, that we must refuse to have these +phones. They're dangerous, they're poison. +

+ +

Any way for more information I would like to refer you the gnu +projects web site, which is www.gnu.org and also to the web site of +the free software foundation of India, which is FSFIndia no +sorry… I … no it's… It's gnu.org.in that's +gnu.org.in. If you would like to help free software in India, please +get in touch with FSF-India so that you can combine your efforts with +other people and together you can fight for freedom. +

+ +

From now I'll accept questions. +

+ +

Oh boy, am I sleepy! +

+ +

[MOC] Sir, we will be reading out the questions one by one +collected from the audience, and… then you can answer the +questions. +

+ +

[RMS] Okay, if one person asks multiple questions, please +give them to me one at a time. +

+ +

[MOC] Yes, sir. +

+ +

The first question comes from H. Sundar Raman. His question is, +“What is the difference between Open Source Software and Free +Software?” +

+

[RMS yawns] +

+ +

[RMS] I should first explain that Free Software and Open +Source each has two related meanings. +

+ +

I am looking at a mirror image of myself. So it's hard to me to see +where to put my hands. +

+ +

Each one refers to a categorical software and each one refers to a +philosophical movement. So there is the free software… the free +software is a category of licenses. And there is the free software +movement and it's philosophy. Likewise open source is a category of +licenses and a philosophy. For we can compare the free software +movement and the open source movement… sorry, we can compare +free software as a category of software with open source as a category +of software. And we can compare the free software movement philosophy +with the open source philosophy. And what you find is as categories of +software they are very close together. Open source is a category of +licenses just as free software is a category of licenses. And these +two categories are defined with very different language. But so far +practically speaking they are pretty similar. There are some licenses +that qualify as open source but do not qualify as free software. How +ever they are not used very much. So, if you know that of certain +program is open source and that's all you know, you can't be sure it's +free software but it probably is free software. +

+ +

Meanwhile, there are also the two movements and their philosophies. +And these are very far apart. In the free software movement we have a +philosophy based on freedom and ethics. We say that you must insist on +free software so that you can live an up-right life and have freedom +to help other people. The open source movement was formed specifically +to avoid saying that, to reject our ethical principles. The open +source movement doesn't say you should insist on open source +software. They say that it may be convenient or advantageous. They +sight practical values only. They say that they have a superior +design… sorry a superior development model — superior in +its shallow technical sense, that it usually produces technically +better software. +But that's the most they will say. They won't say +that this is an ethical imperative, they won't say that software +should be open source, they won't say that closed source software is +an attempt to colonize you and you should escape. They won't say +anything like that and in-fact the reason for their movement is +specifically not to say that; to cover that up. And so when it comes +to the philosophical foundation what they say and what we say are as +different as night and day. And that's why I am always very unhappy +when anybody associates me or my work with open source. +

+ +

The people who developed, who are motivated by the open source +movement, they are usually contributing to our community because +usually their software is free. And that can be a good +contribution. But I disagree with their philosophy completely. I think +it is shallow. And I am very unhappy when people label me by their +slogan and give people the impression I agree with that philosophy. +

+ +

So next question please. +

+ +

[MOC] The next question comes from Advait Thumbde. His +question is freedom to copy may not generate enough money; which is +essential to fund resources for technological development. Where as +many rival firms… +

+ +

[RMS interrupts] No. That's false. That's false. Money is +not essential for technological development, not in the software +field. May be in an other field it is because other fields are much +more difficult. It cause a lot of money to setup a factory to build +hardware. Well, that requires an investment. But we have proved, in +the free software movement we have proved that we can develop a wide +range of software with out any investment. We proved this by doing +it. There are about a million people contributing to the free software +and most of them are volunteers. Large programs has been developed by +volunteers, which proves that its not necessary to raise a lot of +money. It's not necessary to have any money. +Now I suppose that these +volunteers are not starving, they are not living on the streets. They +must have jobs. I don't know what their jobs are, but remember that if +you look at all computer related employment, only a small fraction of +that is programming. And most of that is custom software design, only +a small fraction of that is developing software for publication. To be +made available to the public. So there are lots of jobs these people +might have to support themselves. So that they can spend some of their +free time developing our free software. And this is not a problem as +long as we develop lots of free software. And we do. The fact is we +know this is not a problem. +

