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.
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.
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 non-free software, and much more. The following words offer much insight into how we got here, and what challenges we still face.
Background:
Jeremy Andrews: When did you first start working with computers?
Richard Stallman: I first read manuals and wrote programs on paper in 1962 or so. 1969 was when I first saw and used a real computer.
JA: What types of programs were you writing prior to actually seeing and using a real computer?
Richard Stallman: 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.
And then, the first thing I started writing when I had a real computer to use--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.
JA: When you graduated from Harvard in 1974 with a BA in physics, how did you intend to use your degree?
Richard Stallman: 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.
Life In The AI Lab:
JA: What tasks occupied your time at the AI Lab through the 1970s?
Richard Stallman: Mostly operating system development, but I did one AI research project with Professor Sussman; we developed dependency-directed backtracking.
JA: What is dependency-directed backtracking?
Richard Stallman: 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.
JA: What was the result of this research project?
Richard Stallman: We published a paper. The technique got used by other people later, so apparently it became part of AI.
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.
The GNU Project And The Free Software Foundation:
JA: The story of your encounter with non-free 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?
Richard Stallman: What I am proud of is that we have built a community where people can use computers and work together in freedom.
JA: What are the largest challenges you're facing today?
Richard Stallman: Software patents. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The broadcast flag. Cards with secret specifications. Non-free Java platforms.
In other words, organized efforts by people with power to put an end to our freedom.
JA: Is there a plan for addressing these issues?
Richard Stallman: 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.
JA: That's a bit scary.
Richard Stallman: It is.
"Free Software" vs. "Open Source":
JA: You regularly have to explain the differences between "free software" and "open source software", and yet the media continues to confuse these terms. For our readers that may therefor be confused themselves, can you explain the differences, and why it is important to get it right?
Richard Stallman: 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 non-free software is antisocial because it tramples the users' freedom, and we develop free software to escape from that.
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.
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.
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.
"GNU/Linux":
JA: Another frequent area of confusion is the name 'GNU/Linux'. 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?
Richard Stallman: 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.
JA: In talking about GNU Linux...
Richard Stallman: I prefer to pronounce it GNU-slash-Linux, or GNU-plus-Linux. The reason is that when you say GNU-Linux 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 "GNU Linux", people will think it means a version of Linux that was developed for GNU. Which is not the fact.
JA: You're trying to point out instead that it's a combination of the two.
Richard Stallman: Exactly. It's GNU plus Linux together.
JA: Which makes up the GNU+Linux operating system that everyone uses.
Richard Stallman: Exactly.
JA: What is gained by people using the term GNU/Linux?
Richard Stallman: 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.
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.
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.
JA: Which begins to answer my next question, what is lost when people refuse to use the term GNU/Linux?
Richard Stallman: What's lost is an opportunity to teach people. The software is equally free regardless of whatever name you call it--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 non-free software. And then there's Debian which keeps all the non-free software clearly separated, but does distribute it. And those who sell Debian GNU/Linux often add a few non-free programs as a "bonus"... They invite you to think it's a bonus you're getting that your freedom is no longer complete.
If you happen to be running a version of GNU/Linux which doesn't have the non-free 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.
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, but if you called it an onion you'd get cooks very confused.
GNU/Hurd:
JA: 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?
Richard Stallman: The Hurd runs, and missing features are gradually being added. However, for practical use today, you would use a Linux-based version of GNU.
JA: Do you have any predictions as to when we're going to see a 1.0 release?
Richard Stallman: 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.
At least we do have a free kernel that works with GNU.
JA: 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?
Richard Stallman: We will keep supporting Linux-based versions of the GNU system for as long as they remain popular.
JA: How will we refer to a Hurd-based operating system? Is it GNU Hurd, or GNU slash Hurd?
Richard Stallman: 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.
JA: What would the advantages of using a GNU/Hurd system be over say a GNU/Linux system?
Richard Stallman: 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.
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.
Writing Code vs. Management:
JA: How much source code do you write these days?
Richard Stallman: I myself? Only a little, on Emacs. I was involuntarily self-promoted into management.
JA: That's an interesting description. How did this happen?
Richard Stallman: 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.
JA: Do you miss the programming?
Richard Stallman: Yes. It's fun.
JA: Is the management/activist role something you desire to remain in?
Richard Stallman: 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 we could try and develop people who could do this, so that I will not be indispensable.
JA: What is your role these days?
Richard Stallman: 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.
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.
JA: Many of the programs you were the original author for are key components of much software development today (free and non-free 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?
