www-commits
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

www server/gnun/gnun.mk philosophy/speeches-and...


From: Pavel Kharitonov
Subject: www server/gnun/gnun.mk philosophy/speeches-and...
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 04:10:16 +0000

CVSROOT:        /web/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     Pavel Kharitonov <ineiev>       12/06/08 04:10:16

Modified files:
        server/gnun    : gnun.mk 
        philosophy     : speeches-and-interview.html 
Added files:
        philosophy     : ough-interview.html 
        philosophy/po  : ough-interview.translist 
Removed files:
        philosophy     : ouch-interview.html 
        philosophy/po  : ouch-interview.translist ouch-interview.pot 

Log message:
        Rename philosophy/ouch-interview.html -> philosophy/ough-interview.html.

CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/server/gnun/gnun.mk?cvsroot=www&r1=1.291&r2=1.292
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/speeches-and-interview.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.39&r2=1.40
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/ough-interview.html?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/ouch-interview.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.2&r2=0
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/ough-interview.translist?cvsroot=www&rev=1.1
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/ouch-interview.translist?cvsroot=www&r1=1.1&r2=0
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/po/ouch-interview.pot?cvsroot=www&r1=1.1&r2=0

Patches:
Index: server/gnun/gnun.mk
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/server/gnun/gnun.mk,v
retrieving revision 1.291
retrieving revision 1.292
diff -u -b -r1.291 -r1.292
--- server/gnun/gnun.mk 6 Jun 2012 14:08:48 -0000       1.291
+++ server/gnun/gnun.mk 8 Jun 2012 04:09:25 -0000       1.292
@@ -470,7 +470,7 @@
                not-ipr \
                open-source-misses-the-point \
                opposing-drm \
-               ouch-interview \
+               ough-interview \
                patent-practice-panel \
                patent-reform-is-not-enough \
                philosophy \

Index: philosophy/speeches-and-interview.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/speeches-and-interview.html,v
retrieving revision 1.39
retrieving revision 1.40
diff -u -b -r1.39 -r1.40
--- philosophy/speeches-and-interview.html      6 Jun 2012 14:16:37 -0000       
1.39
+++ philosophy/speeches-and-interview.html      8 Jun 2012 04:09:42 -0000       
1.40
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@
 
 <ul>
 
- <li><a href="/philosophy/ouch-interview.html">Richard Stallman
+ <li><a href="/philosophy/ough-interview.html">Richard Stallman
    interviewed by Theodoros Papatheodorou</a>, transcript of an
    interview conducted in May, 2012.</li>
 
@@ -330,7 +330,7 @@
 <p>
 Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2012/06/06 14:16:37 $
+$Date: 2012/06/08 04:09:42 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>

Index: philosophy/ough-interview.html
===================================================================
RCS file: philosophy/ough-interview.html
diff -N philosophy/ough-interview.html
--- /dev/null   1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ philosophy/ough-interview.html      8 Jun 2012 04:09:42 -0000       1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,1064 @@
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.68 -->
+<title>An interview for OUGH!
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+ <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/ough-interview.translist" -->
+<h2>An interview for OUGH!</h2>
+
+<blockquote><p>This is a transcript of an interview with Richard
+Stallman conducted by Theodoros Papatheodorou in May,
+2012.</p></blockquote>
+
+<p>Richard Stallman, the free software activist and software
+developer, maintains a legendary status in the computing community.  He
+addresses all our questions in an interview of epic proportions that he
+gave to OUGH! in two parts.</p>
+
+<h3>Part one</h3>
+
+<p>While working as a &ldquo;system hacker&rdquo; in MIT's AI Lab (i.e.
