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/rms-interview-edinburgh.html | 394 +++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 394 insertions(+) create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-interview-edinburgh.html (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-interview-edinburgh.html') diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-interview-edinburgh.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-interview-edinburgh.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..0657797 --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-interview-edinburgh.html @@ -0,0 +1,394 @@ + + +Interview with Richard Stallman, Edinburgh, 2004 +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + +

Interview with Richard Stallman, Edinburgh, 2004

+ +

Transcript of an interview with Richard Stallman that took place +at the School of Informatics, Edinburgh University, on 27th +May 2004; originally published +at +Indymedia.

+ +
+
+A person doesn't devote his whole life to developing a new form of +freedom without some pre-existing beliefs that drive him to do so. +What drives you to spend so much time on software freedoms? +
+ +
+First of all growing up in the US in the 1960s, I certainly was +exposed to ideas of freedom and then in the 1970s at MIT, I worked as +part of a community of programmers who cooperated and thought about +the ethical and social meaning of this cooperation. When that +community died in the early eighties, and by contrast with that, the +world of proprietary software, which most computer users at the time +were participating in, was morally sickening. And I decided that I +was going to try to create once again a community of cooperation. I +realized that, what I could get out of a life of participation in the +competition to subjugate each other, which is what nonfree software +is, all I could get out of that was money and I would have a life that +I would hate. +
+ +
+Do you think that the Free Software movement, or parts of it, could or +does benefit from collaboration with other social movements? +
+ +
+I don't see very much direct benefit to free software itself. On the +other hand we are starting to see some political parties take up the +cause of free software, because it fits in with ideas of freedom and +cooperation, that they generally support. So in that sense, we are +starting to see a contribution to the ideas of free software from +other movements. +
+ +
+Have you considered that the Free Software movement is vital to +oppositional movements in the world that are against corporate rule, +militarism, capitalism, etc.? +
+ +
+Well, we are not against capitalism at all. We are against +subjugating people who use computers, one particular business +practice. There are businesses, both large and small that distribute +free software, and contribute to free software, and they are welcome +to use it, welcome to sell copies and we thank them for contributing. +However, free software is a movement against domination, not +necessarily against corporate domination, but against any domination. +The users of software should not be dominated by the developers of the +software, whether those developers be corporations or individuals or +universities or what. +The users shouldn't be kept divided and +helpless. And that's what nonfree software does; It keeps the users +divided and helpless. Divided because you are forbidden to share +copies with anyone else and helpless because you don't get the source +code. So you can't even tell what the program does, let alone change +it. So there is definitely a relationship. We are working against +domination by software developers, many of those software developers +are corporations. And some large corporations exert a form of +domination through nonfree software. +
+ +
+And also that Free Software developers could provide a technical +infrastructure for these movements that would be impossible to develop +using proprietary software, which are too expensive and locked into an +ideological model that reflects the interests of the dominant +world-system like commoditization, exploitation, control and +surveillance instead of sharing, justice, freedom and democracy? +
+ +
+At the moment I would not go quite so far as to say that nonfree +software couldn't be usable by opposition movements, because many of +them are using it. It is not ethical to use nonfree software. +Because… At least it is not ethical to use authorized copies. +But it is not a good thing to use any copies. You see to use +authorized copies, you have to agree not to share with other people +and to agree to that is an unethical act in itself, which we should +reject. And that is the basic reason why I started the free software +movement. I wanted to make it easy to reject the unethical act of +agreeing to the license of a nonfree program. +If you are using an +unauthorized copy then you haven't agreed to that. You haven't +committed that unethical act. But you are still… you are +condemned to living underground. And, you are still unable to get the +source code, so you can't tell for certain what those programs do. +And they might in fact be carrying out surveillance. And I was told +that in Brazil, the use of unauthorized copies was in fact used as an +excuse to imprison the activists of the landless rural workers +movement, which has since switched to free software to escape from +this danger. And they indeed could not afford the authorized copies +of software. So, these things are not lined up directly on a straight +line, but there is an increasing parallel between them, an increasing +relationship. +
