taler-merchant-demos

rms-interview-edinburgh.html (20452B)

---

 <!--#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>Interview with Richard Stallman, Edinburgh, 2004
 - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/rms-interview-edinburgh.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!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE--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>Interview with Richard Stallman, Edinburgh, 2004</h2>
 
 <div class="infobox">
 <p>Transcript of an interview that took place at the School of
 Informatics, Edinburgh University, on 27&nbsp;May&nbsp;2004;
 originally published at <a
 href="https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/05/292609.html">Indymedia</a> (<a
 href="https://web.archive.org/web/20050310050052if_/http://www.scotland.indymedia.org/usermedia/application/3/rms-interview-edinburgh-270504.ogg">audio
 recording</a>).</p>
 </div>
 <hr class="thin" />
 
 <dl>
 <dt>
 A person doesn't devote his whole life to developing a new form of
 freedom without some pre-existing beliefs that drive him to do so.
 What drives you to spend so much time on software freedoms?
 </dt>
 
 <dd>
 <p>First of all, growing up in the US in the 1960s, I certainly was
 exposed to ideas of freedom. And then, in the 1970s at MIT, I worked as
 part of a community of programmers who cooperated, and thought about
 the ethical and social meaning of this cooperation.  Then that
 community died in the early eighties, and by contrast with that, the
 world of proprietary software, which most computer users at the time
 were participating in, was morally sickening.  And I decided that I
 was going to try to create once again a community of cooperation.  I
 realized that, what I could get out of a life of participation in the
 competition to subjugate each other, which is what nonfree software
 is, all I could get out of that was money, and I would have a life that
 I would hate.</p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt>
 Do you think that the free software movement, or parts of it, could or
 does benefit from collaboration with other social movements?
 </dt>
 
 <dd>
 <p>I don't see very much direct benefit to free software itself.  On the
 other hand we are starting to see some political parties take up the
 cause of free software, because it fits in with ideas of freedom and
 cooperation that they generally support.  So in that sense, we're
 starting to see a contribution to the ideas of free software from
 other movements.</p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt>
 Have you considered that the free software movement is vital to
 oppositional movements in the world that are against corporate rule,
 militarism, capitalism, etc.?
 </dt>
 
 <dd>
 <p>Well, we are not against capitalism at all.  We are against
 subjugating people who use computers, one particular business
 practice.  There are businesses, both large and small, that distribute
 free software, and contribute to free software, and they're welcome
 to use it, welcome to sell copies, and we thank them for contributing.
 However, free software is a movement against domination, not
 necessarily against corporate domination, but against <em>any</em> domination.
 The users of software should not be dominated by the developers of the
 software, whether those developers be corporations or individuals or
 universities or what.</p>
 
 <p>The users shouldn't be kept divided and
 helpless.  And that's what nonfree software does; it keeps the users
 divided and helpless.  Divided because you're forbidden to share
 copies with anyone else, and helpless because you don't get the source
 code.  So you can't even tell what the program does, let alone change
 it.  So there is definitely a relationship.  We are working against
 domination by software developers. Many of those software developers
 are corporations, and some large corporations exert a form of
 domination through nonfree software.</p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt>
 And also that free software developers could provide a technical
 infrastructure for these movements that would be impossible to develop
 using proprietary software, which are too expensive and locked into an
 ideological model that reflects the interests of the dominant
 world-system like commoditization, exploitation, control and
 surveillance, instead of sharing, justice, freedom and democracy?
 </dt>
 
 <dd>
 <p>At the moment I wouldn't go quite so far as to say that nonfree
 software couldn't be usable by opposition movements, because many of
 them are using it.  It is not ethical to use nonfree software.
 Because&hellip; At least it is not ethical to use authorized copies.
 But it's not a good thing to use any copies.</p>
 
 <p>You see, to use
 authorized copies, you have to agree not to share with other people,
 and to agree to that is an unethical act in itself, which we should
 reject.  And that is the basic reason why I started the free software
 movement.  I wanted to make it easy to reject the unethical act of
 agreeing to the license of a nonfree program.  
 <span class="gnun-split"></span>If you're using an
 unauthorized copy, then you haven't agreed to that.  You haven't
 committed that unethical act.  But you are still&hellip; you are
 condemned to living underground.  And you're still unable to get the
 source code, so you can't tell for certain what those programs do.
 And they might in fact be carrying out surveillance.  And I was told
 that in Brazil, the use of unauthorized copies was in fact used as an
 excuse to imprison the activists of the landless rural workers
 movement, which has since switched to free software to escape from
 this danger.  And they indeed couldn't afford the authorized copies
 of software.  So, these things are not lined up directly on a straight
 line, but there's an increasing parallel between them, an increasing
 relationship.</p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt>
 The business corporation as a social form is very closed&mdash;it
 answers to no one except its shareholders, for example a small group of
 people with money, and its internal bureaucratic organization is about
 as democratic as a Soviet ministry.  Does the increasing involvement
 of corporations with free software strike you as something to be
 concerned about?
 </dt>
 
