the-law-of-success-2.html (22394B)
1 <!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> 2 <!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 --> 3 <!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html --> 4 <!--#set var="TAGS" value="speeches" --> 5 <!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" --> 6 <title>The Law of Success 2.0: An Interview with Richard Stallman 7 - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> 8 <style type="text/css" media="print,screen"><!-- 9 .pict { width: 20em; height: auto; margin: 2em auto; } 10 --></style> 11 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/the-law-of-success-2.translist" --> 12 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> 13 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" --> 14 <!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE--> 15 <!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" --> 16 <div class="article reduced-width"> 17 <h2>The Law of Success 2.0: An Interview with Richard Stallman</h2> 18 19 <div class="infobox"> 20 <p><em>This interview was conducted by Haegwan Kim in November 2010.</em></p> 21 </div> 22 23 <div class="pict"> 24 <img src="/graphics/RMS.jpeg" 25 alt=" [Photo of Richard Stallman] " title="Richard Stallman" 26 width="259" height="194" /> 27 </div> 28 29 <p><b>Haegwan Kim:</b> First, you mentioned that discussing success is 30 not useful for you 31 and that's really interesting to me. In this interview mainly I want to 32 talk about freedom and related issue. But before that, could you tell me 33 the reason that talking about success is not useful to you?</p> 34 35 <p><b>Richard Stallman:</b> Because some activities are good for society 36 and some are harmful for 37 society. Of course, many are neutral. If person A knows how to aim for 38 success, that may be good or bad for the rest of us. And I didn't set 39 out to be a success. I didn't set out to make a lot of money or become 40 famous. I set out to give software users freedom, which is a goal that 41 deserves to be done. It's a goal that's important in its own right and I 42 just happened to be the person trying to achieve it.</p> 43 44 <p>And to a certain extent I have succeeded. It didn't make me rich but 45 it's success, to an extent, because at least there is now a large 46 community of people who use and contribute to free software, so in that 47 sense it's a success. But when I look at it I don't ask, 48 am I a success? I ask, do users have freedom?</p> 49 50 <p><b>HK:</b> Great to hear that. Can you tell me why you are so in favour of the 51 freedom?</p> 52 53 <p><b>RMS:</b> Partly it's because I resent being pushed around. I resent anyone 54 giving me orders. Partly because I grew up in the US, where people were 55 taught to think about freedom—or at least were. I don't know if 56 any of the children are taught any of these things any more. Partly 57 because not long before I was born, there was a World War against some 58 horrible dictators and partly because I had the experience of having 59 freedom in my use of computers when I worked at the MIT artificial 60 intelligence lab in the 70s.</p> 61 62 <p>And so I was sensitised to notice the difference between free 63 software, freedom-respecting software and user-subjugating software. So 64 for ten years or so, my work was done on improving a free operating 65 system, most of the parts of which had been developed at MIT by the 66 group I was part of.</p> 67 68 <p>So working, improving that system meant taking advantage of freedom 69 all the time, so I came to appreciate freedom.</p> 70 71 <p><b>HK:</b> Okay, I see.</p> 72 73 <p><b>RMS:</b> But that's not quite the end.</p> 74 75 <p><b>HK:</b> Okay.</p> 76 77 <p><b>RMS:</b> Because the community fell apart in the early 80s and it was no 78 longer possible to have the freedom. So I saw the contrast 79 between living in freedom and losing freedom, and I found nonfreedom 80 disgusting. So I decided to do something to bring freedom back.</p> 81 82 <p><b>HK:</b> Can you tell me how…? You are now trying to bring freedom 83 back, which conversely means there's no freedom at the moment.</p> 84 85 <p><b>RMS:</b> Yes. With regard to software. First of all, this is a big question. 86 In regard to software, proprietary software does not respect users' 87 freedom because the program controls the users. If the users aren't free 88 to change a program and do so either individually or in groups 89 cooperating, then the program controls the users.</p> 90 91 <p>Now, with typical proprietary software there is even a licence that 92 says what users are allowed to do with the program and what they're not 93 allowed to do and it can be as restrictive as the developer chooses to 94 make it. For instance, there is a Microsoft program for managing 95 webpages, websites, and its licence says it can't be used to publish 96 anything that criticises Microsoft. So here, nonfree software takes away 97 your freedom of speech.</p> 98 99 <p>This is obviously intolerable. If you can't use your copy freely you 100 can't control your computing. You can only do what you're told. But 101 then the second level of control, through the source, through writing 102 the code of the program; if you use a program whose code was written by 103 somebody else and you can't see it or change it then that somebody 104 controls what you do. He could make the program do nasty things to you, 105 and even if you happen to find out, you still can't change it.</p> 106 107 <p>Finding out is difficult because you don't have the source code. 108 Sometimes you will notice some sign that it's doing a nasty thing. 109 Other times you won't notice. For instance, Windows has spy features 110 which send information about the use of the machine to Microsoft and 111 users can't see that this is happening. It was not easy to find out that 112 these spy features are there, but people found out. They had to be 113 somewhat clever, in some cases, to discover these spy features.