It’s been a while since we caught up with Stallman. But a couple months ago we took a look around at what’s happening with law, politics and technology and realized that he maybe perhaps his extremism and paranoia were warranted all along. So when we were contacted by an Iranian Linux publication and asked if we would like to publish an English translation of a recent interview they had done with Stallman, I thought that it was a particularly rich opportunity.

Iran is a particularly interesting case when it comes to the adoption of free software. Like many nations outside of Europe and North America, there is no ethos of paying for software, and in fact Iran is not a signatory of the WTO copyright treaty, which implicitly and de facto means that foreign software may be freely distributed within Iran without paying licenses. So Windows and other western commercial software is widely and inexpensively available. Nevertheless, Linux and other Free Software has a foothold among the computing community similar to its popularity elsewhere.

So without further ado, here’s the interview:

LR: Before we begin, let me mention that in countries like Iran, people

are not forced by the law to comply with copyright to use computer

software. Almost every piece of software can be obtained for a very

small amount of money or even for free.

Since I am committed to distinguishing “free as in free speech”

from “free as in free beer”, I’ve adopted the practice

of always saying “gratis” and never “free” when I mean “zero price”.

That way, when I say “free”, it always means “azadi”.

LR: Therefore, those who choose to

use and advocate free software do so for pure philosophical reasons

and due to real love for freedom, and they have great respect for you

and what you’ve done.

RMS:

Since others may also read this text, I include here the definition of

free (azadi) software.

Free software means, software that respects the users’ freedom and

community. For any program, either the users control the program or

the program controls the users.

In order for the users to control the program, they need these four

essential freedoms.

0. To run the program as you wish.



1. To study the program’s source code, and change it, so it does

your computing as you wish.



2. To make exact copies and redistribute them to others when you wish.



3. To make copies of your modified versions and redistribute them to

others when you wish.

We call that “free software”.

If the users don’t control the program, then the program controls the

users, and the developer controls the program. This is nonfree

software. It’s an injustice, and our goal is to get rid of the

injustice.

I launched the free software movment in 1983. In 1984 I started

developing a free software operating system called GNU. In 1992, GNU

was nearly complete, missing one essential component. In that year,

Torvalds liberated Linux, which filled the last gap in GNU. The

operating system that millions use is basically GNU, with Linux added.

LR: When you started the GNU Project, you stepped down from your

job at the university. Considering the fact that the project

needed investment, did you receive any financial support? Did you

have a major sponsor?

RMS:

The term “investment” is not applicable here, because that implies

spending money on a business to obtain a larger subsequent profit. I

set out to do a large job, but it wasn’t a business and the purpose

was something more important than profit.

I quit my job at MIT when I started writing code for the GNU operating

system because I wanted to make sure MIT would not be able to claim

copyright on the code I wrote for GNU.

Evidently, financial support was not crucial at the beginning, because

I made progress on my own, which drew others to help.

LR: Does the GNU Project produce any revenues to cover it’s own

costs?

RMS:

That question presumes a centralized project which is not how it

works. The GNU system is composed of many components, and each

component has its own developers. Some of those groups obtain funding

in various ways, but they do it separately and independently. Some

groups are composed solely of volunteers.

LR: Could you please update our readers on the current status of

HURD? Do you agree that HURD is now even more important than

before due to the rejection of GPL v3 by the Linux Foundation?

RMS:

The Hurd needs lots of work to be competitive in practice with Linux,

but I don’t keep track of the details.

The problem caused by having Linux under GPL v2 is that it can be

tivoized — used in “tyrant” products that don’t allow the user to

replace the operating system with her own version.

Let’s assume the Hurd were practically as complete as Linux. The Hurd

does not allow tivoization, so it can’t be used in tyrant products.

But that would not stop them from making tyrant products — they would

use Linux instead.

Thus, in order to put a stop to tyrant products, the Hurd would need

to be not just equal to Linux, but far superior. That does not seem

to be a likely prospect. As a result, I don’t know any way we can

technically put an end to tyrant products that use free software.

