Редактирование: Richard Stallman, Free software: ethics and practice
Материал из eSyr's wiki.
Внимание: Вы не представились системе. Ваш IP-адрес будет записан в историю изменений этой страницы.
Правка может быть отменена. Пожалуйста, просмотрите сравнение версий, чтобы убедиться, что это именно те изменения, которые вас интересуют, и нажмите «Записать страницу», чтобы изменения вступили в силу.
| Текущая версия | Ваш текст | ||
| Строка 1: | Строка 1: | ||
[[Изображение:RMS.jpg|thumb|240px|Ричард Мэттью Столлман]] | [[Изображение:RMS.jpg|thumb|240px|Ричард Мэттью Столлман]] | ||
| - | |||
| - | Лекция прошла в 16:20 3 марта 2008 года в аудитории П-14 2-го учебного корпуса МГУ им. М. В. Ломоносова. | ||
| - | |||
== Диктофонные записи == | == Диктофонные записи == | ||
* [http://esyr.org/lections/audio/stallman/stallman_lection.ogg Лекция] | * [http://esyr.org/lections/audio/stallman/stallman_lection.ogg Лекция] | ||
* [http://esyr.org/lections/audio/stallman/stallman_q_n_a.ogg Вопросы и ответы] | * [http://esyr.org/lections/audio/stallman/stallman_q_n_a.ogg Вопросы и ответы] | ||
| - | * [http://sbos.in/RMS_Lection.ogg Диктофонная запись], взятая с http://rms-moscow-2008.narod.ru/ ([http://phobos.cmc.msu.ru/FTP/Stallman/RMS_Lection.ogg зеркало], [http://sbos.in/blog/2008/03/03/%d1%81%d1%82%d0%be%d0%bb%d0%bb%d0%bc%d0%b0%d0%bd-%d0%bd%d0%b0-%d0%b2%d0%bc%d0%ba-2/#comments источник]) | ||
| - | |||
| - | == Видеозаписи == | ||
| - | * [http://new.master.cmc.msu.ru/x-files/RMS/Stallman_MSU_2008_03_03.ogg Видеозапись], взятая с http://rms-moscow-2008.narod.ru/ ([http://phobos.cmc.msu.ru/FTP/Stallman/Stallman_MSU_2008_03_03.ogg зеркало], [http://community.livejournal.com/msu_cmc/180158.html источник]) | ||
== Фотографии == | == Фотографии == | ||
| - | <gallery> | ||
| - | Изображение:RMS_1.jpg | ||
| - | Изображение:RMS_2.jpg|"Oh, mighty developer, please make this change for me!" | ||
| - | Изображение:RMS_3.jpg | ||
| - | Изображение:RMS_4.jpg|"The IT sector includes many different kinds of jobs, paid programming work is a small fraction of that" | ||
| - | Изображение:RMS_5.jpg|"I don't know why they planned it with insufficient time" | ||
| - | Изображение:RMS_6.jpg | ||
| - | </gallery> | ||
| - | |||
| - | == Расшифровка лекции == | ||
| - | |||
| - | (расшифровка взята с [http://rms-moscow-2008.narod.ru/], счетчик времени по [[#Видеозаписи|видеозаписи]], | ||
| - | подзаголовки добавлены после расшифровки, только для ориентации по тексту) | ||
| - | |||
| - | {00:02:05} | ||
| - | |||
| - | (For who wants to make recordings, I want you to promise that if | ||
| - | you publish the recording [laughter], do it in OGG Vorbis format | ||
| - | only. [someone: "Yes!", applause] and under the CC-noderivs license | ||
| - | [laughter], that's the only license, because this is opinion, this | ||
| - | is not technical education, this is political views, so I'd like | ||
| - | you to release it under the CC-noderivs license only, and only in OGG | ||
| - | Vorbis format, because I want everybody to install an OGG player and I | ||
| - | have to do my little bit to help promote that. | ||
| - | f | ||
| - | {00:03:44} | ||
| - | |||
| - | So, should I just start? No interruption. [many voices: "Yes!"] Okay.) | ||
| - | |||
| - | {00:03:52} | ||
| - | |||
| - | === Introduction. The four freedoms === | ||
| - | |||
| - | Most of society teaches you that when you judge a program, you should | ||
| - | judge it solely in superficial practical terms. How powerful is it? | ||
| - | How convenient? How reliable? What does it cost? All superficial practial. | ||
| - | They don't suggest, they don't teach you to ask yourself the really | ||
| - | important questions. Does this program respect my freedom? Does this | ||
| - | program respect the social solidarity of my community? These are the | ||
| - | questions that the free software movement is concerned with. Free software | ||
| - | means software that respects the user's freedom. So, it's an issue | ||
| - | of freedom, not price. Think of "free speech", not "free beer". It's, | ||
| - | I believe, "svoboda", not "besplatno". [laughter, applause] | ||
| - | |||
| - | Proprietary software, which is non-free software, keeps the users divided | ||
| - | and helpless. Divided because they are forbidden to share with anybody | ||
| - | else, and helpless because they don't have the source code, so they can't | ||
| - | change anything, they can't even verify independently, what the program | ||
| - | is actually doing to them, and many of those programs do nasty things | ||
| - | to their users. | ||
| - | |||
| - | {00:05:37} | ||
| - | |||
| - | But, if all I say is "I'm in favor of freedom", I have not really tackled | ||
| - | the difficult issue, because it's very easy to say: "I stand for freedom", | ||
| - | even Bush says he stands for freedom [laughter], and Bush doesn't even | ||
| - | recognize freedom after he's crushed it. So, the hard issue is: which | ||
| - | freedoms are the freedoms everybody should have? | ||
| - | |||
| - | Therefore, I should say more. | ||
| - | |||
| - | A program is free software if it gives the user the four essential | ||
| - | freedoms. Freedom 0 is the freedom to run the program as you | ||
| - | wish. Freedom 1 is the freedom to study the source code and to | ||
| - | change it, so the program does what you wish. Freedom 2 is the freedom | ||
| - | to help you neighbor, which is the freedom to distribute exact copies | ||
| - | to others, when you wish. This could mean giving them away, this could | ||
| - | mean selling them, as you wish. Freedom 3 is the freedom to contribute | ||
| - | to your community, that is the freedom to distribute copies of your | ||
| - | modified versions to others, when you wish. If the program respects | ||
| - | these four freedoms, then it respects the individual user's freedom, | ||
| - | and it respects the community's solidarity, so it's free software, | ||
| - | which means that the social system of the distribution and use of this | ||
| - | program is an ethical system. | ||
| - | |||
| - | {00:07:25} | ||
| - | |||
| - | But if one of these freedoms is missing or insufficient, then the program | ||
| - | is proprietary software, non-free software, user-subjugating software, | ||
| - | because the social system of it's distribution and use is unethical. So, | ||
| - | a proprietary program is actually a social problem. To develop and | ||
| - | release a proprietary program is not a contribution to society. It's | ||
| - | an attack on society, it's an attempt to grab power over other people, | ||
| - | and this should not be done. | ||
| - | |||
| - | (By the way, is it possible to open the window? Maybe it's not, but | ||
| - | it's still pretty hot in here. If there is no way to get... ah, good, | ||
| - | at least some air is coming in, thank you) [light laughter] | ||
| - | |||
| - | {00:08:28} | ||
| - | |||
| - | But why these four freedoms are essential, why define free software | ||
| - | this way? | ||
| - | |||
| - | ([someone's cell phone is ringing quite loudly] | ||
| - | |||
| - | If you have a portable surveillance and tracking device, please turn it | ||
| - | off. [chuckling] They have already tracked you here, they are already | ||
| - | know you're listening to me [laughter], so there is no need for you to | ||
| - | keep it on. And by the way, these portable tracking devices emit signals | ||
| - | for tracking purposes even when they are apparently switched off. The | ||
| - | only way to stop them is to take out all the batteries. And if they want | ||
| - | to listen, they don't have to do it through your portable surveillance | ||
| - | device, I expect recordings will be posted, they can listen to those, | ||
| - | and even welcome to come and attend, so there is absolutely no reason why | ||
| - | your portable tracking and surveillance device has to be on.) | ||
| - | |||
| - | {00:09:45} | ||
| - | |||
| - | And so, why define free software this way? What makes these | ||
| - | four freedoms the essential ones? Each freedom has a reason. | ||
| - | |||
| - | Freedom 2, the freedom to help you neighbor, the freedom to distribute | ||
| - | copies to others is essential on basic ethical grounds. So you can live | ||
| - | an upright life as a good member of your society, a good member of your | ||
| - | community. If you use a program without freedom number 2, you are in | ||
| - | danger of falling, at any moment, into a moral dilemma. Whenever your | ||
| - | friend says: "Hey, that program is nice, can I have a copy?", at that | ||
| - | moment you will face a choice between two evils. One evil is to give your | ||
| - | friend a copy and violate the license of the program. The other evil is | ||
| - | to deny your friend a copy and comply with the license of the program. If | ||
| - | you're in the dilemma you ought to choose the lesser evil, which is to | ||
| - | give your friend a copy [laughter] and violate the license of the program. | ||
| - | |||
| - | {00:11:10} | ||
| - | |||
| - | However... Why is this the lesser evil? Well, if you can't help doing wrong | ||
| - | to somebody or other, better you should do it to somebody who deserves | ||
| - | it. [laughter] Now, we can assume that your friend is a good friend, a good member your community and normally deserves your cooperation. | ||
| - | Of course you might want to cooperate even with somebody who's not helpful, | ||
| - | because that way he might learn. But in any case, the case where it's a good friend, a good member of your community, is the sharpest moral | ||
| - | case. We contrast with him the developer of the proprietary | ||
| - | program, who has deliberately attacked the social solidarity of your | ||
| - | community. If you can't help doing wrong to one or the other, then | ||
| - | you should do it to him, the developer. | ||
| - | |||
| - | {00:12:07} | ||
| - | |||
| - | However, being the lesser evil, doesn't mean it's good. It's never a | ||
| - | good thing to make an agreement and then break it. Now, there are some | ||
| - | agreements that are evil in themselves, and keeping them is even worse | ||
| - | than breaking them. This is an example. But still, making an agreement | ||
| - | and breaking it is not good. | ||
| - | |||
| - | And if you give your friend a copy, what will your friend have? Your | ||