+a member of the team developing the Lab's own operating system) he
+experienced the profound change that overtook the software industry.  Up
+until that point the general practice was for people to freely share,
+modify and reuse operating system software developed for the machines of
+the day.  In the 1970's the software industry stopped distributing the
+source code of these programs, making it impossible for computer users
+to study and modify them.  Furthermore new copyright laws made it
+illegal to do so.</p>
+
+<p>The change struck him as unethical, and it affected him personally as
+the hacker community in which he thrived was broken up as two competing
+companies hired most of the talent in the Lab to develop nonfree
+products.  Stallman went against the trend and decided to devote his
+life to the development of free software, where the user has the right
+to use the program in any way he sees fit, study the source code, modify
+it and even redistribute his modified versions to others.  In 1984 he
+quit the MIT AI Lab and started developing GNU, the first free operating
+system which today, with the addition of a piece of software developed
+by a young Finish student, Linus Torvalds, forms GNU/Linux.</p>
+
+<p>Today, it is run on the majority of servers on the Internet, academic
+institutions, large enterprises, the military, and on desktops of
+millions of people around the world who have rejected software licenses
+that come with Windows and Mac OS.  They choose to run a system that was
+started by Stallman and further developed by thousands of others over
+the Internet.  GNU/Linux is superior to proprietary software from a
+technical point of view, and it's available gratis, but Stallman insists
+that these are welcome, but secondary features.  Freedom is the key.  We
+start the conversation talking about electronic rights.</p>
+
+<dl>
+<dt>You've said &ldquo;in the Internet age we have less rights that in
+the physical world.&rdquo;</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Yes.  For instance in The US, Internet service providers can
+disconnect you without going to court, they don't have to prove that
+there is a reason.  And as a result they can censor you.  If you want to
+print papers and stand on the street handing them out you can do that,
+you don't have to beg some company to &ldquo;please cooperate&rdquo; so
+that you can do it.  But to do this on the Internet you need the
+cooperation of an ISP and a domain name registrar and maybe a hosting
+service, and if they don't like what you're doing or somebody threatens
+them who has a lot of power and doesn't like what you're doing, then they
+can just terminate your service and censor you.</p>
+
+<p>People should have a legal right to continued service of any of these
+kinds as long as they fulfill their side of the bargain.  I believe it's
+the case in the US that the phone company can't arbitrarily disconnect
+your phone line as long as you continue paying your bill and so on, then
+they have to keep giving you phone service, it's not their choice.  It
+should be the same with Internet connectivity.  It shouldn't be their
+choice, they shouldn't be allowed to set their own conditions for
+continuing to give you service.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>They should provide the service as a public utility?</dt>
+
+<dd><p>Exactly.</p></dd>
+
+<dt>This dependence on a corporation also extends to financial 
transactions.</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>That's the other aspect in which the digital world gives us less
+rights than the physical world.  Suppose in addition to handing out
+papers on the street, you'd like to ask people to give money to the
+cause.  They can give cash, and you can accept the cash, and you don't
+need the cooperation of any company in order to do so.  Once you receive
+the cash, it's valid money, and you can spend it.  But, to do the same
+thing in the digital world you need the services of a payment company,
+and those companies might arbitrarily disconnect you also.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>This is what happened with <em>WikiLeaks</em>.  After it released 
information
+that embarrassed the US government (among others), <em>MasterCard</em>
+and <em>Visa</em> stop accepting donations for the site.</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Exactly.  <em>WikiLeaks</em> showed all these vulnerabilities
+because the US government decided to silence them and did everything
+they could to do so.  It has caused a lot of harm although you can still
+access the <em>WikiLeaks</em> pages if you use the right domain name.
+They did manage to cut off most of the donations to <em>WikiLeaks</em>,
+and now it's having trouble operating.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>The organization has received a lot of bad publicity in the US.
+What's your view?</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p><em>WikiLeaks</em> is doing something heroic.  A lot of the press in
+the US is subservient to the government, this is true in a lot of
+countries.  Or you might better say that it's subservient to business,
+but the US government works for business, so business wants to say good
+things about it.  I think we need laws stopping the payment companies
+from disconnecting anybody's service, except when they prove that they
+have cause.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>Technology has spawned new forms of control, but it has also
+resulted in new ways of protest, self-organization, and dissent.
+<em>Anonymous</em> stands out as an example of hacktivists.</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p><em>Anonymous</em> does various different things.  Most often
+<em>Anonymous</em> has a lot of people go to the door of an
+organization's website, they're a crowd, and so they may get in
+somebody's way.  This is comparable to protesting in front of the
+organization's building in the physical world.  And that we recognize as
+democratic political activity.  So <em>Anonymous</em>' web protests are
+also democratic political activity.  Of course, the forces of oppression
+want to define this as a crime rather than a protest, and they're using
+the change in technology as an opportunity effectively to criminalize
+protests.</p>
+
+<p>Another thing that I think maybe <em>Anonymous</em>' members have
+done, is changing the text in the websites so as to criticize the
+organization whose site it is.  This is the virtual equivalent of
+writing a critical slogan on a poster, which is pretty normal democratic
+political activity, but they call it &ldquo;attacking&rdquo; the site.
