> 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.