path: root/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/nit-india.html

<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 -->
<title>Stallman's Speech at National Institute of Technology
- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/nit-india.translist" -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
<h2>National Institute of Technology - Trichy - India - 17 February 2004</h2>

<p>
by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/"><strong>Richard Stallman</strong></a>
</p>

  <p><em>Transcript of the speech on &ldquo;Free Software&rdquo; by
Dr. Richard Stallman on Feb 17, 2004 at the National Institute of
Technology, Trichy, TN, India.</em>
</p>

  <p><b>[MOC]</b> 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.
</p>

  <p>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.
</p>

<p>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.
</p>

<p>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.
</p>

<p>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 <abbr title="Massachusetts Institute of Technology">MIT</abbr> AI
lab, learning operating system development on the fly. In 1984, he
resigned from <abbr>MIT</abbr> to start the GNU project. He has
received numerous prizes and awards for his work, which need no
mention.
</p>

<p>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.
</p>

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

<p><b>[RMS]</b> Should I start?  
[silence] 
</p>

<p>Can you hear me?  
[silence] 
</p>

<p>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.
</p>

<p><b>[MOC]</b> Audience please maintain silence. Thank you.
</p>

<p><b>[RMS]</b> 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.
</p>

<p>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.
</p>

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

<p><b>[MOC]</b> Sir, we can start.
</p>

<p><b>[RMS]</b> I see people coming in. I will wait till the people
come in and get seated.
</p>

<p><b>[MOC]</b> Sir, it is getting late, I think we can start.
</p>

<p><b>[RMS]</b> 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.
</p>

<p>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. 
</p>

<p>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.
</p>

<p>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.
</p>

<p>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.
</p>

<p>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.
</p>

<p>About a year ago, some developers&hellip; 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.
</p>

<p>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. 
<span class="gnun-split"></span>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 &mdash; 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.
</p>

<p>Even more bizarre, there is a malicious feature in the music
sharing program, Kazaa, where the company&hellip; 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, &ldquo;By the way, we are going to be selling time on your
computer.&rdquo; People had to figure this out.
</p>

<p>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, &ldquo;The program does
this&rdquo; Now you either believe it or you don't.
</p>

<p>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. 
<span class="gnun-split"></span>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.
</p>

<p>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.
</p>

<p>&hellip;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.
</p>

<p>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,
&ldquo;How much would you charge, to make this particular change and
when can you have it done?&rdquo;
</p>

<p>And if they don't like what that particular company says, they can
go to a different company and say, &ldquo;What would you charge to
make this change and when can you have it done?&rdquo; 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.
</p>

<p>So if you don't like what the program does, you have to go to the
developer and beg, &ldquo;Oh, please developer, please do my change
for me.&rdquo; And probably the developer says, &ldquo;You are not
important enough, why should I care about you. There are just a
hundred thousand of you why should I care.&rdquo; 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.
</p>

<p>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.
</p>

<p>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.
</p>

<p>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.
</p>

<p>Now, the spirit&hellip; 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.
</p>

<p>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. 
<span class="gnun-split"></span>Do you want to be living in a
society filled with this level of terror. The only &hellip; 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.
</p>

<p>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. 
<span class="gnun-split"></span>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&hellip; 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.
</p>
 
<p>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 &ldquo;sure,&rdquo; 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.
</p>

<p>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, &ldquo;Oh, of
course you.&rdquo; 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.
</p>

<p>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&hellip; what is it
called&hellip; 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.
</p>

<p>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. 
<span class="gnun-split"></span>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.
</p>
 
<p>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. 
<span class="gnun-split"></span>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.
</p>

<p>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.
</p>

<p>I see a lot of people moving around, what's happening&hellip;
what's happening&hellip; I can't hear you, the sound is turned off
apparently&hellip;
</p>

<p><b>[MOC]</b> Sir, we are collecting questions.
</p>

<p><b>[RMS]</b> 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.
</p>

<p>So I see, you are collecting the questions already. But I am not
even finished yet! Anyway&hellip; I am probably about a half
finished. OK, now I understand. So okay, I will continue.
</p>
  
<p>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.
</p>

<p>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.
</p>

<p>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.
</p>

<p>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.
</p>

<p>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&hellip;
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. 
<span class="gnun-split"></span>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.
</p>

<p>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, &ldquo;Sorry, you can't learn that, I can't
learn that. It's a secret. Nobody is allowed to learn that.&rdquo;
Non-free software prohibits education. But with free software, the
teacher can say, &ldquo;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.&rdquo; And this way the students who are
fascinated by computers will learn to write good software.
</p>