 <dd>
 <p>Not directly.  Because as long as a program is free software, that
 means the users are not being dominated by its developers. Whether
 these developers be a large business, a small business, a few
 individuals or whatever, as long as the software is free, they are not
 dominating people.</p>
 
 <p>However, most of the users of free software do not
 view it in ethical and social terms. There is a very effective and
 large movement called the open source movement, which is designed
 specifically to distract the users' attention from these ethical and
 social issues while talking about our work.  And they've been quite
 successful; there are many people who use our free software, which we
 developed for the sake of freedom and cooperation, who have never heard
 the reasons for which we did so.  And, this makes our community weak.
 <span class="gnun-split"></span>It's like a nation that has freedom,
 but most of its people have never
 been taught to value freedom.  They are in a vulnerable position,
 because if you say to them, &ldquo;Give up your freedom and I'll give you
 this valuable thing,&rdquo; they might say yes because
 they've never learnt why they should say no.</p>
 
 <p>You put that
 together with corporations that might want to take away people's
 freedom, to gradually encroach on freedom, and you have a
 vulnerability.  And what we see is that many of the corporate
 developers and distributors of free software put it in a package
 together with some nonfree user-subjugating software. And so they say that
 the user-subjugating software is a bonus, that it enhances the system.
 And if you haven't learnt to value freedom, you won't see any reason
 to disbelieve them.</p>
 
 <p>But this is not a new problem and it's not
 limited to large corporations.  All of the commercial distributors of
 the GNU/Linux system, going back something like 7 or 8 years, have made
 a practice of including nonfree software in their distributions, and
 this is something that I've been trying to push against in various ways,
 without much success.  But, in fact, even the noncommercial
 distributors of the GNU+Linux operating system have been including and
 distributing nonfree software; and the sad thing was that, of all the
 many distributions, until recently there was none that I could
 recommend.  Now I know of one, that I can recommend; its called
 &ldquo;Ututo-e&rdquo;; it comes from Argentina.  I hope that very soon
 I will be able to recommend another.</p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt>
 Why are the more technically-oriented beliefs of the open source
 movement not enough for you?
 </dt>
 
 <dd>
 <p>The open source movement was founded specifically to discard the
 ethical foundation of the free software movement.  The free software
 movement starts from an ethical judgment, that nonfree software is
 antisocial; it's wrong treatment of other people.  And I reached
 this conclusion before I started developing the GNU system.  I
 developed the GNU system specifically to create an alternative to an
 unethical way of using software.  When someone says to you,
 &ldquo;You can have this nice package of software, but only if you
 first sign a promise you will not share it with anyone else,&rdquo;
 you are being asked to betray the rest of humanity.  And I reached the
 conclusion in the early eighties that this was evil.</p>
 
 <p>But there was no other way to use a modern computer.
 All the operating systems required exactly such a
 betrayal before you could get a copy.  And that was in order to get an
 executable binary copy.  You couldn't have the source code at all.
 The executable binary copy is just a series of numbers, which even a
 programmer has trouble making any sense out of.  The source code
 looks sort of like mathematics, and if you've learnt how to program
 you can read that.  But that intelligible form, you couldn't
 get, even after you signed this betrayal.  All you would get is the
 nonsensical numbers, which only the computer can understand.</p>
 
 <p>So, I decided to create an alternative, which meant another operating
 system, one that would not have these unethical requirements, one
 that you could get in the form of source code, so that, if you decided
 to learn to program, you could understand it.  And you would get it
 without betraying other people, you'd be free to pass it on to
 others.  Free either to give away copies or sell copies.  So I began
 developing the GNU system, which in the early nineties was the bulk of
 what people erroneously started calling Linux.</p>
 
 <p>So it all exists because of an <em>ethical</em> refusal to go along
 with an antisocial practice. But this is controversial.</p>
 
 <p>In the nineties, as the GNU+Linux system became popular and got to
 have some millions of users, many of them were techies with technical
 blinders on, who didn't want to look at things in terms of right and
 wrong, but only in terms of effective or ineffective.  So they began
 telling many other people, &ldquo;Here is an operating system that's very
 reliable, and is powerful, and it's cool and exciting, and you can
 get it cheap.&rdquo;  And they did not mention that this allowed you to
 avoid an unethical betrayal of the rest of society, that it allowed
 users to avoid being kept divided and helpless.</p>
 
 <p>So, there were many
 people who used free software, but had never even heard of these
 ideas.  And that included people in business, who were committed to an
 amoral approach to their lives.  So, when somebody proposed the term
 &ldquo;open source,&rdquo; they seized on that, as a way that they
 could bury these ethical ideas.  Now, they have a right to promote
 their views.  But, I don't share their views, so I decline ever to do
 anything under the rubric of &ldquo;open source,&rdquo; and I hope
 that you will, too.</p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt>
 Given that it helps users to understand the freedoms in free software
 when the ambiguous use of the word free in English is clarified, what
 do you think of the use of the name FLOSS as in Free/Libre Open Source
 Software?
 </dt>
 
