> we are preparing a list of questions that will be used in an interview we are > interested in conducting with RMS in his upcoming visit. Here's a question: You are highly regarded as a man of vision. Twenty years ago you announced your vision of "free software", and much due to your actions (in the form of the GNU project) that vision has become a reality, more or less. This is why I'd be very interested to hear what is now your main "vision", or goal, besides improving free software and deepening its penetration. Is it perhaps pushing for free (or at least less "controlled") access to other types of content (books, music, movies, etc.)? Or perhaps improving society or our world through free software? Or something else altogether? -- Nadav Har'El | Monday, Dec 23 2002, 18 Tevet 5763 Here's another question I'd be interested in hearing Stallman's reply to: In several occasions you admitted having started your Free Software efforts as a reaction, or antithesis, to proprietary software (e.g., your famous "printer software" anecdote). In the years that have passed, have you noticed any serious flaws in the idea of free-software, flaws that prevent the world from abandoning proprietary software altogether in favor of free software? If so, what do you think a synthesis between the two approaches might, or should, look like? [note to the interviewer: if this question is chosen and is to be reworded, the words "antithesis" and "synthesis" must not be reworded, as they are a deliberate choice of words, referring to the Hegelian "dialectic process"] -- Nadav Har'El | Tuesday, Dec 24 2002, 19 Tevet 5763 I have just left Richard Stallman's lecture in IBM Haifa, and in my opinion is was a great lecture. He obviously repeated many of his old ideas that all us have heard before (but still it was nice hearing them from the man himself) but he talked on some points that I hadn't seen him writing about before. I know that IBM broadcasted the lecture to its other branches in real-time, but I hope they also made a recording of that feed - or at least of its audio track. Can the people who work in IBM and read this check whether the audio of that lecture could be put online? Instead of posting here an ordinary summary of the lecture, I'll try the following experiment: I did not get to ask Stallman any questions, but his long speech did happen to brush upon the questions I had (and posted in this list a couple of weeks ago), so I want to try an interesting experiment: I will now pretend that he answered my questions personally, and use what he said today as a basis for answers (that I will write in my own words) to these questions: [please note that all the following is in my words, I make no attempts to faithfully represent what Stallman said in his speech] ------------------------------------ Q: Twenty years ago you announced your vision of "free software", and much due to your actions (in the form of the GNU project) that vision has become a reality, more or less. This is why I'd be very interested to hear what is now your main "vision", or goal .... In his speech, Stallman pointed out that when they [1] started the Free Software Foundation, their main goal was to get people to write free software. Their worry was whether they'll be able to find people to write the various components that they thought was needed for a complete operating system - the GNU Operating System. Since late 1991, when the Linux kernel was created and GNU had the final missing piece (and became GNU/Linux), it appears that the FSF do not have to worry about this any more - more and more people are "flocking" to write free software. But now, Stallman explained, when there is finally no shortage of free software and people willing to write it, comes another, very serious, threat to free software: now that pople want to write free software, they may be *forbidden* from doing so! Forbidden by whom? First, there are software patents. Software patents may (and do!) mean that it is impossible to make free software that does certain things, or that is compatible with certain existing applications (like GNU was originally compatible with Unix). Not a technical impossibility, but rather a legal one. Second, there are laws like the DMCA (in the US) which make it illegal to write free software that does a certain things. He gave as an obvious example DVD-playing, which many users would want to do on their free operating system but are forbidden by law (in response to an audience question that claimed that this had never been determined in court, Stallman responded that indeed there *was* such a court case, where a free DVD-playing software was injunctioned.) Third, there are attempts to create "treacherous computing" (what is more commonly mislabeled "trusted computing"), hardware that will refuse to do certain things the users ask of it (i.e., betray the user), which will prevent free (in the sense of freedom) software from being written. In fact, Stallman made in his speech an enlightening comparison between methods the Soviet Union used to prevent the free sharing of information, and how the United States is doing it right now. So I believe the FSF, and Stallman himself, have in recent years shifted their focus from pushing the development of free software (which was their original focus), to lobbying against laws (and corporate practices) that limit computer-user freedoms and the free flow of information, and to education of people that sharing is *good*, not bad like is currently being portrayed in the media and in new laws. This shift of focus is also probably one of the reasons why Stallman is