taler-merchant-demos

rms-kernel-trap-interview.html (37733B)

---

 <!--#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, KernelTrap.org, 2005
 - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
  <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/rms-kernel-trap-interview.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!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE--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, KernelTrap.org, 2005</h2>
 
 <address class="byline">conducted by Jeremy Andrews</address>
 
 <p>Richard Stallman founded the GNU Project in 1984, and the Free
 Software Foundation in 1985. He also originally authored a number of
 well known and highly used development tools, including the GNU
 Compiler Collection (GCC), the GNU symbolic debugger (GDB) and GNU
 Emacs.</p>
 
 <p>To better understand Richard Stallman and the GNU Project, I
 recommend you begin by reviewing their philosophy page. On it you will
 find a wealth of information.</p>
 
 <p>We began this interview via email, but later had to finish by
 telephone after Richard Stallman fell and broke his arm. He was kind
 enough to speak with me at length, discussing his first contact with
 computers, his time in the AI Lab, the current state of the GNU Hurd,
 his current role in the Free Software Foundation, the problems with
 nonfree software, and much more. The following words offer much
 insight into how we got here, and what challenges we still face.</p>
 
 <h3>Background</h3>
 
 <p><strong>Jeremy Andrews</strong>: When did you first start working
 with computers?</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: I first read manuals and wrote
 programs on paper in 1962 or so. 1969 was when I first saw and used a
 real computer.</p>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: What types of programs were you writing prior
 to actually seeing and using a real computer?</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: They were pretty trivial, like
 things to add up a vector of numbers. About the time I first started
 with a real computer I designed a computer language based on string
 substitution. In some ways like SNOBOL, although I'd never used
 SNOBOL.</p>
 
 <p>And then, the first thing I started writing when I had a real
 computer to use&mdash;I'd seen the language PL/I and I was thrilled by
 how many features it had. But there was a feature it didn't have: it
 didn't have the summation convention used in tensor analysis. So I
 started to write a pre-processor for PL/I that would implement the
 summation convention. I didn't ever finish it, but I actually got some
 parts of it to work. I wrote it first in PL/I, and then we discovered
 that even one pass of it wouldn't fit in the machine that was
 available. (I had actually written a lot of parts of this in PL/I on
 paper by that point.) Then I started rewriting it in assembler
 language, but I only rewrote a few passes of it in assembler
 language. And then I learned about things like lists and about Lisp,
 and lost interest in languages like PL/I.</p>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: When you graduated from Harvard in 1974 with a
 BA in physics, how did you intend to use your degree?</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: I thought I would become a
 theoretical physicist; however, the pleasure of programming, where I
 could make real progress and see results, gradually grew and overtook
 the pleasure of learning physics.</p>
 
 <h3>Life In The AI Lab</h3>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: What tasks occupied your time at the AI Lab
 through the 1970's?</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: Mostly operating system
 development, but I did one AI research project with Professor Sussman;
 we developed dependency-directed backtracking.</p>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: What is dependency-directed backtracking?</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: You make some assumptions, and
 with those together with some given facts you draw a conclusion. You
 may reach a contradiction; if so, at least one of your assumptions
 that led to that contradiction must be wrong. You also record which
 combination of assumptions actually related to the contradiction, so
 you can deduce that that combination of assumptions cannot all be
 true. Then you backtrack by changing assumptions, but you never try a
 set of assumptions that includes the combination that you know are
 contradictory. Now, this is a technique that people had used for a
 long time in thinking. It's also known as proof analysis. But it
 hadn't been used in computerized reasoning.</p>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: What was the result of this research
 project?</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: We published a paper. The
 technique got used by other people later, so apparently it became part
 of AI.</p>
 
 <p>Also, I learned how to understand electrical circuits better. The
 program that we wrote, which used this technique, was a program for
 understanding electrical circuits. By imitating the program, I could
 understand circuits better than I could before.</p>
 
