Interview with Richard Stallman
I submit to the community a translation of the Peter Moon interview with the president of the Free Software Foundation, Richard Stallman. In an interview, Richard talks about what made him begin to develop the free GNU operating system, explains his vision of the concepts of "free software" and "open source software" and their differences, encourages users to fight proprietary software, and asks not to call Linux simply Linux.
You started the GNU project in September 1983 to create a free unix-like operating system, and have been its permanent leader and organizer ever since. What made you take this step, because then it was already clear that the software was becoming completely proprietary?
At that time, all operating systems were proprietary and non-free. It was impossible to buy a computer and use it freely. The users of proprietary software were essentially separated from each other and had no support from each other, remaining abandoned by the developer to their fate. Non-free software was not provided to the user in the source code, making any change impossible. The only way out for me was to develop my own operating system and its further free distribution. I announced the creation of such a system in September and began work in January next year.
')
On February 3, 1976, Bill Gates published his well-known open letter to amateur developers in which he argued that software should be rewarded in the same way as for hardware. At that time, did you read his message, and what was your impression of what was read?
Then I did not hear about this letter. At that time, I was not an amateur, but I worked at the MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab artificial intelligence laboratory. Modern 16-bit processors did not cause me much interest because the PDP-10 with 2.5 megabytes of memory, which were in the lab, was much more tempting. Pascal was too primitive and inelegant compared to Lisp, which we actively used as a high-level language. For the same tasks that required speed, assembler was a great fit.
I do not know what my reaction would have been at that time, if this appeal had caught my eye. My experience in the laboratory taught me to appreciate the freedom of software distribution, but by that time I had not yet come to the conclusion about the “injustice” of proprietary programs. In 1976, I did not use any proprietary software. I remember how in 1977 the Emacs editor was ported to the Twenex proprietary system, and I began to realize the disgustingness of non-free software. After that, it took me some time to realize this problem at the political and ethical levels.
What is your opinion on intellectual property?
I am careful not to use this slippery term in my speech, because it does not mean anything concrete, although at first glance it may seem quite the opposite. It combines different concepts that relate to completely non-overlapping things, as if they were one.
Copyright exists, and I have an idea of ​​the law that protects it. Patents also exist, but the law protecting patent rights is completely different from copyright law. Similarly, my views on the patent law are completely different from the copyright law. The law on trademarks also exists, and in turn differs from both above indicated. If you want to talk about any of these laws, the first step is to insist on their consideration as three independent entities.
If you say something about “intellectual property,” you are trying to combine these three laws, which in fact have nothing in common. In this case, everything you say will be just a stupid generalization. The use of this term cannot lead to anything else. I decided to avoid this trap by never using this term. You can find more information on this subject on the appropriate page on the GNU project site.
What is most important to you: a huge number of supporters of the GNU project or a large number of developers involved in it?
I appreciate both of these groups of people, but neither of them is more meaningful to me. We didn’t develop a GNU project to revolutionize or simply to succeed. Our goal was to achieve freedom. Freedom for ourselves and for every person in general.
In the GNU project, it is important that it provides the necessary to use the computer freely. But this achievement is very doubtful. Currently, there are hundreds of GNU / Linux distributions, and almost all of them contain a certain amount of proprietary software.
In 1992, the GNU / Linux kernel for the first time allowed PC computers to be used freely. By the year 2000, by a certain irony, each of its versions contained part of proprietary software, thus forcing users to install this proprietary software on their computers. Today I am pleased to announce that the Ututo and gNewSense distributions do not contain any bytes of proprietary software.
After so many years, do you see ahead the ultimate goal - the time when the free software takes its original place, dominating the servers?
The people who manage the servers should certainly have freedom. But the computers that really influence the users are their home computers, at whose keyboards they sit. This is where the adoption of free software is the highest priority. Now with the proliferation of proprietary operating systems designed specifically to restrict the user, with their Digital Restriction Control Systems (DRM), users are subject to the computer to a much greater degree than before. If you do not want to be bound hand and foot with your own computer, then it's time to switch to free operating systems.