Richard Stallman: I don't follow GCC and GDB in technical detail nowadays--other people now have that responsibility. I still supervise Emacs development.
GNU Emacs:
JA: Then you are still working on Emacs at a code level?
Richard Stallman: 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.
JA: May I ask what happened to your arm?
Richard Stallman: 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.)
JA: I'm sorry to hear about your arm, and I wish you a speedy recovery.
I recently reread Cliff Stoll's "The Cuckoo's Egg". Are you familiar with the book?
Richard Stallman: I have a vague memory of it.
JA: A quick summary, he talks about a spy that breaks into a university computer system, initially using a security hole in GNU Emacs...
Richard Stallman: 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.
JA: That's exactly what I was curious about, just what your reaction would have been to the book when it came out.
Richard Stallman: His book made it sound like Emacs, or actually movemail I think it was... 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.
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.
That was ages ago.
Non-Free Software:
JA: What is your reaction to tools such as gcc, gdb and GNU Emacs being used for the development of non-free software?
Richard Stallman: Any development of non-free 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 non-free software is a question whose answer I could only guess at.
JA: How do you react to the opinion that non-free 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?
Richard Stallman: This is no justification at all. A non-free 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 non-free software.
So if you find yourself in that situation, please don't follow that path. Please don't write the non-free program--please do something else instead. We can wait till someone else has the chance to develop a free program to do the same job.
JA: What about the programmers...
Richard Stallman: What about them? The programmers writing non-free software? They are doing something antisocial. They should get some other job.
JA: Such as?
Richard Stallman: There are thousands of different jobs people can have in society without developing non-free software. You can even be a programmer. Most paid programmers are developing custom software--only a small fraction are developing non-free software. The small fraction of proprietary software jobs are not hard to avoid.
JA: What is the distinction there?
Richard Stallman: Non-free 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.
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.
And what if there aren't any programming jobs in the US anymore?
JA: You mean what if all the programming jobs were outsourced to foreign countries?
Richard Stallman: 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.
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.
JA: Can you cite specific examples?
Richard Stallman: 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, "which of you will let us pay people the least? That's were we're headed." And if any country starts having a somewhat increased standard of living, companies say "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."
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.
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 "enterprise zones" - that's the euphemism they used for "sweat shop zones" - 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.
JA: How does free software address this?
Richard Stallman: 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 "How are people going to have jobs that pay them decently?" The answer is: in the world of the low wage treaties, they're not going to.
It's inconsistent and future to subject millions of people to the loss of freedom that non-free 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.
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, "I'll punish any country that doesn't obey."
That is the way it works now. And it was deliberately set up by people such as Reagan, and Clinton, and Bush and Bush.
New Technologies:
JA: I have read that the free software model tends to imitate existing software, rather than blaze new trails and developing completely new technologies.
Richard Stallman: To speak of a free software "model" is somewhat misleading. The open source movement speaks of a "development model", but our concern is for the user's freedom, not how the program is developed.
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.
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.
JA: Do you believe that free software has caught up with non-free software?
Richard Stallman: To a large extent, but not totally.
JA: Would you say that we're going to start seeing a lot of technical innovations originating from free software as things are catching up?
Richard Stallman: We already have. We already have seen a technical innovations in free software. A lot of them help make up the world wide web.
The Internet:
JA: Does the importance of using only free software apply to the Internet?
Richard Stallman: I don't understand the question.
JA: Software not only runs on personal computers, but also the computers that comprise the Internet...
Richard Stallman: That may mean your computer. If your computer is on the Internet, then that's one of the computers you're talking about.
JA: 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.
Richard Stallman: I think you meant to say, "not running entirely free software." 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.
JA: Do you consider it proper for people who are trying to only use free software to utilize...
Richard Stallman: To connect to a server that's running non-free software?
I don't feel I need to refuse to connect to a server that is running non-free software. For that matter, I won't refuse to type on a computer that's running non-free 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.
If you connect to a server that runs non-free 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 non-free software.
JA: Back to my earlier question, as a specific example do you use tools such as Google when attempting to locate online content?
Richard Stallman: 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.
The Workplace:
JA: What if your job requires you to use non-free software?
Richard Stallman: 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.
Embedded Applications:
JA: Embedded applications have become more and more prevalent in society. Is it possible to completely avoid non-free software and still remain in-touch with current technologies?
Richard Stallman: 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 non-free software to talk to the network, you can't trust it not to spy on you.
SCO:
JA: How do you react to SCO's recent accusations about the Linux kernel?
Richard Stallman: 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.
JA: What impact do you expect this to have on free software?
Richard Stallman: 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.
JA: Do you expect this to bring the GPL into the courtroom?