<p>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. 
<span class="gnun-split"></span>In the 1970s, I had a special opportunity. I worked at the
AI lab at <abbr>MIT</abbr>. 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
<abbr>MIT</abbr>.
</p>

<p>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.
</p>
 
<p>Three weeks ago&hellip; 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&hellip; 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. 
<span class="gnun-split"></span>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.
</p>

<p>Well, when somebody says, &ldquo;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.&rdquo; 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.
</p>

<p>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. 
<span class="gnun-split"></span>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.
</p>

<p>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. 
<span class="gnun-split"></span>So 20 years and 1 month
ago, in January 1984, I quit my job at <abbr>MIT</abbr> 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.
</p>

<p>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. 
</p>

<p>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.
</p>

<p>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 &lsquo;Linux&rsquo;. 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.
</p>

<p>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. 
<span class="gnun-split"></span>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. 
</p>

<p>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. 
</p>

<p>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&hellip; 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.
</p>

<p>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.
</p>

<p>So, the general rule is, if people ask me the question, &ldquo;Does
this apply to computers that are embedded?&rdquo; 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. 
<span class="gnun-split"></span>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&hellip; 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.
</p>

<p>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&hellip; I &hellip; no it's&hellip; 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.
</p>

<p>From now I'll accept questions.
</p>

<p>Oh boy, am I sleepy!
</p>

<p><b>[MOC]</b> Sir, we will be reading out the questions one by one
collected from the audience, and&hellip; then you can answer the
questions.
</p>

<p><b>[RMS]</b> Okay, if one person asks multiple questions, please
give them to me one at a time.
</p>

<p><b>[MOC]</b> Yes, sir.
</p>

<p>The first question comes from H. Sundar Raman. His question is,
&ldquo;What is the difference between Open Source Software and Free
Software?&rdquo;
</p>
<p>[RMS yawns]
</p>

<p><b>[RMS]</b> I should first explain that Free Software and Open
Source each has two related meanings.
</p>

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

<p>Each one refers to a categorical software and each one refers to a
philosophical movement. So there is the free software&hellip; 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&hellip; 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.
</p>

<p>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&hellip; sorry a superior development model &mdash; superior in
its shallow technical sense, that it usually produces technically
better software. 
<span class="gnun-split"></span>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.
</p>

<p>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.
</p>

<p>So next question please.
</p>

<p><b>[MOC]</b> 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&hellip;
</p>

<p><b>[RMS interrupts]</b> 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. 
<span class="gnun-split"></span>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.
</p>

<p>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.
</p>

<p>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.
</p>

<p>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 &ldquo;I'm going to make my program
proprietary so that I can get money, so that I can work full time
developing the program&rdquo; I say to him &ldquo;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.&rdquo; It's all wrong. And you
shouldn't do it.
</p>

<p>I believe that people who contribute to society made it&hellip;
Well&hellip; 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. 
<span class="gnun-split"></span>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
&hellip;is&hellip; 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&hellip;
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
&ldquo;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.&rdquo; I'm not going to tell him
that can't be true because I don't know his circumstances. 
<span class="gnun-split"></span>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, &ldquo;Please don't develop the program.&rdquo;
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.
</p>

<p>So next question.
</p>

<p><b>[MOC]</b> His next question is &ldquo;All intellectual work like
books are proprietary&rdquo;. Is it not justified in case of software?
</p>

<p><b>[RMS]</b> 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. 
<span class="gnun-split"></span>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 <a href="https://www.gnowledge.org">gnowledge.org</a>. That's
like knowledge but spells with a &lsquo;g&rsquo; instead of a
&lsquo;k&rsquo;. And you will see one of these initiatives being
carried out by Prof. Nagarjuna in Mumbai.
</p>

<p>Also, I should mention the free encyclopedia &mdash;
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.
</p>

<p>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.
</p>

<p>[RMS yawns]
</p>

<p>Next question.
</p>

<p><b>[MOC]</b> The next question is from Ganapathy. He says &ldquo;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.&rdquo;
</p>

<p><b>[RMS interrupts]</b> That's not true.
</p>

<p>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.
</p>

<p>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&hellip; 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.
</p>

<p>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&hellip; they use Windows because it comes on their
computers. These are the two reasons. The only reason that&hellip; let
any one&hellip; 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. 
<span class="gnun-split"></span>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.
</p>