so annoyed by the "Open Source" movement (the other reason is obviously ego issues, especially with Linus and "Linux" that was named after him :)). After all, Stallman now believes that there is no shortage of programs coming with their source, or in people willing to write more. What he believes is in shortage now is presure "from the people" to stop anti-sharing laws and practices, and he believes that only the "Free Software Philosophy", not the "Open Source Philosophy" (which emphasizes the practical benefits of open source, like quality and price) can generate such a pressure. ------------------------------------ Q: In several occasions you admitted having started your Free Software efforts as a reaction, or antithesis, to proprietary software (e.g., your famous "printer software" anecdote). In the years that have passed, have you noticed any serious flaws in the idea of free-software, flaws that prevent the world from abandoning proprietary software altogether in favor of free software? If so, what do you think a synthesis between the two approaches might, or should, look like? Stallman, being a free-software hard-liner, seems to try to avoid any thinking of (or at least, speaking of) any problems with the free software paradigm, or any benefits in the proprietary software world that are worth keeping. In fact, I believe that one of the things about the "Open Source" movement that scares (or repels) Stallman the most is the fact that is indeed, to some degree, a synthesis between the philosophy of free software, and the philosophies behind proprietary software. Stallman gave the example of "Linux" distributions that include non-free software (such as Netscape and Oracle to use his examples) and call them value-added software, and objects! To him, these are "freedom-dereased software", not "value-added software". So it appears that Stallman is not ready to accept any synthesis of the kind I was asking about. He claims this is too early, and we still need to fight (mostly the government and big corporations - see the previous question) for free software to remain alive - and it is not the time to "sell-out" to half-way philosophies liek "Open Source". ------------------------------------ Again I want to remind the readers that the above answers were written by me (Nadav). They were based on Stallman's lecture, but not on direct quotes and not sanctioned by him. ------------------------------------ [1] Stallman keeps referring to GNU as "we", but he never seems to mention anyone else who has written that software along with him. This was particularly strange when he referred to "the guy who wrote Hurd", and I wasn't even sure if he's coyly referring to himself, or indeed referring to someone else. Looking now at the Hurd homepage, I couldn't even figure out who is writing the Hurd... -- Nadav Har'El | Thursday, Jan 9 2003, 6 Shevat 5763 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is Richard Stallman's public reply to my fake interview with him: Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 20:36:04 -0500 From: Richard Stallman To: linux-il@linux.org.il Subject: A response to Nadav's message Stallman gave the example of "Linux" distributions that include non-free software (such as Netscape and Oracle to use his examples) and call them value-added software, and objects! To him, these are "freedom-dereased software", not "value-added software". I call them "freedom-subtracted" packages, because if you are running a free operating system and living in freedom, they offer you an opportunity to part with your freedom. In fact, I believe that one of the things about the "Open Source" movement that scares (or repels) Stallman the most is the fact that is indeed, to some degree, a synthesis between the philosophy of free software, and the philosophies behind proprietary software. It both repels and worries me, and Nadav is right about the reason. The open source movement cites the same basic values that proprietary software developers cite: making software "better" (in a narrow practical sense). They say nothing about the value of freedom itself, or of living an upright life. If we cannot deliver good free software to do a certain job, perhaps because a necessary idea is patented, or because the DMCA and similar laws prohibit it, how will a user react? If he has believed the open source movement's claim that our methods make better software, he will respond, "You failed to deliver on your claim. You are wrong." But if he has learned the value of freedom from the free software movement, he will say, "How dare they do this to us!" If organizations decide that open source is technically advantageous, they may still decide that the advantage of using a popular proprietary package is greater. But when they come to see non-free software as a social problem that subjugates them and hurts the whole society where it is used, they may make a point of helping society to move away from it. [1] Stallman keeps referring to GNU as "we", but he never seems to mention anyone else who has written that software along with him. This was particularly strange when he referred to "the guy who wrote Hurd", and Since I was talking mainly about the problems that arose in Hurd development, I felt it was more polite not to name names. In any case, I take responsibility for the choice of overall architecture and the choice of Mach as base, which are surely part of the cause of the long delay. The Hurd was started by Michael Bushnell (now Thomas Bushnell). Miles Bader and Roland McGrath also worked on it substantially. Today Marcus Brinkmann is a major contributor.