+ +

So, the people who say that free software won't work because we can't +raise enough money, that's like people saying air planes won't work +because of we don't have anti-gravity. Well, air planes do work which +proves we don't need anti-gravity. I should also point out there are +also people who are getting payed to develop free software. The money +comes from in-various ways. Sometimes these people are extending +existing free programs to meet the demands of clients. Sometimes, they +are getting funding from universities or governments. +

+ +

Governments fund the large fraction of all the software developments +in the world and except in the rare cases where the software has to be +kept secret. It could just as well be free software. So we should be +spreading the word in academia. When you have a project to develop +some software, it must be free software. It's an ethical requirement +to make it free software. +

+ +

Finally, I should say that you might want to get money to do +something; you might want to make money out of an activity. And this +is not wrong, not in itself. But if the activity itself is wrong then +you can't justify it by saying I'm going to get money. You know, the +[FIXME 81:00] get money; but that's no excuse for robing +people. Non-free software is ethically poison. It's a scheme to keep +people divided and helpless. It's a form of colonization. And that's +wrong. So when a person says to me “I'm going to make my program +proprietary so that I can get money, so that I can work full time +developing the program” I say to him “That's like saying +you're going to rob people so that you can get money, so that you can +spend full time robing people.” It's all wrong. And you +shouldn't do it. +

+ +

I believe that people who contribute to society made it… +Well… People contribute to society it's a good idea if we +reward them for it. And when people are doing things that harm +society, it's a good idea if we find ways to punish them for it. That +will encourage people to do things that contribute to society and not +to do things that hurt society. And therefore people who develop free +software should be rewarded and people who develop nonfree software +should be punished. Because, free software is a contribution to +society but nonfree software is a scheme to colonize society and that +deserves punishment not reward. +Another way to look at it is to +realize that to use a nonfree program is either to be foolish or +unethical or both. Which means that, for me, these nonfree program +…is… might as well be nothing because I am not going to +use it. Ethical people, people who insists on living an up-right life +are going to reject it any way. So his program is only avail… +only going to be of used to suckers. Who don't have well trained +consciousness. And what good is that? So the person says to me +“I can only develop this program if I make it proprietary; +that's the only way I can bring in enough money so that I can spend +the time developing this program.” I'm not going to tell him +that can't be true because I don't know his circumstances. +If he says +that there is no way he can develop this program unless he has paid +full time and if he says that he doesn't know any way to get payed +full time except to make the program proprietary; I'm not going to +tell him this is false because he knows his situation. What I will +tell him is, “Please don't develop the program.” +Developing the program in that way would be evil or would be +harmful. So it's better if you don't do it at all. Do something +else. Because a few years from now sooner or later some one else will +be in a different situation. Some one will be able to write this +program with out subjugating the users. And we could afford to wait a +few years so that we keep our freedom. Freedom is worth a small +sacrifice. We can wait a few years. +

+ +

So next question. +

+ +

[MOC] His next question is “All intellectual work like +books are proprietary”. Is it not justified in case of software? +

+ +

[RMS] Well, he is mistaken. There are plenty of free books +as well. In fact more and more the movement is catching on to makes +books free, free as in freedom I mean. Now, we started doing this in +the 1980's. The manuals for GNU software that are developed by the GNU +project are all free in the sense that you are free to copy them. They +are not gratis at-least not always. We print copies and we sell them +and we sell them for more than the production cost because we're +trying to raise money. So, you know, of course this was to produce +re-charge this much because we're trying to raise substantial money +with these books. But you are free to copy and change them. And you +could even get the source code through the Internet, the source code +for the books. +And now we are not the only ones. There is now a +movement for free text books. In-fact there are projects in India and +elsewhere to develop free educational materials to make available to +schools. A complete curriculum of free educational materials. Because +educational materials should be free. And so I suggest that you look +at the site gnowledge.org. That's +like knowledge but spells with a ‘g’ instead of a +‘k’. And you will see one of these initiatives being +carried out by Prof. Nagarjuna in Mumbai. +

+ +

Also, I should mention the free encyclopedia — +Wikipedia. It's the largest encyclopedia in history. I believe, it now +has more than a hundred and sixty thousand entries. Which is far more +than any other encyclopedia has ever had. Like around twice. And this +has been done in just a few years; by the public. +