 <h3>The GNU Project And The Free Software Foundation</h3>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: The story of your encounter with nonfree
 printer software in the early 80's is very well known. This incident
 ultimately resulted in your founding the GNU Project in 1984, and the
 Free Software Foundation in 1985. You have remained quite active in
 this movement ever since, as a public speaker and a prolific author of
 free software. Of which of your many achievements in the past two
 decades are you the most proud?</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: What I am proud of is that we
 have built a community where people can use computers and work
 together in freedom.</p>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: What are the largest challenges you're facing
 today?</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: Software patents. The Digital
 Millennium Copyright Act. The broadcast flag. Cards with secret
 specifications. Nonfree Java platforms.</p>
 
 <p>In other words, organized efforts by people with power to put an
 end to our freedom.</p>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: Is there a plan for addressing these
 issues?</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: Regarding the laws, not much of
 one, in the US. In other countries that do not yet have these laws, we
 can try to prevent them.</p>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: That's a bit scary.</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: It is.</p>
 
 <h3>&ldquo;Free Software&rdquo; vs. &ldquo;Open Source&rdquo;</h3>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: You regularly have to explain the differences
 between &ldquo;free software&rdquo; and &ldquo;open source
 software,&rdquo; and yet the media continues to confuse these
 terms. For our readers that may therefore be confused themselves, can
 you explain the differences, and why it is important to get it
 right?</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: Free software and open source
 are the slogans of two different movements with different
 philosophies. In the free software movement, our goal is to be free to
 share and cooperate. We say that nonfree software is antisocial
 because it tramples the users' freedom, and we develop free software
 to escape from that.</p>
 
 <p>The open source movement promotes what they consider a technically
 superior development model that usually gives technically superior
 results. The values they cite are the same ones Microsoft appeals to:
 narrowly practical values.</p>
 
 <p>Free software and open source are also both criteria for software
 licenses. These criteria are written in very different ways but the
 licenses accepted are almost the same. The main difference is the
 difference in philosophy.</p>
 
 <p>Why does the philosophy matter? Because people who don't value
 their freedom will lose it. If you give people freedom but don't teach
 them to value it, they won't hold on to it for long. So it is not
 enough to spread free software. We have to teach people to demand
 freedom, to fight for freedom. Then we may be able to overcome the
 problems that today I see no way to solve.</p>
 
 <h3>&ldquo;GNU/Linux&rdquo;</h3>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: Another frequent area of confusion is the name
 &ldquo;GNU/Linux.&rdquo; Why is the GNU Project's contribution significant enough
 that it should be in the name of the operating system, especially
 compared to other large pieces of any Linux-kernel based operating
 system, such as XFree86?</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: It's no coincidence that the
 code we wrote for the GNU system is the largest single contribution to
 the GNU/Linux system today. Many other people and projects have
 developed free software programs now used in the system; TeX, BSD
 code, X11, Linux, and Apache are noteworthy examples. But it was the
 GNU Project that set out to develop a complete free operating
 system. The combined system we use today is founded on GNU.</p>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: In talking about GNU Linux&hellip;</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: I prefer to pronounce it
 &ldquo;GNU slash Linux,&rdquo; or &ldquo;GNU plus Linux.&rdquo; The
 reason is that when you say &ldquo;GNU Linux&rdquo; it is very much
 prone to suggest a misleading interpretation. After all, we have GNU
 Emacs which is the version of
 Emacs which was developed for GNU. If you say &ldquo;GNU
 Linux,&rdquo; people will think it means a version of Linux that was
 developed for GNU. Which is not the fact.</p>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: You're trying to point out instead that it's a
 combination of the two.</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: Exactly. It's GNU plus Linux
 together.</p>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: Which makes up the GNU+Linux operating system
 that everyone uses.</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: Exactly.</p>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: What is gained by people using the term
 GNU/Linux?</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: People know that Linus Torvalds
 wrote his program Linux to have fun. And people know that Linus
 Torvalds did not say that it's wrong to stop users for sharing and
 changing the software they use. If they think that our system was
 started by him and primarily owes existence to him, they will tend to
 follow his philosophy, and that weakens our community.</p>
 
