From 22c3bfee9148e1836817ef00b4829a8385570c69 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Christian Grothoff Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2022 17:04:26 +0200 Subject: update RMS articles --- .../blog/articles/en/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html | 284 +++++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 148 insertions(+), 136 deletions(-) (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html') diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html index aaf0b6b..88cd692 100644 --- a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.html @@ -1,23 +1,33 @@ - + + + + Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + + + +

Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation

-

Transcript of -Richard M. Stallman's speech, -“Free Software: Freedom and Cooperation”, -given at New York University in New York, NY, -on 29 May 2001

+
by Richard Stallman
-
-

A plain +

+

Transcript of a speech that was given at New York University in +New York, NY, on 29 May 2001.

+ +

A plain text version of this transcript and a summary of the speech -are also available.

+are also available.

+

URETSKY: I'm Mike Uretsky. I'm over at the Stern School of Business. I'm also one of the Co-Directors of the Center @@ -93,12 +103,12 @@ relates to business, and some other areas of social life.

you cook. And if you cook, unless you're really great, you probably use recipes. And, if you use recipes, you've probably had the experience of getting a copy of a recipe from a friend who's sharing -it. And you've probably also had the experience — unless you're -a total neophyte — of changing a recipe. You know, it says +it. And you've probably also had the experience—unless you're +a total neophyte—of changing a recipe. You know, it says certain things, but you don't have to do exactly that. You can leave out some ingredients. Add some mushrooms, 'cause you like mushrooms. -Put in less salt because your doctor said you should cut down on salt -— whatever. You can even make bigger changes according to your +Put in less salt because your doctor said you should cut down on +salt—whatever. You can even make bigger changes according to your skill. And if you've made changes in a recipe, and you cook it for your friends, and they like it, one of your friends might say, “Hey, could I have the recipe?” And then, what do you do? @@ -109,7 +119,7 @@ functionally useful recipes of any kind.

Now a recipe is a lot like a computer program. A computer program's a lot like a recipe: a series of steps to be carried out to get some result that you want. So it's just as natural to do those -same things with computer programs — hand a copy to your friend. +same things with computer programs—hand a copy to your friend. Make changes in it because the job it was written to do isn't exactly what you want. It did a great job for somebody else, but your job is a different job. And after you've changed it, that's likely to be @@ -146,12 +156,12 @@ software, but there was no free software movement.

But then our community was destroyed by a series of calamities that happened to it. Ultimately it was wiped out. Ultimately, the PDP-10 computer which we used for all our work was discontinued. And you -know, our system — the Incompatible Timesharing System — -was written starting in the '60's, so it was written in assembler +know, our system—the Incompatible Timesharing System—was +written starting in the '60's, so it was written in assembler language. That's what you used to write an operating system in the '60's. So, of course, assembler language is for one particular computer architecture; if that gets discontinued, all your work turns -into dust — it's useless. And that's what happened to us. The +into dust—it's useless. And that's what happened to us. The 20 years or so of work of our community turned into dust.

But before this happened, I had an experience that prepared me, @@ -179,18 +189,18 @@ it.

that ran that printer was not free software. It had come with the printer, and it was just a binary. We couldn't have the source code; Xerox wouldn't let us have the source code. So, despite our skill as -programmers — after all, we had written our own timesharing -system — we were completely helpless to add this feature to the +programmers—after all, we had written our own timesharing +system—we were completely helpless to add this feature to the printer software.

And we just had to suffer with waiting. It would take an hour or two to get your printout because the machine would be jammed most of -the time. And only once in a while — you'd wait an hour +the time. And only once in a while—you'd wait an hour figuring “I know it's going to be jammed. I'll wait an hour and go collect my printout,” and then you'd see that it had been jammed the whole time, and in fact, nobody else had fixed it. So you'd fix it and you'd go wait another half hour. Then, you'd come -back, and you'd see it jammed again — before it got to your +back, and you'd see it jammed again—before it got to your output. It would print three minutes and be jammed thirty minutes. Frustration up the whazzoo. But the thing that made it worse was knowing that we could have fixed it, but somebody else, for his own @@ -201,37 +211,37 @@ software. So, of course, we felt some resentment.

copy of that software. So I was visiting there later, so I went to his office and I said, “Hi, I'm from MIT. Could I have a copy of the printer source code?” And he said “No, I promised not -to give you a copy.” [Laughter] I was stunned. I was so -— I was angry, and I had no idea how I could do justice to it. +to give you a copy.” [Laughter] I was stunned. I was +so… I was angry, and I had no idea how I could do justice to it. All I could think of was to turn around on my heel and walk out of his room. Maybe I slammed the door. [Laughter] And I thought about it later on, because I realized that I was seeing not just an isolated jerk, but a social phenomenon that was important and affected a lot of people.