+The word &ldquo;attack&rdquo; is meant to give people the idea that this
+is something other than a political protest and put people in prison for
+protesting.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>Among hackers the term &ldquo;hacker&rdquo; means something
+completely different than what it means to the general public.  Could
+you explain that difference?</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Starting from 40 years ago, when I joined the hacker community at
+MIT, I've been proud to call myself a hacker.  I was hired by MIT to be
+a system hacker, meaning to make the system better.  At the time, we
+used an operating system called ITS, the Incompatible Timesharing
+System, which had been developed by the team of hackers at the
+Artificial Intelligence Lab; and then they hired me to be part of the
+team.  My job was to make the system better.  Hacking had a more general
+meaning, which meant basically being playfully clever and pushing the
+limits of what was possible.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>Hacking doesn't even have to involve computers.</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Hacking was not limited in improving the operating system.  You could
+hack in any media, it didn't have to involve computers.  Hacking, as a
+general concept, is an attitude towards life.  What's fun for you?  If
+finding playful clever ways that were thought impossible is fun then
+you're a hacker.  One thing that was supposed to be impossible was
+breaking the security on computers.  So some people who were inclined to
+be hackers got into that medium of breaking security.  Then journalists
+found about hackers around 1981, misunderstood them, and they thought
+hacking was breaking security.  That's not generally true: first of all,
+there are many ways of hacking that have nothing to do with security,
+and second, breaking security is not necessarily hacking.  It's only
+hacking if you're being playfully clever about it.</p>
+</dd>
+</dl>
+
+<h4>Software Patents</h4>
+
+<dl>
+
+<dt>Apart from electronic rights you are also a campaigner against
+software patents.  Companies like Amazon, Google, and Apple, to name a
+few, are currently engaged in heated patent wars.</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Patents are like land mines for software developers.  It doesn't
+surprise me that a product such as an <em>Android</em> phone is accused
+of violating a tremendous number of patents, because it's a complicated
+software system.  Any such complicated software system is going to have
+thousands of ideas in it, and if 10% of these ideas are patented that
+means hundreds of those ideas are patented.  So any large program is
+likely to run afoul of hundreds of patents, and a system that's a
+combination of many programs is likely to run afoul of thousands of
+patents or more.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>As the law stands, these patents have an expiration date of 20 years
+from the moment they were filed.</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>This is a very long time in the software field.  Keep in mind that
+any time the technological context changes, then we need to adapt our
+way of doing many things to fit the new context.  Which means they will
+all need new ideas, and if those new ideas are patented it's yet another
+disaster.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>What's special about software that you think it should not have the
+patent system apply to it?</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Software is not the usual kind of case for patents.  Let's look at
+the usual case: patents for something that's made in a factory.  Those
+patents only affect the companies that have the factories and make the
+products.  If they can all live with the patent system the rest of us
+have no reason to care. But with software, the problem is that it is
+much more complicated than anything else.  The reason is software is
+inherently easier to design than physical products.</p>
+
+<p>Software is simply mathematics, whereas physical products have to
+cope with the perversity of matter.  And lots of unexpected things will
+happen, we have models to try to predict what will happen with physical
+systems, but they're not guaranteed to be right.</p>
+
+<p>With software you're using mathematical constructs, and they do what
+they're defined to do, and if they don't then you go to the compiler
+developer, and you say, &ldquo;There's a bug in your compiler.  Fix it
+so that this construct does what is supposed to do.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p>You can't do that to the physical world, but you can do that to the
+compiler developer.  Because of this it's easier to design software, but
+people push every ability to its limit.  So you give people an easier
+kind of design, and they make bigger systems.</p>
+
+<p>So with software, a few people in a few years can design something
+that has a million elements in its design.  That would be a mega-project
+if it had to be made with physical matter.  So you make the system so
+complicated, and it's going to have lots of ideas in it, and that means
+that it's going to infringe lots of patents or at least be accused of
+infringing lots of patents.</p>
+
+<p>In other words, the burden of the patent system on software is much
+higher that it is on anything else.  All software developers are in
+danger, and what you see with the patent wars that have broken out in
+the past year or so is if you develop a big complicated software package
+you're going to be sued.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>How is it different, say, to the patent for a drug?</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Patents on medicine are another special case.  Because when you force
+poor countries to have patents on medicines, which is what the World
+Trade Organization does, that makes medicine so expensive that people
+can't afford it and they die.</p>
+
+<p>The people who founded the WTO and its executives should be sent to
+the Hague to be tried for mass murder.  We should organize to demand
+that our governments stop their support for the WTO; there are thousands
+of reasons for that.  That organization's purpose is to give business
+more power to turn democracy into a sham.</p>
+
+<p>All so-called &ldquo;free trade treaties&rdquo; are actually aimed to
+weaken democracy and transfer political power to business.  Therefore in
+the name of democracy we must abolish those treaties.  There are good
+arguments that international trade can make both countries wealthier,
+and if these countries are democratic enough that the wealth will spread
+to everyone in both countries then they really are better off.  However,
+the so-called &ldquo;free trade treaties&rdquo; are designed to make the
+countries less democratic and ensure that the wealth won't spread
+around.</p>
+
+<p>That means that they cancel out whatever benefit they might produce
+<em>even if the GNP of both countries increases</em>.  What good is that
+if the increases all go to the rich, which is what they've done in the
+US <em>at least</em> since 1980.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>These patent wars have seen companies buying up an arsenal of
+software patents just to protect themselves from litigation&hellip;</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>You know they might be, but it could be that <em>Google</em> has
+fewer patents because it hasn't existed so long.  This may be one case
+where they're not all in the same position and not all interdependent,
+and if so, that would be unfortunate, because after all <em>
+Android</em> is the only smartphone operating system still in use that
+is mostly free software, and that at least gives us a starting point to
+try to run phones without proprietary software.</p>
+
+<p>If <em>Android</em> becomes dangerous and is crushed by patents, then
+we might never be able to run smartphones with free software.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>Google is about to buy Motorola, which is not doing great
+financially, just in order to get access to its patents.</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>This shows how the patent system becomes an obstruction to progress.