Many people use the terms "free software" and "open source" as interchangeable terms. Is this permissible according to you?
If we talk about the ideas behind these concepts, these are two opposites. Free software is a political movement, while open source software is a development model.
The free software movement takes care of the ethical and social side. Our goal is to provide PC users with the freedom to collaborate and manage their own computer. To do this, each user must have the following freedoms regarding each program he uses:
0. Freedom to run the program at will;
1. Freedom to study the source code of the program and change it at will;
2. Freedom to distribute a copy of the original version of the program (free of charge or for money);
3. Freedom to distribute the modified version of the program at will.
The term “open source” was widely promoted in 1998 by people who did not want to talk about free software or free software. By this term they understood only what mattered in practical terms.
Open source devotees (and I’m not) are promoting a software development model in which users participate in the development, stating that with this, the software becomes "better." And when they say “better”, they mean only the technical side of the question. Using the term in this form, they clearly imply its importance only in the practical sphere, without worrying about the user's freedoms.
I'm not saying that they are wrong. But they lose the essence. If you do not take into account the freedom of the end user and social solidarity, and appreciate only reliable software, you make a terrible mistake.
The same happens with Linux, the code of which was published in 1991. People are used to identifying Linux and the GNU movement, much like Windows has become at one time synonymous with the PC operating system. But these are not identical concepts, are they?
I'm not completely sure what you mean by "identical concepts." Windows is the official name of a proprietary operating system that enslaves its users and which was developed by Microsoft. Linux is not an operating system, but only a part of it. Linux is the kernel - an operating system component that distributes system resources between the programs you run. This core was first released in 1991 as proprietary software. The Linux license did not allow commercial distribution.
In 1984, I began developing the GNU operating system, which was supposed to be free software, allowing users to use a computer and have all the necessary freedoms. The work done was so huge that many of my friends assured me that this was impossible. In 1992, the system was almost finished - only its core was lacking (our own kernel development project, started in 1990, was moving too slowly). In February 1992, Linus Torvalds changed his license to the Linux kernel, making it free software.
So, the Linux kernel has completed building the operating system. The combination of GNU / Linux was the first free system for PC architecture. The system began with the GNU project, the Linux kernel was introduced into the project later. So please do not call the Linux operating system. By calling it that way, you don’t give any honor to its first developers. Call it GNU / Linux, referring to us in this way equally.
The Free Software Foundation recently released a second draft version of the general public license in its third edition (GPLv3). What are its major improvements and what should users expect from it?
We published the official final version of the license in June, and a lot of software has already been released under that license. Its main goal has not changed - it is to protect the freedom of all users. With changes, everyone can familiarize yourself.
Linus Torvalds said that in his opinion, “the second version of the GPL license is quite good, and the third version does not stand out against dozens of other existing free licenses”. Does Linus provide any help to you or the GNU project in developing free software?
The fact that he uses the term "open source", says a lot. I compiled a GPL license to protect the freedom of each user of each version of the program. I modified the license and released its third version so that it protects the user's freedom even better from the new threats emerging on the horizon.
Torvalds denies this license task. Therefore, he probably does not evaluate the innovations of its third edition. I respect his right to express his own point of view, although it seems to me absolutely stupid. However, if you do not want to lose your freedom, I would not recommend you follow it.
Microsoft recently said that free software such as Linux, OpenOffice, and some e-mail programs violate 235 of its patents. However, the company has not yet filed any lawsuits. Will this not be the beginning of a nightmare at the legislative level?
Software patents — at least in countries that are stupid enough to allow them to register — are already a nightmare for all software developers. Approximately half of all patents in any field are owned by monster corporations, which allows them to keep in hedgehogs and keep the development of technology. In countries where software patents are allowed, the same is true of him.
On July 5, Microsoft released the following statement: “While statements were made that Microsoft’s support distributions certified by Novell are susceptible to the adoption of the third version of the GPL, we do not believe that they have any valid the legal framework, whether it is a law on the protection of intellectual property or any other. ” Microsoft is preparing for battle?
