by Peter Moon
http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id;211669437
* Print this story
Stallman: If you want freedom don't follow Linus
Torvalds
The founder of the Free Software Foundation asks
readers whether they will fight for freedom or be too
lazy to resist.
Peter Moon (Computerworld) 12/09/2007 12:00:00
"Please don't call GNU 'Linux'," says Richard Stallman,
the founder of the Free Software Foundation. In this
interview, he also asks readers whether they will fight
for freedom or be too lazy to resist.
[ photo ]
Richard Stallman - President - Free Software Foundation
You launched the GNU Project in September 1983 to
create a free Unix-like operating system, and have been
the project's lead architect and organizer since then.
Why did you start it in the first place? Back then it
was already clear that software was becoming
proprietary?
Stallman: In 1983, all operating systems were
proprietary, non-free software. It was impossible to
buy a computer and use it in freedom. Proprietary
software keeps the users divided and helpless, by
forbidding them to share it and denying them the source
code to change it. The only way I could use computers
in freedom was to develop another operating system and
make it free software. I announced the plan in
September 1983, and began development of the GNU system
in January 1984.
On Feb. 3, 1976, Bill Gates wrote his famous "open
letter to hobbyists" where he stated that software
should be paid [for] just like hardware. Did you read
that manifesto at the time? What was your impression
back then?
Stallman: I never heard of it at the time. I was not a
hobbyist, I was a system developer employed at the MIT
Artificial Intelligence Lab. I had little interest in
16-bit microcomputers, because the lab's PDP-10, with a
memory equivalent to 2.5 megabytes, was much more fun.
Pascal is both weak and inelegant compared with Lisp,
our high-level language, and for things that had to be
fast, assembler language was more flexible.
I don't know how I would have reacted at that time if I
had seen that memo. My experience at the AI lab had
taught me to appreciate the spirit of sharing and free
software, but I had not yet come to the conclusion that
non-free (proprietary) software was an injustice. In
1976 I did not use any non-free software. It was only
in 1977, when Emacs was ****ted to the non-free Twenex
time-sharing system that I started to experience the
nastiness of proprietary software. After that, I needed
time to recognize this as an ethical and political
issue.
What do you think about intellectual property?
Stallman: I am careful not to use that confusing term
in my thoughts, because it does not refer to a coherent
thing, although it misleadingly appears to. The term
lumps together laws that raise totally different
issues, as if they were one subject.
Copyrights exist, and I have opinions about copyright
law. Patents also exist, but patent law is almost
completely different from copyright law. My opinions
about patent law are also completely different from my
opinions about copyright law. Trademark law exists too
and it has nothing at all in common with copyright law
or patent law. If you want to think clearly about any
of these laws, the first step is firmly insisting on
treating them as three different subjects.
If you say something about "intellectual property," you
are trying to generalize about three laws that are
totally different. Whatever you say will be a foolish
over-generalization, because that term only leads to
such. I've decided to avoid that pitfall by never using
the term. [See
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html
for more explanation.]
Stallman: If you want freedom don't follow Linus
Torvalds
The founder of the Free Software Foundation asks
readers whether they will fight for freedom or be too
lazy to resist.
Peter Moon (Computerworld) 12/09/2007 12:00:00
What's more im****tant to you, GNU's huge user base or
its large developer base?
Stallman: I appreciate them both, but neither is what
matters most. We didn't develop GNU just to make it a
technical triumph, or just to have a success. Our goal
was to win freedom, for ourselves and for you.
What's im****tant about GNU is that it provides a way to
use computers in freedom. But this achievement is
precarious. There are hundreds of GNU/Linux distros,
and nearly all include some non-free software.
In 1992, GNU/Linux made it possible for the first time
to use a PC and keep your freedom. By 2000, ironically,
every version of GNU/Linux included non-free software
and thus invited users to surrender their freedom by
installing some. Today, I am glad to say, the Ututo and
gNewSense distributions are 100 percent free software.
After so many years, are you finally seeing the end of
the tunnel, the time when free software will regain its
original place, by dominating servers during the next
decade?
Stallman: Server operators should have freedom, of
course, but the computers that directly affect most
users' freedom are the computers they type on. Those
are the computers where the adoption of free software
is most im****tant. With proprietary operating systems
increasingly designed to restrict and control the user,
with digital "restrictions" management, their users are
subjugated even more now than before. If you don't want
chains on you hand and foot, your only escape is to
switch to a free operating system.
People use terms like "free software" and "open source"
as if they were the same thing. Is that right?
Stallman: In terms of ideas, free software and open
source are as different as could be. Free software is a
political movement; open source is a development model.
The free software movement is concerned with ethical
and social values. Our goal is to win, for computer
users, the freedom to cooperate and control your own
computing. Therefore, you should have these four
essential freedoms for each program you use:
0. To run the program as you wish. 1. To study the
source code and change it so the program does what you
wish. 2. To redistribute exact copies when you wish,
either giving them away or selling them. 3. To
distribute copies of your modified versions when you
wish.
The term "open source" was promoted in 1998 by people
that did not want to say "free" or "freedom." They
associated their term with a philosophy that cites only
values of practical convenience.
Sup****ters of open source (which I am not) promote a
"development model" in which users participate in
development, claiming that this typically makes
software "better" -- and when they say "better", they
mean that only in a technical sense. By using the term
that way, implicitly, they say that only practical
convenience matters -- not your freedom.
I don't say they are wrong, but they are missing the
point. If you neglect the values of freedom and social
solidarity, and appreciate only powerful reliable
software, you are making a terrible mistake.
Stallman: If you want freedom don't follow Linus
Torvalds
The founder of the Free Software Foundation asks
readers whether they will fight for freedom or be too
lazy to resist.