+When there are enough patents applying to one product it becomes hard to
+cope with the patent system at all.  I hope that they (Google) succeed
+that way, in protecting themselves, because by doing so they are to some
+extent sheltering the free software community as well.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>Do you believe in the complete abolition of software patents?</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Right, patents should not apply to software.  Keep in mind that you
+can't always classify patents as either software patents or non-software
+patents.  Sometimes the same patent will apply both to programs and to
+circuits.  What I recommend is to change the law to say &ldquo;by
+definition, if it's a program, it does not infringe any
+patents.&rdquo;</p>
+</dd>
+</dl>
+
+<h4>P2P File Sharing and the Music/Film Industry</h4>
+
+<dl>
+<dt>You've often spoken against the use of the word
+&ldquo;piracy&rdquo;.</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>It's a smear term!  They want to say that sharing is the moral
+equivalent of attacking ships.  I don't agree with that position, so I
+don't call sharing &ldquo;piracy&rdquo;.  I call it
+&ldquo;sharing&rdquo;.</p>
+
+<p>I am not against profit in general.  I'm against mistreating people.
+Any given way of doing business may or may not involve mistreating
+people.</p>
+
+<p>The example of the struggling artist is a ridiculous example because
+the existing system does very little for struggling artists.  It's
+lousy.  And if we just legalize sharing it won't make any difference to
+struggling artists.  It might even help them.</p>
+
+<p>I think artists should release music with licenses that explicitly
+permit sharing, and some of them do.  The point is that this argument
+against sharing is bogus.</p>
+
+<p>These giant multinational companies want more money for themselves,
+and they use the artist as an excuse.  Little bit trickles down to the
+artists, and then there are few stars that get treated very well.  But
+we don't need to make them richer.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>People should have the right to non-commercially share and
+redistribute music?</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Music and any published work.  Because sharing is good, sharing
+builds community, so sharing must be legal, now that sharing is feasible
+and easy.</p>
+
+<p>Fifty years ago making copies and redistributing them
+non-commercially was so hard that it didn't matter whether it was legal
+or not.  But now that it's so easy, to stop people from doing it can
+only be achieved using nasty, draconian measures, and even those don't
+always work.</p>
+
+<p>But, I guess, when they get nasty enough they may work, but why
+should we tolerate such nastiness?</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>The music and film industry campaigned very hard on PIPA, SOPA, and
+ACTA.</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>They want unjust laws all around the world, and in some countries
+they've succeeded getting them.  I read that Ireland adopted a law
+similar to SOPA, at least described that way, but I don't know any
+details yet.</p>
+
+<p>These laws are an injustice.  They are meant to subject people more
+to the media companies, so of course they're wrong, of course people
+hate them.  The only question is; is there enough democracy left in any
+given country for people to be able to stop them?</p>
+
+<p>European citizens should take action and organize with others so as
+to get your country not to ratify ACTA and convince the European
+Parliament to vote it down.  Save the world from that injustice.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>Recently government agencies acted to shut down a few sites, such as
+Mega-Upload.</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>I don't know whether Mega-Upload ultimately would deserve to be shut
+down.  Remember Mega-Upload is a business, not an example of sharing.
+Sharing means non-commercial redistribution of exact copies.  So I don't
+have a conclusion about Mega-Upload in particular.</p>
+
+<p>I do think there was something outrageous about the way it was shut
+down, before a court got to decide whether it's legal or not.  But
+meanwhile there's been a law suit against (I guess it's called) Hotfile
+and the plaintiffs are claiming that &ldquo;this has to be bad because
+it's similar to Mega-Upload which we shut down.&rdquo;  Which is a
+swindle because no court has decided whether Mega-Upload was legal.  So
+they're citing this premature shutdown as proof that it's bad.</p>
+
+<p>I don't know, maybe it is bad.  That's not the issue I'm strongly
+concerned with.  I'm more concerned with peer-to-peer sharing because
+that's clearly good.</p>
+</dd>
+</dl>
+
+<h4>On Privacy</h4>
+
+<dl>
+<dt>What about services like Facebook and Gmail?</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>There are many issues of freedom in life, and having control of your
+computing is my contribution&mdash;I hope&mdash;to the idea of what
+human rights are.  There are many other human rights people deserve, and
+many of them that apply in other areas of life carry over to the virtual
+world.</p>
+
+<p>So for instance, what are the bad things about Facebook? Well, it
+gives people a false impression of privacy.  It lets you think that you
+can designate something as to be seen only by your friends, not
+realizing that it's actually to be seen by your Facebook friends and not
+your actual friends.  And any of them could publish it, so it could be
+seen by anybody; it could be published in the newspaper.  Facebook can't
+prevent that.</p>
+
+<p>What it could do is warn the users every time they start a session
+&ldquo;Watch out, anything you post here&mdash;even if you say that only
+certain people should see it&mdash;it could get published due to events
+beyond your control.  So think twice about anything you are going to
+post here.  And remember that, the next time you try to apply for a job,
+the company might demand that you show everything in your account.  Your
+school might also demand this.  And if you really want your
+communication to be private, do not send it this way.&rdquo;  That's one
+thing that they should do.</p>
+
+<p>Facebook is a surveillance engine and collects tremendous amounts of
+personal data, and its business model is to abuse that data.  So you
+shouldn't use Facebook at all.</p>
+
+<p>And worse than that, Facebook even does surveillance on people that
+don't have Facebook accounts.  If you see a &ldquo;Like&rdquo; button in
+a page then Facebook knows that your computer visited that page.  And
+it's not the only company that's doing this; I believe that Twitter does
+this and Google+ does this, so it's a practice that's being imitated.