What we can do, at least, is to stop them from using our code.

Releasing our code under GNU GPL v3-or-later achieves that.

LR: Mr. Torvalds has provided almost no sensible and acceptable

reason for refusing to update the license. In his opinion that’s

not necessary and the version 2 is enough. What do you think about

his decision? Will linux lose support from corporations’ side if

he agrees to use GPL v3?

RMS:

He told me that he appreciates many of the improvements in GPL v3 but

objects to one of them: the requirement for manufacturers to tell

users how to install modified software in the products they buy.

Many of today’s computers are designed so the manufacturer can upgrade

the software but the user can’t change it. Under those circumstances,

the executable is not free software even though its source code may be

free. We call this “tivoization” or “lockdown”, and we call the

device a “tyrant”. Many Android phones are tyrants: they contain

executables of Linux compiled from free source code, but the

executables are nonfree since users are blocked from running

theirmodified versions.

GPL version 3 prevents this abuse by requiring the manufacturer to

tell you whatever key is needed to sign your own version of the

program so it can run in the device. That is what Torvalds objects

to. He wants to permit tivoization of Linux, and according to what he

told me, that is his reason for rejecting GPL version 3.

LR: Does GPL v3 impose limits on installation of multimedia codecs

and proprietary applications?

RMS:

I can’t see why it would do that, but the question is vague, so I have

trouble answering it. If you specify a more precise scenario, I would

be able to give a sure answer.

LR: Right now there are many non-free binary blobs inside the

linux kernel. Don’t you think that linux is moving off from

freedom towards being a proprietary software?

RMS:

Linux moved off the path of freedom when the binary blobs were

included in it. Whether it is now moving even further from that path,

I don’t know. Either way, freedom calls for rejecting the blobs.

That is why we maintain Linux-libre, our own 100% free software

modified version of Linux.

LR: Right now, what’s the main focus of FSF and what exactly the

output is?

RMS:

The FSF has four main activities: infrastructure, campaigns, GPL

enforcement, and education/fundraising.

Infrastructure means the servers such as www.gnu.org and

savannah.gnu.org that GNU uses.

Campaigns means efforts at education and political instigation, such

as DefectiveByDesign.org and PlayOGG.org.

GPL enforcement means writing to companies that violate the GPL (with

software copyrighted by the FSF) and informing them that that is

copyright infringement and they must stop.

Educating the public about free software and fundraising are combined

because the same activities usually achieve both results.

LR: There’s been a lot of debate on what is the proper title for

GNU/Linux. However many users still have a lot of questions in

this regard. Most references offer Ã‚ definitions for an operating

system that are more or less like this: “A system software that

connects the software with the hardware.” What that definition in

mind, why shouldn’t we call an operating system simply “linux” or

“HURD”?

RMS:

The right name depends on what collection of software you’re talking

about.

With the definition cited above, you’re talking about the kernel and

drivers — only. Linux is a kernel, so perhaps you might be talking

about Linux.

However, if you’re talking about a distro such as Trisquel or Debian,

that’s a lot more than “software that connects the software with the

hardware”. Those distros are complete, usable systems — basically

the GNU system, with Linux added. So you should call them

“GNU/Linux”.

I define “operating system” as “the collection of software that

implement the usual activities and provide a base for implementing

other activities.” GNU is an operating system in this sense, as was

Unix, and so are these distros.

By the way, “software” has no plural. It is like “literature” or

“petrol”. Any number of programs are “software”.

LR: Recently Digitizer published statistics (based on an analysis

on the number of lines of codes for all software inside Ubuntu

11.04 main repositories. They announced that only about 8 percent

of the code belonged to the GNU Project. What do you think about

that?

RMS:

I don’t know how they reached that figure. How did they claim to

determine which code belonged to the GNU Project? There is no simple

way to determine that from the code in any simple way. Perhaps they

omitted some GNU packages and undercounted.

