path: root/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/byte-interview.html

<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 -->
<!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
<!--#set var="TAGS" value="gnu-history" -->
<!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" -->
<title>BYTE Interview with Richard Stallman
- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
<!--#include virtual="/gnu/po/byte-interview.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
<!--#include virtual="/gnu/gnu-breadcrumb.html" -->
<!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
<!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
<div class="article reduced-width">
<h2>BYTE Interview with Richard Stallman</h2>

<address class="byline">conducted by David Betz and Jon Edwards</address>

<div class="introduction">
<p>Richard Stallman discusses his public-domain Unix-compatible
software system with BYTE editors (July 1986).</p>
</div>
<hr class="no-display" />

<p>Richard Stallman has undertaken probably the most ambitious free
software development project to date, the GNU system.  In his GNU
Manifesto, published in the March 1985 issue of Dr. Dobb's Journal,
Stallman described GNU as a &ldquo;complete Unix-compatible software
system which I am writing so that I can give it away free to everyone
who can use it&hellip;  Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to
obtain good system software free, just like air.&rdquo; (GNU is an
acronym for GNU's Not Unix; the <i>g</i> is pronounced.)</p>

<p>Stallman is widely known as the author of EMACS, a powerful text
editor that he developed at the <abbr title="Massachusetts Institute
of Technology">MIT</abbr> Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.  It is
no coincidence that the first piece of software produced as part of
the GNU project was a new implementation of EMACS.  GNU EMACS has
already achieved a reputation as one of the best implementations of
EMACS currently available at any price.</p>

<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: We read your GNU Manifesto in the March 1985
issue of Dr. Dobb's.  What has happened since?  Was that really the
beginning, and how have you progressed since then?</p>

<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: The publication in Dr. Dobb's wasn't the beginning of the
project.  I wrote the GNU Manifesto when I was getting ready to start the
project, as a proposal to ask computer manufacturers for funding.  They
didn't want to get involved, and I decided that rather than spend my time
trying to pursue funds, I ought to spend it writing code.  The manifesto was
published about a year and a half after I had written it, when I had barely
begun distributing the GNU EMACS.  Since that time, in addition to making
GNU EMACS more complete and making it run on many more computers, I have
nearly finished the optimizing C compiler and all the other software that
is needed for running C programs.  This includes a source-level debugger
that has many features that the other source-level debuggers on Unix don't
have.  For example, it has convenience variables within the debugger so you
can save values, and it also has a history of all the values that you have
printed out, making it tremendously easier to chase around list structures.</p>

<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: You have finished an editor that is now widely distributed and you
are about to finish the compiler.</p>

<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: I expect that it will be finished this October.</p>

<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: What about the kernel?</p>

<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: I'm currently planning to start with the kernel that was written
at MIT and was released to the public recently with the idea that I would
use it.  This kernel is called TRIX; it's based on remote procedure call.  I
still need to add compatibility for a lot of the features of Unix which it
doesn't have currently.  I haven't started to work on that yet.  I'm
finishing the compiler before I go to work on the kernel.  I am also going
to have to rewrite the file system.  I intend to make it failsafe just by
having it write blocks in the proper order so that the disk structure is
always consistent.  Then I want to add version numbers.  I have a complicated
scheme to reconcile version numbers with the way people usually use Unix.
You have to be able to specify filenames without version numbers, but you
also have to be able to specify them with explicit version numbers, and
these both need to work with ordinary Unix programs that have not been
modified in any way to deal with the existence of this feature.  I think I
have a scheme for doing this, and only trying it will show me whether it
really does the job.</p>

<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: Do you have a brief description you can give us as to how GNU as a
system will be superior to other systems?  We know that one of your goals is
to produce something that is compatible with Unix.  But at least in the area
of file systems you have already said that you are going to go beyond Unix
and produce something that is better.</p>