+And it's wrong no matter who does it.</p>
+
+<p>The other thing that Facebook does, is that it uses people's pictures
+in commercial advertisement and gives them no way to refuse.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>Eric Schmidt of Google fame said a couple of years ago that if you
+have something you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be
+doing it.</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>That's ridiculous.  What kind of things would you not anyone to
+know?</p>
+
+<p>Maybe you are planning a protest.  It is common nowadays for
+governments to label dissidents as terrorists and use electronic
+surveillance on them to sabotage their protests in order to effectively
+sabotage democracy.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>These social media also claim that they have had a very strong,
+subversive role in the Middle-East uprisings.</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Maybe they do, but remember that these are not located in these
+Middle-Eastern countries so they have no strong motive to care to those
+governments.</p>
+
+<p>When, say, the US government wants to crush dissent these companies
+are likely to volunteer to help.  If they don't, they will be compelled
+to anyway.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>You're also known to not use a mobile phone in order to protect your
+privacy.</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Of course.  Every mobile phone is a tracking and surveillance device.
+You could stop your phone from transmitting your GPS location if you've
+got a phone that's controlled by free software, although those are very
+few.  Still the system can determine pretty accurately where the phone
+is even without any active cooperation from the phone.</p>
+
+<p>The US government says it should be able to collect all that
+information without even a warrant.  Not even a court order, that is.
+So that shows how much US government respects human rights.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>Some people have been using <em>TOR</em> and other software to hide
+their identities online.</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p><em>TOR</em> is a very good thing.  It helps protect people from Big
+Brother.  And by Big Brother I mean perhaps the government of Iran or
+Syria or the US or any other country that doesn't recognize human
+rights.</p>
+</dd>
+</dl>
+
+<h3>Part two</h3>
+
+<p>The second part of the interview is about free software and its
+functions.</p>
+
+<p>In the second part of the interview we started off by speaking about
+free software and asked for a definition.</p>
+
+<p>Free software means software that respects user's freedom and user's
+community.  With software there are just two possibilities; either the
+user controls the program or the program controls the users.</p>
+
+<p>The first case is free software because, in order for the users to
+have effective control of the programs, we need certain freedoms.  Those
+freedoms are the criteria of free software.</p>
+
+<p>If the users don't control the program, then the program controls the
+users, and the developer controls the program.  That means that program
+is an instrument of unjust power.</p>
+
+<p>So free software is software that respects user's freedom, and the
+idea of the free software movement is: nonfree software is an injustice,
+let's put an end to it.  First let's escape, and then let's help
+everyone else escape.  Let's put an end to that injustice.</p>
+
+<dl>
+<dt>And by free of course, you don't just mean just
+&ldquo;gratis&rdquo;, you mean a lot more than that.</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>I mean &ldquo;free&rdquo; as in freedom.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>You mentioned that there are certain freedoms that a piece
+of software should respect in order to be called free.  What are these
+freedoms?</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<dl>
+<dt>Freedom zero</dt>
+<dd>The freedom to run the program as you wish.</dd>
+
+<dt>Freedom one</dt>
+<dd>The Freedom to study the source code and change it to make the
+program do your computing the way you wish.</dd>
+
+<dt>Freedom two</dt>
+<dd>The freedom to help others, which means, redistribute exact copies
+when you wish.</dd>
+
+<dt>Freedom three</dt>
+<dd>The freedom to contribute to your community&mdash;the freedom to
+distribute copies of your modified versions when you wish.  (That's
+assuming that you've made modified version, because not everybody does
+that.)</dd>
+</dl>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>And in order to support this you started a foundation, the Free
+Software Foundation.</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Well, remember the goal is not just theoretical.  I wanted to make it
+possible to use a computer in freedom.  That's impossible if you're
+required to use nonfree software, and when I started this in 1983 that
+was the only way you could make a computer run.  It had to have an
+operating system, and all the operating systems were proprietary, so you
+had to have nonfree software.  (Proprietary means nonfree; they're
+synonymous.)</p>
+
+<p>So to make freedom a real option it was necessary to develop a free
+software operating system.  I wanted to make it a real possibility to
+use a computer and have freedom, and that meant launching a software
+developing project to develop all the software that you need to have,
+and that's an operating system called GNU.  That's why there was actual
+work to be done.  I wanted to go beyond simply stating a philosophical
+point in the abstract, and proceed to the practical work of making
+freedom a real possibility.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>And why do you feel that it's an inherent right of people to have
+access to the source code of a program?</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Why should people be free? There are people that don't believe in
+freedom, and you can't logically argue with them.  There's a fundamental
+difference in values.  Once you recognize that having control over your
+software is the only way to live in freedom and use computers, if you
+want freedom you've got to insist on free software.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>But why is software unlike other products? When a vendor sells a
+chair he expects&hellip; [Stallman interrupts]</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Software isn't like those things.  Software does complicated things,
+and chairs don't.  There's no way to design a chair to do things to you
+and control what you do.  You normally sit on a chair and you control
+how you sit.  The chair might be more or less comfortable, but it's not
+going to move you into a different building or dump you into the street
+or all sorts of other surprising things that you might not expect.  It's
+not likely to have a needle hidden in it which would inject some kind of
+drug into you.</p>
+
+<p>Software, on the other hand, does things far more complicated than
+that, and proprietary software commonly has malicious features
+comparable to that needle.  In Windows, people have found spy features.