+ +
+The business corporation as a social form is very closed — it +answers to no one except its shareholders for example a small group of +people with money, and its internal bureaucratic organization is about +as democratic as a Soviet ministry. Does the increasing involvement +of corporations with Free Software strike you as something to be +concerned about? +
+ +
+Not directly. Because as long as a program is free software, that +means the users are not being dominated by its developers whether +these developers be it a large business, a small business, a few +individuals or whatever, as long as the software is free they are not +dominating people. However, most of the users of free software do not +view it in ethical and social terms, there is a very effective and +large movement called the Open Source movement, which is designed +specifically to distract the users attention from these ethical and +social issues while talking about our work. And they have been quite +successful, there are many people who use our free software, which we +developed for the sake of freedom and cooperation who have never heard +the reasons for which we did so. And, this makes our community weak. + +It is like a nation that has freedom but most of its people have never +been taught to value freedom. They are in a vulnerable position, +because if you say to them: “Give up your freedom and I give you +this valuable thing”, they might say “yes” because +they never learnt why they should say “no”. You put that +together with corporations that might want to take away people's +freedom, gradually and encroach on freedom and you have a +vulnerability. And what we see is that many of the corporate +developers and distributors of free software put it in a package +together with some nonfree user subjugating software and so they say +the user subjugating software is a bonus, that it enhances the system. +And if you haven't learnt to value freedom, you won't see any reason +to disbelieve them. +But this is not a new problem and it is not +limited to large corporations. All of the commercial distributors of +the GNU/Linux system going back something like 7 or 8 years, have made +a practice of including nonfree software in their distributions, and +this is something I have been trying to push against in various ways, +without much success. But, in fact, even the non commercial +distributors of the GNU+Linux operating system have been including and +distributing nonfree software, and the sad thing was, that of all the +many distributions, until recently there was none, that I could +recommend. Now I know of one, that I can recommend, its called +“Ututo-e”, it comes from Argentina. I hope that very soon +I will be able to recommend another. +
+ +
+Why are the more technically-oriented beliefs of the Open Source +movement not enough for you? +
+ +
+The Open Source Movement was founded specifically to discard the +ethical foundation of the free software movement. The Free Software +movement starts from an ethical judgment, that nonfree software is +anti-social, it is wrong treatment of other people. And I reached +this conclusion before I started developing the GNU system. I +developed the GNU system specifically to create an alternative to an +unethical way of using software. When someone says to you: +“you can have this nice package of software, but only if you +first sign a promise you will not share it with anyone else”, +you are being asked to betray the rest of humanity. And I reached the +conclusion in the early eighties, that this was evil, it is wrong +treatment of other people. But there was no other way of using a +modern computer. +All the operating systems required exactly such a +betrayal before you could get a copy. And that was in order to get an +executable binary copy. You could not have the source code at all. +The executable binary copy is just a series of numbers, which even a +programmer has trouble making any sense out of it. The source code +looks sort of like mathematics, and if you have learned how to program +you could read that. But that intelligible form you could not even +get after you signed the betrayal. All you would get is the +nonsensical numbers, which only the computer can understand. +So, I +decided to create an alternative, which meant, another operating +system, one that would not have these unethical requirements. One, +that you could get in the form of source code, so that, if you decided +to learn to program you could understand it. And you would get it +without betraying other people and you would be free to pass it on to +others. Free either to give away copies or sell copies. So I began +developing the GNU system, which in the early nineties was the bulk of +what people erroneously started to call Linux. And so it all exists +because of an ethical refusal to go along with an antisocial practice. +But this is controversial. + +