 <p>It's an interesting anecdote to think that the whole operating
 system exists because an undergraduate thought that it was a fun
 project. But the real story is that this system exists because of
 people who were determined to fight for freedom and willing to work
 for years if that's what it took. That's a story that teaches people
 something worth learning.</p>
 
 <p>When people forget that, they start drifting toward the practical
 but superficial values shared by the open source movement and
 Microsoft: the idea that the only thing that matters about your
 software is whether it gets your jobs done and what it costs.</p>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: Which begins to answer my next question, what
 is lost when people refuse to use the term GNU/Linux?</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: What's lost is an opportunity to
 teach people. The software is equally free regardless of whatever name
 you call it&mdash;if, that is, the distro you're using really is
 free. But the only free GNU/Linux distro I know of is Ututo. Most
 versions of the GNU/Linux system are not entirely free software. All
 the commercial distributors put in nonfree software. And then there's
 Debian which keeps all the nonfree software clearly separated, but
 does distribute it. And those who sell Debian GNU/Linux often add a
 few nonfree programs as a &ldquo;bonus&rdquo;&hellip; They invite you
 to think it's a bonus you're getting that your freedom is no longer
 complete.</p>
 
 <p>If you happen to be running a version of GNU/Linux which doesn't
 have the nonfree software, then the situation is not materially
 changed by the name you use. But the situation we're likely to find
 ourselves in five years from now depends on what we teach each other
 today.</p>
 
 <p>A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, but if you called it
 an onion you'd get cooks very confused.</p>
 
 <h3>GNU/Hurd</h3>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: The GNU Hurd has been under development for
 over a decade. There was talk of a 1.0 release over a year ago, but
 this was delayed due to a couple of lacking features. What is the
 current status of this project?</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: The Hurd runs, and missing
 features are gradually being added. However, for practical use today,
 you would use a Linux-based version of GNU.</p>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: Do you have any predictions as to when we're
 going to see a 1.0 release?</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: No, I'm afraid I don't, I'm sad
 to say. A lot of the Hurd developers seem to have decided that they
 should re-write it to work with a different micro-kernel (L4). I was
 disappointed to hear this, but now it looks like it will be some more
 years before the Hurd is usable.</p>
 
 <p>At least we do have a free kernel that works with GNU.</p>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: Will the GNU Project focus solely on a GNU
 system built around the GNU Hurd when it is released, or will it
 continue to support a widening range of free-software kernels?</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: We will keep supporting
 Linux-based versions of the GNU system for as long as they remain
 popular.</p>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: How will we refer to a Hurd-based operating
 system? Is it GNU Hurd, or GNU slash Hurd?</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: It's the GNU operating system,
 and the Hurd is its kernel. But because it's so common for people to
 use version of GNU that are based on Linux as the kernel, it's useful
 to contrast the two, and talk about GNU/Linux and GNU/Hurd, which are
 two different versions of the GNU system with different kernels.</p>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: What would the advantages of using a GNU/Hurd
 system be over say a GNU/Linux system?</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: There's probably no gigantic
 advantage that jumps out at the user's face if you're not writing
 interesting programs. The Hurd offers interesting, powerful
 capabilities. For instance, you can write your own filesystem, so you
 could implement any sort of behavior you want and package it as a
 file. It offers the possibility of implementing sandboxes, where you
 can run a program but have another program monitoring all its I/O to
 make sure it doesn't start writing in files it wasn't expected to.</p>
 
 <p>These things may be doable with a kernel that doesn't have the
 Hurd's architecture, but with the Hurd it's trivial and the most
 natural thing in the world.</p>
 