Microsoft is trying to abandon the fact that their contract with Novell means what is written in it. This shows that the efforts made to create the third edition of the license and aimed at ensuring that the contract turned against Microsoft are not in vain. I think that Novell does not agree with Microsoft and believes that their deal extends to products licensed under the third edition of the license.
The fact that they use the term “intellectual property” is part of propaganda. This is done in order to distract you from a specific patent law that they tried to use to impede the movement of free software. In particular, they do not want the Brazilians to think: “If Microsoft wants to use software patents to get a government-supported monopoly on the operating system, why should we give them such a chance? Brazil should not introduce software patent law. ”
Do you think the free software community can win the war against Microsoft?
No one can guess how events unfold, because the outcome depends on each. Are you ready to fight for freedom? Are you ready to abandon Windows, MacOS and other proprietary software and switch to GNU / Linux? Or are you too lazy to fight?
Some analysts argue that such an agreement between Microsoft and Novell is positive for consumers and may lead to further popularization of free software. Consumers will have manufacturers support regarding application compatibility, and they will be able to use more of them. Do you agree with these arguments?
This is similar to the statement that smoking tobacco is good for your teeth, because it will help you lose weight. I’m not sure if their declaration of popularity is correct, but I’m sure that the most important thing was missed again. No matter how popular GNU / Linux becomes, if it stops providing freedom. Microsoft’s goal in the Novell deal was to scare people so that they didn’t use GNU / Linux without first paying Microsoft for permission to do so. Against this, GPLv3 was developed.
As for compatibility, all we need to achieve it is for proprietary applications to stop breaking it.
Using free software, the user is at the helm. When the user needs compatibility, he gets it. When using non-free software, the developer is at the helm. It allows compatibility as much as it wants. User wishes remain aloof.
Microsoft has imposed enough incompatibilities in its applications. For example, it promotes the patented bogus standard OOXML instead of supporting ODF. Microsoft considers itself a powerful enough corporation to design an incompatible format, create barriers for developers implementing software to work with it, and force the majority of users to use their own format. Do you really think that users are as stupid as Microsoft believes?
You started the GNU project in September 1983 to create a free unix-like operating system, and have been its permanent leader and organizer ever since. What made you take this step, because then it was already clear that the software was becoming completely proprietary?
At that time, all operating systems were proprietary and non-free. It was impossible to buy a computer and use it freely. The users of proprietary software were essentially separated from each other and had no support from each other, remaining abandoned by the developer to their fate. Non-free software was not provided to the user in the source code, making any change impossible. The only way out for me was to develop my own operating system and its further free distribution. I announced the creation of such a system in September and began work in January next year.
')
On February 3, 1976, Bill Gates published his well-known open letter to amateur developers in which he argued that software should be rewarded in the same way as for hardware. At that time, did you read his message, and what was your impression of what was read?
Then I did not hear about this letter. At that time, I was not an amateur, but I worked at the MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab artificial intelligence laboratory. Modern 16-bit processors did not cause me much interest because the PDP-10 with 2.5 megabytes of memory, which were in the lab, was much more tempting. Pascal was too primitive and inelegant compared to Lisp, which we actively used as a high-level language. For the same tasks that required speed, assembler was a great fit.
I do not know what my reaction would have been at that time, if this appeal had caught my eye. My experience in the laboratory taught me to appreciate the freedom of software distribution, but by that time I had not yet come to the conclusion about the “injustice” of proprietary programs. In 1976, I did not use any proprietary software. I remember how in 1977 the Emacs editor was ported to the Twenex proprietary system, and I began to realize the disgustingness of non-free software. After that, it took me some time to realize this problem at the political and ethical levels.
What is your opinion on intellectual property?
I am careful not to use this slippery term in my speech, because it does not mean anything concrete, although at first glance it may seem quite the opposite. It combines different concepts that relate to completely non-overlapping things, as if they were one.