+There are also back doors which allow those who know how to control them
+to do things to the user.</p>
+
+<p>In other words, Microsoft can do absolutely anything to the users of
+Windows: it has total control over their computers, it can take anything
+from them, it can sabotage them in any way at all.  If you use nonfree
+programs you are defenseless against its developer, and the developers
+basically say &ldquo;you should simply trust us because of course a big
+corporation like this would never hurt you.&rdquo;</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>Apart from software, companies today try to interfere with what
+users can actually store in their devices.  One of their tools for
+controlling the user is by using proprietary e-book formats.</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>These are attacks on the traditional freedoms of readers.  The
+example I would use is the Amazon &ldquo;swindle&rdquo; (a play on words
+on Amazon's e-book tablet, the &ldquo;Kindle&rdquo;) because that's the
+one I know the most facts about.  I call it the &ldquo;swindle&rdquo;
+because it is set up so that it swindles readers out of the traditional
+freedoms of readers of books.</p>
+
+<p>For instance, there is the freedom to own a book, which Amazon says
+the users can't.  They can only get a license to read the book under
+Amazon's choice of conditions.  Then there's the freedom to acquire the
+book anonymously, which is basically impossible for most well-known
+books with the &ldquo;swindle&rdquo;.</p>
+
+<p>They're only available from Amazon, and Amazon requires users to
+identify themselves, as it doesn't allow any way to pay anonymously with
+cash, the way you could buy a printed book.  As a result Amazon
+maintains a database showing all the books that each user has ever read.
+That database is a threat to human rights.  Then there's the freedom to
+give the book to someone else, perhaps after reading it, the freedom to
+lend the book to people when you wish, and the freedom to sell the book
+to a used book store.</p>
+
+<p>Amazon eliminates these freedoms, partially by means of digital
+handcuffs (malicious features in the software designed to restrict users
+so they can't do these things) and partially through having said that
+users can't own a book, because Amazon makes them sign a contract saying
+they won't give away, lend or sell the book.  And then there's the
+freedom to keep the book as long as you wish.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>There was an Orwellian twist to the tale&hellip;</dt>
+<dd>
+<p>Yes, because they deleted thousands of copies of &ldquo;1984&rdquo;.
+That was in 2009.  Those copies were authorized copies until the day
+Amazon decided to delete them.  After this, there was a lot of
+criticism, and so Amazon promised it would never do this again unless
+ordered to by the state. I do not find that comforting.</p>
+
+<p>Any one of these makes the &ldquo;swindle&rdquo;&mdash;an outrageous
+attack on our freedom and something that we must refuse to use.  I don't
+know all the details about the competitors, but all of them share at
+least some of these unacceptable characteristics.  Except for some where
+you can only install books that are in documented, non-secret
+formats.</p>
+
+<p>Some of them maybe you could buy with cash somewhere if the author is
+selling copies.  But the problem is, for digital books in general, there
+is no way to buy them for cash, or anonymously, because of the fact that
+there is no anonymous payment system on the Internet.</p>
+
+<p>Bitcoin can be used for that, but Bitcoin is somewhat speculative
+because its value fluctuates.  I don't think it has arrived at the point
+of being a convenient easy, anonymous, digital payment system.</p>
+
+<p>And it's not inherently anonymous.  You can make a Bitcoin payment
+anonymously but you have to go to some extra trouble.  I don't remember
+the details, but it was complicated enough that I didn't think I would
+do it.  I would just continue not buying things online.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>There is another aspect to using nonfree software: you are being a
+bad neighbor as well.</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>When you are asked to promise not to share with other people, what
+does that mean?  You are being asked to betray your community.  Now,
+what's your community?  It's the people you know, the people you
+normally cooperate with.  These software licenses invite you to betray
+the people you normally cooperate with.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>People use the terms free &amp; open source indiscriminately, but
+they are different things.</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>The term &ldquo;open source&rdquo; was coined in 1998 by people in
+the free software community.  Remember that I started the free software
+movement in 1983.  By 1998 we had already achieved a considerable
+amount, there were many people writing free software and many people
+using it.</p>
+
+<p>But not all of them agreed with the philosophy of the free software
+movement.  Many of them, although they liked using and developing free
+software, considered our philosophy too radical and shocking.  They
+coined a different term so that they could avoid any reference to our
+philosophy and avoid presenting the issue as a matter of justice versus
+injustice.</p>
+
+<p>So that's the purpose of the term &ldquo;open source&rdquo;.  It's to
+talk about more or less the same category of software but without
+presenting it as an ethical issue.  They don't say that if a program is
+not open source then it's an injustice and you must try to escape from
+it.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>You've said in the past that the &ldquo;the agenda of the free
+software movement has been subverted and even nearly lost.&rdquo;  Are
+you referring to cases such as Android (the mobile phone operating
+system)?</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Android is just one example of the general tendency for most people
+in a community not to think of this in terms of freedom and justice.