Richard Stallman: I don't know.
JA: Is that a concern for you?
Richard Stallman: 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.
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.
JA: To what end?
Richard Stallman: They hope some companies will pay them money, and Microsoft already did.
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, "SCO says this, IBM says that, how do I know who's right?"
JA: What's in store for the GNU General Public License (GPL)? Are there plans for a version 3?
Richard Stallman: Yes, but we are not really sure what will change. What we can say is that the changes will be details.
Getting Involved:
JA: Is there any other current event that you'd like to address?
Richard Stallman: 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.
JA: Are you optimistic about this?
Richard Stallman: 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.
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.
JA: Thank you.
Richard Stallman: Happy hacking!
Interview translations:
| Resetting the bios password for Toshiba Laptop | 2 hours ago | Hardware |
| Lock contention | 16 hours ago | Linux kernel |
| PAGE_ALIGN | 1 day ago | Linux kernel |
| bootsplash patch for kernel 2.6.25.3-zen1 | 2 days ago | Linux kernel |
| sysfs_create_group() | 2 days ago | Linux general |
| temporary mapping | 3 days ago | Linux kernel |
| ATI ES1000 driver | 3 days ago | Linux general |
| Can anyone tell me the Procedure to create an init ramdisk using busybox | 5 days ago | Linux general |
| mapping of High Memory to ZONE_NPRMAL | 1 week ago | Linux kernel |
| Page global directory | 1 week ago | Linux kernel |
Thorough interview
One of the best interviews of Mr. Stallman ever. Excellent job Jeremy with the questions, you went beyond the standard basics of other interviewers. Especially I appreciated the manner of the questions, they were not directed in a way to present Mr. Stallman as fanatical, or unreasonable.
Mr. Stallman's comments regarding business and corporations are quite lucid. Not anti-business, as some would paint him. He jabs to the core of the situation: That is the true motivator, and one of the critical unbalances(?) of capitalism, behind all out-sourcing initiatives.
Hard Line!
JA: What if your job requires you to use non-free software?
Richard Stallman: I would quit that job.
Wow, this is a hard line position. On the one hand, I admire Stallman for being so extreme. I love the passion he shows. However, on the other hand, how many jobs are out there that utilize ONLY free software? Seriously, are any jobs 100% pure?
RE: Hard Line
How many people can afford such a stance when looking for a job?
Its easy to say if you are self employed, but most jobs require the use of non free software and its not easy finding a job right now.
Well.... do you have a job or
Well.... do you have a job or does your job have you?
Would you go hungry to meet a principle or will you do whatever it takes to get the next mouthful?
Are you an independant mind, or a instinctive bunch of emotions?
Sam
false dilemma
Q: Do I have a job OR does my job have me?
A: Neither. My employer and I have a mutually beneficial agreement - I produce output that helps the company and the company provides for me a paycheck with which I support my lifestyle. If I fail to meet expectations, or if I break rules, my employer may terminate our agreement. Conversely, if I disagree at any time or to any degree with the rules or expectations, I may choose to terminate that agreement. There is no conspiracy here, nor any urgent dilemma of who is "controlled" by whom.
Q: Would I go hungry to meet a principle OR would I do whatever it takes to get the next mouthful?
A: This is dependent entirely on circumstance. Of what importance is the principle, both perceived and actual, in relation to the importance of my "next mouthful" (whether we're speaking literally or metaphorically)? How vital is my next mouthful (i.e. am I supporting only myself, or do I have a responsibility to a spouse and/or children)? Does meeting the principle require that I go *absolutely* hungry, or is there a possibility that I might only go hungry temporarily and still wholly satisfy the principle? Your question lacks adequate supporting information.
Q: Am I an independent mind, or am I an instinctive bunch of emotions?
A: I am human. I am therefore both, and more, simultaneously. There exists no concrete delineation for such an abstract and subjective concept. That you imply otherwise in your question is amusingly (although regrettably) naive.
I personally see the merit of Stallman's ideas, but lose him on his fanatic (an adjective which I do not believe is even mildly debatable in his particular case) interpretations and manifestations of them. While the interviewer did a fine job in this piece (and I do agree with a previous poster that this is one of the better interviews of Stallman I've read), I found that Stallman continues in his failure to address what is in my estimation a subtle but absolutely crucial point: *why* is the battle for "freedom" (Stallman's definition) of such monumental importance? He never misses an opportunity to mention the word "freedom," but then again never misses an opportunity to provide the vaguest, haziest, most obtuse explanation of the risk v. reward for not following HIS agenda.