</p> 114 115 <p>And then there is a back door in Windows which allows Microsoft to 116 forcibly install software changes. It doesn't have to ask permission, it 117 can just sneak them in. So this is what I mean when I say a program 118 controls the users. But even if there's no back door to allow the 119 developer to install changes, it's still the case that the program does 120 what the developer chose to make it do, and if you don't like that, you 121 can't change it. So you're stuck with it.</p> 122 123 <p>So the back door is sort of icing on the cake for his power, because 124 it means that even if he forgot to do something nasty, he can put it in 125 retroactively. Without that kind of back door, he's limited to the nasty 126 things that he thought of in advance.</p> 127 128 <p>There are many proprietary programs that are widely used, that do 129 surveillance; there are many that are specifically designed to restrict 130 what users could do. Those restrictions which limit what users could do 131 on the data in their machines are known as digital restrictions 132 management or DRM, also sometimes referred to as digital handcuffs. So 133 the point is, using those programs is like being handcuffed because you 134 can't just move your hands around anywhere you like, the program is 135 stopping you.</p> 136 137 <p>And these are intentional features. Of course, programs also have 138 bugs, and if you don't have the source code you can't fix the bugs. So 139 the users, in order to be free, must have the source code, and they must 140 be able to run their own modified versions of the source code in place 141 of the original. And they have to be free also to distribute their 142 modified versions. Because if you don't have that freedom then you 143 could fix a problem for yourself but you couldn't fix it for anyone 144 else, which means that each individual user would have to fix the 145 problem. It would have to be fixed over and over and over.</p> 146 147 <p>Also with the freedom to distribute your modified version, the people 148 who don't know how to program can benefit.</p> 149 150 <p><b>HK:</b> I understand a bit about freedom for software now.</p> 151 152 <p><b>RMS:</b> So if I'm using the free program and I make a change in it, which I 153 know how to do, then I could publish my modified version and then you. 154 Perhaps you're not a programmer; you would still be able to get the 155 benefit of the change I make. Not only that, you could pay somebody to 156 change the program for you, or you could join an organisation whose goal 157 is to change a certain program in a certain way, and all the members 158 would put in their money, and that's how they would hire a programmer to 159 change it.</p> 160 161 <p>So the definition of free software is the four freedoms that are 162 needed for the users to have control of their computing. Freedom zero is 163 the freedom to run the program. Freedom one is the freedom to study the 164 source code and change it so it does your computing as you wish. Freedom 165 two is the freedom to help others, which is the freedom to redistribute 166 exact copies. And freedom three is the freedom to contribute to your 167 community, which is the freedom to distribute copies of your modified 168 versions. So these four freedoms ensure that the users, both 169 individually and collectively, control the program. If the users don't 170 control the program then the program controls the users. That's 171 proprietary software and that is what makes it evil.</p> 172 173 <p><b>HK:</b> Sounds similar to Creative Commons—verifying the types of 174 copyrights.</p> 175 176 <p><b>RMS:</b> Yes. Creative commons publishes various licences.</p> 177 178 <p><b>HK:</b> Yes. Do you agree with all those kind of activities on freedom?</p> 179 180 <p><b>RMS:</b> They don't have a position on that.</p> 181 182 <p><b>HK:</b> Position?</p> 183 184 <p><b>RMS:</b> Creative commons licences grant the users varying amounts of freedom. 185 Two of their licences qualify as free by our criteria. Those are the 186 creative commons attribution licence and the attribution share-alike 187 licence, those. And I think maybe there's also the CC zero licence, 188 which I usually don't think about. But I think those three are all free 189 licences.</p> 190 191 <p>The other creative commons licences do not go far enough to make the 192 work free. However, I wouldn't say that all published works must be 193 free. I think the published works that must be free are the ones that 194 you use to do practical jobs. So that means software, recipes for 195 cooking—and recipes for cooking are a good examples because, as 196 I'm sure you know, cooks frequently share and modify recipes.</p> 197 198 <p><b>HK:</b> Sure, yes.</p> 199 200 <p><b>RMS:</b> And it would be a tremendous outrage to stop them. So in effect, 201 cooks treat recipes as free. But let's look at some more works that are 202 used for practical jobs. Educational works are used for practical jobs; 203 to teach yourself or teach others. Reference works are used for 204 practical jobs; to look up some information. And then there are text 205 fonts, which we use to display or print text so it can be read. These 206 are examples of works of practical use. These are not the only examples. 207 I m sure you can find some more. Anyway, works of practical use are the 208 ones that I believe must be free.</p> 209 210 <p>However there are other kinds of works. For instance, there are 211 essays of opinion and scientific papers and there are artistic works, 212 and their contributions to society are of a different kind. They don't 213 contribute through helping you do practical jobs. They are useful in 214 other ways. So I draw different conclusions about them. I think the 215 crucial conclusion for those other works is the freedom to 216 non-commercially redistribute exact copies, in other words the freedom 217 to share.