-

This was — for me — I was lucky, I only got a taste of +

This was—for me—I was lucky, I only got a taste of it, but other people had to live in this all the time. So I thought about it at length. See, he had promised to refuse to cooperate with -us — his colleagues at MIT. He had betrayed us. But he didn't +us—his colleagues at MIT. He had betrayed us. But he didn't just do it to us. Chances are he did it to you too. [Pointing at member of audience.] And I think, mostly likely, he did it to you too. [Pointing at another member of audience.] [Laughter] And he probably did it to you as well. [Pointing to third member of audience.] He probably did it to most of the people here in this -room — except a few, maybe, who weren't born yet in 1980. +room—except a few, maybe, who weren't born yet in 1980. Because he had promised to refuse to cooperate with just about the entire population of the Planet Earth. He had signed a non-disclosure agreement.

Now, this was my first, direct encounter with a non-disclosure -agreement, and it taught me an important lesson — a lesson +agreement, and it taught me an important lesson—a lesson that's important because most programmers never learn it. You see, this was my first encounter with a non-disclosure agreement, and I was the victim. I, and my whole lab, were the victims. And the lesson it taught me was that non-disclosure agreements have victims. They're not innocent. They're not harmless. Most programmers first encounter a non-disclosure agreement when they're invited to sign one. And -there's always some temptation — some goody they're going to get +there's always some temptation—some goody they're going to get if they sign. So, they make up excuses. They say, “Well, he's never going to get a copy no matter what, so why shouldn't I join the conspiracy to deprive him?” They say, “This is the way @@ -246,7 +256,7 @@ problem. And I couldn't turn around and do the exact same thing to somebody else who had never done me any harm. You know, if somebody asked me to promise not to share some useful information with a hated enemy, I would have said yes. You know? If somebody's done something -bad, he deserves it. But, strangers — they haven't done me any +bad, he deserves it. But, strangers—they haven't done me any harm. How could they deserve that kind of mistreatment? You can't let yourself start treating just anybody and everybody badly. Then you become a predator on society. So I said, “Thank you very @@ -259,23 +269,23 @@ technical information such as software.

Now there are other kinds of information which raise different ethical issues. For instance, there's personal information. You know, if you wanted to talk with me about what was happening between -you and your boyfriend, and you asked me not to tell anybody — -you know, I could keep — I could agree to keep that a secret for +you and your boyfriend, and you asked me not to tell anybody—you +know, I could keep—I could agree to keep that a secret for you, because that's not generally useful technical information. At least, it's probably not generally useful. [Laughter]

-

There is a small chance — and it's a possibility though -— that you might reveal to me some marvelous new sex +

There is a small chance—and it's a possibility +though—that you might reveal to me some marvelous new sex technique, [Laughter] and I would then feel a moral duty [Laughter] to pass it onto the rest of humanity, so that everyone could get the benefit of it. So, I'd have to put a proviso in that promise, you know? If it's just details about who wants this, -and who's angry at whom, and things like that — soap opera -— that I can keep private for you, but something that humanity +and who's angry at whom, and things like that—soap opera—that +I can keep private for you, but something that humanity could tremendously benefit from knowing, I mustn't withhold. You see, the purpose of science and technology is to develop useful information for humanity to help people live their lives better. If we promise to -withhold that information — if we keep it secret — then we +withhold that information—if we keep it secret—then we are betraying the mission of our field. And this, I decided I shouldn't do.

@@ -293,8 +303,8 @@ To accept that things were different, and that I'd just have to give up those principles and start signing non-disclosure agreements for proprietary operating systems, and most likely writing proprietary software as well. But I realized that that way I could have fun -coding, and I could make money — especially if I did it other -than at MIT — but at the end, I'd have to look back at my career +coding, and I could make money—especially if I did it other +than at MIT—but at the end, I'd have to look back at my career and say, “I've spent my life building walls to divide people,” and I would have been ashamed of my life.