I just yesterday paid $20 for a piece of software. This software has proven invaluable to me in the past, and I would gladly pay $50 or more for it. I have no interest whatsoever in knowing its internals, redistributing it, or modifying it in any way. So tell me - what "freedom" am I being denied that is of any importance? As I see it, I DO have the most important freedom - the freedom to CHOOSE whether or not this particular piece of software is worth $20 out of my pocket or not (especially given that there are free, open source, and cheaper commercial alternatives available, but which in my opinion pale in comparison).
nup
"I just yesterday paid $20 for a piece of software. This software has proven invaluable to me in the past, and I would gladly pay $50 or more for it. I have no interest whatsoever in knowing its internals, redistributing it, or modifying it in any way. So tell me - what "freedom" am I being denied that is of any importance?"
It's exactly this type of short sighted view that has allowed the Microsofts of this world to come to fruition. You are quite right, in this scenario you have your freedom, however what happens next year when the new version of this software comes out and you are entirely dependant on it after using it for so long? The price is now $100, but you buy it anyway, because you need it for your work. You can continue using the old version if you like, but you're going to be "left behind" and eventually support and compatibility will be lost anyhow.
This is exactly what Microsoft has done, hooking users into only their products, make them dependant and elimating the competitors, at which time there are no alternatives and you have free reign to screw your customers. At that time you have truly lost your freedom.
Not to mention bugfixes. Com
Not to mention bugfixes. Commercial packages often require you to upgrade to the latest version, which fixes old bugs but introduces new ones. With open source, you can just take the bugfixes without the flaky new features.
Oh, COME ON!
This argument is such BS. Freedom of choice is the only true freedom anyone has. Everything else is simply perception. The freedom to choose to pay for software or not has NOTHING to do with anyone's dislike of Microsoft. I know all of you at one time or another loved Microsoft. Anyone with a PC in the 80's or early 90's did. (Unless you used an Apple.) I personally can't stand how the corporation is ran in the past 15 years. But, that's me. In response to the Anonymous poster to which I am replying: It sounds more like you have a problem with how technology advances and businesses deal with it. You want something for nothing. How about this, you become a REAL programmer, one who makes a living from writing software, and see how long you'll be able to make a living writing your free/open source software. Very few people actually get sponsored by entities with money. Get a clue. This ideology was a still-born. There is nothing wrong with someone reaping financial reward from their work. Would you have your car mechanic work for free as well? What about your mother or father when they were raising you? Get the idea? People depend on programming for a living. And honestly, custom coding is as common as Stallman would like one to believe. Custom software is almost always more expensive than "off the shelf" software. Suffice it to say the respondant which stated his right to pay for software if he chooses hit the nail on the head. It's all about the freedom to choose your own best option. For some, all free or open source software works. But, for many in the normal world this is far from the case. I personally wouldn't want to live in this country if all software was forced to be free. Why? The programmers would then have to be provided with some form of social charity to live. I for one am rather against more gov't aid or the fact this would draw us closer to another form of social system which we all know has already failed.
I'm also a programmer and I'm
I'm also a programmer and I'm paid for custom development.
In a sense, custom development is also free software from the company point of view. I produce and give the source code, and that's why it 's more expensive than "off the shelf" software.
The company is ready to pay more to control its own software, they don't depend anymore to third parties : they just want to feel freer.
If I go a bit further,
the source code respect free guidelines, based on free libraries, coded with a free IDE and built in a way a rookie programmer can work on...(ie. XP method)
If you understand what I mean, the company is even freer of swapping developers. That could frighten developers. Some of them still believe they are genius : wrong idea !
Free software makes us humble, and that's the way it must be !
Developers are kind of musicians : they deserve wages till they carry on creating, building, innovating.
It's so wrong to think we could live by creating one song or one sofware one day and pretend expecting royalties for the rest of the days. I respect artists who do live-concerts, but I'm quite suspicious of selling CDs world-wide
What if you wanted to use GPL
What if you wanted to use GPL code in your project? Then your customer would have to abide by the GPL.
It is for those reasons that I prefer the LGPL or the BSD license.
Any library carries risk
My employer would prefer GPL (which allows them to modify the code we've borrowed, or obtain fixes from the original provider without fee) to the license carried by most commercial libraries (which require them to obtain fixes and updates from the provider at a fee).
In either case if you use code you didn't write, you must consult with your customer because they will be bound to an agreement when they arrange for maintenance of the code. The question is first whether you may use any libraries. Then you address which of the possible agreements they wish to enter. The GPL is among the least restrictive of the available choices, if you don't negotiate directly with the provider.