<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: The C compiler will produce better code and run faster.  The
debugger is better.  With each piece I may or may not find a way to improve
it.  But there is no one answer to this question.  To some extent I am
getting the benefit of reimplementation, which makes many systems much
better.  To some extent it's because I have been in the field a long time
and worked on many other systems.  I therefore have many ideas to bring to
bear.  One way in which it will be better is that practically everything in
the system will work on files of any size, on lines of any size, with any
characters appearing in them.  The Unix system is very bad in that regard.
It's not anything new as a principle of software engineering that you
shouldn't have arbitrary limits.  But it just was the standard practice in
writing Unix to put those in all the time, possibly just because they were
writing it for a very small computer.  The only limit in the GNU system is
when your program runs out of memory because it tried to work on too much
data and there is no place to keep it all.</p>

<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: And that isn't likely to be hit if you've got virtual memory.  You may
just take forever to come up with the solution.</p>

<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: Actually these limits tend to hit in a time long before you take
forever to come up with the solution.</p>

<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: Can you say something about what types of machines and environments
GNU EMACS in particular has been made to run under?  It's now running on
VAXes; has it migrated in any form to personal computers?</p>

<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: I'm not sure what you mean by personal computers.  For example, is
a Sun a personal computer?  GNU EMACS requires at least a megabyte of
available memory and preferably more.  It is normally used on machines that
have virtual memory.  Except for various technical problems in a few C
compilers, almost any machine with virtual memory and running a fairly
recent version of Unix will run GNU EMACS, and most of them currently do.</p>

<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: Has anyone tried to port it to Ataris or Macintoshes?</p>

<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: The Atari 1040ST still doesn't have quite enough memory.  The next
Atari machine, I expect, will run it.  I also think that future Ataris will
have some forms of memory mapping.  Of course, I am not designing the
software to run on the kinds of computers that are prevalent today.  I knew
when I started this project it was going to take a few years.  I therefore
decided that I didn't want to make a worse system by taking on the
additional challenge of making it run in the currently constrained
environment.  So instead I decided I'm going to write it in the way that
seems the most natural and best.  I am confident that in a couple of years
machines of sufficient size will be prevalent.  In fact, increases in memory
size are happening so fast it surprises me how slow most of the people are
to put in virtual memory; I think it is totally essential.</p>

<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: I think people don't really view it as being necessary for
single-user machines.</p>

<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: They don't understand that single user doesn't mean single
program.  Certainly for any Unix-like system it's important to be able to
run lots of different processes at the same time even if there is only one
of you.  You could run GNU EMACS on a nonvirtual-memory machine with enough
memory, but you couldn't run the rest of the GNU system very well or a Unix
system very well.</p>

<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: How much of LISP is present in GNU EMACS?  It occurred to me that it
may be useful to use that as a tool for learning LISP.</p>

<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: You can certainly do that.  GNU EMACS contains a complete,
although not very powerful, LISP system.  It's powerful enough for writing
editor commands.  It's not comparable with, say, a Common LISP System,
something you could really use for system programming, but it has all the
things that LISP needs to have.</p>

<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: Do you have any predictions about when you would be likely to
distribute a workable environment in which, if we put it on our machines or
workstations, we could actually get reasonable work done without using
anything other than code that you distribute?</p>

<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: It's really hard to say.  That could happen in a year, but of
course it could take longer.  It could also conceivably take less, but
that's not too likely anymore.  I think I'll have the compiler finished in a
month or two.  The only other large piece of work I really have to do is in
the kernel.  I first predicted GNU would take something like two years, but
it has now been two and a half years and I'm still not finished.  Part of
the reason for the delay is that I spent a lot of time working on one
compiler that turned out to be a dead end.  I had to rewrite it completely.
Another reason is that I spent so much time on GNU EMACS.  I originally
thought I wouldn't have to do that at all.</p>

<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: Tell us about your distribution scheme.</p>

<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: I don't put software or manuals in the public domain, and the
reason is that I want to make sure that all the users get the freedom to
share.  I don't want anyone making an improved version of a program I wrote
and distributing it as proprietary.  I don't want that to ever be able to
happen.  I want to encourage the free improvements to these programs, and
the best way to do that is to take away any temptation for a person to make
improvements nonfree.  Yes, a few of them will refrain from making
improvements, but a lot of others will make the same improvements and
they'll make them free.</p>

<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: And how do you go about guaranteeing that?</p>