<p>Next question
</p>

<p><b>[MOC]</b> 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.
</p>

<p><b>[RMS]</b> 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&hellip; this&hellip; 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. 
<span class="gnun-split"></span>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&hellip; can operate that is harmful to
society. And we have to put in an end to that.
</p>

<p>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.
</p>

<p>So I hope&hellip; 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.
</p>

<p>Next question.
</p>

<p><b>[MOC]</b> 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?
</p>

<p><b>[RMS]</b> 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&hellip;
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.
</p>

<p>Actually, Windows&hellip; 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.
</p>

<p>Next question please.
</p>
<p><b>[MOC]</b> Sir, we would like to know how long can we continue this
question and answer session?
</p>
<p><b>[RMS]</b> Well, certainly I'll do another fifteen minutes.
</p>
<p><b>[MOC]</b> Yes sir.
</p>
<p><b>[RMS]</b> 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.
</p>
<p>The important thing here is freedom. I am just its representative.
</p>
<p><b>[MOC]</b> The next question is from Vijay Anand. The question
is, &ldquo;There are lots of incompatible GNU/Linux distributions. Is
this a drawback to the free software movement?&rdquo;
</p>
<p>Well, we shouldn't over estimate the extent to which they're
incompatible. At the source level they are almost all&hellip; 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&hellip; 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&hellip;
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.
</p>

<p>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&hellip; 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&hellip; you know,
&hellip;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.
</p>

<p>Next question please.
</p>

<p><b>[MOC]</b> The next question is from Rakesh. &ldquo;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?&rdquo;
</p>

<p><b>[RMS]</b> 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&hellip; and we use &hellip; 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.
</p>
<p>[silence]</p>

<p><b>[MOC]</b> The next question is from Krishnan. The question is,
&ldquo;When do you expect the GNU HURD to be available to the public
for normal use?&rdquo;
</p>

<p><b>[RMS]</b> 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&hellip; I'm disappointed
by this delay. But it looks like that will mean some delay.
</p>

<p>Next question please.</p>

<p><b>[MOC]</b> The next question is from Manu Meta&hellip;
Metallurgy. The question is, &ldquo;Is developing free software on
nonfree operating systems wrong?&rdquo;</p>

<p><b>[RMS]</b> 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&hellip; if it doesn't
run on a free operating system.</p>

<p>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 &ldquo;Oh! it would be so much work to redo
that; that I can't do it.&rdquo; 
<span class="gnun-split"></span>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&hellip; 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.</p>

<p>Next question please.</p>

<p><b>[MOC]</b> What do you think is the greatest obstacle for free
software in India? How do we break them up?</p>

<p><b>[RMS</b> 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&hellip;
Microsoft offers the schools gratis copies of Windows, the schools
have to say &ldquo;We are not going to accept them; we are not going
to participate in teaching our kids to be addicts.&rdquo;</p>

<p>Next question please.</p>

<p><b>[MOC]</b> The next question is from Pankaj. The question is
&ldquo;Does the availability of source code make them more vulnerable
to attacks?&rdquo;</p>

<p><b>[RMS]</b> 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. </p>

<p>Next question.</p>

<p><b>[MOC]</b> This is the last question of this conference.</p>

<p><b>[RMS]</b> Okay.</p>

<p><b>[MOC]</b> The question is, &ldquo;There was a recent controversy
over the GFDL. What was the controversy?&rdquo;</p>

<p><b>[RMS]</b> Sorry, controversy over what?</p>

<p><b>[MOC]</b> The GFDL; License.</p>

<p><b>[RMS]</b> 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&hellip; 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.</p>

<p>So if that was the last question then I guess we're done.</p>

<p><b>[MOC]</b> We thank you sir, for this inspiring and interesting
session.</p>

<p><b>[RMS interrupts]</b> Please don't call me sir.</p>

<p><b>[MOC]</b> 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&hellip;</p>

<p><b>[RMS interrupts]</b> Happy Hacking and Good Night.</p>

<p><b>[MOC]</b> A very Good Night to you sir.</p>

<p>[applause]</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Contributors (in alphabetical order): Krishnan, Saravana
Manickam, Vijay Kumar, Vimal Joseph.</p>
</blockquote>

</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
<div id="footer">
<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 submitting 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 submitting 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; 2004, 2021 Richard M. Stallman, Vijay Kumar</p>

<p>Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is
permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.</p>

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

<p class="unprintable">Updated:
<!-- timestamp start -->
$Date: 2021/04/26 07:25:28 $
<!-- timestamp end -->
</p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>