home / contact / Established on 9/1/2007 --- Please send us suggestions for sites to add to this list -- and suggestions on how we might improve the site / Tell your friends about this site: we have no ad budget and depend on happy visitors to spread the word. Please report dead links and errors / Martin R. Carbone / 5123 Don Rodolfo Drive / Carlsbad, CA 92010 / Telephone: 760-603-1910 / FAX: 760-603-1930 / Website <<http://www.alphabeticalist.com>>
Alphabeticalist Topics --- A / B / C / D / E / F / G / H / I / J-K / L / M / N / O / P / Q / R / S / T / U-V / W / X-Y-Z
The following was copied online at:
<<http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id;211669437;pp;1;fp;32768;fpid;503633038 >>
Since (1) we think the information is very important and (2) we have no way of knowing if the above URL will stay up, we are copying it here. (MC)
Headline: 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.
By 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.
------------ bold text below this line is Peter Moon speaking --------------
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 ported 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.]
What's more important 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 important 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 important. 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.
Supporters 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.
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-corporations, which gives them a chokehold on the
technology. In countries that allow software patents, that happens in software
too.
Last July 5th, Microsoft published the following statement: "While
there have been some claims that Microsoft's distribution of certificates for
Novell support 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 support 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 supporting Open Document
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?
--------------- end of article --------------