+&ldquo;Open source&rdquo; is a large part of that too.</p>
+
+<p>And then look at the more than 1000 different distributions of the
+GNU/Linux OS: there around ten of them which are entirely free software,
+whose developers keep them free software as a matter of principle, and
+the other thousand-or-so include nonfree software or steer the user
+towards nonfree software, which in an instant grants legitimacy to the
+nonfree software and directly rejects the philosophy of the free
+software movement.</p>
+
+<p>And these speak a very loud voice.  Most people coming into the
+community formulate their ideas of what it's all about based on those
+distributions and from other people who are happy with those, and
+basically only a minority of the free software community regards nonfree
+software as an injustice that we shouldn't tolerate.  And these views,
+of course, propagate.</p>
+
+<p>Strictly speaking Android is free software but it's not complete: in
+order to actually run a phone you need other software which isn't free.
+Every Android phone needs some nonfree software too.</p>
+
+<p>In addition, many of those are &ldquo;tyrant products&rdquo; which
+don't allow users to replace the system.  So the software in them may
+have been made from free source code, but if the user can't replace the
+software, then those executable programs are not free.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>Despite your technical achievements when it comes to coding, one of
+your greatest hacks was the inception of GNU GPL, a seminal license that
+influenced a lot of others.</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Well, it's better to say that most other free software licenses were
+written as reaction against the ideas of GNU GPL.</p>
+
+<p>You see, the GNU GPL is a copyleft license.  Every free software
+license, in order to be one, has to give you the four freedoms.  The
+only way to get these freedoms is if the work is released under a
+license that gives them to you.</p>
+
+<p>Copyright law today has been made too restricted, everything is
+copyrighted by default.  Therefore the only way a program can be free is
+if the copyright holders put on a formal declaration that gives the four
+freedoms.  This formal declaration is what we call a free software
+license.</p>
+
+<p>There are many ways to do that.  Copyleft says that there is a
+condition placed on freedoms two and three (remember those were the
+freedoms to distribute exact copies and copies of your modified
+versions).  The condition which is copyleft says that when you're
+distributing them, you have to do it respecting the same freedoms for
+the next person.</p>
+
+<p>So people who get copies from you, whether they're modified or not,
+must get the same four freedoms.  If you put some of this code into
+another program with other code so that you've made changes, the
+conditions say that that entire program must give people the four
+freedoms, so you can convert the code into effectively proprietary with
+the excuse that you've made some changes in it.  If you want to use any
+of this code in your program, you must make your whole program free.</p>
+
+<p>I did this because I realized that there was a choice: either people
+would be able to convert my code into nonfree software and use it to
+subjugate others, perhaps by making changes in it, or I would stop them
+from doing that.</p>
+
+<p>I realized then, if I didn't stop them, then my code would be
+converted to nonfree software, users would get my code, but they
+wouldn't get freedom, and that would be self defeating, it would defeat
+the whole purpose of writing the code, which was to make a system that
+they could use in freedom.</p>
+
+<p>So I invented a way to prevent that, and that way is copyleft.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>And how do these ideas of copyleft translate in today's world of
+web services and so called &ldquo;cloud computing&rdquo;?</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>These issues apply to a program, which is a work you can have a copy
+of; but a service isn't something you get a copy of, so these issues
+don't apply to it.</p>
+
+<p>On the other hand, when you're doing your own computing you must not
+use any web service to do that, because if you do so you lose control of
+that computing.  If your computing is done on somebody else's server, he
+controls it and you don't.</p>
+
+<p>So the general issue that the user should have control on their
+computing does apply to web services but in a different way.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>Despite it's practical advantages there isn't yet mass migration to
+free software in the public sector.</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Proprietary software developers have lots of money.  They use that
+money to buy governments.  There are two ways that they can use money to
+influence governments.</p>
+
+<p>One way is by bribing specific officials.  That's typically illegal
+but in many countries they can do it anyway.</p>
+
+<p>The other way is bribing the state itself or some other jurisdiction,
+and that's not illegal, but it is equally corrupt.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>Despite being in dire financial straights, there is no national
+policy in Greece regarding the use of free software in the public
+sector.</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>I don't want to focus narrowly on the agendas of possibly saving
+money because that's a secondary reason.  The real reason why the Greek
+and any other government should insist on using free software is to have
+control of its own computing, in other words, its information and
+computing sovereignty.  And this is worth spending money for.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>Let's talk a bit about the role that free software should have in
+education.  There's been a lot of debate recently.</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>Schools must teach exclusively free software because schools have a
+social mission: to educate good citizens for a strong, capable,
+independent, cooperating and free society.  In the computing field that
+means teaching people to be skilled free software users.</p>
+
+<p>Teaching the proprietary program is implanting dependence.  Why do
+you think many software companies hand gratis copies of their nonfree
+programs to schools? Because they want schools to spread this
+dependence.  That's the opposite of the social mission of schools, they