Amen
Amen
Answer
"I just yesterday paid $20 for a piece of software. This software has proven invaluable to me in the past, and I would gladly pay $50 or more for it. I have no interest whatsoever in knowing its internals, redistributing it, or modifying it in any way. So tell me - what "freedom" am I being denied that is of any importance?"
Answer:This is exactly what Microsoft has done, hooking users into only their products, make them dependant and elimating the competitors
Re: false dilemma
I just yesterday paid $20 for a piece of software. This software has proven invaluable to me in the past, and I would gladly pay $50 or more for it. I have no interest whatsoever in knowing its internals, redistributing it, or modifying it in any way. So tell me - what "freedom" am I being denied that is of any importance? As I see it, I DO have the most important freedom - the freedom to CHOOSE whether or not this particular piece of software is worth $20 out of my pocket or not (especially given that there are free, open source, and cheaper commercial alternatives available, but which in my opinion pale in comparison).
The purpose of free software is control. If you use non-free software, the owner of this software controls some aspect of your machine: you cannot choose what it will do. You may not even know what it will do. Here are some freedoms that free software gives you that proprietary software often does not (or can choose to stop providing you at any time):
Here are some more, from the Free Software Definition: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Freedom 0 is quite important. Companies often like to include clauses into their 'End User License Agreements' (for example, microsoft office may only be run on a microsoft windows system). This means that even if office will run perfectly on some other system (like the ReactOS system http://www.reactos.com/ ), your freedom to do so has been taken away. If you require the other system, you must now purchase two systems (and licenses): one for this non-free software, and one for the software you require.
Companies recognise that this freedom is not one they can afford to grant us. This is why software patents are a threat to free software projects.
I hope this answers your question of what freedoms you lose by using your non-free software. I do not believe your freedom as a consumer (the freedom to choose whether to boycott the software) is as important as your freedom to work with the software in whichever way you please.
Have a think about how dependent we are on computers today (everybody knows we are heavily dependent, especially in the business sector). Now have a think about how important computers are becoming to us (mobile phones, PDAs, set top boxes. These trends will continue). When we are forced to accept advertising anytime, anywhere, when we may only use certain pieces of software in 'approved locations', or at certain times (like opening hours for a store), when the distributors of software critical to our lifestyles (and, indeed, our way of life) may restrict us in any way they deem appropriate, will you then see the value of free software? Or will you do something about it now?
Cheers
--
Darren
Q: Do I have a job OR does my
Q: Do I have a job OR does my job have me?
A: Neither. My employer and I have a mutually beneficial agreement - I produce output that helps the company and the company provides for me a paycheck with which I support my lifestyle. If I fail to meet expectations, or if I break rules, my employer may terminate our agreement. Conversely, if I disagree at any time or to any degree with the rules or expectations, I may choose to terminate that agreement. There is no conspiracy here, nor any urgent dilemma of who is "controlled" by whom.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
«
Of course it is claimed that entering wage labour is a "voluntary" undertaking, from which both sides allegedly benefit. However, due to past initiations of force (e.g. the seizure of land by conquest) plus the tendency for capital to concentrate, a relative handful of people now control vast wealth, depriving all others access to the means of life. As Immanuel Wallerstein points out in The Capitalist World System (vol. 1), capitalism evolved from feudalism, with the first capitalists using inherited family wealth derived from large land holdings to start factories. That "inherited family wealth" can be traced back originally to conquest and forcible seizure. Thus denial of free access to the means of life is based ultimately on the principle of "might makes right." And as Murray Bookchin so rightly points out, "the means of life must be taken for what they literally are: the means without which life is impossible. To deny them to people is more than 'theft'... it is outright homicide." [Murray Bookchin, Remaking Society, p. 187]
Therefore the existence of the labour market depends on the worker being separated from the means of production. The natural basis of capitalism is wage labour, wherein the majority have little option but to sell their skills, labour and time to those who do own the means of production. In advanced capitalist countries, less than 10% of the working population are self-employed (in 1990, 7.6% in the UK, 8% in the USA and Canada - however, this figure includes employers as well, meaning that the number of self-employed workers is even smaller!). Hence for the vast majority, the labour market is their only option.