However, it will probably be true in a few years that GNU packages

are only 8%. When that happens, Linux will probably be 0.8%.

These numbers both decrease, and the reason is that more different

projects contribute to the system. The decrease reflects our success

at attracting more free software developers.

This has no effect on the relationship between GNU, Linux, and Ubuntu.

Ubuntu is a development of the GNU/Linux system, which started in 1992

as the GNU system plus Linux.

LR: You announced that in gNewSense, GNU’s share was %15 while

Linux only had a %1.5 share.

RMS:

I don’t remember the precise figures, but that looks about right.

What this shows is that the system is more GNU than Linux.

LR: Therefore, if we choose the amount of code as the criterion,

each distribution would probably have a different name, as many

projects other than Linux and GNU are involved in distros, and the

ratios are constantly changing.

RMS:

If the question is whether to call the system “GNU/Linux” or “Linux”,

those things have no effect on that. However the rest of the system

may change, GNU remains a much bigger contribution to the system than

Linux is. See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#many.

LR: Do you think that the amount of

code is a proper index for naming a distro?

RMS:

No, I don’t think that is the sole basis. I mention it because it is

an objective and verifiable fact about the system today.

However, I think the fact that the GNU Project started the development

of this system, and gave it the name GNU, is a stronger reason to

consider the system as a development from GNU.

See http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html.

LR: Aside from GCC, which part of GNU could be regarded Ã‚ part of

the Ã‚ operating system core? What actually justifies calling GNU

the base of GNU/Linux?

RMS:

Binutils, Coreutils, Bash and GNU libc are just as central and

necessary as GCC and Linux. However, this concept of “core” seems

to be an artificial distinction. From the beginning, we aimed

to make GNU a complete Unix-like system, not merely a “core”.

LR: Then could we still call a GNU-free operating system (which

uses EKOPath instead of GCC and zsh instead of bas etc) GNU/Linux?

RMS:

If you replace all of GNU, the result would not be GNU/Linux. But why

seek to do such a thing?

LR: The number of distributions is increasing rapidly. Although

this helps free software to cater to Ã‚ tastes and needs of more

people, some people say it is a waste of time and energy that

could have otherwise been spent on upstream projects. Do you agree

with them? What’s your idea about a unified, Ã‚ standard distro?

RMS:

People and organizations often think that the first thing to do when

they join the free software community is to make a distro. If their

goal is to develop their skills, perhaps this is a useful way to do it,

but I think most of these distros don’t serve much other purpose.

Thus, I urge people to concentrate their efforts on helping the

existing free distros, rather than making new distros.

See gnu.org/distros for information about the free GNU/Linux distros.

LR: Contrary to the original ambitions of the Free Software

movement, many distros are shipping non-free programs. What harm

could this do to the movement? What can be done about this issue?

RMS:

The direct effect of the use of nonfree distros such as Ubuntu

GNU/Linux is that some people install GNU/Linux but they don’t get all

the way to freedom.

If that were the worst consequence of nonfree distros. it would be

unfortunate but would not put the movement’s goal at risk. Even if

these users have not got all the way to freedom, they have taken a big

step towards freedom. However, the nonfree distros have another

effect that does much deeper damage: it gives people the wrong idea of

what our work is intended for.

The developers of Ubuntu don’t say, “We’re sorry that this distro does

not fully deliver the freedom that only free software respects.” They

don’t mention “free software” at all. Instead they talk about “open

source”, and they say that their goal is to deliver the “best possible

user experience”.

So what is our goal? Is it to win freedom, or to have an appealing

user experience? It is for you to decide what your goal is. However,

newcomers to the free software community are more likely to get their

ideas from Ubuntu than from the free software movement. Thus, most of

the people who come into our community learn to seek the “best

possible user experience” rather than their freedom.

To prevent this from washing away the free software movement is a

constant effort, and that’s why I am so strongly concerned about the

problem of nonfree distros.

LR: Our readers are really eager to know what distribution and

desktop environment you personally use.