</p> 218 219 <p><b>HK:</b> I'm interested in what you're doing. You're travelling around the 220 world, like me, and you're contributing to others, not for yourself. 221 And I love that way you live and I respect it so much. So I was just 222 wondering, how you describe yourself?</p> 223 224 <p><b>RMS:</b> I describe myself as a free software activist.</p> 225 226 <p><b>HK:</b> Activist?</p> 227 228 <p><b>RMS:</b> Yes.</p> 229 230 <p><b>HK:</b> Activists means the ones who change the world?</p> 231 232 <p><b>RMS:</b> First of all, we haven't changed the whole world, not even in this 233 regard, we've only changed a part of it.</p> 234 235 <p><b>HK:</b> Ok.</p> 236 237 <p><b>RMS:</b> As you can see, most computer users are still running proprietary 238 systems such as Windows and Macintosh. And then if they have 239 smartphones, those smartphones are running proprietary software and it 240 typically has malicious features too. We have a long way to go to 241 achieve victory. And the other thing is that what we have achieved, I 242 did not achieve by myself. But I did start this movement.</p> 243 244 <p><b>HK:</b> Your activities have lasted for a long time, what would be your 245 advice for being an activist?</p> 246 247 <p><b>RMS:</b> I was rather lucky, in a sense. I was in a position to do something 248 that would forward my cause just working by myself. As other people 249 showed up who were interested they could join. So it's generally good to 250 look for a way to do things that way, in other words don't set out at 251 first to make a large organisation and then begin to achieve something. 252 Start doing things such that you alone, or a small group of people who 253 support you, can achieve something, and by achieving something you can 254 attract the attention of others who might want to join.</p> 255 256 <p><b>HK:</b> Great idea.</p> 257 258 <p><b>RMS:</b> In fact, I've read that advice in a book. I don't remember where, 259 because that was a long time ago, but it fit what I had alreasy done. I 260 can't say I thought of this as a general principle, but it did work well 261 in my case.</p> 262 263 <p>And the other thing is, don't design your activism with the idea that 264 first you will raise a lot of money and then with the money you'll be 265 able to do such-and-such, because on that path you almost never get 266 anywhere. It's so unlikely you will succeed in raising that money that 267 chances are you'll spend all your time trying and failing, and never 268 start doing anything about your cause.</p> 269 270 <p>So design your plans so that you can start doing things for the cause 271 soon and that way you'll spend your time getting a certain amount done 272 for your cause, which is better than nothing.</p> 273 274 <p><b>HK:</b> Fair enough.</p> 275 276 <p><b>RMS:</b> And of the ones who follow the raise-money-first path, those few that 277 succeed in raising the money will find that their years of focusing on 278 making that money have changed their goals. By the time they have that 279 money they will be used to trying to do everything to get money. Few 280 people have the ability to turn around and start directing their efforts 281 toward something other than getting and keeping a lot of money.</p> 282 283 <p><b>HK:</b> Indeed. Can you tell me how did you gather great people when you 284 launched the Free Software Foundation?</p> 285 286 <p><b>RMS:</b> I don't know if I always gathered great people. Some who came to us 287 were good and some were not but I couldn't tell very well in advance, I 288 didn't know how to judge that. But enough of them were good that they've 289 managed to achieve a lot.</p> 290 291 <p><b>HK:</b> So did you gather people or did people automatically come to your 292 place?</p> 293 294 <p><b>RMS:</b> Mostly people had seen what we had already done and found it 295 interesting, and they would either help or, in some cases, come back 296 when the FSF was hiring and we would say we were looking for someone to 297 hire. Maybe we knew them already—who was a good 298 programmer—by their contributing as a volunteer, so we knew if we 299 hired them, they would be good.</p> 300 301 <p><b>HK:</b> I see. Thank you so much for your time. As a final question, I want 302 to ask you about what we should do to spread the freedom.</p> 303 304 <p><b>RMS:</b> The big enemy of freedom is governments taking too much power over 305 society. They do that with two excuses: the excuse is terrorists or 306 child pornographers. But we have to realise that anti-freedom is a 307 bigger danger than either of those. For instance, censoring the 308 internet. We must not accept laws allowing punishment without a fair 309 trial.</p> 310 311 <p>The US set a horrible example when it started grabbing people from 312 all around the world without a trial. Even now, Obama is continuing 313 pushing military commissions, which are simply trials that don't live up 314 to the standards for trials. They're not fair trials.</p> 315 316 <p>We know a lot of the prisoners were in Guantanamo because somebody 317 told a malicious rumour about them, and we can't rely on military 318 tribunals to distinguish between real evidence and malicious rumour or 319 the fact that somebody was tortured and eventually said whatever his 320 torturer wanted.</p> 321 322 <p>Right now, I'm told the Iraqi Government is still committing torture 323 and I was told 30,000 prisoners who are without trial. This is a monster 324 that the US created. Governments around the world keep looking for more 325 power. The problem is, they have too much already.</p> 326 327 <p><b>HK:</b> That's true. How can we get the power back from the governments?</p> 328 329 <p><b>RMS:</b> I wish I knew.