@@ -307,8 +317,8 @@ many programmers, they say to me, “The people who hire programmers demand this, this and this. If I don't do those things, I'll starve.” It's literally the word they use. Well, you know, as a waiter, you're not going to starve. [Laughter] So, -really, they're in no danger. But — and this is important, you -see — because sometimes you can justify doing something that +really, they're in no danger. But—and this is important, you +see—because sometimes you can justify doing something that hurts other people by saying otherwise something worse is going to happen to me. You know, if you were really going to starve, you'd be justified in writing proprietary software. [Laughter] @@ -330,11 +340,11 @@ operating system developer was exactly what was needed. The problem, the dilemma, existed for me and for everyone else because all of the available operating systems for modern computers were proprietary. The free operating systems were for old, obsolete computers, right? -So for the modern computers — if you wanted to get a modern +So for the modern computers—if you wanted to get a modern computer and use it, you were forced into a proprietary operating system. So if an operating system developer wrote another operating system, and then said, “Everybody come and share this; you're -welcome to this” — that would give everybody a way out of +welcome to this”—that would give everybody a way out of the dilemma, another alternative. So I realized that there was something I could do that would solve the problem. I had just the right skills to be able to do it. And it was the most useful thing I @@ -356,8 +366,8 @@ followed the design of Unix, I had a pretty good chance that I could make a system that would also be portable and workable. And furthermore, why [Tape unclear] be compatible with it in the details. The reason is, users hate incompatible changes. If I had -just designed the system in my favorite way — which I would have -loved doing, I'm sure — I would have produced something that was +just designed the system in my favorite way—which I would have +loved doing, I'm sure—I would have produced something that was incompatible. You know, the details would be different. So, if I wrote the system, then the users would have said to me, “Well, this is very nice, but it's incompatible. It will be too much work to @@ -388,7 +398,7 @@ similar to some existing program. You can give it a recursive acronym name which says: this one's not the other. So, for instance, there were many Tico text editors in the '60's and '70's, and they were generally called something-or-other Tico. Then one clever hacker -called his Tint, for Tint Is Not Tico — the first recursive +called his Tint, for Tint Is Not Tico—the first recursive acronym. In 1975, I developed the first Emacs text editor, and there were many imitations of Emacs, and a lot of them were called something-or-other Emacs, but one was called Fine, for Fine Is Not @@ -402,11 +412,11 @@ called Zwei, for Zwei Was Eine Initially. [Laughter]

I tried all 26 letters, and discovered that none of them was a word. [Laughter] Hmm, try another way. I made a contraction. That way I could have a three-letter acronym, for Something's not Unix. -And I tried letters, and I came across the word “GNU” -— the word “GNU” is the funniest word in the English +And I tried letters, and I came across the word “GNU”—the +word “GNU” is the funniest word in the English language. [Laughter] That was it. Of course, the reason it's funny is that according to the dictionary, it's pronounced -“new”. You see? And so that's why people use it for a +“new.” You see? And so that's why people use it for a lot of wordplay. Let me tell you, this is the name of an animal that lives in Africa. And the African pronunciation had a click sound in it. [Laughter] Maybe still does. And so, the European @@ -421,18 +431,18 @@ so that I'll know how to pronounce GNU the correct way, when it's the animal.

But, when it's the name of our system, the correct pronunciation is -“guh-NEW” — pronounce the hard “G”. If +“guh-NEW”—pronounce the hard “G.” If you talk about the “new” operating system, you'll get people very confused, because we've been working on it for 17 years now, so it is not new any more. [Laughter] But it still is, -and always will be, GNU — no matter how many people call it +and always will be, GNU—no matter how many people call it Linux by mistake. [Laughter]

So, in January 1984, I quit my job at MIT to start writing pieces of GNU. They were nice enough to let me keep using their facilities though. And, at the time, I thought we would write all these pieces, and make an entire GNU system, and then we'd say, “Come and get -it”, and people would start to use it. That's not what +it,” and people would start to use it. That's not what happened. The first pieces I wrote were just equally good replacements, with fewer bugs for some pieces of Unix, but they weren't tremendously exciting. Nobody particularly wanted to get them @@ -443,7 +453,7 @@ relief, because I had no intention of learning to use VI, the Unix editor. [Laughter] So, until that time, I did my editing on some other machine, and saved the files through the network, so that I could test them. But when GNU Emacs was running well enough for me to -use it, it was also — other people wanted to use it too.

+use it, it was also—other people wanted to use it too.

So I had to work out the details of distribution. Of course, I put a copy in the anonymous FTP directory, and that was fine for people @@ -473,16 +483,17 @@ people with the money will dictate what you do with your life. You won't be able to do what's really important to you.