| - | friend will have an unauthorized copy of a proprietary program and | ||
| - | that's a pretty bad thing, almost as bad as an authorized copy would | ||
| - | be. [chuckling] | ||
| - | |||
| - | {00:12:56} | ||
| - | |||
| - | So, what you should really do once you have fully understood this issue, | ||
| - | is make sure you are never in that dilemma. I know of two ways. One | ||
| - | is: don't have any friends. [laughter] That is the method implicitly | ||
| - | suggested by the proprietary software developers. [laughter, applause] | ||
| - | The other method is don't have any proprietary software. If you make | ||
| - | sure to have no programs without freedom number 2, then you can't get | ||
| - | into the dilemma. So if someone offers me a program without freedom 2, | ||
| - | no matter how attractive it might be, I am morally required to reject | ||
| - | it, because to accept it and accept those conditions would be a betrayal | ||
| - | of my community, it would be wrong. It would be wrong for me to accept | ||
| - | those terms to be a user of the program. | ||
| - | |||
| - | {00:14:10} | ||
| - | |||
| - | And thus when people speak of unauthorized copying as "piracy", that is | ||
| - | propaganda. They are trying to make you take for granted that helping | ||
| - | your neighbor is the moral equivalent of attacking a ship, which is | ||
| - | what piracy means after all. And nothing could be more false than that, | ||
| - | because attacking a ship is very bad, but helping your neighbor is the | ||
| - | right thing to do. So don't use their propaganda terms, don't repeat their | ||
| - | propaganda. If someone else calls it "piracy", call it "unauthorized | ||
| - | copying", which is a neutral term, or call it "forbidden cooperation" | ||
| - | [chuckling], which takes the other side. | ||
| - | |||
| - | So that's the reason for freedom 2, the freedom to help your neighbor, | ||
| - | the freedom to distribute exact copies when you wish. | ||
| - | |||
| - | {00:15:24} | ||
| - | |||
| - | Freedom 0 is essential for a different reason, so you can control your | ||
| - | computing. It may be incredible, but it's true, that there are proprietary | ||
| - | programs that restrict even the execution of authorized copies. They may | ||
| - | restrict what computer they can run on, or who is allowed to use them, | ||
| - | or how much, or for what purpose, this is obviously not having control | ||
| - | of your computing, so freedom 0 is essential. | ||
| - | |||
| - | So essential, so for many years I didn't realized it was necessary to | ||
| - | mention it. And because it's so basic, when I decided I have to mention | ||
| - | it, I've put it in the beginning of the list, which is why it's freedom | ||
| - | 0. But it's not enough, because freedom 0 just means you can either do or | ||
| - | not do, whatever the code of the program lets you do. So the developer | ||
| - | still has power over you. Instead of exercising the power through the | ||
| - | license of the program, he exercises the power through the code of the | ||
| - | program, but it's still power, it's still control over you. | ||
| - | |||
| - | {00:16:44} | ||
| - | |||
| - | So, it order to control your computing you need freedom 1, which is the | ||
| - | freedom to study the source code and then change it so the program does | ||
| - | what you wish. This way you decide, and not the developer for you. If | ||
| - | you use the program without freedom 1, you can't even tell what it's | ||
| - | doing. Many proprietary programs contain malicious features. They can be | ||
| - | designed to spy on the user, restrict the user, even attack the user. For | ||
| - | instance, one proprietary program that spies on the user, that you may | ||
| - | have heard of, is called Microsoft Windows. [laughter, applause] | ||
| - | |||
| - | {00:17:26} | ||
| - | |||
| - | When the user of Windows, and I wouldn't say "you", because I'm sure | ||
| - | you wouldn't use [laughter] a lousy program like this. When the user of | ||
| - | Windows invokes the menu feature to search for a word, Windows sends | ||
| - | Microsoft a message saying what word was searched for. That's one spy | ||
| - | feature, but there is another. When Windows XP asks for an upgrade, | ||
| - | it reports to Microsoft the list of all the programs installed on the | ||
| - | machine. Another spy feature. But Microsoft never announced these | ||
| - | spy features, they were put in secretly, and people found them by | ||
| - | investigation. And since investigation is not perfectly reliable, | ||
| - | it's quite possible there are other spy features, that we don't know | ||
| - | about. But spying is not limited to Windows. Windows Media Player also | ||
| - | spies on the user. In fact, it does photo surveillance, it reports every | ||
| - | single user looks at. | ||
| - | |||
| - | {00:18:58} | ||
| - | |||
| - | (Just a second, since there is a camera here, I might as well, move these | ||
| - | things, get them out of the way.. Mmm?.. Everywhere I look, there is | ||
| - | another recording device. [laughter] They must be really suspicious of | ||
| - | me. [laughter]) | ||
| - | |||
| - | {00:19:45} | ||
| - | |||
| - | But you shouldn't think that Microsoft is uniquely evil and that only | ||
| - | Microsoft would do something so nasty, because Real Player spies on | ||
| - | the user the same way. And we're pretty sure that Real Player did | ||
| - | it first. After all, Microsoft is more known for imitation, than | ||
| - | for invention. [laughter] In fact, lots of proprietary programs are | ||
| - | spy-ware. But it gets worse, there is also the functionality of refusing to | ||
| - | function. When the program says: "I don't wanna let you see the contents | ||
| - | of this file, even though it's in your computer", "I don't wanna let you | ||
| - | copy part of this file, even though it's in your computer", "I'm not gonna | ||
| - | print this file for you, because I don't like you". [laughter, applause] | ||
| - | |||
| - | {00:20:50} | ||
| - | |||
| - | Those programs really don't like you. [laughter] They're not designed to | ||
| - | serve you, they're designed to keep you in prison. That's their purpose. | ||
| - | We call this kind of malicious feature "digital restriction management" | ||
| - | or DRM, or "digital handcuffs". It's the intentional malicious feature | ||
| - | of refusing to function. Many companies do this. Microsoft, of course, | ||
| - | does this. Apple does this, Adobe does this, Google does this, Sony does | ||
| - | this, Amazon does this. | ||
| - | |||
| - | It's a broad attack on the freedom of computer users and it operates on | ||
| - | two levels. Every instance of digital restrictions management attacks | ||
| - | you in two ways at once. First of all, it's purposes to take away your | ||
| - | freedom in using your copy of a work, to take away what would otherwise | ||
| - | be your legal rights. But at the same time it attacks your freedom by | ||
| - | stopping you from using free software to access your copy, so the only | ||
| - | way to do it is with proprietary user-subjugating software. | ||
| - | |||
| - | (Just a second) | ||
| - | |||
| - | {00:22:32} | ||
| - | |||
| - | Because this is such a threat, we have started a campaign of protest | ||
| - | against digital restrictions management, you can find it in the site | ||
| - | DefectiveByDesign.Org. Because these products are all designed to be | ||
| - | defective, and you should never buy it. Never buy anything with DRM | ||
| - | unless you personally have the means to break the DRM. If you can break | ||
| - | in, it's okay. [laughter] Otherwise, it's an attack on your freedom and | ||
| - | it's dangerous, so reject it, and teach other people to reject it too. | ||
| - | |||
| - | {00:23:24} | ||
| - | |||
| - | Windows Vista [laughter] is a tremendous advance in restricting the user. | ||
| - | That appears to be it's main purpose. In fact, Microsoft decided to | ||
| - | compel users to throw away perfectly good hardware and replace it, | ||
| - | just because that working hardware was not designed to restrict users | ||
| - | enough. So users to run Vista have to throw it away and replace it with | ||
| - | new hardware designed to control them. This is so nasty, that we have | ||
| - | a special campaign against using Windows Vista. It's called BadVista.Org. | ||
| - | |||
| - | Of course, all versions of Microsoft Windows are proprietary software, | ||
| - | they are all bad ethically. So you can't live in freedom using any | ||
| - | version of Windows, and if you have a computer with Windows, what you | ||
| - | need to do is "defenestrate" it, which means either throw Windows out | ||
| - | of the computer, or throw the computer out of window. [laughter, applause] | ||
| - | |||
| - | {00:24:53} | ||
| - | |||
| - | But those Windows users who are not ready to make their escape to | ||
| - | freedom yet, at least they shouldn't allow themselves to get deeper | ||
| - | into the clutches of the enemy, so they should not use Windows Vista, | ||
| - | until, of course, they are ready to stop using Windows entirely. But, | ||
| - | malicious features are getting worse, there is a malicious feature of | ||
| - | attacking user: back-doors. | ||
| - | |||
| - | {00:25:29} | ||
| - | |||
| - | One proprietary program that has backdoor, that you may heard of, is | ||
| - | called Microsoft Windows. You see, starting with Windows XP, Microsoft | ||
| - | arranged to keep track more or less of who the user is. And so when | ||
| - | Windows XP asks for an upgrade over the net, Microsoft can deliver to that | ||
| - | user an upgrade designed specifically for him, which means, Microsoft | ||
| - | can take control of his computer and to do him whatever it wants. That | ||
| - | user is at Microsoft's mercy. That's the back door we know about, | ||
| - | but is there another? | ||
| - | |||
| - | In India of few years ago I was told that they have arrested some | ||
| - | of the developers of Windows, and accused him of working not just | ||
| - | for Microsoft, but also for Al-Qaeda, [laughter] installing another | ||
| - | backdoor that Microsoft wasn't supposed to know about. That attempt | ||
| - | apparently failed. Whether other such attempts succeeded, we have no | ||