Michael Bakunin notes that these facts put the worker in the position of a serf with regard to the capitalist, even though the worker is formally "free" and "equal" under the law:
"Juridically they are both equal; but economically the worker is the serf of the capitalist . . . thereby the worker sells his person and his liberty for a given time. The worker is in the position of a serf because this terrible threat of starvation which daily hangs over his head and over his family, will force him to accept any conditions imposed by the gainful calculations of the capitalist, the industrialist, the employer. . . .The worker always has the right to leave his employer, but has he the means to do so? No, he does it in order to sell himself to another employer. He is driven to it by the same hunger which forces him to sell himself to the first employer. Thus the worker's liberty . . . is only a theoretical freedom, lacking any means for its possible realisation, and consequently it is only a fictitious liberty, an utter falsehood. The truth is that the whole life of the worker is simply a continuous and dismaying succession of terms of serfdom -- voluntary from the juridical point of view but compulsory from an economic sense -- broken up by momentarily brief interludes of freedom accompanied by starvation; in other words, it is real slavery." [The Political Philosophy of Bakunin, pp. 187-8]
Obviously, a company cannot force you to work for them but, in general, you have to work for someone. This is because of past "initiation of force" by the capitalist class and the state which have created the objective conditions within which we make our employment decisions. Before any specific labour market contract occurs, the separation of workers from the means of production is an established fact (and the resulting "labour" market usually gives the advantage to the capitalists as a class).
»
Taken from Section B.4.3 from "An anachist FAQ" found at http://www.infoshop.org/faq/
Solution: work, milk the unem
Solution: work, milk the unemployment insurance system, rinse and repeat.
I have no interest whatsoever
You would, however, probably benefit in having those internals public, publically redistributable, and modifiable.
I have no interest whatsoev
I have no interest whatsoever in knowing its internals, redistributing it, or modifying it in any way.
Well. I can't repair a car engine. Yet, I wouldn't buy a car that would be repairable ONLY by a producer.
It gives me freedom to go to any shop and get my car repaired.
Yea... but you wouldn't take your car to grandma
Right, and most cars are repairable by more than just the manufacturer. However, almost all mechanics (at least ones most of us would take our cars to) have more training than your average person. You wouldn't take your car to someone working out of their house with nothing more than google and a Haynes manual right??
I wouldn't go the nearest skript kiddie working with a code book he bought at the local B&N to fix code for me either.
This interview (which further points out the problems behind RMS' thinking) and most of the ones that he does almost hurts the open source movement more than it helps. Of course, that would be assuming "Normal" (read non-tech) people read this.
The zealotry found in the Linux/Open source community is almost as damaging as the same zealotry thats found among Windows users.
Freedom isn't about not having to pay for QUALITY software. People should be rewarded for their work. If I sat down and coded the next great innovation in software, I'd want more than my name on it. I'd want a way to feed my family.
Freedom is about having the option to choose between paying for said software or using an alternative.
"I found that Stallman contin
"I found that Stallman continues in his failure to address what is in my estimation a subtle but absolutely crucial point: *why* is the battle for "freedom" (Stallman's definition) of such monumental importance? He never misses an opportunity to mention the word "freedom," but then again never misses an opportunity to provide the vaguest, haziest, most obtuse explanation of the risk v. reward for not following HIS agenda."
Exactly!
Not the point
He doesn't say everybody should refuse such a job -- it's indeed not always possible, and for some it's better to change the system from the inside. It is very logical that he, being the visionary of free software, would not take a job that is not about free software or its principles. I don't think we should expect Bill Gates to use Linux, and Windows doesn't even hold philosophical ideas as those contained in free software.
If Stallman wouldn't care, he wouldn't have started the FSF, obviously... I wouldn't expect him to say the opposite.
you understood
Thanks; I wasn't trying to make a strong point, only point out that we are not slaves to the next job that comes along, and that there is room for principles and often we can stick to them and survive the inconvenience.
I was not suggesting that folk who
a) pay for software (which I approve of)
or
b) folk who produce proprietary software
are unprincipled.
I left my job because systems I wrote were being used to trial "adult content" for commercial distribution.
By which I don't imply anything at all about people who like adult content, but its outside my principles.
I'm still alive and I'm glad I did it.
Sam
I second that. I had a job t
I second that. I had a job that paid good money and supported my family. When I found out part of the profits were being used to support the war effort in Israel, I quit and got another job. Yeah, it was an inconvenience, but jobs are everywhere.
Funny thing about the capitalist system is that if you're a feudal warlord with no serfs, you're just a lone guy in armour, and every warlord out there wants to have more serfs than his neighbour. Son unless you're proud, lazy or useless, if you live in any first world nation you shouldn't ever be unable to find work.
Please bear in mind that RMS
Please bear in mind that RMS said _he_ would quit the job. He does not seem to say that it is unethical for you to acept the job.
Re:Jobs
There are people who blatantly refuses to work for the DoD, contractors to the DoD or any company that produces weapons.