So, that was fine, but people used to ask me, “What do you -mean it's free software if it costs $150?” [Laughter] Well, the reason they asked this was +mean it's free software if it costs $150?” [Laughter] +Well, the reason they asked this was that they were confused by the multiple meanings of the English word -“free”. One meaning refers to price, and another meaning +“free.” One meaning refers to price, and another meaning refers to freedom. When I speak of free software, I'm referring to freedom, not price. So think of free speech, not free beer. [Laughter] Now, I wouldn't have dedicated so many years of my life to making sure programmers got less money. That's not my goal. I'm a programmer and I don't mind getting money myself. I won't dedicate my whole life to getting it, but I don't mind getting -it. And I'm not — and therefore, ethics is the same for +it. And I'm not—and therefore, ethics is the same for everyone. I'm not against some other programmer getting money either. I don't want prices to be low. That's not the issue at all. The issue is freedom. Freedom for everyone who's using software, whether @@ -512,7 +523,7 @@ work.

If you have all of these freedoms, the program is free software, -for you — and that's crucial. That's why I phrase it that way. +for you—and that's crucial. That's why I phrase it that way. I'll explain why later, when I talk about the GNU General Public License, but right now I'm explaining what free software means, which is a more basic question.

@@ -521,7 +532,7 @@ is a more basic question.

run the program anyway you like, it is a pretty damn restrictive program. But as it happens, most programs will at least give you Freedom Zero. And Freedom Zero follows, legally, as a consequence of -Freedoms One, Two, and Three — that's the way that copyright law +Freedoms One, Two, and Three—that's the way that copyright law works. So the freedoms that distinguish free software from typical software are Freedoms One, Two, and Three, so I'll say more about them and why they are important.

@@ -574,14 +585,14 @@ sharing useful knowledge is a fundamental act of friendship. When these beings use computers, this act of friendship takes the form of sharing software. Friends share with each other. Friends help each other. This is the nature of friendship. And, in fact, this spirit -of goodwill — the spirit of helping your neighbor, voluntarily -— is society's most important resource. It makes the difference +of goodwill—the spirit of helping your neighbor, voluntarily—is +society's most important resource. It makes the difference between a livable society and a dog-eat-dog jungle. Its importance has been recognized by the world's major religions for thousands of years, and they explicitly try to encourage this attitude.

When I was going to kindergarten, the teachers were trying to teach -us this attitude — the spirit of sharing — by having us do +us this attitude—the spirit of sharing—by having us do it. They figured if we did it, we'd learn. So they said, “If you bring candy to school, you can't keep it all for yourself; you have to share some with the other kids.” Teaching us, the @@ -620,10 +631,10 @@ dead…

STALLMAN: Yes, that's true. [Laughter] So I guess, in that regard, L. Ron Hubbard is no worse than the -others. [Laughter] Anyway — [Inaudible]

+others. [Laughter] Anyway—[Inaudible]

-

QUESTION: L. Ron always used free software — -it freed him from Zanu. [Laughter]

+

QUESTION: L. Ron always used free software—it +freed him from Zanu. [Laughter]

STALLMAN: Anyway, so, I think this is actually the most important reason why software should be free: We can't afford to @@ -632,13 +643,13 @@ physical resource like clean air and clean water. It's a psycho-social resource, but it's just as real for all that, and it makes a tremendous difference to our lives. You see, the actions we take influence the thoughts of other people. When we go around -telling people, “Don't share with each other”, if they +telling people, “Don't share with each other,” if they listen to us, we've had an effect on society, and it's not a good one. That's Freedom Two, the freedom to help your neighbor.

Oh, and by the way, if you don't have that freedom, it doesn't just cause this harm to society's psycho-social resource, it also causes -waste — practical, material harm. If the program has an owner, +waste—practical, material harm. If the program has an owner, and the owner arranges a state of affairs where each user has to pay in order to be able to use it, some people are going to say, “Never mind, I'll do without it.” And that's waste, @@ -680,8 +691,8 @@ that hundreds of people are being paid to write free software, and over 100,000 are doing it as volunteers. We get lots of people working on free software, for various different motives.

-

When I first released GNU Emacs — the first piece of the GNU -system that people actually wanted to use — and when it started +

When I first released GNU Emacs—the first piece of the GNU +system that people actually wanted to use—and when it started having users, after a while, I got a message saying, “I think I saw a bug in the source code, and here's a fix.” And I got another message, “Here's code to add a new feature.” And @@ -702,8 +713,8 @@ powerful, and more reliable, than the proprietary alternatives.