 <h3>Writing Code versus Management</h3>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: How much source code do you write these
 days?</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: I myself? Only a little, on
 Emacs. I was involuntarily self-promoted into management.</p>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: That's an interesting description. How did
 this happen?</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: The amount of management and
 activism that had to be done got more and more, and so I had to find
 other people to take over more and more of my programming
 responsibilities.</p>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: Do you miss the programming?</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: Yes. It's fun.</p>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: Is the management/activist role something you
 desire to remain in?</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: I wouldn't say I desire to, but
 it's necessary that I do so. At the moment we don't have anyone to
 replace me. We're actually thinking about how we could try and
 develop people who could do this, so that I will not be
 indispensable.</p>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: What is your role these days?</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: Partly it is being a very firm
 and determined leader. Partly it is being an orator. Partly it is
 advising other people on how to be activists or how to contribute to
 free software. I've learned something that a lot of people could
 usefully know: how to be extremely persistent and whenever one avenue
 was blocked find another.</p>
 
 <p>I've also learned the spirit of what you do when you're fighting
 for freedom. When it's a fight that you can't ever give up as
 lost.</p>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: Many of the programs you were the original
 author for are key components of much software development today (free
 and nonfree alike), such as the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC), the
 GNU symbolic debugger (GDB), and GNU Emacs. All of these projects have
 remained under constant development over the years. How closely have
 you followed the many projects you've started, and how do you feel
 about the directions they've taken?</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: I don't follow GCC and GDB in
 technical detail nowadays&mdash;other people now have that
 responsibility. I still supervise Emacs development.</p>
 
 <h3>GNU Emacs</h3>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: Then you are still working on Emacs at a code
 level?</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: Yes, although now with my broken
 arm I really have no time to program anything. I will when my arm is
 better and I can type for myself again.</p>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: May I ask what happened to your arm?</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: I fell and broke my arm, and I
 needed surgery. It hurts, and I think it will never be normal
 again. But I think it will work for typing. (Later: it works fine for
 typing, but it tingles all the time.)</p>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: I'm sorry to hear about your arm, and I wish
 you a speedy recovery.</p>
 
 <p>I recently reread Cliff Stoll's &ldquo;The Cuckoo's Egg.&rdquo; Are
 you familiar with the book?</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: I have a vague memory of it.</p>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: A quick summary, he talks about a spy that
 breaks into a university computer system, initially using a security
 hole in GNU Emacs&hellip;</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: Well, whether it's really a
 security hole, or whether he had made a mistake by installing a
 certain program setuid is subject to argument.</p>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: That's exactly what I was curious about, just
 what your reaction would have been to the book when it came out.</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: His book made it sound like
 Emacs, or actually Movemail I think it was&hellip; His book made it sound
 like it was normal to install Movemail setuid. I think some people
 sometimes did that, as there was a certain problem you could get
 around by doing that, but that wasn't the normal way to install it. So
 in fact, people installing Emacs the usual way would not have had that
 problem.</p>
 
 <p>On the other hand, it certainly was useful to make Emacs more
 bulletproof, so that that problem couldn't happen even if you
 installed Movemail as setuid.</p>
 
 <p>That was ages ago.</p>
 
 <h3>Nonfree Software</h3>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: What is your reaction to tools such as GCC,
 GDB and GNU Emacs being used for the development of nonfree
 software?</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: Any development of nonfree
 software is harmful and unfortunate, whether it uses GNU tools or
 other tools. Whether it is good or bad, in the long term, for the
 future of computer users' freedom that one can use these tools to
 develop nonfree software is a question whose answer I could only
 guess at.</p>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: How do you react to the opinion that nonfree
 software is justified as a means for raising dollars that can then be
 put into the development of completely new software, money that
 otherwise may not have been available, and thus creating software that
 may have never been developed?</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: This is no justification at
 all. A nonfree program systematically denies the users the freedom to
 cooperate; it is the basis of an antisocial scheme to dominate
 people. The program is available lawfully only to those who will
 surrender their freedom. That's not a contribution to society, it's a
 social problem. It is better to develop no software than to develop
 nonfree software.</p>
 