| - | way of checking. But we do know, that Microsoft installed another | ||
| - | backdoor for the use of in even more violent terrorist organization, | ||
| - | namely the United States government. [laughter] Specifically the National | ||
| - | Security Agency. This was detected in 1999, before Bush stole his first | ||
| - | election. So, what this shows you is you can't trust a program that | ||
| - | doesn't give you freedom number 1. You don't know, what's in there. | ||
| - | |||
| - | {00:27:32} | ||
| - | |||
| - | But, in fact, Windows Vista makes in even worse, because with Vista | ||
| - | Microsoft can impose a change in software. Microsoft can simply install | ||
| - | changed software when it wants to, and the user doesn't have a chance to | ||
| - | say no. But please don't think that Microsoft is uniquely evil, because | ||
| - | Mac OS X does the same thing. Apple can forcedly change the software | ||
| - | without giving the user chance to say no. So it's an understatement to | ||
| - | say that Microsoft and Apple can take control of the user's computer, | ||
| - | because with Windows Vista and Mac OS X they always have control, they | ||
| - | have control from the first minute that the user started using it. And | ||
| - | they never relinquish that control. | ||
| - | |||
| - | Every non-free program without freedom 1 demands blind faith from the | ||
| - | user, blind trust, because there is no other possible basic /?/ to use | ||
| - | it, you can't check anything, you can't verify, all you can do is place | ||
| - | yourself completely at the mercy of the developer, it's all "just trust | ||
| - | me" software. Now, that doesn't mean that every one of these programs has | ||
| - | malicious features, some do, and some don't. But we can never be sure | ||
| - | that any one of these programs has no malicious features, there is no | ||
| - | way to verify that. So we can divide them into two classes. There is the | ||
| - | programs in which we know of malicious features, and the ones in which | ||
| - | we don't know of malicious features, now some of them have malicious | ||
| - | features, and others don't, but we can never identify with certainty | ||
| - | any of the ones that don't. But I'm sure there are some. | ||
| - | |||
| - | {00:29:54} | ||
| - | |||
| - | So what can we say about them without knowing the identity of any | ||
| - | one of them? Well, we know that their developers are human, so they | ||
| - | make mistakes. The code of those programs has errors. And the user of | ||
| - | the program without freedom 1 is just as helpless facing an accidental | ||
| - | error, as she is facing an intentional malicious feature. If you use the | ||
| - | program without freedom 1, you are a prisoner of your software. We, the | ||
| - | developers of the free software, are human too, we also make mistakes, | ||
| - | the code of our programs also has errors, but if you find an error in | ||
| - | our code, or anything in it that you don't like, you are free to change | ||
| - | it. We can't be perfect, we can and we do respect your freedom. | ||
| - | |||
| - | Thus, freedom 1 is essential. But that's not enough, because that's the | ||
| - | freedom to personally study and change the source code of the program. | ||
| - | That's not enough, because there are millions of users that don't know | ||
| - | how to program. They can't personally exercise freedom 1, but even for a | ||
| - | programmer like me freedom 1 is not enough, because there is just too | ||
| - | much software. In fact, there is too much free software for any one | ||
| - | person to master it all and personally make all the changes that he | ||
| - | might want. So the only way we can fully take control of our software | ||
| - | and of our computing is to do it working together, cooperating, and for | ||
| - | that we need freedom 3, the freedom to distribute copies of your modified | ||
| - | versions when you wish, the freedom to contribute to your community. This | ||
| - | allows us to work together. | ||
| - | |||
| - | {00:32:12} | ||
| - | |||
| - | For instance, suppose one person takes a free program, and makes a change, | ||
| - | and releases her modified version. And somebody else takes that and makes | ||
| - | another change that goes further in that direction, and releases his | ||
| - | modified version, and someone else starts with that and makes another | ||
| - | change, and releases his modified version. Afterwards we will say: | ||
| - | they all worked together to produce the feature that we ultimately got, | ||
| - | which doesn't mean that they planned it in advance that way. The first | ||
| - | one might have no plans beyond the feature that she personally made, | ||
| - | but nonetheless, because the program is free, they were able to cooperate. | ||
| - | |||
| - | And thus all the users get the benefit of the four freedoms. Every user | ||
| - | can exercise freedoms 0 and 2, the freedom to run the program as you | ||
| - | with, and the freedom to distribute exact copies when you wish, because | ||
| - | this doesn't require programming. Freedoms 1 and 3 entail programming, | ||
| - | so any giving user can exercise these freedoms more or less, depending | ||
| - | on how much skill he has in programming. And of course, there are many | ||
| - | people that don't want to learn any programming, so they can't directly | ||
| - | exercise freedoms 1 and 3, but when other people, the programmers, | ||
| - | exercise these freedoms and release their modified versions, everybody | ||
| - | can install them, if they wish. | ||
| - | |||
| - | And thus we all indirectly get the benefit of the four freedoms. I get | ||
| - | tremendous benefit from other people's exercise of freedoms 1 and 3 | ||
| - | without my ever reading the code of those programs, which I never seen, | ||
| - | I could if I wanted to, but I don't have to do that personally in order | ||
| - | to get the benefits. Thus we all get the benefits of the four freedoms | ||
| - | and together what they give us is democracy. | ||
| - | |||
| - | {00:34:42} | ||
| - | |||
| - | You see, a free program develops democratically under the control if its | ||
| - | users. Every user can participate as much or as little as she wishes in | ||
| - | a society's decision about the future of that program, which is simple | ||
| - | the sum total of all the individual decisions. The users are in charge, | ||
| - | and therefore, the users generally get what they want, and nobody is | ||
| - | in a position to stop them. With free software no one has power over | ||
| - | anyone else, so nobody is in a position to put in malicious features | ||
| - | and impose them on anybody else. The reason, proprietary software soft | ||
| - | often has malicious features, that the developer knows, that if he puts | ||
| - | in a malicious feature, nobody else can take it out, the users are stuck | ||
| - | with it, unless they can escape to another program, and sometimes they | ||
| - | all have the same malicious features, and there is nowhere to escape to. | ||
| - | |||
| - | But with free software, if a developer is silly enough to put in a | ||
| - | malicious feature, somebody else will see it in a source code and take | ||
| - | it out, and release his modified version and say: "look, what I've found | ||
| - | in that program, and here is the version which doesn't have it", and in | ||
| - | a short time everyone will go to the fixed version and the developer | ||
| - | of the malicious version will have lost his reputation and he will be | ||
| - | nothing. That's possible, because the users are all free. And we can | ||
| - | make the program develop to reject the malicious features, because we | ||
| - | all together are in control of the program, if that's what we users want, | ||
| - | that's what we get. | ||
| - | |||
| - | {00:37:00} | ||
| - | |||
| - | By contrast, the proprietary program develops under the dictatorship of | ||
| - | its developer and functions as an instrument to impose that developer's | ||
| - | power over all the users. So we have a simple choice. On the one end | ||
| - | we have individual freedom, social solidarity and democracy, and on the | ||
| - | other we get divided and controlled by a dictator. It's a simple choice, | ||
| - | and the answer is obvious: we should reject proprietary software and | ||
| - | use only free software. | ||
| - | |||
| - | This is free software in ethical terms, which is the most important | ||
| - | way to look at the issue. When ethical issues is a stake, they are more | ||
| - | important than something else. But, since many people are involved in | ||
| - | business, people are often interested in free software from a business | ||
| - | perspective, so I will talk about that to some extent. | ||
| - | |||
| - | === Free software from a business perspective === | ||
| - | |||
| - | {00:38:17} | ||
| - | |||
| - | How does free software affect business. Well, lots of businesses use | ||
| - | computers, only a tiny fraction of them are in the business of developing | ||
| - | software. So the result is, in general, free software is very good for | ||
| - | businesses, because businesses appreciate the four freedoms, just as | ||
| - | individuals do in their leisure time. And businesses using software | ||
| - | should have these four freedoms, just as other users should. And in | ||
| - | particular, businesses can take advantage greatly. | ||
| - | |||
| - | {00:39:01} | ||
| - | |||
| - | ([the camera operator turned away from RMS and now shooting the | ||
| - | listeners] By the way, when it's pointed away, is the microphone going to | ||
| - | pick up my speech? [growing laughter] Can you turn..(indistinguishable)... | ||
| - | the microphone... [the speech is apparently interrupted] | ||
| - | If you could point the microphone this way and camera | ||
| - | that way you can get the shot you want. [laughter] Okay, well.. fine. | ||
| - | [laughter]) | ||
| - | |||
| - | {00:39:44} | ||
| - | |||
| - | So, businesses can take advantage of the four freedoms to get the features | ||
| - | they want even if they are not software developers. For instance, | ||
| - | there are a thousand a users of some free program, that want a certain | ||
| - | change. And suppose, none of those users knows how to program. But | ||