In the nineties as the GNU+Linux system became popular and got to +have some millions of users, many of them were techies with technical +blinders on, who did not want to look at things in terms of right and +wrong, but only in terms of effective or ineffective. So they began +telling many other people, here is an operating system that is very +reliable, and is powerful, and it's cool and exciting, and you can +get it cheap. And they did not mention, that this allowed you to +avoid an unethical betrayal of the rest of society. That it allowed +users to avoid being kept divided and helpless. +So, there were many +people who used free software, but had never even heard of these +ideas. And that included people in business, who were committed to an +amoral approach to their lives. So, when somebody proposed the term +“Open Source”, they seized on that, as a way that they +could bury these ethical ideas. Now, they have a right to promote +their views. But, I don't share their views, so I decline ever to do +anything under the rubric of “Open Source”, and I hope +that you will, too.

+
+ +
+Given that it helps users to understand the freedoms in free software +when the ambiguous use of the word free in English is clarified, what +do you think of use of name FLOSS as in Free/Libre Open Source +Software? +
+ +
+There are many people, who, for instance, want to study our community, +or write about our community, and want to avoid taking sides between +the Free Software movement and the Open Source movement. Often they +have heard primarily of the Open Source movement, and they think that +we all support it. So, I point out to them that, in fact, our +community was created by the Free Software movement. But then they +often say that they are not addressing that particular disagreement, +and that they would like to mention both movements without taking a +side. So I recommend the term Free/Libre Open Source Software as a +way they can mention both movements and give equal weight to both. +And they abbreviate FLOSS once they have said what it stands for. So +I think that's a… If you don't want to take a side between the +two movements, then yes, by all means, use that term. Cause what I +hope you will do is take the side of the free software movement. But +not everybody has to. The term is legitimate. +
+ +
+Are you happy with the development of the community which has grown +out of your vision of a free operating system? In what way did it +develop differently from the vision you had at the beginning? +
+ +
+Well, by and large, I am pretty happy with it. But of course there +are some things that I am not happy with, mainly the weakness that so +many people in the community do not think of it is an issue of +freedom, have not learned to value their freedom or even to recognize +it. That makes our future survival questionable. It makes us weak. +And so, when we face various threats, this weakness hampers our +response. Our community could be destroyed by software idea patents. +It could be destroyed by treacherous computing. It can be destroyed +simply by hardware manufacturers' refusal to tell us enough about how +to use the hardware, so that we can't write free software to run the +hardware. +There are many vulnerabilities, that we have over the +long-term. And, well the things we have to do to survive these threats +are different, in all cases, the more aware we are, the more motivated +we are, the easier it will be for us to do whatever it takes. So the +most fundamental long-term thing we have to recognize and then value +the freedom that free software gives so that the users fight for their +freedoms the same like people fight for freedom of speech, freedom of +the press, freedom of assembly, because those freedoms are also +greatly threatened in the world today. +
+ +
+So what in your opinion threatens the growth of free software at the +moment? +
+ +
+I have to point out that our goal is not precisely growth. Our goal +is to liberate cyber-space. Now that does mean liberating all the +users of computers. We hope eventually they all switch to free +software, but we shouldn't take mere success as our goal, that's +missing the ultimate point. But if I take this to mean “what is +holding back the spread of free software”. Well partly at this +point it is inertia, social inertia. Lots of people have learnt to +use windows. And they haven't yet learned to use GNU/Linux. It is no +longer very hard to learn GNU/Linux, 5 years ago it was hard, now it +is not. But still, it is more than zero. +And people who are, you +know,… if you never learned any computer system, than learning +GNU/Linux is as easy as anything, but if you already learned windows +it's easier. It's easier to keep doing what you know. So that's +inertia. And there are more people trained in running windows systems +than in running GNU/Linux systems. So, any time you are trying to +convince people to change over, you are working against inertia. In +addition we have a problem that hardware manufacturers don't cooperate +with us the way they cooperate with Microsoft. So we have that +inertia as well. +And then we have the danger in some countries of +software idea patents. I would like everybody reading this to talk to +all of — or anybody listening to this — to talk to all of +their candidates for the European Parliament and ask where do you +stand on software idea patents? Will you vote to reinstate the +parliament's amendments that were adopted last September and that +apparently are being removed by the Council of Ministers? Will you +vote to bring back those amendments in the second reading? This is a +very concrete question. With a yes or no answer. +You will often get +other kinds of — you may get evasive answers if you ask +“Do you support or oppose software idea patents?” The +people who wrote the directives claim that it does not authorize +software idea patents, they say that this is because the directive +says, that anything to be patented must have a technical character. +But, somebody in the European Commission involved in this, admitted +that, that terms means exactly what they want it to mean, +humpty-dumpty style, so, in fact, it is no limitation on anything. So +if a candidate says: I support the commissions draft because it won't +allow software idea patents you can point this out. And press the +question: “Will you vote for the parliaments previous +amendments?” +
+ +
Okay thanks very much.
+
+ + + + + + + -- cgit v1.2.3