+ +

So, if we were to believe these threats, ???? people say the only way +to develop these things, the only way to write and update an +encyclopedia is proprietary, they are making a threat. They're saying +if you don't agree to give up your freedom, you won't get the +encyclopedia, you won't get the software. They're asking us to feel +helpless and feel desperate. And that's really foolish. +

+ +

[RMS yawns] +

+ +

Next question. +

+ +

[MOC] The next question is from Ganapathy. He says “I +believe the greatest challenge to free software lies in getting +quality software which means quality software developers. But enough +drive has to be there for them to spend time and brain. So what do you +suggest for getting enthusiastic developers.” +

+ +

[RMS interrupts] That's not true. +

+ +

Well, you know I keep getting questions from people who believe things +that are demonstrably false. People who are making guesses about our +community and they're guessing wrong. +

+ +

The fact is free software has a reputation for high quality. The +GNU plus Linux operating system initially began catching on back in +the 90's because of its high quality. People discovered that it would +stay up for months. That they would find… the only time the +system went down is when the power failed. And this contrasts with +nonfree software that's often quite unreliable. So you see this +often, you will see people foolishly making the assumptions that free +software can't work. They don't know any thing but they're making it +all up. Now, why is this? I guess because nonfree software is so +common, they make the assumption it must work well. +

+ +

Do you think that people use Windows because it is good? What a +ridiculous idea. People use Windows because other people use Windows +and that's the only reason. Well, no that's not the only +reason… they use Windows because it comes on their +computers. These are the two reasons. The only reason that… let +any one… one thing in the usual thing why does some alternative +survive; only because it's better. Free software has to be twice as +good. In order to get practically minded people to choose it. Of +course you can hear my scorn in the term practically minded. These are +people who don't value their freedom. +They're fools. A fool and this +freedom are soon parted. But there are plenty of fools; especially in +a lot of organizations are people who believe that they are not +supposed to pay attention to ethics or freedom. They are only supposed +to pay attention to short-term practicalities. Which is a recipe for +making bad decisions. For hurting society. But that's the way they +are. So why is it that even those people some times choose free +software? Because it has practical advantages. For instances it's +powerful and it's reliable. +

+ +

Next question +

+ +

[MOC] The next question is from Subramani. Distributing the +software as a free copy is user friendly but is it business +friendly. Don't you think it will disturb the economic balance in the +software. +

+ +

[RMS] This is utterly foolish. First of all, remember that I +explain that free software is a matter of freedom not price. Free +software does not mean that it is gratis. But sometimes it's +gratis. On the other hand some time you can get nonfree software +gratis. That doesn't make it ethically legitimate, because it's still +tramples your freedom. It still keeps you divided and helpless, even +if you didn't have to pay. Schools in India can get Windows +gratis. But it's still harmful. So the issue is not about price. The +issue is about whether the software respects your freedom. And +this… this… idea there is some kind of balance. I don't +know what in the world he is talking about? But remember if a business +is making money by subjugating people, that's bad, that's some thing +we should bring to an end. +There are many businesses that operate by +mistreating people. And those businesses are bad. They don't have a +right to continue. They deserved to be brought to an end. I won't say +that nonfree software is the biggest such problem. Because, you know +child labor is very common but I don't think that's mostly free +software development. I think it's mostly other things. There are many +ways that a business can be… can operate that is harmful to +society. And we have to put in an end to that. +

+ +

Or in looking at Coca Cola, poisoning people, while draining away the +water supply from the people. And not only that; they murder union +organizers in Colombia. So, there is a world wide boycott of Coca Cola +company. Coca Cola company is, by the way, being sued in the U.S. for +arranging with paramilitary [FIXME: subs..94:07] to murder union +organizers in Colombia. So join the boycott. Don't buy Coke. +

+ +

So I hope… I said this basically to illustrate that there +are many ways a business can conduct itself unethically. And +businesses that conduct itself unethically don't have a right to +continue. They're not legitimate and they shouldn't be treated as +legitimate. Non-free software development is an example because what +ever the program itself does, the license subjugate the users. And +that's wrong. +

+ +

Next question. +

+ +

[MOC] Windows is supporting regional languages and it's +helping the people of India but GNU doesn't have this feature. What is +your suggestion in this regard? +