| - | they have some money. Now they could be businesses, or they could | ||
| - | be individuals, if it really doesn't matter, but in any case here's | ||
| - | what they can do. They can get in touch with each other and start an | ||
| - | organization and the idea is that they all join and in joining they pay | ||
| - | money to the organization, and this way the organization collects money | ||
| - | to pay programmers to do the work they want. So if this is a medium-sized | ||
| - | change it might require a month of work for a skilled programmer, and that | ||
| - | might cost 10,000 dollars, and the organization may ask each of those | ||
| - | thousand people: please pay 10 dollars, that's not much money. I expect | ||
| - | that if you wanted a certain change, you'd probably put in 10 dollars to | ||
| - | get it and certainly if it's useful for your business, and your business | ||
| - | is going to be more profitable with that change, it's worth it to you | ||
| - | to put in such a tiny amount of money. But what if it's bigger, what if | ||
| - | it take a year of work, and then it might cost a 100,000 dollars, and | ||
| - | the organization might ask each one of these members to put in a 100 | ||
| - | dollars, but you know, chances are, if businesses want a big change, | ||
| - | it's because it's going to make a big improvement for them, and it's | ||
| - | going to be worth that 100 dollars and they won't hesitate. | ||
| - | |||
| - | {00:41:45} | ||
| - | |||
| - | But how this organization get it done? The organization has to find | ||
| - | programmers to hire. So the organization could ask a group of | ||
| - | programmers: "Could you do this? When could you have it done? What | ||
| - | would you charge? Let's see your portfolio, so we can evaluate your | ||
| - | abilities. What about you? What about you?" And so after they compared | ||
| - | the answers from various groups, then can decide, who to hire. Which | ||
| - | shows us, that free software brings with it a free market for all kinds | ||
| - | of support and service. | ||
| - | |||
| - | By contrast, a support for a proprietary program is typically a | ||
| - | monopoly. Only the developer has the source code, so only the developer | ||
| - | can make a change, and if a user wants a change, the user has to beg | ||
| - | the developer, or even pray to the developer: [laughter] "Oh, mighty | ||
| - | developer, please make this change for me!" [laughter, applause] | ||
| - | |||
| - | {00:42:52} | ||
| - | |||
| - | Sometimes the developer says: "Pay us, and we'll listen to your | ||
| - | problem". [laughter] If the user pays, the developer says: "Thank you | ||
| - | very much. [laughter] In six months there will be an upgrade, buy the | ||
| - | upgrade and you will see if we have fixed your problem, and you will | ||
| - | see what new problems we have in store for you [laughter] | ||
| - | |||
| - | But with free software anyone that has a copy, can read the source | ||
| - | codes, master it and begin offering support, so it's a free market and | ||
| - | pretty easy to enter. As a result, all those companies and organizations | ||
| - | and agencies that say they really need good support and say that they | ||
| - | think that free market generally provides better things to the buyer, | ||
| - | rationally speaking, they should insist on using free software so they | ||
| - | can get their support through the free market instead of a monopoly. | ||
| - | |||
| - | {00:44:12} | ||
| - | |||
| - | Isn't it ironic, that the proprietary software developers call us | ||
| - | "communists"? We are the ones who have provided for a free market, where | ||
| - | they allow only monopoly. More than that, we are the ones that respect | ||
| - | private property, and they don't. Companies like Microsoft and Apple, | ||
| - | and so many others, they don't respect your private property, in fact | ||
| - | they say that "your" copy is their property. They say everything is their | ||
| - | property, their idea of private property is: everything belongs to them, | ||
| - | like the czars. So, by contrast, your copy of a free program is your | ||
| - | property, and you are free to use it in all the ethical ways. | ||
| - | |||
| - | But it goes beyond that, because in the free software community we | ||
| - | have a decentralized society in which everybody can basically decide | ||
| - | what he wants to do and do it, whereas with proprietary software it's | ||
| - | a command-based system, the executives decide: we want this feature, we | ||
| - | do not want that feature, the programmers put it in, and all the users | ||
| - | are stuck with it just the same. So, which one is a Soviet-style system? | ||
| - | |||
| - | {00:46:12} | ||
| - | |||
| - | And this leads to another paradox. Usually when there is a choice of | ||
| - | products to do a job, we say there is no monopoly. But, when there | ||
| - | is a choice between proprietary software products, yes, there is | ||
| - | monopoly. Because if the users chooses this proprietary software package, | ||
| - | he then falls into this monopoly for support, but if he chooses this | ||
| - | proprietary product, he falls into this monopoly for support, so it's a | ||
| - | choice between monopolies. And the only way to escape from monopoly is | ||
| - | to escape from proprietary software, and that is what the free software | ||
| - | movement is all about. We want you to escape and our work is to help | ||
| - | you escape. | ||
| - | |||
| - | We hope you will escape to the free world. The free world is the | ||
| - | new continent in cyberspace that we have built so we can live here | ||
| - | in freedom. It's impossible to live in freedom in the all world of | ||
| - | cyberspace, where every program has its feudal lord that bullies and | ||
| - | mistreats the users. So, to live in freedom we have to build a new | ||
| - | continent. Because this is a virtual continent, it has room for everyone, | ||
| - | and there are no immigration restrictions. And because there were never | ||
| - | indigenous peoples in cyberspace, there is also no issue of taking away | ||
| - | their land. So everyone is welcome in a free world, come to the free | ||
| - | world, live with us in freedom. The free software movement aims for the | ||
| - | liberation of cyberspace and everyone in it. | ||
| - | |||
| - | === A brief history of the free software movement and the GNU project === | ||
| - | |||
| - | {00:48:22} | ||
| - | |||
| - | I reached these ideas, not in their current form, of course, in their | ||
| - | early form in 1983. I wanted to be able to continue using computers | ||
| - | but have freedom. But how could that be possible? In 1983 it was | ||
| - | impossible, because the computer is useless without an OS, an operating | ||
| - | system, and an 1983 all the operating systems for modern computers were | ||
| - | proprietary, so there was no way to buy a modern computer and run it | ||
| - | and have freedom. How could I change that? I was one man, not particularly | ||
| - | famous, with no political experience or skill. So I didn't think I would | ||
| - | get very far just starting an ordinary political movement, trying to | ||
| - | campaign to convince governments to change their laws, or even convince | ||
| - | companies to change their policies. Nowadays we sometimes achieve this, | ||
| - | but things have changed quite a bit since 1983. | ||
| - | |||
| - | {00:49:35} | ||
| - | |||
| - | So I didn't think of doing it that way, but I saw another approach to | ||
| - | achieve the goal: through technical work. I realized that if I developed | ||
| - | another operating system, then I as the author could make it free software | ||
| - | and that way everyone would be able to use computers in freedom by using | ||
| - | my system. This system would be the way to use a computer and have | ||
| - | freedom. And I was an operating system developer, that was my field, | ||
| - | my principal skill. So I thought I had a chance of doing this. So that | ||
| - | meant I was aware of an important and growing social problem. That most | ||
| - | people didn't recognize as a problem. I had the skills necessary to try | ||
| - | to eliminate that problem and chances are, it seemed, nobody would do | ||
| - | it if I did not. That meant that I had been elected by circumstances | ||
| - | to do this job. It was my duty. | ||
| - | |||
| - | {00:50:04} | ||
| - | |||
| - | It's as if you see somebody drowning, and you know how to swim, and | ||
| - | there is no one else around, and it's not Bush [laughter] or any other | ||
| - | government leader that suppresses the opposition and does other bad things | ||
| - | to human rights, then you have a moral duty to save that person. Now, | ||
| - | I don't know how to swim, but in this case the job that had to be done | ||
| - | was not swimming, it was developing lots of software, and that I knew | ||
| - | how to do. So I decided to develop a free software operating system or | ||
| - | die trying. [laughter, applause] | ||
| - | |||
| - | {00:52:10} | ||
| - | |||
| - | Of old days, that is. Because, at the time, the free software movement | ||
| - | did not have active enemies. Lots of people said it was silly and then | ||
| - | they paid no further attention. So the obstacle to success was not | ||
| - | opposition, you know, I didn't think somebody was likely to stick me | ||
| - | with some radioactive polonium or something like that, but the obstacle | ||
| - | was the large pile of programs that we would have to develop in order | ||
| - | to have an entire free operating system. And 20 years ago nobody knew, | ||
| - | not even I, if we would ever achieve that goal. It was plausible that | ||
| - | I might die of old days first. But when it's a matter of fighting for | ||
| - | freedom, you can't afford to wait until victory is within reach before | ||
| - | you start, because that means you missed most of the opportunities, | ||
| - | you have to start the campaign for freedom long before that, if you | ||
| - | still have no idea if you are going to win, and then maybe you win. | ||
| - | |||
| - | {00:53:46} | ||
| - | |||
| - | So the next thing I decided was to ask other people to join in and | ||
| - | help. The goal wasn't to have a system developed entirely by me, it was | ||