Copyright exists, and I have an idea of ​​the law that protects it. Patents also exist, but the law protecting patent rights is completely different from copyright law. Similarly, my views on the patent law are completely different from the copyright law. The law on trademarks also exists, and in turn differs from both above indicated. If you want to talk about any of these laws, the first step is to insist on their consideration as three independent entities.
If you say something about “intellectual property,” you are trying to combine these three laws, which in fact have nothing in common. In this case, everything you say will be just a stupid generalization. The use of this term cannot lead to anything else. I decided to avoid this trap by never using this term. You can find more information on this subject on the appropriate page on the GNU project site.
What is most important to you: a huge number of supporters of the GNU project or a large number of developers involved in it?
I appreciate both of these groups of people, but neither of them is more meaningful to me. We didn’t develop a GNU project to revolutionize or simply to succeed. Our goal was to achieve freedom. Freedom for ourselves and for every person in general.
In the GNU project, it is important that it provides the necessary to use the computer freely. But this achievement is very doubtful. Currently, there are hundreds of GNU / Linux distributions, and almost all of them contain a certain amount of proprietary software.
In 1992, the GNU / Linux kernel for the first time allowed PC computers to be used freely. By the year 2000, by a certain irony, each of its versions contained part of proprietary software, thus forcing users to install this proprietary software on their computers. Today I am pleased to announce that the Ututo and gNewSense distributions do not contain any bytes of proprietary software.
After so many years, do you see ahead the ultimate goal - the time when the free software takes its original place, dominating the servers?
The people who manage the servers should certainly have freedom. But the computers that really influence the users are their home computers, at whose keyboards they sit. This is where the adoption of free software is the highest priority. Now with the proliferation of proprietary operating systems designed specifically to restrict the user, with their Digital Restriction Control Systems (DRM), users are subject to the computer to a much greater degree than before. If you do not want to be bound hand and foot with your own computer, then it's time to switch to free operating systems.
Many people use the terms "free software" and "open source" as interchangeable terms. Is this permissible according to you?
If we talk about the ideas behind these concepts, these are two opposites. Free software is a political movement, while open source software is a development model.
The free software movement takes care of the ethical and social side. Our goal is to provide PC users with the freedom to collaborate and manage their own computer. To do this, each user must have the following freedoms regarding each program he uses:
0. Freedom to run the program at will;
1. Freedom to study the source code of the program and change it at will;
2. Freedom to distribute a copy of the original version of the program (free of charge or for money);
3. Freedom to distribute the modified version of the program at will.
The term “open source” was widely promoted in 1998 by people who did not want to talk about free software or free software. By this term they understood only what mattered in practical terms.
Open source devotees (and I’m not) are promoting a software development model in which users participate in the development, stating that with this, the software becomes "better." And when they say “better”, they mean only the technical side of the question. Using the term in this form, they clearly imply its importance only in the practical sphere, without worrying about the user's freedoms.
I'm not saying that they are wrong. But they lose the essence. If you do not take into account the freedom of the end user and social solidarity, and appreciate only reliable software, you make a terrible mistake.
The same happens with Linux, the code of which was published in 1991. People are used to identifying Linux and the GNU movement, much like Windows has become at one time synonymous with the PC operating system. But these are not identical concepts, are they?
I'm not completely sure what you mean by "identical concepts." Windows is the official name of a proprietary operating system that enslaves its users and which was developed by Microsoft. Linux is not an operating system, but only a part of it. Linux is the kernel - an operating system component that distributes system resources between the programs you run. This core was first released in 1991 as proprietary software. The Linux license did not allow commercial distribution.
In 1984, I began developing the GNU operating system, which was supposed to be free software, allowing users to use a computer and have all the necessary freedoms. The work done was so huge that many of my friends assured me that this was impossible. In 1992, the system was almost finished - only its core was lacking (our own kernel development project, started in 1990, was moving too slowly). In February 1992, Linus Torvalds changed his license to the Linux kernel, making it free software.