Others will not work for a multinational company whose mass products are made by children, in factories with extremely low working conditions, etc.
Mr. Stallman’s refusal to do a job which requires working on/with non-free software is no different.
By standing by principles like this, it is likely that the job you’ll have will be lesser paid than the job you might have had if you didn’t stick to your principles.
But being lesser-paid is often a small prize to pay for piece of mind. And it proves you can’t be bought.
A struggle against reality...
Stallman's ability to say that he would quit a job if it involved non-Free software is indicative of his privileged position (grants etc.) - he doesn't have to work for a living. He's completely unattached - no family to support. He gets to do stuff he wants to, to follow principles and to be an advocate.
You and I on the other hand, can only look forward to the day we can afford to refuse a salary. Full-time advocacy isn't an option because if we don't turn up at our jobs we don't get paid. Then our families have nowhere to live and everything turns to shit very quickly.
Stallman's struggle is not so much against closed or proprietary software as it is against reality itself. Yes you can be "good" in the eyes of Stallman, but only if you follow Stallman's One True Path. Are you ready to devote your life to that?
Nice commentary. But... RM
Nice commentary. But...
RMS didn't start to turn down jobs once he achieved a privileged position. He fought for his belief in software freedoms, and may well have turned down many jobs already to pursue his beliefs. It is this unwavering commitment to his principles which gives him his 'privileged position'.
He has chosen not to 'do stuff he wants to do' (manage the FSF rather than write code) to support these beliefs, just like you choose not to 'do stuff you want to do' so you can go and make a living to feed your family (which is a principle. You could go spend all your money on booze or gambling...)
Mercenaries are paid above av
Mercenaries are paid above average salaries too, but would you want to be one ? There are also risks involved.
Think of writing software for a surgical robot (some people are doing this). If it is proprietary and someone dies on the operating table what are your risks to you as the programmer? Would you not rather write it as open source software, and have some form of peer review? You might well save not just other people's lives but also your own (grieving relatives looking for revenge).
The difference in pay from one job to another is often justified by the risks you are required to take.
The question was posed to Ric
The question was posed to Richard Stallman the founder and ideologue of the Free Software Movement... what did you expect him to say? I didn't perceive it as a suggestion for everybody (and in fact he qualifies his prior opinions by saying he thinks it's fine to work on proprietary "in-house" software as it were).
Fee Software Jobs
I am a sysadmin/programmer for a web development company.
I don't think I have used non free software at all for some months at work with the exception of java.
We run linux servers with eclipse/apache/php/mysql/tomcat/jboss.
I don't use any non free software apart from java on a day to day basis.
As the end of a project I need to test on no free browsers, but that is it.
In my second most recent job I only used free software for a large proportion of my projects.
The only non free software we used was Oracle, and some proprietary unices which were all on client machines for one particular client.
Most of the development I did was on linux using perl,gcc, php, postgres, mysql, apache, GTK+.
We built an entire wool sorting system (over 100 metre long) using free software (except for some serial card drivers which may have been propritary - not sure).
We also built a hospital patient call/nurse-doctor paging system on entirely free software, except for a java gui (which we could as easily done with GTK+).
Once again apart from java the only proprietary softwarer we may have used was touchscreen and serial card drivers (not sure if they were free or not).
Prior to this I worked for an ISP. Linux, squid, sendmail, bind, apache, freebsd, perl, mysql. The only propretary software there was front office stuff (I didn't use it. In any case these days open office could replace it - this was back in '97 or so) and some router software eg IOS on a couple of proprietary routers.
Perhaps I've been very lucky, but the majority of my time as a programer/sys/network admin has been almost entirely on free software and nearly all of it could have been done using only free software, except where we had to integrate to existing client systems.
I'd say it's perfectly possible to work using only free software.
Correction
You seem confused. Apache isn't Free.
You seem confused. Apache is
You seem confused. Apache is Free.
You should reread http://www.
You should reread http://www.fsf.org/licenses/info/Apache.html right now.
--
This is a Free Software License.
This license is not compatible with The GNU General Public License version 2.
--
Get your facts straight in the future, Ok ?
Apache disagrees
You should note that the Apache folks disagree with the FSF's conclusion that the Apache license is incompatible with the GPL. Yes, the wording on the face of it seems to produce an extra restriction that the GPL disallows, but when you look at the actions that the GPL and the Apache licenses require, they are no different.
-russ
Well ...
The Apache folks giving their opinions are non-lawyers, and Eben Moglen has more credibility. Nevertheless, RMS has mentioned that one thing he'd like to do with GPL v3 is to fix some problems that cause incompatibility (real or apparent) with other free software licenses, so hopefully GPLv3 will be Apache-compatible.