| - | to have a free system as soon as possible, so other people writing parts | ||
| - | of the system could get it done sooner. But I also had to make technical | ||
| - | design decisions, what kind of system should it be. Well, back in the | ||
| - | eighties there were various computer architectures quite different, | ||
| - | and new ones were being introduced, I realized that it would take years | ||
| - | to develop an entire operating system and during that time computer | ||
| - | architectures could change and so, if the system was not portable, it | ||
| - | could be obsolete before it was done. I didn't want that, so i decided | ||
| - | to make the system portable. I only knew of one successful portable | ||
| - | operating system, and that was UNIX, so I've decided to follow the design | ||
| - | of UNIX. Furthermore, I decided to make it upward compatible with UNIX, | ||
| - | because that way all the UNIX users would find it easy to switch to | ||
| - | this system. However bad made all the initial design decisions, because | ||
| - | UNIX consisted of hundreds of components that work together through | ||
| - | interfaces that were more or less documented, and the users also spoke | ||
| - | those same interfaces to talk to these components, so to be compatible | ||
| - | we had to keep the same interfaces, which meant replacing each component | ||
| - | compatibly. So the only thing I needed to start a project was a name. | ||
| - | |||
| - | {00:55:41} | ||
| - | |||
| - | Of course, I looked for a funny name, because in the 1970's I was part | ||
| - | of the community of programmers, who shared software. When we wrote | ||
| - | a program, we shared it with everybody, that was our way. And all the | ||
| - | software that we were using in this lab at MIT was free software, although | ||
| - | I don't remember if we used that term or not. And we called ourselves | ||
| - | "hackers", which meant and still means that we were programming because | ||
| - | it was tremendous fun. Now half of us were employees, and the other half | ||
| - | were students, but that was all secondary, because the fascination of | ||
| - | what we can do with the computer was what really mattered. That was our | ||
| - | main motivation, that was tremendous fun. But to make it even more fun, | ||
| - | we sometimes chose funny names for our programs, because imagining the | ||
| - | users laughing at the name can keep you going, fixing the difficult bugs | ||
| - | [laughter] till you get your program to actually work. If they don't | ||
| - | start using it, there will be any users to laugh at the name. | ||
| - | |||
| - | {00:57:13} | ||
| - | |||
| - | Now, back in the seventies, system level programming was generally | ||
| - | not portable, so every program was written for a particular kind of | ||
| - | machine, and a particular system, and it was quite common that you'd | ||
| - | see interesting program that ran on some other kind of machine, so you | ||
| - | would write another one in order to do the job on your machine. When that | ||
| - | happened in our community since we were looking for ways to have fun, | ||
| - | we had a specific custom: you could give your program a name which was a | ||
| - | recursive acronym saying: your program is not the other one. For instance, | ||
| - | in 1976 I developed first Emacs, text editor, a programmable extensible | ||
| - | text editor and afterwards there were some 30 imitations, and some of | ||
| - | them were called "this or that Emacs", which is straightforward and not | ||
| - | particular clever. But there were also FINE for "FINE Is Not Emacs", | ||
| - | and then there was SINE for "SINE Is Not EMACS", and there was EINE for | ||
| - | "EINE Is Not Emacs", and there was MINCE for "MINCE Is Not Complete | ||
| - | Emacs" [laughter] and version 2 of EINE was called ZWEI for "ZWEI Was | ||
| - | EINE Initially". So you can have lots of fun with recursive acronyms. I | ||
| - | looked for a recursive acronym of the form "Something Is Not UNIX", | ||
| - | blank-INU, but I could see any combination like that that was a word, | ||
| - | and if it doesn't had another meaning, it's not a joke. So what can I | ||
| - | do, I thought, I can make a contraction, and get rid of the "I", I have | ||
| - | "Something's Not UNIX", blank-NU. So I've tried every initial: ANU, BNU, | ||
| - | CNU, [laughter] DNU, ENU, FNU.. GNU! [laughter] Well, "gnu" is the most | ||
| - | humour-charged word in the English language used in countless wordplays. | ||
| - | So, of course I couldn't resist. [light laughter] | ||
| - | |||
| - | {00:59:48} | ||
| - | |||
| - | But why is the word gnu so humour charged? It's because according to | ||
| - | the dictionary, the "g" is silent and it's pronounced: "nu". So anytime | ||
| - | you wanted write "nu", you could write it "gnu" and you have a joke, | ||
| - | perhaps not a very good one [laughter], but there are lots of them. And | ||
| - | sometimes it is a good joke. For instance, there was a funny song where | ||
| - | I was child, that was based on the word "gnu". So, given a specific | ||
| - | meaningful reason to use this for a particular programming project, | ||
| - | I could not resist. However, when it's the name of our system, please | ||
| - | do not follow the dictionary, please pronounce it "GNU". If you talk | ||
| - | about the "new" operating system, you'll get people confused, because | ||
| - | we've been developing it for 24 years now, and we've been using it for | ||
| - | 15 years, it's not "new" anymore, but it still is GNU it always will be | ||
| - | GNU, no matter how many people mispronounce it as "Linux". [laughter, | ||
| - | loud applause] | ||
| - | |||
| - | === The "Linux" and "GNU/Linux" names. The GNU General Public License === | ||
| - | |||
| - | {01:01:21} | ||
| - | |||
| - | But how that such a bizarre mistake get started, how did it happen that | ||
| - | millions of people use GNU system and think that they are using the | ||
| - | "Linux" operating system, which doesn't really exist? Well, during | ||
| - | the eighties our work was to develop the many components we would | ||
| - | need, hundreds of components, to have a complete UNIX-like operating | ||
| - | system. By 1990 we had all the components, we had most of the system, | ||
| - | but one major essential component was missing, that was the kernel, | ||
| - | which is the program that allocates the machine resources to all the | ||
| - | other programs that you run. So in 1990 the Free Software Foundation | ||
| - | hired somebody to begin writing that kernel for GNU, I chose the | ||
| - | design. The design I chose was to use as the bottom half, Mach. Mach is | ||
| - | the micro-kernel, that was developed as a university funded project. So | ||
| - | I thought: they'll make that work, we just write the top half, and the | ||
| - | top half we decided would be made of modular server programs, and they | ||
| - | will all run in userspace, which would make them easy to debug, because | ||
| - | if one of them crashes, it doesn't crash the whole machine, and you | ||
| - | can debug them with the source-level debugger. So I though this design | ||
| - | would enable us to get the whole thing working soon, I don't know why, | ||
| - | but it took many years to get it to run at all. And it still doesn't | ||
| - | run very well, so I wouldn't recommend that you use it, and sad to say, | ||
| - | very little progress is being made. | ||
| - | |||
| - | {01:03:11} | ||
| - | |||
| - | That's a disappointment, but it's not a disaster, because in 1991 a | ||
| - | college student named Torvalds developed his own kernel using the usual | ||
| - | monolithic approach and he got it basically work within a year. That kernel | ||
| - | was called Linux and initially it was not free software. The initial | ||
| - | license was too restrictive, it didn't allow commercial distribution, | ||
| - | which is an important thing in using free software. However, in 1992 | ||
| - | Torvalds changed the license and released Linux under the GNU General | ||
| - | Public License, which is the free software license that I have written | ||
| - | to use on most of the programs that we developed for GNU. | ||
| - | |||
| - | {01:04:09} | ||
| - | |||
| - | What is that mean. First of all, what is the free software license. Well, | ||
| - | how can you make a program free software? Under today's copyright law | ||
| - | in most of the world, anything that's written is copyrighted. So every | ||
| - | program is copyrighted starting from the moment it's written down. And | ||
| - | copyright law says that people are not allowed to copy it or modify it or | ||
| - | distribute it, and in some countries it says they not even allowed to run | ||
| - | it without permission. So how could the program be free software? Only | ||
| - | because of an explicit declaration by the copyright holder saying that | ||
| - | the users have the four freedoms. That declaration is a free software | ||
| - | license. That is, assuming it really does validly give you the four | ||
| - | freedoms in a sufficient way, than it qualifies as a free software | ||
| - | license. So theoretically, there are infinite number of free software | ||
| - | licenses, but it's better to use the existing one than to write your own, | ||
| - | because it's convenient to have fewer licenses rather than more. | ||
| - | |||
| - | In any case, there are various different free software licenses, the | ||
| - | GNU GPL is not the only one, but there is something special about the | ||
| - | GNU GPL, and that is it's a copyleft license. | ||
| - | |||
| - | {01:05:45} | ||
| - | |||
| - | Now, every free software license has to give you freedom 2 and freedom 3, | ||
| - | the freedom to distribute exact copies and modified versions, but there | ||
| - | are two ways to do that. Some licenses say: when you distribute, you can | ||
| - | distribute any way you like, you could even make these copies proprietary, | ||
| - | you can put restrictions on the other people. A copyleft license says: | ||
| - | when you redistribute, you have to do it in a right way, the same way | ||
| - | that you got your copy, under the same license, with the source code, | ||
| - | and in general, you may respect other people's freedom the same way we | ||