So, the Linux kernel has completed building the operating system. The combination of GNU / Linux was the first free system for PC architecture. The system began with the GNU project, the Linux kernel was introduced into the project later. So please do not call the Linux operating system. By calling it that way, you don’t give any honor to its first developers. Call it GNU / Linux, referring to us in this way equally.
The Free Software Foundation recently released a second draft version of the general public license in its third edition (GPLv3). What are its major improvements and what should users expect from it?
We published the official final version of the license in June, and a lot of software has already been released under that license. Its main goal has not changed - it is to protect the freedom of all users. With changes, everyone can familiarize yourself.
Linus Torvalds said that in his opinion, “the second version of the GPL license is quite good, and the third version does not stand out against dozens of other existing free licenses”. Does Linus provide any help to you or the GNU project in developing free software?
The fact that he uses the term "open source", says a lot. I compiled a GPL license to protect the freedom of each user of each version of the program. I modified the license and released its third version so that it protects the user's freedom even better from the new threats emerging on the horizon.
Torvalds denies this license task. Therefore, he probably does not evaluate the innovations of its third edition. I respect his right to express his own point of view, although it seems to me absolutely stupid. However, if you do not want to lose your freedom, I would not recommend you follow it.
Microsoft recently said that free software such as Linux, OpenOffice, and some e-mail programs violate 235 of its patents. However, the company has not yet filed any lawsuits. Will this not be the beginning of a nightmare at the legislative level?
Software patents — at least in countries that are stupid enough to allow them to register — are already a nightmare for all software developers. Approximately half of all patents in any field are owned by monster corporations, which allows them to keep in hedgehogs and keep the development of technology. In countries where software patents are allowed, the same is true of him.
On July 5, Microsoft released the following statement: “While statements were made that Microsoft’s support distributions certified by Novell are susceptible to the adoption of the third version of the GPL, we do not believe that they have any valid the legal framework, whether it is a law on the protection of intellectual property or any other. ” Microsoft is preparing for battle?
Microsoft is trying to abandon the fact that their contract with Novell means what is written in it. This shows that the efforts made to create the third edition of the license and aimed at ensuring that the contract turned against Microsoft are not in vain. I think that Novell does not agree with Microsoft and believes that their deal extends to products licensed under the third edition of the license.
The fact that they use the term “intellectual property” is part of propaganda. This is done in order to distract you from a specific patent law that they tried to use to impede the movement of free software. In particular, they do not want the Brazilians to think: “If Microsoft wants to use software patents to get a government-supported monopoly on the operating system, why should we give them such a chance? Brazil should not introduce software patent law. ”
Do you think the free software community can win the war against Microsoft?
No one can guess how events unfold, because the outcome depends on each. Are you ready to fight for freedom? Are you ready to abandon Windows, MacOS and other proprietary software and switch to GNU / Linux? Or are you too lazy to fight?
Some analysts argue that such an agreement between Microsoft and Novell is positive for consumers and may lead to further popularization of free software. Consumers will have manufacturers support regarding application compatibility, and they will be able to use more of them. Do you agree with these arguments?
This is similar to the statement that smoking tobacco is good for your teeth, because it will help you lose weight. I’m not sure if their declaration of popularity is correct, but I’m sure that the most important thing was missed again. No matter how popular GNU / Linux becomes, if it stops providing freedom. Microsoft’s goal in the Novell deal was to scare people so that they didn’t use GNU / Linux without first paying Microsoft for permission to do so. Against this, GPLv3 was developed.
As for compatibility, all we need to achieve it is for proprietary applications to stop breaking it.
Using free software, the user is at the helm. When the user needs compatibility, he gets it. When using non-free software, the developer is at the helm. It allows compatibility as much as it wants. User wishes remain aloof.
Microsoft has imposed enough incompatibilities in its applications. For example, it promotes the patented bogus standard OOXML instead of supporting ODF. Microsoft considers itself a powerful enough corporation to design an incompatible format, create barriers for developers implementing software to work with it, and force the majority of users to use their own format. Do you really think that users are as stupid as Microsoft believes?
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/31248/
All Articles