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> | | <gallery> |
| Изображение:RMS_1.jpg | | Изображение:RMS_1.jpg |
- | Изображение:RMS_2.jpg|"Oh, mighty developer, please make this change for me!" | + | Изображение:RMS_2.jpg |
| Изображение:RMS_3.jpg | | 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_4.jpg |
- | Изображение:RMS_5.jpg|"I don't know why they planned it with insufficient time" | + | Изображение:RMS_5.jpg |
| Изображение:RMS_6.jpg | | Изображение:RMS_6.jpg |
| </gallery> | | </gallery> |
| | | |
- | == Расшифровка лекции == | + | == Расшифровка лекций == |
- | | + | |
- | (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}
| + | |
- | | + | |
- | {{RMS}}
| + | |