taler-merchant-demos

nit-india.html (79056B)

---

 <!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
 <!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 -->
 <!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html -->
 <!--#set var="TAGS" value="speeches" -->
 <!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" -->
 <title>Speech on Free Software (2004)
 - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/nit-india.translist" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" -->
 <!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE-->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" -->
 <div class="article reduced-width">
 <h2>Speech on Free Software (2004)</h2>
 
 <address class="byline">by <a href="https://www.stallman.org/">Richard
 Stallman</a></address>
 
 <div class="infobox">
   <p>This speech was given on Feb 17, 2004 at the National Institute of
 Technology, Trichy, TN, India.</p>
 </div>
 <hr class="thin" />
 
   <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 MIT 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;
 Nonfree 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. Nonfree software doesn't help you do
 this. Nonfree 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 MIT. And there, we had our own time sharing
 system, which was free software. We would share with anybody. In fact,
 we were delighted anytime when somebody was interested in any part of
 it. We were delighted anytime somebody wanted to join us in using it
 and then help develop it. And so I had the opportunity to read all
 these different programs that were part of the system, and make
 changes in them. And by doing this over and over again, for years, I
 learnt to be a good programmer. I had to go to one particular place on
 earth, to have this opportunity, which was very unusual, very
 rare. Today any PC running the GNU plus Linux operating system, will
 offer you this opportunity. Every school in India that has a computer
 can offer its students the same opportunity, that I could only get at
 MIT.
 </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 MIT and began
 developing the GNU system. I didn't do it all myself, of course, I was
 also trying to recruit other people to help and gradually over the
 years more and more people joined in. During the 1980s, well we had
 only a few parts of the GNU system; some of these parts were superior
 and so people would take them and install them on their nonfree
 systems. For instance, the GNU Emacs text editor and the GNU C
 compiler. These were programs that people would learn even on top of
 their nonfree Unix system. But our real goal was not just to have a
 few popular programs, the goal was to make a complete system. So that
 we should reject the nonfree systems; reject nonfree software,
 escape from the bondage of nonfree software. So we kept filling in
 these gaps in the system and by the early 90s we had just one
 important gap remaining and that was the kernel.
 </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 &ldquo;Linux.&rdquo; 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. Nonfree 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 <i>g</i> instead of a
 <i>k</i>. 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. Nonfree 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>
 
 <div class="infobox">
 <hr />
 <p>Contributors (in alphabetical order): Krishnan, Saravana
 Manickam, Vijay Kumar, Vimal Joseph.</p>
 </div>
 </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; 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: 2021/09/20 15:06:48 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>
 </div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include -->
 </body>
 </html>