<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: I do this by copyrighting the programs and putting on a notice
giving people explicit permission to copy the programs and change them but
only on the condition that they distribute under the same terms that I
used, if at all.  You don't have to distribute the changes you make to any
of my programs&mdash;you can just do it for yourself, and you don't have to give
it to anyone or tell anyone.  But if you do give it to someone else, you
have to do it under the same terms that I use.</p>

<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: Do you obtain any rights over the executable code derived from the C
compiler?</p>

<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: The copyright law doesn't give me copyright on output from the
compiler, so it doesn't give me a way to say anything about that, and in
fact I don't try to.  I don't sympathize with people developing proprietary
products with any compiler, but it doesn't seem especially useful to try to
stop them from developing them with this compiler, so I am not going to.</p>

<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: Do your restrictions apply if people take pieces of your code to
produce other things as well?</p>

<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: Yes, if they incorporate with changes any sizable piece.  If it
were two lines of code, that's nothing; copyright doesn't apply to that.
Essentially, I have chosen these conditions so that first there is a
copyright, which is what all the software hoarders use to stop everybody
from doing anything, and then I add a notice giving up part of those
rights.  So the conditions talk only about the things that copyright applies
to.  I don't believe that the reason you should obey these conditions is
because of the law.  The reason you should obey is because an upright person
when he distributes software encourages other people to share it further.</p>

<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: In a sense you are enticing people into this mode of thinking by
providing all of these interesting tools that they can use but only if they
buy into your philosophy.</p>

<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: Yes.  You could also see it as using the legal system that
software hoarders have set up against them.  I'm using it to protect the
public from them.</p>

<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: Given that manufacturers haven't wanted to fund the project, who do
you think will use the GNU system when it is done?</p>

<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: I have no idea, but it is not an important question.  My purpose
is to make it possible for people to reject the chains that come with
proprietary software.  I know that there are people who want to do that.
Now, there may be others who don't care, but they are not my concern.  I
feel a bit sad for them and for the people that they influence.  Right now a
person who perceives the unpleasantness of the terms of proprietary
software feels that he is stuck and has no alternative except not to use a
computer.  Well, I am going to give him a comfortable alternative.</p>

<p>Other people may use the GNU system simply because it is technically
superior.  For example, my C compiler is producing about as good a code as I
have seen from any C compiler.  And GNU EMACS is generally regarded as being
far superior to the commercial competition.  And GNU EMACS was not funded by
anyone either, but everyone is using it.  I therefore think that many people
will use the rest of the GNU system because of its technical advantages.
But I would be doing a GNU system even if I didn't know how to make it
technically better because I want it to be socially better.  The GNU project
is really a social project.  It uses technical means to make a change in
society.</p>

<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: Then it is fairly important to you that people adopt GNU.  It is not
just an academic exercise to produce this software to give it away to
people.  You hope it will change the way the software industry operates.</p>

<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: Yes.  Some people say no one will ever use it because it doesn't
have some attractive corporate logo on it, and other people say that they
think it is tremendously important and everyone's going to want to use it.
I have no way of knowing what is really going to happen.  I don't know any
other way to try to change the ugliness of the field that I find myself in,
so this is what I have to do.</p>

<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: Can you address the implications?  You obviously feel that this is an
important political and social statement.</p>

<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: It is a change.  I'm trying to change the way people approach
knowledge and information in general.  I think that to try to own knowledge,
to try to control whether people are allowed to use it, or to try to stop
other people from sharing it, is sabotage.  It is an activity that benefits
the person that does it at the cost of impoverishing all of society.  One
person gains one dollar by destroying two dollars' worth of wealth.  I think
a person with a conscience wouldn't do that sort of thing except perhaps if
he would otherwise die.  And of course the people who do this are fairly
rich; I can only conclude that they are unscrupulous.  I would like to see
people get rewards for writing free software and for encouraging other
people to use it.  I don't want to see people get rewards for writing
proprietary software because that is not really a contribution to society.
The principle of capitalism is the idea that people manage to make money by
producing things and thereby are encouraged to do what is useful,
automatically, so to speak.  But that doesn't work when it comes to owning
knowledge.  They are encouraged to do not really what's useful, and what
really is useful is not encouraged.  I think it is important to say that
information is different from material objects like cars and loaves of
bread because people can copy it and share it on their own and, if nobody
attempts to stop them, they can change it and make it better for
themselves.  That is a useful thing for people to do.  This isn't true of
loaves of bread.  If you have one loaf of bread and you want another, you
can't just put your loaf of bread into a bread copier.  You can't make
another one except by going through all the steps that were used to make
the first one.  It therefore is irrelevant whether people are permitted to
copy it&mdash;it's impossible.</p>