RMS:

I use gNewSense, which until recently was the only 100% free software

GNU/Linux distro that ran on my computer. This computer, a Lemote

Yeeloong, has a Chinese processor which is more or less a MIPS.

There is now one other distro that runs on the Yeeloong, Parabola,

and I hope to try it soon.

I do most of my work in a text terminal, because that is more

efficient for me, but I also have GNOME running.

LR: A number of institutes committed to the spread of free

software like Sourceforge and Google Code ban IP addresses from

Iran and other companies under US sanctions and restrict their

services to those countries. In addition, a few months ago Redhat

prevented active Iranian contributors from entering its managerial

board. What”s your opinion? Which one is more more important,

abiding by US laws or helping all users have access to and a say

in free software?

RMS:

You’re comparing a purely legal question with an ethical question, and

there is no comparison between them.

US organizations can’t get away with disobeying US export control law.

They would be stopped. The FSF obeys US export control law too, and

would not sell products to Iran. Whether this law is just or not, I

can’t blame US organizations for complying with it.

But does US export control law require repositories to block

connections from Iran? The FSF’s lawyer told us that we are not

required to block connections, so we don’t block connections. Why the

staff of Sourceforge and Google think this is required, I don’t know.

It would be interesting to ask them, but I think they would give

vacuous answers.

Turning from the legal question to the ethical question, it is wrong

and absurd for US to apply trade sanctions to free software. That

doesn’t stop business or the state in Iran from getting and using free

software, it only inconveniences individual Iranians, while hampering

them from contributing to the world’s shared knowledge.

LR: As we assume that many software developers don”t actually care

about those sanctions, many Iranian users bypass the censorship

and download the code. Do you think they”re doing something bad,

both morally and legally?

RMS:

Legally speaking, they are safe: the US cannot prosecute people in

Iran for doing this. Morally speaking, it is wrong for trade

sanctions to apply to free software.

LR: How can a software developer make a living out of free

software? Apart from donations and paid support, are there any

revenue models for free software?

RMS:

Most paid software development consists of writing custom software.

That business could exist almost unchanged in a world in which all

software is free: the same clients would pay for the same work, and

get similar software, but they would receive it as free software.

There are numerous small companies which already do this.

This is not the only model, but it is a common one.

LR: As you”ve admitted before, the open-source model has won more

fans compared to the free software model.

RMS:

There is a misunderstanding here: these are not two “models”. Free

(azadi) software is not a “model”. It is a philosophy, a campaign for

certain specific freedoms for software users on ethical grounds. (See

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.)

Open source is also a philosophy, but it’s a very different one, which

is not about ethics; its values are values of practical convenience.

Open source seems to have more supporters. I don’t know why, but I

have guesses. First, the media usually adopt the open source

philosophy’s assumptions and mention only that name. Thus, more

people encounter the open source philosophy than ours. Second, open

source disagrees less with the establishment than we do, and that

makes its ideas less controversial.

LR: Some people believe that the free software movement and its

philosophy is n ot limited to computers and could be generalized

to other branches of science. Do you agree with them? Do you

believe that something called “free science” or “free knowledgeÃ¢

could be pursued? How, the way you see it, is it possible to

trigger similar movements in other fields of knowledge?

RMS:

The free software movement applies to software. What is software?

A program is a work of authorship which is used to tell a computer how

to do a job. In other words, it’s a work used to do practical jobs.

Users deserve to have control of the jobs they do, so they need to have

control over the work. That requires the four freedoms.

The same argument applies to other works that are designed to do

practical jobs. For instance, recipes for cooking, textbooks for

learning or studying, and reference works for looking things up.

All these should be free.

“Knowledge” is a very different kind of thing from software. Works

can relate to knowledge: a program can embody specific knowledge, and

a textbook can teach specific knowledge, but knowledge is not a work

like a program or a textbook. Thus, I don’t think we can talk about

“free knowledge” in this particular sense of free. Knowledge raises

different ethical issues. Likewise science.