In the early '90's, somebody found a way to do a scientific measurement of reliability of software. Here's what he did. He took -several sets of comparable programs that did the same jobs — the -exact same jobs — in different systems. Because there were +several sets of comparable programs that did the same jobs—the +exact same jobs—in different systems. Because there were certain basic Unix-like utilities. And the jobs that they did, we know, was all, more or less, imitating the same thing, or they were following the POSIX spec, so they were all the same in terms of what @@ -715,7 +726,7 @@ of programs was the GNU programs. All the commercial alternatives which were proprietary software were less reliable. So he published this and he told all the developers, and a few years later, he did the same experiment with the newest versions, and he got the same result. -The GNU versions were the most reliable. People — you know +The GNU versions were the most reliable. People—you know there are cancer clinics and 911 operations that use the GNU system, because it's so reliable, and reliability is very important to them.

@@ -729,8 +740,8 @@ of ethics, and what kind of a society we want to live in, what makes for a good society, as well as practical, material benefits. They're both important. That's the free software movement.

-

That other group of people — which is called the open source -movement — they only cite the practical benefits. They deny +

That other group of people—which is called the open source +movement—they only cite the practical benefits. They deny that this is an issue of principle. They deny that people are entitled to the freedom to share with their neighbor and to see what the program's doing and change it if they don't like it. They say, @@ -747,7 +758,7 @@ movement we say, “You're entitled to these freedoms. People shouldn't stop you from doing these things.” In the open source movement, they say, “Yes, they can stop you if you want, but we'll try to convince them to deign to let you to do these -things.” Well, they have contributed — they have convinced +things.” Well, they have contributed—they have convinced a certain number of businesses to release substantial pieces of software as free software in our community. So they, the open source movement, has contributed substantially to our community. And so we @@ -760,7 +771,7 @@ describe it as open source, and a lot of people just innocently think that we're all part of the open source movement. So that's why I'm mentioning this distinction. I want you to be aware that the free software movement, which brought our community into existence and -developed the free operating system, is still here — and that we +developed the free operating system, is still here—and that we still stand for this ethical philosophy. I want you to know about this, so that you won't mislead someone else unknowingly.

@@ -771,9 +782,9 @@ with the free software movements and my views. You might agree with the open source movement. You might disagree with them both. You decide where you stand on these political issues.

-

But if you agree with the free software movement — if you see +

But if you agree with the free software movement—if you see that there's an issue here that the people whose lives are controlled -and directed by this decision deserve a say in it — then I hope +and directed by this decision deserve a say in it—then I hope you'll say that you agree with the free software movement, and one way you can do that is by using the term free software and just helping people know we exist.

@@ -782,8 +793,8 @@ people know we exist.

psycho-socially. If you don't have this freedom, it causes practical material harm, because this community development doesn't happen, and we don't make powerful, reliable software. But it also causes -psycho-social harm, which affects the spirit of scientific cooperation -— the idea that we're working together to advance human +psycho-social harm, which affects the spirit of scientific +cooperation—the idea that we're working together to advance human knowledge. You see, progress in science crucially depends on people being able to work together. And nowadays though, you often find each little group of scientists acting like it's a war with each other gang @@ -818,7 +829,7 @@ make an exact copy, and hand it to your friends, so now your friend can use it. Or maybe you make exact copies and you sell them to a bunch of people, and then they can use it.

-

Freedom Three is where you make improvements — or at least +

Freedom Three is where you make improvements—or at least you think they're improvements, and some other people may agree with you. So that's the difference. Oh, and by the way, one crucial point. Freedoms One and Three depend on your having access to the @@ -832,8 +843,8 @@ precondition, a requirement, for free software.

you? The reason is that sometimes the same program can be free software for some people, and nonfree for others. Now, that might seem like a paradoxical situation, so let me give you an example -to show you how it happens. A very big example — maybe the -biggest ever — of this problem was the X Window System which was +to show you how it happens. A very big example—maybe the +biggest ever—of this problem was the X Window System which was developed at MIT and released under a license that made it free software. If you got the MIT version with the MIT license, you had Freedoms One, Two, and Three. It was free software for you. But @@ -870,7 +881,7 @@ versions of GNU, that wouldn't be success at all. The whole thing would have been perverted into nothing like the goal.