 <dd>
 <p>There are many people who, for instance, want to study our community,
 or write about our community, and want to avoid taking sides between
 the free software movement and the open source movement.  Often they
 have heard primarily of the open source movement, and they think that
 we all support it.  So, I point out to them that, in fact, our
 community was created by the free software movement.  But then, they
 often say that they are not addressing that particular disagreement,
 and they'd like to mention both movements without taking a
 side.  So I recommend the term Free/Libre Open Source Software as a
 way they can mention both movements and give equal weight to both.
 And they abbreviated FLOSS once they have said what it stands for.  So
 I think that's a&hellip; If you don't want to take a side between the
 two movements, then yes, by all means, use that term.  Of course what I
 hope you will do is take the side of the free software movement.  But
 not everybody has to.  That term is legitimate.</p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt>
 Are you happy with the development of the community which has grown
 out of your vision of a free operating system?  In what way did it
 develop differently from the vision you had at the beginning?
 </dt>
 
 <dd>
 <p>Well, by and large, I am pretty happy with it.  But of course there
 are some things that I am not happy with, mainly the weakness that so
 many people in the community do not think of it as an issue of
 freedom, have not learned to value their freedom, or even to recognize
 it.  That makes our future survival questionable.  It makes us weak.
 And so, when we face various threats, this weakness hampers our
 response.  Our community could be destroyed by software-idea patents.
 It could be destroyed by treacherous computing.  It could be destroyed
 simply by hardware manufacturers' refusal to tell us enough about how
 to use the hardware, so that we can't write free software to run the
 hardware.  
 <span class="gnun-split"></span>There're many vulnerabilities that we have over the
 long-term.  And, well, the things we have to do to survive these threats
 are different. In all cases, the more aware we are, the more motivated
 we are, the easier it will be for us to do whatever it takes.  So, the
 most fundamental long-term thing we have to [do is to] recognize and then value
 the freedom that free software gives, so that they will fight for their
 freedoms the same way people fight for freedom of speech, freedom of
 the press, freedom of assembly, because those freedoms are also
 greatly threatened in the world today.</p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt>
 So, what in your opinion threatens the growth of free software at the
 moment?
 </dt>
 
 <dd>
 <p>I have to point out that our goal is not precisely growth.  Our goal
 is to liberate cyberspace.  Now, that does mean liberating all the
 users of computers.  We hope eventually they all switch to free
 software, but we shouldn't take mere success as our goal; that's
 missing the ultimate point.  But if I take this to mean, &ldquo;What is
 holding back the spread of free software?&rdquo;  Well, partly at this
 point it's inertia, social inertia.  Lots of people have learnt to
 use Windows.  And they haven't yet learnt to use GNU/Linux.  It's no
 longer very hard to learn to use GNU/Linux. Five years ago it was hard, now it
 is not.  But still, it's more than zero.  
 <span class="gnun-split"></span>And people who are, you
 know,&hellip; if you never learned any computer system, then learning
 GNU/Linux is as easy as anything, but if you've already learnt Windows,
 it's easier&hellip; it's easier to keep doing what you know.  So that's
 inertia.  And there are more people trained in running Windows systems
 than in running GNU/Linux systems.  So, any time you're trying to
 convince people to change over, you're working against inertia.  In
 addition, we have a problem that hardware manufacturers don't cooperate
 with us the way they cooperate with Microsoft.  So we have that
 inertia as well.</p>
 
 <p>And then, we have the danger in some countries of
 software-idea patents.  I would like everybody reading this to talk to
 all of&hellip; or anybody listening to this to talk to all of
 their candidates for the European Parliament, and ask, &ldquo;Where do you
 stand on software-idea patents? Will you vote to reinstate the
 Parliament's amendments that were adopted last September and that
 apparently are being removed by the Council of Ministers?  Will you
 vote to bring back those amendments in the second reading?&rdquo;  This is a
 very concrete question.  With a yes or no answer.  
 <span class="gnun-split"></span>You will often get
 other kinds of&hellip; you may get evasive answers if you ask,
 &ldquo;Do you support or oppose software-idea patents?&rdquo; The
 people who wrote the directive claim that it does not authorize
 software-idea patents. They say that this is because the directive
 says that anything to be patented must have a technical character.
 But somebody in the European Commission involved in this admitted
 that, that term means exactly what they want it to mean,
 humpty-dumpty style. So, in fact, it's no limitation on anything.  So
 if a candidate says, &ldquo;I support the Commission's draft because it won't
 allow software-idea patents,&rdquo; you can point this out, and press the
 question, &ldquo;Will you vote for the Parliament's previous
 amendments?&rdquo;</p>
 </dd>
 
 <dt>OK, thanks very much.</dt>
 </dl>
 </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</p>
 
 <p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
 href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
 Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p>
 
 <!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
 
 <p class="unprintable">Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
 $Date: 2021/09/11 09:55:40 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>
 </div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include -->
 </body>
 </html>