LR: What”s your idea about adding a new term to free licenses that

bans the use of free software for military purposes? As you know

free software is being widely used by governments for military

purposed and sometimes for oppressing people. Can anything be done

about that?

RMS:

Freedom 0 is the freedom to run the program as you wish. If a license

restricts how you can run the program, the program is not free

software.

This criterion is crucial. We cannot accept programs in the GNU

system which have limits on what they can be used for. If we did,

different programs would come with different limits. One program,

perhaps written by Muslims, might ban use by restaurants that serve

alcohol; another program, perhaps written by the Munich Oktoberfest

committee, might ban use by restaurants that do not serve alcohol.

Continuing along these lines, we might end up with a system that

nobody would be allowed to use.

The idea that we could stop governments from launching wars of

aggression, or from torture, by conditions in software licenses is

absurd anyway. Who enforces these licenses? Governments do. If we

sued a government for using our software in those activities, the

government would say, “We were compelled to go to war to protect the

country, and that wasn’t torture, merely ‘enhanced interrogation’.”

Or it would simply legislate an exception for itself.

LR: What do you know about free software community in Iran? if

you”re invited to events related to free software will you accept

it?

RMS:

I know very little about the free software community in Iran. Even in

some countries which I visit often, and in which I know some of the

local issues and activists, I would find it hard to answer such a

general question.

I would not take the risk of visiting Iran under its current

government. I make statements that criticize that government, and I

fear I might be imprisoned or worse if I went there.

LR: Looking at the past, what do you think have been your best and

worst decisions?

RMS:

Sorry, I don’t like confessing my biggest mistakes to strangers.

LR: What should be the next step in helping the society to care

about and protect its freedom?

RMS:

I have trouble responding because the question is not really

meaningful. This doesn’t work by “steps”. Rather, there are many

different areas where we are pushing, and many areas where our

adversaries are pushing, and it all happens in parallel.

However, it is clearly crucial to make a tablet and a mobile phone

that can be run without nonfree software.

LR: Your comments about Steve Job’s death created a lot of debate

among Apple fans and Free Software advocates. A number of Free

Software and Open-source figures like Eric Raymond criticized your

tone and blamed you for what they called being too harsh and

insulting Apple users.

RMS:

Actually, Eric Raymond said I was right about this. He seemed to

uncomfortable agreeing with me, and added gratuitous insults so the

tone would not seem friendly. But he said I was right on every point

of this issue.

Others seemed to have a knee-jerk condemnation of criticizing someone

who has died. One person told me it was unfair for me to criticize

Jobs when he could not defend himself — never mind that the entire PR

staff of Apple was busy telling us how much the world had lost.

Frankly, I don’t care about Jobs very much either way. I am concerned

about the people whose freedom is harmed by his products, and by other

products that follow the same avenue.

LR: What’s the best way to advocate Free Software? Some Free

Software users engage in technical debates with Microsoft and

Apple fans, trying to convince them GNU/Linux is more

powerful. Another group focus on philosophical and cultural

aspects of Free Software and try to make people care about their

freedom. Which of the two mentioned approaches are more effective?

RMS:

They are both “effective” but they lead to different results.

If you convince people that some free software is technically

superior, they might run some free software, but they will remain

ready to use nonfree software in the areas where that is technically

superior. They will continue to judge an important question based on

superficial issues. This is just a partial success.

However, if you convince people that they deserve freedom, they will

start rejecting nonfree software whether it is technically inferior or

technically superior, because they will see that free software is

ethically superior. They will understand the important question and

judge it right. This is a full, deep success.

Another weakness of technical arguments is that nontechnical people

probably won’t care about them at all. But they can understand

ethical arguments. Ethical arguments are the only way we can convince

nontechnical people to become free software supporters.

I figure that users can judge for themselves whether program A is more

convenient than program B. So I don’t try to convince them about that

sort of question, except when someone has preconceptions about free

software and has not tried it. I focus on talking about freedom.

Original Persian language article here.

This article is published under a CC BY-SA 3.0 license.