So, I looked for a way to stop that from happening. The method I -came up with is called “copyleft”. It's called copyleft +came up with is called “copyleft.” It's called copyleft because it's sort of like taking copyright and flipping it over. [Laughter] Legally, copyleft works based on copyright. We use the existing copyright law, but we use it to achieve a very @@ -889,13 +900,13 @@ that contains any piece of this program, that whole program must be distributed under these same terms, no more and no less. So you can change the program and distribute a modified version, but when you do, the people who get that from you must get the same freedom that you -got from us. And not just for the parts of it — the excerpts -that you copied from our program — but also for the other parts +got from us. And not just for the parts of it—the excerpts +that you copied from our program—but also for the other parts of that program that they got from you. The whole of that program has to be free software for them.

The freedoms to change and redistribute this program become -inalienable rights — a concept from the Declaration of +inalienable rights—a concept from the Declaration of Independence. Rights that we make sure can't be taken away from you. And, of course, the specific license that embodies the idea of copyleft is the GNU General Public License, a controversial license @@ -905,29 +916,29 @@ parasites on our community.

There are lots of people who don't appreciate the ideals of freedom. And they'd be very glad to take the work that we have done, and use it to get a head start in distributing a nonfree program and -tempting people to give up their freedom. And the result would be -— you know, if we let people do that — that we would be +tempting people to give up their freedom. And the result would +be—you know, if we let people do that—that we would developing these free programs, and we'd constantly have to compete with improved versions of our own programs. That's no fun.

-

And, a lot of people also feel — you know, I'm willing to +

And, a lot of people also feel—you know, I'm willing to volunteer my time to contribute to the community, but why should I volunteer my time to contribute to that company's, to improving that company's, proprietary program? You know, some people might not even think that that's evil, but they want to get paid if they're going to do that. I, personally, would rather not do it at all.

-

But both of these groups of people — both the ones like me +

But both of these groups of people—both the ones like me who say, “I don't want to help that nonfree program to get a foothold in our community” and the ones that say, “Sure, -I'd work for them, but then they better pay me” — both of +I'd work for them, but then they better pay me”—both of us have a good reason to use the GNU General Public License. Because that says to that company, “You can't just take my work, and distribute it without the freedom.” Whereas, the non-copyleft licenses, like the X Windows license, do permit that.

So that is the big division between the two categories of free -software — license-wise. There are the programs that are +software—license-wise. There are the programs that are copylefted so that the license defends the freedom of the software for every user. And there are the non-copylefted programs for which nonfree versions are allowed. Somebody can take those @@ -936,7 +947,7 @@ nonfree version.

And that problem exists today. There are still nonfree versions of X Windows being used on our free operating systems. There is even -hardware — which is not really supported — except by a +hardware—which is not really supported—except by a nonfree version of X Windows. And that's a major problem in our community. Nonetheless, I wouldn't say that X Windows is a bad thing, you know. I'd say that the developers did not do the best possible @@ -964,12 +975,12 @@ it better to have their version supplant ours. They just have to make it different and incompatible. And then, put it on everybody's desktop. So they really don't like the GNU GPL. Because the GNU GPL won't let them do that. It doesn't allow “embrace and -extend”. It says, if you want to share our code in your +extend.” It says, if you want to share our code in your programs, you can. But, you've got to share and share alike. The changes that you make we have to be allowed to share. So, it's a two-way cooperation, which is real cooperation.

-

Many companies — even big companies like IBM and HP are +

Many companies—even big companies like IBM and HP are willing to use our software on this basis. IBM and HP contribute substantial improvements to GNU software. And they develop other free software. But, Microsoft doesn't want to do that, so they give it out @@ -1050,9 +1061,9 @@ with the rest of the GNU system to make a complete free operating system. Essentially, to make the GNU plus Linux combination.

But, they didn't realize that's what they were doing. You see, -they said, We have a kernel — let's look around and see what +they said, We have a kernel—let's look around and see what other pieces we can find to put together with the kernel. So, they -looked around — and lo and behold, everything they needed was +looked around—and lo and behold, everything they needed was already available. What good fortune, they said. [Laughter] It's all here. We can find everything we need. Let's just take all these different things and put it together, and have a system.

@@ -1064,11 +1075,11 @@ a system out of Linux. So they called it a Linux system.

QUESTION: [Inaudible]

-

STALLMAN: Can't hear you — what?

+

STALLMAN: Can't hear you—what?

QUESTION: [Inaudible]

-

STALLMAN: Well, it's just not — you know, +

STALLMAN: Well, it's just not—you know, it's provincial.

QUESTION: But it's more good fortune then finding @@ -1079,11 +1090,11 @@ people who developed X and Mach didn't have the goal of making a complete free operating system. We're the only ones who had that. And, it was our tremendous work that made the system exist. We actually did a larger part of the system than any other project. No -coincidence, because those people — they wrote useful parts of +coincidence, because those people—they wrote useful parts of the system. But they didn't do it because they wanted the system to be finished. They had other reasons.