+ +

[RMS] He is mistaken. You know, I have never given a speech +where so many questions that make false statements, criticizing the +free software movement in a ways that are not true. Why is it… +you know I can understand not knowing. Every one of us is born +completely ignorant. And every one of us, in any particular subject +starts out knowing nothing. But why are peoples here are so ready to +make assumptions when they don't know. Why do not admit you don't +know? Why these people believes things which are false. Which clearly +they don't have good evidence for. +

+ +

Actually, Windows… doesn't it support all the Indian +languages? And are the other hand free software does. And it is not +just Windows by the way, there are many other nonfree software +packages and nonfree means you can't change it. With free software +you can change it. So if you want a program to support your favorite +language and it's nonfree, you have to beg and plead with that +developer to cater to you. But if the program is free software, you +don't have to beg anybody. You can just do it. And this is what +happening. People in India are adapting GNU/Linux to various different +Indian languages. And if they haven't yet done your favorite language, +you can start the project. You are not helpless. Launch the project to +support your favorite language. You know, even tribal people can +localize the system to their language. You don't have to have the one +of the major recognized languages. In order to get support in free +software, you just have to be willing to do the work. +

+ +

Next question please. +

+

[MOC] Sir, we would like to know how long can we continue this +question and answer session? +

+

[RMS] Well, certainly I'll do another fifteen minutes. +

+

[MOC] Yes sir. +

+

[RMS] Oh, Please don't call me sir. I believe in +equality. And it's really a sort of bad for me if you call me sir. It +might make me get in over inflated estimate of how important I am. And +that will be bad for me, as well as bad for you. +

+

The important thing here is freedom. I am just its representative. +

+

[MOC] The next question is from Vijay Anand. The question +is, “There are lots of incompatible GNU/Linux distributions. Is +this a drawback to the free software movement?” +

+

Well, we shouldn't over estimate the extent to which they're +incompatible. At the source level they are almost all… they are +mostly compatible, unless you are doing very obscure things. You don't +need to worry about the variations when you are writing source +code. They will have different binary and different packaging but +that's not a very big difficulty. So, I say, no It's not a major +drawback. Of course you know, having different versions of the system +can be good if users… different users want them. Now let's +contrast this with the kind of incompatibility that we have, that we +find in the nonfree world. You'll find that Microsoft makes gross +incompatibilities in each version of its systems. They makes… +they deliberately make formats incompatible with everything else and +protocols incompatible with everything else. They try many different +ways to prevent other people from inter operating with them. And each +version of a Microsoft package is likely to be incompatible with the +previous version. +

+ +

They impose incompatibility because they have power and they think +they can get away with it. Whereas in free software world we +developers don't have power. If I make a decision that you don't like, +you are not stuck with it. Because you have the source code, you can +change it, you can change any of my decisions. Whether I make this +decision… you know, if hypothetically I choose to impose +incompatibility on you, you could change it, you could take my program +and modify it to compatible with whatever. Where is… you know, +…even if I made a decision that you just don't like for some +other reason, you can still change it. You can change any of my +decisions regardless of why I made the decision, regardless of why you +don't like it; you can change it. So I don't have any power over you +when I develop free software. You, the users are in control of your +software. So it will you generally do what you want more or less. But +the developers of nonfree software, they do have power over you. And +so you are stuck with their decisions. +

+ +

Next question please. +

+ +

[MOC] The next question is from Rakesh. “Since the +source code of free software is available, it is possible for a +cracker to introduce malicious code into the program and distribute +binaries, so that it looks like the original. Is this a drawback to +the free software movement?” +

+ +

[RMS] Well, we have ways of protecting against this. For +instance you can get your copies from a reputable distributor and we +use digital signatures to sign our co… and we use … you +know, cryptographic [FIXME: catches 1:42:48] the checksums. So that +you can see the checksum that the developer publish and thus get an +assurance that the version you have is the correct version. +

+

[silence]

+ +

[MOC] The next question is from Krishnan. The question is, +“When do you expect the GNU HURD to be available to the public +for normal use?” +

+ +

[RMS] I have learned I should not try to predict that. A few +months ago, the HURD developers concluded that they really should +switch to a different micro kernel. And it's going to take a +substantial amount of work to do that. So I'm… I'm disappointed +by this delay. But it looks like that will mean some delay. +

+ +

Next question please.