<p>Books were printed only on printing presses until recently.  It was
possible to make a copy yourself by hand, but it wasn't practical because
it took so much more work than using a printing press.  And it produced
something so much less attractive that, for all intents and purposes, you
could act as if it were impossible to make books except by mass producing
them.  And therefore copyright didn't really take any freedom away from the
reading public.  There wasn't anything that a book purchaser could do that
was forbidden by copyright.</p>

<p>But this isn't true for computer programs.  It's also not true for
tape cassettes.  It's partly false now for books, but it is still true
that for most books it is more expensive and certainly a lot more work
to Xerox them than to buy a copy, and the result is still less
attractive.  Right now we are in a period where the situation that
made copyright harmless and acceptable is changing to a situation
where copyright will become destructive and intolerable.  So the
people who are slandered as &ldquo;pirates&rdquo; are in fact the
people who are trying to do something useful that they have been
forbidden to do.  The copyright laws are entirely designed to help
people take complete control over the use of some information for
their own good.  But they aren't designed to help people who want to
make sure that the information is accessible to the public and stop
others from depriving the public.  I think that the law should
recognize a class of works that are owned by the public, which is
different from public domain in the same sense that a public park is
different from something found in a garbage can.  It's not there for
anybody to take away, it's there for everyone to use but for no one to
impede.  Anybody in the public who finds himself being deprived of the
derivative work of something owned by the public should be able to sue
about it.</p>

<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: But aren't pirates interested in getting copies of programs because
they want to use those programs, not because they want to use that
knowledge to produce something better?</p>

<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: I don't see that that's the important distinction.  More people
using a program means that the program contributes more to society.  You
have a loaf of bread that could be eaten either once or a million times.</p>

<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: Some users buy commercial software to obtain support.  How does your
distribution scheme provide support?</p>

<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: I suspect that those users are misled and are not thinking
clearly.  It is certainly useful to have support, but when they start
thinking about how that has something to do with selling software or with
the software being proprietary, at that point they are confusing
themselves.  There is no guarantee that proprietary software will receive
good support.  Simply because sellers say that they provide support, that
doesn't mean it will be any good.  And they may go out of business.  In fact,
people think that GNU EMACS has better support than commercial EMACSes.  One
of the reasons is that I'm probably a better hacker than the people who
wrote the other EMACSes, but the other reason is that everyone has sources
and there are so many people interested in figuring out how to do things
with it that you don't have to get your support from me.  Even just the free
support that consists of my fixing bugs people report to me and
incorporating that in the next release has given people a good level of
support.  You can always hire somebody to solve a problem for you, and when
the software is free you have a competitive market for the support.  You can
hire anybody.  I distribute a service list with EMACS, a list of people's
names and phone numbers and what they charge to provide support.</p>

<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: Do you collect their bug fixes?</p>

<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: Well, they send them to me.  I asked all the people who wanted to
be listed to promise that they would never ask any of their customers to
keep secret whatever they were told or any changes they were given to the
GNU software as part of that support.</p>

<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: So you can't have people competing to provide support based on their
knowing the solution to some problem that somebody else doesn't know.</p>

<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: No.  They can compete based on their being clever and more likely
to find the solution to your problem, or their already understanding more
of the common problems, or knowing better how to explain to you what you
should do.  These are all ways they can compete.  They can try to do better,
but they cannot actively impede their competitors.</p>

<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: I suppose it's like buying a car.  You're not forced to go back to the
original manufacturer for support or continued maintenance.</p>

<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: Or buying a house&mdash;what would it be like if the only person who
could ever fix problems with your house was the contractor who built it
originally?  That is the kind of imposition that's involved in proprietary
software.  People tell me about a problem that happens in Unix.  Because
manufacturers sell improved versions of Unix, they tend to collect fixes
and not give them out except in binaries.  The result is that the bugs don't
really get fixed.</p>