-

Now the people who developed X — they thought that designing +

Now the people who developed X—they thought that designing across the network window system would be a good project, and it was. And it turned out to help us make a good free operating system. But that's not what they hoped for. They didn't even think about that. @@ -1092,12 +1103,12 @@ what they did was bad. They did a large free software project. That's a good thing to do. But they didn't have that ultimate vision. The GNU Project is where that vision was.

-

And, so, we were the ones whose — every little piece that +

And, so, we were the ones whose—every little piece that didn't get done by somebody else, we did it. Because we knew that we wouldn't have a complete system without it. And even if it was totally boring and unromantic, like tar or mv. [Laughter] We did it. Or ld, you know -there's nothing very exciting in ld — but I wrote +there's nothing very exciting in ld—but I wrote one. [Laughter] And I did make efforts to have it do a minimal amount of disk I/O so that it would be faster and handle bigger programs. But, you know, I like to do a good job. I like to improve @@ -1130,7 +1141,7 @@ stuffed animal! [Laughter]

QUESTION: You do?

-

STALLMAN: We have an animal — a +

STALLMAN: We have an animal—a gnu. [Laughter] Anyway. So, yes, when you draw a penguin, draw a gnu next to it. [Laughter] But, let's save the questions for the end. I have more to go through.

@@ -1140,7 +1151,7 @@ is worth bothering you and perhaps giving you a, perhaps lowering your opinion of me, [Laughter] to raise this issue of credit? Because, you know, some people when I do this, some people think that it's because I want my ego to be fed, right? Of course, I'm not -saying — I'm not asking you to call it “Stallmanix,” +saying—I'm not asking you to call it “Stallmanix,” right? [Laughter] [Applause]

I'm asking you to call it GNU, because I want the GNU Project to @@ -1148,22 +1159,22 @@ get credit. And there's a very specific reason for that, which is a lot more important than anybody getting credit, in and of itself. You see, these days, if you look around in our community most of the people talking about it and writing about it don't ever mention GNU, -and they don't ever mention these goals of freedom — these +and they don't ever mention these goals of freedom—these political and social ideals, either. Because the place they come from is GNU.

-

The ideas associated with Linux — the philosophy is very +

The ideas associated with Linux—the philosophy is very different. It is basically the apolitical philosophy of Linus Torvalds. So, when people think that the whole system is Linux, they tend to think: “Oh, it must have been all started by Linux Torvalds. His philosophy must be the one that we should look at -carefully”. And when they hear about the GNU philosophy, they +carefully.” And when they hear about the GNU philosophy, they say: “Boy, this is so idealistic, this must be awfully impractical. I'm a Linux-user, not a GNU-user.” [Laughter]

What irony! If they only knew! If they knew that the system they -liked — or, in some cases, love and go wild over — is our +liked—or, in some cases, love and go wild over—is our idealistic, political philosophy made real.

They still wouldn't have to agree with us. But at least they'd see @@ -1196,12 +1207,12 @@ put other separate programs on the same disk (of either kind, hard disk, or CD), and they can have other licenses. That's considered mere aggregation, and, essentially, just distributing two programs to somebody at the same time is not something we have any say over. So, -in fact, it is not true — sometimes, I wish it were true — -that if a company uses a GPL-covered program in a product that the -whole product has to be free software. It's not — it doesn't go -to that range — that scope. It's the whole program. If there +in fact, it is not true—sometimes, I wish it were true—that +if a company uses a GPL-covered program in a product that the +whole product has to be free software. It's not—it doesn't go +to that range—that scope. It's the whole program. If there are two separate programs that communicate with each other at arm's -length — like by sending messages to each other — then, +length—like by sending messages to each other—then, they're legally separate, in general. So, these companies, by adding nonfree software to the system, are giving the users, philosophically and politically, a very bad idea. They're telling the users, @@ -1209,23 +1220,23 @@ and politically, a very bad idea. They're telling the users, this as a bonus.”

If you look at the magazines about the use of the GNU/Linux system, -most of them have a title like “Linux-something or other”. +most of them have a title like “Linux-something or other.” So they're calling the system Linux most of the time. And they're filled with ads for nonfree software that you could run on top of the GNU/Linux system. Now those ads have a common message. They say: Nonfree Software Is Good For You. It's So Good That You Might Even Pay To Get It. [Laughter]

-

And they call these things “value-added packages”, +

And they call these things “value-added packages,” which makes a statement about their values. They're saying: Value practical convenience, not freedom. And, I don't agree with those values, so I call them “freedom-subtracted -packages”. [Laughter] Because if you have installed a +packages.” [Laughter] Because if you have installed a free operating system, then you now are living in the free world. You enjoy the benefits of liberty that we worked for so many years to give you. Those packages give you an opportunity to buckle on a chain.