Peter Moon (Computerworld) 12/09/2007 12:00:00
The same happens with Linux, code for which was
released in 1991. People used to call Linux a synonym
for GNU, much like Windows became a synonym for the PC
operating system. But they are not the same thing, are
they?
Stallman: I'm not sure what you mean by "the same."
Windows is the official name (not just a synonym) for a
user-subjugating, proprietary operating system
developed by Microsoft. Linux, however, is not an
operating system, just a piece of one. Linux is a
kernel: the component of an operating system that
allocates the machine's resources to the other programs
that you run. It was first released in 1991 as non-free
software: its license did not allow commercial
distribution.
In 1984, I launched the development of the GNU
operating system, whose goal was to be free software
and thus permit users to run computers and have
freedom. The GNU Project undertook a job so big that
even most of my friends said it was impossible. In
1992, the GNU system was complete except for the
kernel. (Our own kernel project, started in 1990, was
going slowly.) In February 1992, Linus Torvalds changed
the license of Linux, making it free software.
The kernel Linux filled the last major gap in GNU; the
combination, GNU/Linux, was the first free operating
system that could run on a PC. The system started out
as GNU with Linux added. Please don't call it "Linux;"
if you do that, you give the principal developer none
of the credit. Please call it "GNU/Linux" and give us
equal mention.
The Free Software Foundation has recently issued the
second draft of the GNU general public license version
3 (GPLv3). What are its enhancements and what users
could expect from adopting it?
Stallman: We published the official, final text of GPL
version 3 in June, and many programs have since been
released under it. The basic goal of the GNU General
Public License is the same in version 3 as it always
was: defend the freedom of all the users. The changes
are in the details.
Linus Torvalds told he thinks "the GPLv2 is a superior
license," but there's "something like 50 different
open-source licenses, and in the end, the GPLv3 is just
another one." Does Linus collaborate with you or GNU on
free software development?
Stallman: The fact that Torvalds says "open source"
instead of "free software" shows where he is coming
from. I wrote the GNU GPL to defend freedom for all
users of all versions of a program. I developed version
3 to do that job better and protect against new
threats.
Torvalds says he rejects this goal; that's probably why
he doesn't appreciate GPL version 3. I respect his
right to express his views, even though I think they
are foolish. However, if you don't want to lose your
freedom, you had better not follow him.
Microsoft has recently claimed that free software like
Linux, OpenOffice and some e-mail programs violate 235
of its patents. But Microsoft also said it won't sue
for now. Is this the start of a new legal nightmare?
Stallman: Software patents - in those countries foolish
enough to authorize them - are a legal nightmare for
all software developers. About half of all patents in
any field belong to mega-cor****ations, which gives them
a chokehold on the technology. In countries that allow
software patents, that happens in software too.
Stallman: If you want freedom don't follow Linus
Torvalds
The founder of the Free Software Foundation asks
readers whether they will fight for freedom or be too
lazy to resist.
Peter Moon (Computerworld) 12/09/2007 12:00:00
Last July 5th, Microsoft published the following
statement: "While there have been some claims that
Microsoft's distribution of certificates for Novell
sup****t services, under our interoperability
collaboration with Novell, constitutes acceptance of
the GPLv3 license, we do not believe that such claims
have a valid legal basis under contract, intellectual
property, or any other law." Are they preparing for
battle?
Stallman: Microsoft is trying to deny that their
contract with Novell means what it says. This shows
that our efforts in GPLv3 to make their contract
backfire against Microsoft are working. I believe
Novell disagrees with Microsoft about this point, and
says that the deal does apply to software under GPL
version 3.
Their use of the term "intellectual property" is part
of the propaganda. It is meant to discourage you from
focusing on the specific law, patent law, which they
have tried to use to prohibit free software. For
instance, they don't want Brazilians to think, "If
Microsoft wants to use software patents to obtain a
government-imposed monopoly over operating system
software, why should Brazil give them the chance to do
so? Brazil should not authorize software patents."
Do you think that the free software community could win
this war against Microsoft?
Stallman: Nobody knows who will win this fight, because
the outcome depends on you and the readers. Will you
fight for freedom? Will you reject Windows and MacOS
and other non-free software, and switch to GNU/Linux?
Or will you be too lazy to resist?
Some analysts are saying this kind of agreement between
Microsoft and Novell is positive for consumers and can
also popularize free software. That's because consumers
will have more sup****t from vendors in terms of
interoperability and could run their applications in a
better way. Do you agree with these arguments?
Stallman: That's like the argument that smoking tobacco
is good for your health because it will help you lose
weight. I don't know whether their claim about
popularity is true in a narrow sense, but I'm sure it
misses the point. It doesn't matter how popular
GNU/Linux gets, if it fails to give you freedom.
Microsoft's aim, in the deal with Novell, was to make
people scared to run GNU/Linux without paying Microsoft
for permission. That is why we designed GPLv3 to make
it backfire.
As for interoperability, all we need to achieve full
interoperability is for proprietary software developers
to stop obstructing it.
With free software, the users are in control. Most of
the time, users want interoperability, and when the
software is free, they get what they want. With
non-free software, the developer controls the users.
The developer permits interoperability when that suits
the developer; what the users want is beside the point.
Microsoft has frequently imposed non-interoperability;
now, for example, it promotes the patented bogus
"standard" OOXML instead of sup****ting Open Do***ent
Format. Microsoft believes it is so powerful that it
can design an incompatible format, create obstacles to
its implementation by others, and pressure most users
to switch to it. Do you think users are really as
foolish as Microsoft predicts?
* Print this story
http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id;211669437
by Peter Moon
|