 <p>So if you find yourself in that situation, please don't follow that
 path. Please don't write the nonfree program&mdash;please do
 something else instead. We can wait till someone else has the chance
 to develop a free program to do the same job.</p>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: What about the programmers&hellip;</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: What about them? The programmers
 writing nonfree software? They are doing something antisocial. They
 should get some other job.</p>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: Such as?</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: There are thousands of different
 jobs people can have in society without developing nonfree
 software. You can even be a programmer. Most paid programmers are
 developing custom software&mdash;only a small fraction are developing
 nonfree software. The small fraction of proprietary software jobs are
 not hard to avoid.</p>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: What is the distinction there?</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: Nonfree software is meant to be
 distributed to the public. Custom software is meant to be used by one
 client. There's no ethical problem with custom software as long as
 you're respecting your client's freedom.</p>
 
 <p>The next point is that programmers are a tiny fraction of
 employment in the computer field. Suppose somebody developed an AI and
 no programmers were needed anymore. Would this be a disaster? Would
 all the people who are now programmers be doomed to unemployment for
 the rest of their lives? Obviously not, but this doesn't stop people
 from exaggerating the issue.</p>
 
 <p>And what if there aren't any programming jobs in the US
 anymore?</p>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: You mean what if all the programming jobs were
 outsourced to foreign countries?</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: Yes, what if they all go? This
 may actually happen. When you start thinking about things like total
 levels of employment, you've got think about all the factors that
 affect it, not blame it all on one factor. The cause of unemployment
 is not someone or society deciding that software should be free. The
 cause of the problem is largely economic policies designed to benefit
 only the rich. Such as driving wages down.</p>
 
 <p>You know, it's no coincidence that we're having all this
 outsourcing. That was carefully planned. International treaties were
 designed to make this happen so that people's wages would be
 reduced.</p>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: Can you cite specific examples?</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: FTAA. The World Trade
 Organization. NAFTA. These treaties are designed to reduce wages by
 making it easy for a company to say to various countries, &ldquo;Which
 of you will let us pay people the least? That's were we're
 headed.&rdquo; And if any country starts having a somewhat increased
 standard of living, companies say, &ldquo;Oh, this is a bad labor
 climate here. You're not making a good climate for business. All the
 business is going to go away. You better make sure that people get
 paid less. You're following a foolish policy arranging for workers of
 your country to be paid more. You've got to make sure that your
 workers are the lowest paid anywhere in the world, then we'll come
 back. Otherwise we're all going to run away and punish you.&rdquo;</p>
 
 <p>Businesses very often do it, they move operations out of a country
 to punish that country. And I've recently come to the conclusion that
 frictionless international trade is inherently a harmful thing,
 because it makes it too easy for companies to move from one country to
 another. We have to make that difficult enough that each company can
 be stuck in some country that can regulate it.</p>
 
 <p>The book No Logo explains that the Philippines have laws that
 protect labor standards, but these laws count for nothing any
 more. They decided to set up &ldquo;enterprise zones&rdquo;&mdash;that's
 the euphemism they used for &ldquo;sweat shop zones&rdquo;&mdash;where
 companies are exempt from these rules for the first two years. And as
 a result, no company lasts for more than two years. When their
 exemption runs out, the owners shut it down and they start
 another.</p>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: How does free software address this?</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: Free software doesn't address
 this. Free software addresses the issue of how computer users can have
 freedom to cooperate and to control their own computers. This is the
 larger issue that becomes relevant when you start talking about
 &ldquo;How are people going to have jobs that pay them
 decently?&rdquo; The answer is: in the world of the low wage treaties,
 they're not going to.</p>
 
 <p>It's inconsistent and futile to subject millions of people to the
 loss of freedom that nonfree software imposes, just so that a tiny
 segment of society will have better paying jobs, when we're ignoring
 all the rest of society with their lousy jobs.</p>
 