-

And then if you look at the trade shows — about the use of +

And then if you look at the trade shows—about the use of the, dedicated to the use of, the GNU/Linux system, they all call themselves “Linux” shows. And they're filled with booths exhibiting nonfree software, essentially putting the seal of approval @@ -1248,7 +1259,7 @@ them and their lives. And that, indirectly, makes a tremendous difference. So please help us.

You'll note that Microsoft called the GPL an “open source -license”. They don't want people to be thinking in terms of +license.” They don't want people to be thinking in terms of freedom as the issue. You'll find that they invite people to think in a narrow way, as consumers, and, of course, not even think very rationally as consumers, if they're going to choose Microsoft @@ -1356,7 +1367,7 @@ operate. Professor Lessig, now at Stanford, noted that code functions as a kind of law. Whoever gets to write the code that just about everybody uses for all intents and purposes is writing the laws that run people's lives. With free software, these laws get written in a -democratic way. Not the classical form of democracy — we don't +democratic way. Not the classical form of democracy—we don't have a big election and say, “Everybody vote which way should this feature be done.” [Laughter] Instead we say, basically, those of you who want to work on implementing the feature @@ -1558,7 +1569,7 @@ from that investment.

I'd like to mention that there's a new approach to free software business being proposed by Tony Stanco, which he calls “Free -Developers”, which involves a certain business structure which +Developers,” which involves a certain business structure which hopes eventually to pay out a certain share of the profits to every, to all the authors of the free software who've joined the organization. And they're looking at the prospects of getting me some @@ -1596,8 +1607,8 @@ into the Microsoft Company Town.

And this is relevant because, you know, the trial court in the Microsoft antitrust trial recommended breaking up the company, -Microsoft. But in a way, that makes no sense — it wouldn't do -any good at all — into the operating part and the applications +Microsoft. But in a way, that makes no sense—it wouldn't do +any good at all—into the operating part and the applications part.

But having seen that article, I now see a useful, effective way to @@ -1616,7 +1627,7 @@ will be able to make the free software, and maybe you people will use it to talk to Microsoft services, and we won't mind.

Because, after all, although Microsoft is the proprietary software -company that has subjugated the most people — the others have +company that has subjugated the most people—the others have subjugated fewer people, it's not for want of trying. [Laughter] They just haven't succeeded in subjugating as many people. So, the problem is not Microsoft and only Microsoft. @@ -1735,8 +1746,8 @@ restricted publishers. Now, it's a restriction imposed by the publishers on the public. So, the power relationship is turned around 180 degrees, even if it's the same law.

-

QUESTION: So you can have the same thing — -but like in making music from other music?

+

QUESTION: So you can have the same thing—but +like in making music from other music?

STALLMAN: Right. That is an interesting …

@@ -1848,8 +1859,8 @@ a shame, you know.

There's another more important and more substantive issue about what IBM is doing. They're saying that they're putting a billion -dollars into “Linux”. But perhaps, I should also put -quotes around “into”, as well, because some of that money +dollars into “Linux.” But perhaps, I should also put +quotes around “into,” as well, because some of that money is paying people to develop free software. That really is a contribution to our community. But other parts is paying to pay people to write proprietary software, or port proprietary software to @@ -1865,15 +1876,15 @@ oversimplification.

QUESTION: Can you talk a little bit more about the thinking that went into the General Public License?

-

STALLMAN: Well, here's the — I'm sorry, I'm +

STALLMAN: Well, here's the—I'm sorry, I'm answering his question now. [Laughter]

SCHONBERG: Do you want to reserve some time for the press conference? Or do you want to continue here?

STALLMAN: Who is here for the press conference? -Not a lot of press. Oh, three — OK. Can you afford if we -— if I go on answering everybody's questions for another ten +Not a lot of press. Oh, three… OK. Can you afford if +we… if I go on answering everybody's questions for another ten minutes or so? OK. So, we'll go on answering everybody's questions.

@@ -2059,10 +2070,11 @@ know. [Laughter] I'm not holding you prisoner here.

STALLMAN: One final thing. Our website: www.gnu.org

+
- + -- cgit v1.2.3