| - | respected yours, so when you get our program, you get it with freedom, | ||
| - | and then when you pass it along to others, perhaps exactly or changed, | ||
| - | perhaps extended, you must give them, you must pass along to them the same | ||
| - | freedoms that we gave you. So, copyleft is a way of defending freedom | ||
| - | for every user. By releasing something under a free license you respect | ||
| - | other people's freedom, you do not take it away. But people may still be | ||
| - | vulnerable to middle man, even though you did not take away their freedom, | ||
| - | a middle man could take it away before they get their copies, so with | ||
| - | copyleft we go beyond just respecting people's freedom, we actually | ||
| - | actively defend everybody's freedom. We say: if you get your copy, it | ||
| - | will come with freedom, because the middle men are not allowed to take | ||
| - | away the freedom before you can get. And I'm proud to say that the GNU | ||
| - | General Public License is used by about 70% of free software packages. So, | ||
| - | copyleft for various reasons has attracted a lot of developers. | ||
| - | |||
| - | {01:08:03} | ||
| - | |||
| - | In any case, once Linux was available under the GNU GPL, it was free | ||
| - | software. And thus, the combination of almost complete GNU system and the | ||
| - | kernel Linux made a complete free operating system, and thus the goal, | ||
| - | that I had announced in 1983, have been reached. For the first time it | ||
| - | was possible to buy a PC and run it in freedom with free software. The | ||
| - | development of Linux the kernel was the step, that carried us across | ||
| - | the finish line. It was able to do that because we have taken many | ||
| - | steps already in order to get close to the finish line. But people | ||
| - | mistakenly focused on that one last step as if that was everything. They | ||
| - | got confused. The people who started distributing these combinations of | ||
| - | Linux and GNU, they started calling them Linux systems, and as a result | ||
| - | they started a confusion, where most people, when they hear the name | ||
| - | Linux, they don't know, whether they are talking about this one piece, | ||
| - | that Torvalds started, or the entire system that's basically GNU. Most | ||
| - | people don't even understand the difference. Most people don't know there | ||
| - | is a distinction to be made, so they believe that Linux is an operating | ||
| - | system, that you can install on a computer, and they also believe that it | ||
| - | was started in 1991 by Torvalds and they also believe that it's released | ||
| - | now under the GNU General Public License. Well, there is nothing in the | ||
| - | world of which these three things are true. | ||
| - | |||
| - | {01:10:06} | ||
| - | |||
| - | They're making some statements that describe the whole system, and | ||
| - | some statements that describe just this piece, and they don't know that | ||
| - | they're confused. They don't know that there is a distinction to be made, | ||
| - | you have to be somewhat well educated technically to start understand | ||
| - | there is a difference. Now, this obviously is unfair to the thousands of | ||
| - | contributors to the GNU system. Because we're the principal developers | ||
| - | of this combination and people basically don't give us much credit, | ||
| - | they give the credit all to mister Torvalds, so in fairness sake I ask | ||
| - | you to please call it GNU/Linux or GNU+Linux, give us equal mention, | ||
| - | since we started it and we did the biggest part of the job, we ought to | ||
| - | get at least an equal share of the credit. But I have to recognize that | ||
| - | credit is not the most important ethical issue in life, and if it were | ||
| - | just a matter of credit, it wouldn't be worth making a fuss about. | ||
| - | |||
| - | But there's something else, something much more important at stake in your | ||
| - | choice of the name to use with this system. Your freedom is at stake, | ||
| - | indirectly, of course. Because your choice of the name doesn't directly | ||
| - | affect much of anything, but your choice of words to say determines | ||
| - | what meaning you express, determines what you say to other people, what | ||
| - | you teach them and that affects what they do and that ultimately affect | ||
| - | important things. | ||
| - | |||
| - | {01:12:02} | ||
| - | |||
| - | You see, the name GNU has always been associated with the ideas of | ||
| - | freedom, that I've told you today. The name Linux is not, because the | ||
| - | name Linux is associated with the views of Linus Torvalds and he has never | ||
| - | agreed with these ideas of freedom, that I have told you today. He doesn't | ||
| - | even want to think about the question, he dislikes raising ethical issues, | ||
| - | he wants technology to be pure and not affected by ethical concerns. It's | ||
| - | the world view of engineer who doesn't look around him. And he is said | ||
| - | this many, many times. He used to develop proprietary software as his | ||
| - | job, about ten years ago, and he said so, well what kind of example was | ||
| - | that? The thing is, of course he has a right for his views, he has a right | ||
| - | to tell people his views, but the problem is when our work is attributed | ||
| - | to him erroneously, and then under strength of our work people look to | ||
| - | him for ethical leadership, that's not right, they ought to know that we | ||
| - | developed this system and that we did it for their freedom's sake. But | ||
| - | when they think the system is Linux, and they think it was all started | ||
| - | by mister Torvalds, they tend to follow his view of the world and of | ||
| - | these issues, and that leads them in a dangerous directions, because as | ||
| - | you can see, freedom is frequently threatened. | ||
| - | |||
| - | {01:14:15} | ||
| - | |||
| - | And so, when people don't defend it, they are likely to lose it. You can | ||
| - | see that here, you can see that in the US, you can see that in the UK, | ||
| - | and in many other countries following their leadership. Freedom has been | ||
| - | under attack in recent years. | ||
| - | |||
| - | Now, in most areas of life people have been debating the issue of human | ||
| - | rights for centuries, that's plenty of time to reach conclusions about | ||
| - | which human rights are essential and that everyone would have, and to | ||
| - | spread those ideas around the world. That doesn't always means that we | ||
| - | succeed in defending them, but at least it creates a base from which | ||
| - | to try. | ||
| - | |||
| - | But computing is a pretty new area of life, it's only around 15 years that | ||
| - | most people even in a few advanced countries have been using computers, | ||
| - | and in other countries it's less. That's not a lot of time to have | ||
| - | a debate about the human rights for computer users, even if you try | ||
| - | hard to do it, and just the opposite is happened, in fact, there has | ||
| - | been hardly any attempt to seriously consider these question. Instead, | ||
| - | society allowed the proprietary software developers to state the answer | ||
| - | and then just accepted that as if it were unquestionable. Hardly anyone | ||
| - | dares to put it into question. Most people who use computers began | ||
| - | with proprietary software, surrounded by other people using proprietary | ||
| - | software, they didn't even know they could be an alternative, so they | ||
| - | just assumed that that's okay. If you are surrounded by people that live | ||
| - | a certain way, it's not easy to raise a question: is it ethically okay | ||
| - | to do that? It takes great strength. Now, even I haven't necessarily | ||
| - | had that much strength, after all, I didn't have to invent the idea of | ||
| - | free software in this way, I learned it by going to work in a lab at MIT, | ||
| - | where software was free, I just.. I saw this way of life, I didn't have | ||
| - | to invent it and then envision what it would be like purely in my own | ||
| - | mind, I learned what it was like by living it! So, other people who were | ||
| - | not as lucky as me and didn't have this good fortune to experience free | ||
| - | software, they took for granted that software was proprietary and what | ||
| - | could possibly ever be wrong with that? | ||
| - | |||
| - | {01:17:19} | ||
| - | |||
| - | So, there basically has not been in most of society any debate about | ||
| - | this question, about the question of what human rights the developer of | ||
| - | software is entitled to. I think I have identified four of them. The four | ||
| - | essential freedoms, that define the free software, are human rights that | ||
| - | every software user should have. But even among the users of GNU/Linux | ||
| - | system most of them have never heard this idea. Because only a fraction | ||
| - | of the community talks about it. Most of the community doesn't tell them | ||
| - | about GNU or free software, or any of these ideas of free software. Most | ||
| - | of them say that the system is Linux, and the associate it with ideas of | ||
| - | Linus Torvalds, they say: it's a way to get powerful reliable software, | ||
| - | and that's as far as they go, they don't mention freedom and social | ||
| - | solidarity as goals. | ||
| - | |||
| - | And they don't say "free software" either, they have a different term | ||
| - | they prefer to use, it's called "open source". Among the people who first | ||
| - | promoted the term "open source" in 1998, several of them specifically | ||
| - | wanted our ethical concerns to be forgotten, they just wanted it to | ||
| - | drift out of people's minds, and not be remembered. And they partly | ||
| - | succeeded, not completely, the free software movement is still here, | ||
| - | still spreading these ideas, and I believe, still growing, but we are | ||
| - | only a fraction of the users of free software, most of who have not | ||
| - | heard these ideas. Now that makes our community weak, because in order | ||
| - | for people to defend their freedom they have to value their freedom, | ||
| - | and in order to value their freedom, they have to know what it is, | ||
| - | first of all. And we face a big task simply to explain to the users of | ||