 <p>If you want to start doing something about that problem, do it at
 the right level, which is the level of the power balance between
 corporations and countries. Corporations are too powerful now. We have
 to knock them down. I don't believe in abolishing business or even in
 abolishing corporations, but we've got to make sure that no
 corporation is powerful enough that it can say to all the countries in
 the world, &ldquo;I'll punish any country that doesn't
 obey.&rdquo;</p>
 
 <p>That is the way it works now. And it was deliberately set up by
 people such as Reagan, and Clinton, and Bush and Bush.</p>
 
 <h3>New Technologies</h3>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: I have read that the free software model tends
 to imitate existing software, rather than blaze new trails and
 developing completely new technologies.</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: To speak of a free software
 &ldquo;model&rdquo; is somewhat misleading. The open source movement
 speaks of a &ldquo;development model,&rdquo; but our concern is for
 the user's freedom, not how the program is developed.</p>
 
 <p>Free software doesn't always imitate, but often it does. There's a
 good reason for this: freedom is the main goal, and innovation is
 secondary.</p>
 
 <p>Our goal is to develop free software so that we can use computers
 exclusively with free software. In 1984, we started with nearly zero
 (we had TeX, nothing else). We had a lot of catching up to do, so we
 have done it. Even if GNU/Linux had no technical innovations compared
 with Unix, it would be completely superior because it respects your
 freedom as Unix does not.</p>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: Do you believe that free software has caught
 up with nonfree software?</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: To a large extent, but not
 totally.</p>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: Would you say that we're going to start seeing
 a lot of technical innovations originating from free software as
 things are catching up?</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: We already have. We already have
 seen technical innovations in free software. A lot of them help make
 up the world wide web.</p>
 
 <h3>The Internet</h3>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: Does the importance of using only free
 software apply to the Internet?</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: I don't understand the
 question.</p>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: Software not only runs on personal computers,
 but also on the computers that comprise the Internet&hellip;</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: That may mean your computer. If
 your computer is on the Internet, then that's one of the computers
 you're talking about.</p>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: You're correct. At this very moment my
 computer is part of the Internet. And my computer is comprised
 entirely of free software. However there are plenty of computers on
 the Internet that are not comprised of free software.</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: I think you meant to say,
 &ldquo;not running entirely free software.&rdquo; There are many
 computers on the net that are not running free software, and that
 means the people who use and own those computers have lost this aspect
 of their freedom. That's a problem.</p>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: Do you consider it proper for people who are
 trying to only use free software to utilize&hellip;</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: To connect to a server that's
 running nonfree software?</p>
 
 <p>I don't feel I need to refuse to connect to a server that is
 running nonfree software. For that matter, I won't refuse to type on
 a computer that's running nonfree software. If I were visiting your
 house for a little and you had a Windows machine, I would use it if it
 were important for me to use it. I wouldn't be willing to have Windows
 on my computer, and you shouldn't have it on yours, but I can't change
 that by refusing to touch the machine.</p>
 
 <p>If you connect to a server that runs nonfree software, you're not
 the one whose freedom is harmed. It's the server operator who has lost
 freedom to the restrictions on the software he runs. This is
 unfortunate, and I hope that he switches to free software; we're
 working to bring that about. But I don't feel you have to boycott his
 site until he switches. He isn't making you use the nonfree
 software.</p>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: Back to my earlier question, as a specific
 example do you use tools such as Google when attempting to locate
 online content?</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: I have nothing against
 communicating with Google's network server, but for Google's sake I
 hope they have the freedom to study, change and redistribute the
 software used on their server. Having the freedom to do so does not
 imply the obligation to do so; Google doesn't have to change or
 redistribute the software they run. But they ought to be free to do
 this, just as you and I should be free to do this with the software on
 our machines.</p>
 