<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: They're all duplicating effort trying to solve bugs independently.</p>

<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: Yes.  Here is another point that helps put the problem of
proprietary information in a social perspective.  Think about the liability
insurance crisis.  In order to get any compensation from society, an injured
person has to hire a lawyer and split the money with that lawyer.  This is a
stupid and inefficient way of helping out people who are victims of
accidents.  And consider all the time that people put into hustling to take
business away from their competition.  Think of the pens that are packaged
in large cardboard packages that cost more than the pen&mdash;just to make sure
that the pen isn't stolen.  Wouldn't it be better if we just put free pens
on every street corner?  And think of all the toll booths that impede the
flow of traffic.  It's a gigantic social phenomenon.  People find ways of
getting money by impeding society.  Once they can impede society, they can
be paid to leave people alone.  The waste inherent in owning information
will become more and more important and will ultimately make the difference
between the utopia in which nobody really has to work for a living because
it's all done by robots and a world just like ours where everyone spends
much time replicating what the next fellow is doing.</p>

<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: Like typing in copyright notices on the software.</p>

<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: More like policing everyone to make sure that they don't have
forbidden copies of anything and duplicating all the work people have
already done because it is proprietary.</p>

<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: A cynic might wonder how you earn your living.</p>

<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: From consulting.  When I do consulting, I always reserve the right
to give away what I wrote for the consulting job.  Also, I could be making
my living by mailing copies of the free software that I wrote and some that
other people wrote.  Lots of people send in $150 for GNU EMACS, but now this
money goes to the Free Software Foundation that I started.  The foundation
doesn't pay me a salary because it would be a conflict of interest.
Instead, it hires other people to work on GNU.  As long as I can go on
making a living by consulting I think that's the best way.</p>

<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: What is currently included in the official GNU distribution tape?</p>

<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: Right now the tape contains GNU EMACS
(one version fits all computers); Bison, a program that
replaces <abbr title="Yet Another Compiler
Compiler">YACC</abbr>; MIT Scheme, which is Professor
Sussman's super-simplified dialect of LISP; and Hack, a
dungeon-exploring game similar to Rogue.</p>

<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: Does the printed manual come with the tape as well?</p>

<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: No.  Printed manuals cost $15 each or copy them yourself.  Copy
this interview and share it, too.</p>

<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: How can you get a copy of that?</p>

<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: Write to the Free Software Foundation, 675 Massachusetts Ave.,
Cambridge, MA 02139.</p>

<address>[The current address (since 2005) is:<br />
     Free Software Foundation,
     51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor,
     Boston, MA  02110-1301,  USA.<br />
     Voice:  +1-617-542-5942<br />
     Fax:    +1-617-542-2652]
</address>

<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: What are you going to do when you are done with the GNU system?</p>

<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: I'm not sure.  Sometimes I think that what I'll go on to do is the
same thing in other areas of software.</p>

<p><strong>BYTE</strong>: So this is just the first of a whole series of assaults on the
software industry?</p>

<p><strong>Stallman</strong>: I hope so.  But perhaps what I'll do is just live a life of ease
working a little bit of the time just to live.  I don't have to live
expensively.  The rest of the time I can find interesting people to hang
around with or learn to do things that I don't know how to do.</p>
</div>

</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
<div id="footer" role="contentinfo">
<div class="unprintable">

<p>Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to
<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org">&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;</a>.
There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
the FSF.  Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org">&lt;webmasters@gnu.org&gt;</a>.</p>

<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
        replace it with the translation of these two:

        We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
        translations.  However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
        Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
        to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">
        &lt;web-translators@gnu.org&gt;</a>.</p>

        <p>For information on coordinating and contributing translations of
        our web pages, see <a
        href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
        README</a>. -->
Please see the <a
href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
README</a> for information on coordinating and contributing translations
of this article.</p>
</div>

<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
     files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
     be under CC BY-ND 4.0.  Please do NOT change or remove this
     without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
     Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
     document.  For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
     document was modified, or published.
     
     If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
     Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
     years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
     year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
     being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
     
     There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
     Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->

<p>Copyright &copy; 1999, 2021 Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p>

<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p>

<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->

<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
$Date: 2021/11/02 11:26:31 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
</div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include -->
</body>
</html>