Uhm.
Quote from the FSF page on the Apache license:
"This is a permissive non-copyleft free software license with a few requirements that render it incompatble with the GNU GPL."
Being incompatible doesn't mean being non-free. Lots of free software licenses have a slightly different definition of freeness than what GPL 2.0 uses, and the GPL is very picky wrt compatibility.
This has caused no end of problems in the past, when free software projects try to incorporate code from each other. Often these problems can be solved by special clauses ("contrary to the GPL, you may link this code with Apache-licensed software") or by dual/triple/quadruple-licensing code so the user can pick whichever license suits the circumstances best.
So Apache is free. Even the FSF says so. I'm sorry, you're the one who has to straighten the facts. These are tricky issues, though.
YHBT. Non-GPL compatible !
YHBT.
Non-GPL compatible != Non-Free Software or non-Open Source.
Non-Free Software or non-Open Source == Non-GPL compatible though.
: )
Really Free Software
While I like RMS' stance, and even some of his more conspiratory statements, I dislike that he seem to think he defines what is free or
what freedom is.
Just as a discordian-tongue in cheek thing, someone (perhaps me) should create a Really Free Software license.
Already exists
It already exists just like this discussion has taken place for zillion times. Free Software is defined by 4 rules. Open Source is defined by a number of rules. Ofcourse such definition is a dogma by definition, because a definition is a dogma by definition!
If you want a more free than GPL license go ahead and use BSD license or MIT / X license. Or don't license your software at all, just put it into the public domain. Point is, this already was tried in the 70s and 80s and this is where Stallman, in reaction to that, started FSF/GNU/GPL...
BSD is not that free
BSD allows corporations distribute closed-source/non-free software using free (free as in beer) code.
And?
That's what freedom means, chief. Restricting what you're allowed to do with code (GPL) is the opposite of free.
Personal freedom vs. group freedom.
The GPL's goal is to maximize the total global amount of "freedom" associated with a piece of code. You agree to not revoke others' freedoms when you redistribute code. This impinges on your own freedom to deny others access, modification and redistribution rights to the code, but in the end puts everyone on an even footing. (They too must allow others access, modification and redistribution rights if they want to share derivatives of the code.)
The BSD license, however, allows you the freedom to take something private, thereby denying others the ability to access, modify or redistribute the source code. Thus, it maximizes individual freedom at the expense of the freedoms of the larger group. Should you take something private, you've limited the freedom of others by exercising your own individual freedom to do so.
Thus, BSD is "more free" from the standpoint of individual freedoms. GPL is "more free" from the standpoint of freedoms granted to everyone who might come in contact with the software.
Personal freedom vs. group freedom.
The GPL's goal is to maximize the total global amount of "freedom" associated with a piece of code. You agree to not revoke others' freedoms when you redistribute code. This impinges on your own freedom to deny others access, modification and redistribution rights to the code, but in the end puts everyone on an even footing. (They too must allow others access, modification and redistribution rights if they want to share derivatives of the code.)
The BSD license, however, allows you the freedom to take something private, thereby denying others the ability to access, modify or redistribute the source code. Thus, it maximizes individual freedom at the expense of the freedoms of the larger group. Should you take something private, you've limited the freedom of others by exercising your own individual freedom to do so.
Thus, BSD is "more free" from the standpoint of individual freedoms. GPL is "more free" from the standpoint of freedoms granted to everyone who might come in contact with the software.
Power != Freedom
Yes, the GPL has restrictions, but they are restrictions on power (affects others more) not freedom (affects me more). The GPL takes away my power to restrict others (not that I wanted it anyway), and ensures that anyone using GPL code has the 4 freedoms, which they may not have if someone has the power to withhold them.
Actually. Apache is Free, but
Actually. Apache is Free, but PHP (version 4 onward) isn't.
The PHP License is "The PHP L
The PHP License is "The PHP License, version 3.0" which as stated here:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html is free:
> This license is used by most of PHP4. It is a non-copyleft free
> software license which is incompatible with the GNU GPL.
> We recommend that you not use this license for anything except PHP
> add-ons.
and how many money earned goo
and how many money earned google with their adsense programm and other cash flow cows? i get the feeling thats google are very poor *g* but... Nice to know ;)
Correction - #2
From the Apache License (http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html)
4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without modifications, and in Source or Object form
So what is _not_ free about apache?
Apache is Free...
Apache is Free...
@ Cabal
Funny, Apache never charged me a penny. Where are you coming from saying it is not free?