 <h3>The Workplace</h3>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: What if your job requires you to use nonfree
 software?</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: I would quit that job. Would you
 participate in something anti-social just because somebody pays you
 to? What if the job involves hitting people on the head in the street
 and taking their wallets? What if it involves spreading the word that
 Democrats should vote on Wednesday instead of Tuesday? Some people
 seriously claim that you can't criticize what someone does if it is
 part of their job. From my point of view, the fact that somebody is
 being paid to do something wrong is not an excuse.</p>
 
 <h3>Embedded Applications</h3>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: Embedded applications have become more and
 more prevalent in society. Is it possible to completely avoid nonfree
 software and still remain in touch with current technologies?</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: I don't know if it is possible,
 but if it is not, that is something we need to change. Once an
 embedded system can talk to a network, or users normally load software
 into it, its software needs to be free. For instance, if it uses
 nonfree software to talk to the network, you can't trust it not to
 spy on you.</p>
 
 <h3>SCO</h3>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: How do you react to SCO's recent accusations
 about the Linux kernel?</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: The vague and cagey nature of
 their statements, coupled with having seen that the only specific
 facts they produced proved to be false, suggests they have no real
 case.</p>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: What impact do you expect this to have on free
 software?</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: I don't expect it to have a big
 impact because I don't think they have a case. They're trying to
 create FUD and they may scare some timid people off.</p>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: Do you expect this to bring the GPL into the
 courtroom?</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: I don't know.</p>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: Is that a concern for you?</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: We think the GPL will stand up
 in court, but no wise person is eager to get into a battle, even if he
 thinks he's well enough armed that he'd probably win.</p>
 
 <p>The arguments that SCO have been making are so laughably absurd
 that they lend support to the idea that SCO has no real case, that
 they're only interested in creating FUD.</p>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: To what end?</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: They hope some companies will
 pay them money, and Microsoft already did.</p>
 
 <p>To people who know almost nothing about copyright law, anything
 sounds as plausible as anything else. When they hear what SCO says,
 they don't know how ridiculous it is. So they think, &ldquo;SCO says
 this, IBM says that, how do I know who's right?&rdquo;</p>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: What's in store for the GNU General Public
 License (GPL)? Are there plans for a version 3?</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: Yes, but we are not really sure
 what will change. What we can say is that the changes will be
 details.</p>
 
 <h3>Getting Involved</h3>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: Is there any other current event that you'd
 like to address?</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: The FCC last year decided to
 require digital restrictions management in all receivers of digital
 TV. And not only that, to require that they be made not modifiable by
 the user. I think they have not yet decided whether this device is
 software controlled. If they make it software controlled then for the
 first time there will be a government policy explicitly banning free
 software for a job that millions of people are going to want to
 do.</p>
 
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: Are you optimistic about this?</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: I don't know. I am a pessimist
 by nature. Many people can only keep on fighting when they expect to
 win. I'm not like that, I always expect to lose. I fight anyway, and
 sometimes I win.</p>
 
 <p>I'm not the main leader in this particular battle. The Electronic
 Frontier Foundation is fighting. Public Knowledge is fighting. People
 need to get involved politically. At this point people should go to
 the EFF website and the Public Knowledge website, and continue doing
 so over the coming weeks to see how they can get involved in this
 coming campaign. It's going to take a lot of people spending probably
 at least twenty minutes. If you care enough about your freedom to
 spend twenty minutes on it, if you can tear yourself away from
 whatever little job it is you're doing this week, and next week, and
 so on. Spend a little time fighting for your freedom, and we can
 win.</p>
 
 <p><strong>JA</strong>: Thank you.</p>
 
 <p><strong>Richard Stallman</strong>: Happy hacking!</p>
 
 <div class="infobox extra" role="complementary">
 <hr />
 <p>Source:&nbsp;
   <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120621163233/http://kerneltrap.org/node/4484">
   kerneltrap.org/node/4484</a>
   [Archived]</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; 2005, 2021 Richard Stallman, Jeremy Andrews</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: 2021/09/14 16:25:47 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>
 </div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include -->
 </body>
 </html>