</p> 330 331 <p><b>HK:</b> <i style="color: #505050">[Laughter]</i></p> 332 333 <p><b>RMS:</b> I do know something about how we can teach people the need for this. 334 Governments get their power by focusing people's attention on some 335 secondary problem.</p> 336 337 <p>For instance, in the US, how did the Government get its power to 338 torture and imprison people and even just bomb them? The US practises 339 targeted killing. There's a list of people who are marked for death and 340 the US Government will drop bombs on them rather than try to arrest 341 them. Now, how did all this get started? It's because the US focused 342 people's attention on the secondary danger of terrorists carrying out 343 the September 11th attacks in the US.</p> 344 345 <p>Now, Bush didn't want an investigation of those attacks. Eventually 346 he was forced to allow an investigation, but he weakened it and 347 corrupted the investigators, so we can't trust the results. There has 348 never been a proper investigation of how those attacks were carried out 349 and who was responsible. So maybe it was planned by a bunch of 350 terrorists as the Government says, or maybe Cheney was involved, as some 351 other people say. Without a real investigation, we'll never know.</p> 352 353 <p>But given that excuse, George Bush went on to demonstrate that 354 tyranny is worse than terrorism, because those terrorist attacks killed 355 under 3,000 people, and they were used as the excuse for the conquest of 356 Iraq, in which 4500 or so Americans were killed. So even if we only 357 consider who's more dangerous to Americans, the answer is Bush.</p> 358 359 <p><b>HK:</b> <i style="color: #505050">[Laughter]</i> People can't 360 judge what's right or wrong when the 361 condition is getting complex and excited too much…</p> 362 363 <p><b>RMS:</b> And that ignored the million or so Iraqis that Bush killed and that 364 Bush prevented us from counting. But by preventing them from being 365 accurately counted, Bush made it possible for low estimates such as that 366 of Iraq Body Count to seem plausible.</p> 367 368 <p>I read recently some journalists went to look for oil buried just 369 below the beach in Florida, and some sort of Federal agents ordered them 370 not to, because they don't want news that the oil is there. They're 371 hoping to cover up the effects so as to get it out of people's minds. 372 And whether they're doing that for BP or for Obama or both, it's 373 offensive to try to stop the public from knowing.</p> 374 375 <p><b>HK:</b> Do you believe that the internet has the possibility to change this 376 phenomenon?</p> 377 378 <p><b>RMS:</b> That's a different question. The internet is useful for various 379 things like sharing valuable information. But it's also useful for 380 surveillance. So the internet can be used for good things and bad 381 things. So how do we make sure that we are free to share? How do we 382 limit the surveillance? It's a matter of stopping the Government from 383 doing things that are unjust.</p> 384 </div> 385 386 </div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --> 387 <!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --> 388 <div id="footer" role="contentinfo"> 389 <div class="unprintable"> 390 391 <p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to 392 <a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>. 393 There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> 394 the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent 395 to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p> 396 397 <p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph, 398 replace it with the translation of these two: 399 400 We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality 401 translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection. 402 Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard 403 to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"> 404 <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p> 405 406 <p>For information on coordinating and contributing translations of 407 our web pages, see <a 408 href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations 409 README</a>. --> 410 Please see the <a 411 href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations 412 README</a> for information on coordinating and contributing translations 413 of this article.</p> 414 </div> 415 416 <!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to 417 files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should 418 be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this 419 without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first. 420 Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the 421 document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the 422 document was modified, or published. 423 424 If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too. 425 Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying 426 years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable 427 year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including 428 being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system). 429 430 There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers 431 Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --> 432 433 <p>Copyright © 2010, 2021 Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p> 434 435 <p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license" 436 href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative 437 Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p> 438 439 <!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --> 440 441 <p class="unprintable">Updated: 442 <!-- timestamp start --> 443 $Date: 2021/09/08 20:30:25 $ 444 <!-- timestamp end --> 445 </p> 446 </div> 447 </div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include --> 448 </body> 449 </html>