| - | free software, what these freedoms are. | ||
| - | |||
| - | {01:20:03} | ||
| - | |||
| - | So we need your help to do this most important job. So you can start | ||
| - | explaining the issues of free software to other people. You can read more | ||
| - | on our website gnu.org. And then you can start explaining to individuals, | ||
| - | you can give speeches, this is tremendously important way to contribute, | ||
| - | we need it more, actually, then we need more programmers, because there | ||
| - | is a lots of programmers developing free software, and not so many of | ||
| - | us spreading these ideas of freedom. But if you don't have time to spend | ||
| - | twenty minutes explaining these ideas of freedom, there is a way you can | ||
| - | help us do it, that only takes one second. And that is calling the system | ||
| - | GNU/Linux, because it only takes one second to say "GNU/", or type "GNU/", | ||
| - | and so you can certainly spare that much time to help us. Now it's true | ||
| - | that that won't explain our philosophy, you can't explain a philosophy | ||
| - | in one second, no matter what you do. But it will make our explanations | ||
| - | more effective by preparing a way for people to pay attention. | ||
| - | |||
| - | You see, if a person has been told that the system is Linux and it was | ||
| - | all started by Linus Torvalds in 1991, he probably believes that the | ||
| - | GNU project was a project to develop a handful of tools, which Torvalds | ||
| - | just by coincidence found useful "in Linux". So, completely wrong idea | ||
| - | of what we've been trying to do and what we did. So, when he sees an | ||
| - | article from the GNU project explaining our philosophy of freedom, he is | ||
| - | likely to say: well, that has nothing to do with me, I'm a Linux user, | ||
| - | why should I care about GNU. After all, GNU is just a friends group, | ||
| - | some fanatics that wrote a few useful programs once upon a time. But if | ||
| - | he realizes that the system he is using is basically the GNU system, | ||
| - | if he think of himself as of GNU/Linux user instead of a Linux user, | ||
| - | then when he sees an article from the GNU project, he is likely to think: | ||
| - | "Ah, here is the philosophy of GNU and I'm a GNU/Linux user, I should | ||
| - | pay attention, I should see what the GNU project has to say", and then | ||
| - | we have a chance to try to convince him. All these efforts that we are | ||
| - | making will have more effect, if you are preparing the way. We need | ||
| - | your help, because our community's weakness has already let us to loose | ||
| - | freedoms that we had, because so many of the users don't really care | ||
| - | about freedom, and don't even understand the issue, they are willing to | ||
| - | accept non-free programs as part of the GNU/Linux system. | ||
| - | |||
| - | === Problems of modern GNU/Linux distributions === | ||
| - | |||
| - | {01:23:39} | ||
| - | |||
| - | And in fact, most of the thousands of distributions of GNU/Linux contain | ||
| - | non-free software. In 1992 for the first time we had a complete free | ||
| - | operating system. There was the GNU/Linux system, you could get it, | ||
| - | you could install it on a PC and it would run, and it would be free. By | ||
| - | 2000 you couldn't find a free distribution of GNU/Linux anywhere. How | ||
| - | did that happened, how did we lose, how did we failed back from the | ||
| - | freedom we had achieved? Well, around 1995 there were already several, | ||
| - | at least, different distributions of GNU/Linux, and already most of | ||
| - | them called themselves Linux distributions, and some of them started to | ||
| - | put in non-free programs and present them as an advantage, they said: | ||
| - | "Ah, choose our distribution and look what you get!", pointing to those | ||
| - | proprietary programs, as if they made it better. Which is the exact | ||
| - | opposite of the idea of the free software movement, which is that a | ||
| - | non-free program takes away your freedom and makes things worse. | ||
| - | |||
| - | So, their publicity was working directly against our efforts. None | ||
| - | of that /?/, all the distributions were competing with each other, | ||
| - | so the developers of another distribution looked at that and said: | ||
| - | "Uh-oh, they have this proprietary program and that attracting the | ||
| - | users away from us, we better put in this proprietary program too, | ||
| - | so that the users will come back". | ||
| - | |||
| - | {01:25:30} | ||
| - | |||
| - | Now, they could have said: "We are very sorry, esteemed user, that such | ||
| - | and such program is not free software, it doesn't respect your freedom, | ||
| - | we have put it in because we know you have come to expect this from | ||
| - | other distributions, and if we didn't put it in we know you would choose | ||
| - | a different distribution and get it that way. But this program doesn't | ||
| - | respect your freedom, so if you care about your freedom, you shouldn't | ||
| - | install it. And because we are serious about these regrets, we are not | ||
| - | just waiting for somebody else to give us a free replacement for this | ||
| - | program, we are contributing one full time employee to the project to | ||
| - | develop a free replacement, because it's since we're distributing it | ||
| - | and we feel ashamed of that we feel it's our moral duty to speed the | ||
| - | day when we can delete it and put a free program in it's place." | ||
| - | |||
| - | They could have said that. But what they did say, was: | ||
| - | |||
| - | "Look what you get in our distribution!" | ||
| - | |||
| - | {01:26:51} | ||
| - | |||
| - | So, by and by, all the distributions had non-free software. People | ||
| - | would ask me after a speech: where can I get a copy of GNU/Linux? And | ||
| - | I would say, I don't know of any place I can recommend. How sad, that | ||
| - | our community had almost completely fallen into the ditch at the side | ||
| - | of the road, just because drivers weren't looking at where they were | ||
| - | going. They didn't think about freedom, or they didn't care. Well I'm | ||
| - | happy to say that now there are free distributions, there is UTUTO, | ||
| - | U-T-U-T-O [writes on blackboard], there is BLAG, which stands for "BLAG | ||
| - | Linux And GNU", and there is gNewSense. These are three distributions | ||
| - | that have a policy of rejecting non-free software, because there purpose | ||
| - | is to give your freedom. | ||
| - | |||
| - | [a listener asks: "How about Debian?"] | ||
| - | |||
| - | Debian almost gets there, but not quite. Officially the Debian system | ||
| - | consists only of free software, but the Debian servers also distribute | ||
| - | non-free software, so we can't refer people to them. For years I tried | ||
| - | to convince the Debian project to remove those non-free programs and | ||
| - | eventually I gave up, I failed to convince them. So, as you can see, | ||
| - | these are not the well-known distributions, the well-known distributions | ||
| - | still include or distribute non-free software, so I can't recommend them. | ||
| - | |||
| - | {01:29:00} | ||
| - | |||
| - | Thus, after falling into the ditch, we have begun to climb out, but | ||
| - | we still have further to go. And that shows what happens when we have | ||
| - | a bunch of people who have freedom, but they don't know what freedom | ||
| - | is and they don't appreciate it. They are likely to lose it. And today | ||
| - | that's even more likely, but now we have something we didn't have twenty | ||
| - | years ago. | ||
| - | |||
| - | === Powerful enemies of free software movement === | ||
| - | |||
| - | Powerful enemies, such as big corporations, that want to stop | ||
| - | us from developing free software for certain jobs. | ||
| - | Many countries have laws that restrict the release of free software. The | ||
| - | US has at least two such laws. One of these laws make it's illegal to | ||
| - | distribute software to break digital restrictions management. Thus for | ||
| - | instance, DVDs are made with digital restrictions management. The movie | ||
| - | is usually encrypted, and in order for software to play the movie it | ||
| - | has to know the code to decryption. And that software is forbidden | ||
| - | in the Unites States, forbidden to distribute, it's censored. And | ||
| - | not just in US but in European Union as well except for one country: | ||
| - | Finland. Finland has the same law, but a court ruled last year, that this | ||
| - | program is widely available that the DVD version of digital restrictions | ||
| - | management now longer qualified under the law, because the law says: | ||
| - | "effective technical means", and the court said: that's not effective | ||
| - | anymore, everyone has this program. | ||
| - | |||
| - | {01:31:05} | ||
| - | |||
| - | Well, that's an interesting way of doing it, but in order to, you know... | ||
| - | although I predict that those megacorporations like Microsoft and | ||
| - | Hollywood will gonna bribe the Finnish government to change the law and get | ||
| - | rid of this court decision, but if Finns can defend it, that will mean | ||
| - | that any form of DRM will be legal to break once enough people have the | ||
| - | software to break it, which is the challenge to us. [laughter, applause] | ||
| - | |||
| - | But in the meantime you simply must refuse to buy products infected | ||
| - | with DRM unless you have software to break it with. If you are unable | ||
| - | to make copies of it, don't buy it, don't even accept it as a gift, | ||
| - | because it's an attack on your freedom. | ||
| - | |||
| - | {01:32:30} | ||
| - | |||
| - | Well, that's one way of forbidding free software, which only applies to | ||
| - | certain kinds of applications, those for access to a digitally restricted | ||
| - | works, but the other attack is from patent law, and that can forbid | ||
| - | any kind of free program, because it can forbid any program. Because a | ||
| - | large program combines thousands of little techniques, and algorithms, | ||
| - | and code structures and data structures and features and everyone of | ||
| - | those could be patented. In fact, even little aspect of a feature or an | ||