+ +

[MOC] The next question is from Manu Meta… +Metallurgy. The question is, “Is developing free software on +nonfree operating systems wrong?”

+ +

[RMS] Well, it's not exactly wrong. But it's foolish to use +the nonfree operating system because you can't live in freedom as +long as you do that. And your software, although it be free, is not a +contribution to the free world when it doesn't… if it doesn't +run on a free operating system.

+ +

And in particular you should be careful about Sun's Java +platform. Never use Sun's Java platform to develop software. And at +least not develop free software because Sun's Java program is not +free. There are free Java platforms, but they don't have all the +capabilities of the Sun's Java platform. So the danger is if you are +using the Sun's Java platform you might use some features we don't +have yet. And you wouldn't even know it. You won't notice because you +won't notice a problem because it will work. It will work on Sun's +platform. So then several months later you'll try the program on our +platform and find that you did months work based on a feature we don't +have and you will say “Oh! it would be so much work to redo +that; that I can't do it.” +So then your program won't run on a +free platform at all. At least not until years go by and we have +implemented a replacement for that feature. So you should use our free +Java platform to develop that. Use the GNU Java platform… the +GNU Java compiler and use the GNU Classpath as the libraries. Don't +use Sun's Java Libraries, they are not free. So this way if you ever +start to use a standard Java feature that we don't have, you'll find +out immediately. And you'll be able to choose some other way of +solving the problem with out wasting a lot of time.

+ +

Next question please.

+ +

[MOC] What do you think is the greatest obstacle for free +software in India? How do we break them up?

+ +

[RMS I'd say the biggest obstacle for free software in India +right now is the tendency of government agencies and schools to use +nonfree software. It's vital to convince the schools to teach the +children in India to grow up living in freedom. When Windows… +Microsoft offers the schools gratis copies of Windows, the schools +have to say “We are not going to accept them; we are not going +to participate in teaching our kids to be addicts.”

+ +

Next question please.

+ +

[MOC] The next question is from Pankaj. The question is +“Does the availability of source code make them more vulnerable +to attacks?”

+ +

[RMS] Well, [FIXME 108:00] speaking the answer is just +opposite. Our software is much more secure. People have various +speculations about why that is the case. I don't know why, but that's +what people observe.

+ +

Next question.

+ +

[MOC] This is the last question of this conference.

+ +

[RMS] Okay.

+ +

[MOC] The question is, “There was a recent controversy +over the GFDL. What was the controversy?”

+ +

[RMS] Sorry, controversy over what?

+ +

[MOC] The GFDL; License.

+ +

[RMS] Oh, There are some people who don't like some of the +provisions of the GFDL. The GFDL arose non-technical sections, +sections that give your opinions about the… the field and so +on, which are in-variant. They can't be changed or removed. The GFDL +says that the actual subject matter of the work, it's designed for +manuals. And the GFDL says that the actual documentation has to be +free, but you could also have opinion sections which don't have any +documentation but they give your opinion about the ethics of the field +and so on. And those have to be preserved and can't be changed. There +are people who think that this is wrong. I think that they are being +too rigid in their understanding of the freedoms. People need the +freedom to change the technical substance of the work. And the GFDL +provides that freedom. But having the authors opinion in there +somewhere doesn't interfere with your user of the work to do with +technical job and doesn't interfere with your changing in the work to +do a different technical job.

+ +

So if that was the last question then I guess we're done.

+ +

[MOC] We thank you sir, for this inspiring and interesting +session.

+ +

[RMS interrupts] Please don't call me sir.

+ +

[MOC] We thank you Richard, for this inspiring and +interesting session. You have provided us with immense knowledge over +free software. And cleared many doubts pertaining to the movement. We +now fully understand the importance of using free software. We assure +this would have earned you many followers among the students community +of our college. We find ourself…

+ +

[RMS interrupts] Happy Hacking and Good Night.

+ +

[MOC] A very Good Night to you sir.

+ +

[applause]

+ +
+

Contributors (in alphabetical order): Krishnan, Saravana +Manickam, Vijay Kumar, Vimal Joseph.

+
+ + + + + + + -- cgit v1.2.3