| - | algorithm can be patented. You can have an algorithm which infringes ten | ||
| - | different patents, each of which focuses on different parts of what's | ||
| - | going on in that algorithm. So the result is that there is thousands of | ||
| - | things in a big program that might be patented, each of which might be | ||
| - | patented by somebody. Well, suppose, 10% of them actually are patented | ||
| - | by somebody or other. That means a hundreds of different patents, each of | ||
| - | which gives somebody a basis to sue you for developing the program. Isn't | ||
| - | that fun for software developer? You write a program and now hundreds | ||
| - | of different licenses to sue you have been handed out. | ||
| - | |||
| - | {01:34:07} | ||
| - | |||
| - | This is not good for software development of any kind, and that includes | ||
| - | free software. The free software foundation just launched the campaign | ||
| - | for the elimination of software patents. It's called "End software | ||
| - | patents". Take a look for it. And this is a battle that we going to | ||
| - | have to fight in every country. Software patents are a stupid policy | ||
| - | and they're also a nasty policy, because they restrict every programmer | ||
| - | and any software user, but the megacorporations like them, because the | ||
| - | megacorporations in any field own /?/ have the patents, and they use these | ||
| - | patents, thereful /?/ patents to make everybody else cross-license with | ||
| - | them, with the exceptions of the companies we call "patent trolls", those | ||
| - | patent trolls are companies whose only business or principal business | ||
| - | is taking around a bunch of patents and finding others that they can | ||
| - | sue. All they do is squeeze money out of somebody else. They're parasites. | ||
| - | |||
| - | So, we now have to face the attempts of these companies to stop us | ||
| - | from writing free software. Twenty years ago it was a valid and only | ||
| - | /?/ answered question whether we would have the ability to develop a | ||
| - | broad range of free software. Today, since we mostly done that already, | ||
| - | that's not much of a question anymore, but the question now is: will | ||
| - | we be permitted to serve the public? Or will those who want the public | ||
| - | to be helpless and divided by the help of governments to forbid us from | ||
| - | serving the public? | ||
| - | |||
| - | {01:36:48} | ||
| - | |||
| - | So I'd like to cover a few specific topics. One is: free software | ||
| - | and employment. | ||
| - | |||
| - | === Free software and employment === | ||
| - | |||
| - | Some people predict that if the world moves to free software, | ||
| - | all software development employment will go away. Now, this | ||
| - | is just fud. Look at the IT sector. The IT sector includes many different kinds of | ||
| - | jobs, paid programming work is a small fraction of that. We look at paid | ||
| - | programming. Developing a proprietary software is a small fraction of | ||
| - | that, because most of it is development of custom software, programs | ||
| - | being developed for one client. Now, that is very important, because if | ||
| - | the world rejects proprietary software, these jobs will disappear, this | ||
| - | proprietary software won't be developed anymore. But these jobs will not | ||
| - | disappear, they basically won't change much, because if a business wants | ||
| - | a certain program developed this year, it's just going to have to pay, | ||
| - | even in the world where all the software is free, freedom respecting, | ||
| - | the businesses gonna have to pay. | ||
| - | |||
| - | {01:38:10} | ||
| - | |||
| - | ([on the wall clock it's now about 17:50, and Ivannikov steps to RMS | ||
| - | and says, looking at his wristwatch: "Richard, (indistinguishable) ..at | ||
| - | six". Growing laughter.] | ||
| - | |||
| - | I told everyone that this speech takes more than a hour and a half, | ||
| - | I told people it takes usually two and a half hours, I don't know why | ||
| - | they planned it with insufficient time. How sad, well, there is gonna | ||
| - | be no time for questions, that means, that... it's not my fault. They | ||
| - | didn't give us enough time!) | ||
| - | |||
| - | [the remainder of the speech is feeling more rushed] | ||
| - | |||
| - | {01:38:45} | ||
| - | |||
| - | So, basically, these jobs will not be lost, but meanwhile, free software | ||
| - | generates new jobs, jobs adopting and extending free software, so we | ||
| - | lose a few jobs, we gain a few jobs, I don't know whether that's a net | ||
| - | increase or net decrease, the main thing is basically the IT sector | ||
| - | employment is not changed much, there is nothing to be scared of. | ||
| - | |||
| - | === Free software and education === | ||
| - | |||
| - | {01:39:05} | ||
| - | |||
| - | The other specific topic is free software and education. Schools must | ||
| - | teach exclusively free software. There are four reasons for this. | ||
| - | |||
| - | The most superficial is to save money. Schools don't have enough | ||
| - | money. They're limited by their budgets, they should not waste their money | ||
| - | paying for permission to run proprietary software. But some proprietary | ||
| - | software companies eliminate this reason, by donating by gratis or nearly | ||
| - | gratis copies of their non-free software. And why do they do this? Is | ||
| - | it because they are idealistic and they want to promote education? I | ||
| - | don't think so. They are trying to use the schools to impose dependency | ||
| - | on society. The idea is that schools teaches the students to use that | ||
| - | non-free software, and the students graduate, and after they graduate the | ||
| - | same company does not offer them gratis copies anymore, and especially not | ||
| - | to the companies that they go to work for. So, in effect, the idea is: | ||
| - | the company pick ups the school and uses it to push the students, which | ||
| - | push all society into a pit. It's like handing out gratis samples of an | ||
| - | addictive drug, saying: inject this into your students, the first dose | ||
| - | is gratis. After that they'll have to pay. The schools should refuse to | ||
| - | participate, refuse to be used in this way, because the school has the | ||
| - | social mission: to educate the next generation to be good citizens of | ||
| - | their strong, capable, cooperating free society. And a way you do that | ||
| - | is by teaching people to be free software users. | ||
| - | |||
| - | {01:41:03} | ||
| - | |||
| - | But there is a deeper reason, for the sake of educating the best | ||
| - | programmers. You see. Some kids /?/ of the age of thirteen or so, they | ||
| - | are naturally born programmers and they're fascinated with programming, | ||
| - | they want know how the computer works, they want to know how the system | ||
| - | works, if this kid uses a program, he wants to know how it works, but | ||
| - | when the kid asks the teacher how this works, if it's proprietary, the | ||
| - | teacher can only answer: "I'm sorry, I don't know, it's a secret". But | ||
| - | with free software the teacher can explain it as much as he knows, | ||
| - | and then say: here is the source code, read it and you'll understand | ||
| - | everything. [laughter, applause] | ||
| - | |||
| - | And that kid will read it all, because he's fascinated, and this way | ||
| - | he gets the chance to learn something very important: how to program | ||
| - | well. That's different from just to knowing how to program, which is | ||
| - | obvious for him. The way you learn write good clean code is by reading | ||
| - | lots of code and writing lots of code. Only free software give you the | ||
| - | chance to do this. Every time this kid finds something in that source | ||
| - | code which is hard to understand, he learns something important: don't | ||
| - | write it that way. If even he can't understand, then it must be really | ||
| - | hard to understand, so he's got to see lots of badly written code to | ||
| - | learn all the things not to do. Only with free software every school can | ||
| - | give kids this opportunity. I had to go to a special lab at MIT to have | ||
| - | an opportunity like this, because the lab had a free operating system. | ||
| - | Today every school can have it. But it has to reject proprietary software. | ||
| - | |||
| - | {01:42:54} | ||
| - | |||
| - | But there is even deeper reason, which is for moral education. Education | ||
| - | of good citizenship. Schools have to teach the spirit of good will, | ||
| - | the habit of helping your neighbor. So every class should have a rule: | ||
| - | students, if you bring software to class, you may not keep it for | ||
| - | yourself, you must share it with the rest of the class, until sharing | ||
| - | software with other people around you becomes normal practice. | ||
| - | |||
| - | But, the school has to follow it's own rule in order to set that good | ||
| - | example. It has to practice what it preaches. Thus, the school must | ||
| - | only bring free software to class. Every school should teach and use only | ||
| - | free software. When it says for the students: "Here is the computer you | ||
| - | can use", it should have only free software in it, and all the source | ||
| - | code should be available for these students to use, and on some of the | ||
| - | machines the students should be able to change it and maintain it, they | ||
| - | should be able to be the sysadmins, they should be able to be the system | ||
| - | developers, because by doing it you learn how to do it. | ||
| - | |||
| - | {01:44:08} | ||
| - | |||
| - | This university should move completely to free software, there should | ||
| - | be no non-free program inside these buildings. | ||
| - | |||
| - | [long applause] | ||
| - | |||
| - | (So, since we now have to leave... [hands out two packs of stickers] | ||
| - | Can we put these at the exit, these are some stickers... | ||
| - | |||
| - | [applause] | ||
| - | |||
| - | {1:45:07} | ||
| - | |||
| - | These say: "GPLv3", and these have the gnu and the penguin, both | ||
| - | flying. [happy laughter, applause] | ||
| - | |||
| - | Take as many stickers as you can use.) | ||
| - | |||
| - | {1:45:22} | ||
| - | + | == Расшифровка лекций == | |