+shouldn't do it.</p>
+
+<p>It's like giving students addictive drugs.  The companies that make
+these drugs would love the schools to do that, but it's the school's
+responsibility to refuse even if the drugs are gratis.  But there is a
+deeper reason too: for education and citizenship.</p>
+
+<p>Schools are supposed to teach not just facts and skills, but also the
+spirit of good will.  A habit of helping others.  Every class should
+have this rule: &ldquo;Students, if you bring software to class you may
+not keep it for yourself.  You must share copies with the rest of the
+class, including the source code, in case someone here wants to learn
+about that software.  Which means bringing nonfree software to class is
+not permitted.&rdquo;  For the school to set a good example, it must
+follow its own rule: it should bring only free software and share copies
+with everyone in the class.</p>
+
+<p>There is also another reason, for the sake of education, specifically
+education of the best programmers.  For natural born programmers to
+become good programmers, they need to read lots of code and write lots
+of code.  Only free software gives you the chance to read the code of
+large programs that people really use.  Then you have to write lots of
+code.  Which means you've got to write code in large programs.</p>
+
+<p>You have to start small.  That doesn't mean writing small programs,
+because small programs do not even start to present the difficulties of
+large programs.  So the way you start small is by writing small changes
+in existing large programs, and only free software gives you the chance
+to do that.</p>
+
+<p>So, for several reasons, doing an ethical and good education means
+doing education with free software and only free software.  There are
+many who say, &ldquo;Let's give the children Windows and the GNU+Linux
+system so that they can learn both.&rdquo;  This is like saying
+&ldquo;let's give children at lunchtime some whiskey or ouzo as well as
+water, so they can learn both.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p>The school is supposed to teach good habits, not addiction, not
+dependence.  Microsoft knows that if you deliver computer with Windows
+and GNU+Linux, most of the kids in their families see Windows in use, so
+they are going to mostly use Windows.</p>
+
+<p>We need to change that, that's a bad habit of society, it's
+dependence.  A school should actively put an end to that dependence.
+They should redirect society down to a path where people have
+freedom.</p>
+
+<p>But remember, the problem we want to correct is bigger than
+Microsoft.  Apple is actually nastier than Microsoft, and it seems to be
+having a very disappointing success in the area of mobile devices with
+the iThings.</p>
+
+<p>And remember that the iThings pioneered a tyrannical practice that
+Microsoft only tried afterwards.  That is designing products as jails,
+so that users can't even choose what applications to install freely,
+they can only install programs that have been approved by the
+dictator.</p>
+
+<p>And the horrible thing is that the evil genius Steve Jobs found a way
+to make lots of people clamor to be imprisoned by these products.  He
+made jails and made them so shiny that people want to be locked up.</p>
+
+<p>There's been a tremendous PR industry keen to make him sound good,
+and Apple was working very hard to take advantage of his death.  Of
+course Apple's PR worked while he was alive also, and there seem to be a
+lot of people in magazines and newspapers who want to direct the public
+attention away from these issues of freedom.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>Speaking of education, when you were part of the MIT AI Lab,
+you were part of a community. This was eventually broken up and you
+were the only one to go against the trend and not work for a big
+company developing proprietary software. What gave you the strength to
+fight, alone, like a guerrilla in the mountains?</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>I was alone already.  The community I've been part of had already
+split up in a rather hostile fashion.  So I was most definitely alone no
+matter what I was going to do.</p>
+
+<p>But the other thing was that the revulsion of my mind to the idea of
+using and developing proprietary software meant that that was even
+worse.  I had no alternative that would lead to a life I wouldn't be
+ashamed of and disgusted with.</p> </dd>
+
+<dt>What were your major influences in your upbringing and education
+would you credit for influencing your belief system?</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>I don't know.  I guess the ideas of free software were
+formulated from the community around me at MIT, because we practiced
+free software, and they were doing that before I joined them.</p>
+
+<p>What was different for me was that whereas the others liked doing
+free software, but they were willing to do nonfree software when that
+was somehow more convenient or satisfied other goals such as to make the
+software successful or whatever.</p>
+
+<p>For me that was the thing that made it good rather than bad, and it
+was useless to throw that away.  But it took years for me to formulate
+those ideas, something like ten years.  In the mid-70's, even late 70's,
+I still hadn't reached the conclusion that nonfree software was simply
+unjust.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>You've described yourself as a pessimist so I won't ask you to look
+into your crystal ball&hellip;</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>I wouldn't see anything, anyway.  The future depends on you.  If I
+could tell you what's going to happen then it would be futile for you to
+try to change it.</p>
+</dd>
+
+<dt>So, what software projects or social movements are you excited to
+see emerging?</dt>
+
+<dd>
+<p>At the moment there isn't an existing software project that's making
+me excited, but I'm trying to convince someone to work on a particular,
+rather specialized piece of free software that is the last thing we need
+in order to make the use of ATI video accelerators possible in the Free
+World.</p>
+
+<p>As for social movements, I'm very excited by the Occupy movement, by
+the opposition to austerity in Greece and Spain, and the movements
+against corporate tax-evasion, and basically I'm excited to see more
+people fighting against the domination of society by the rich few.</p>
+</dd>
+</dl>
+
+<p>Theodoros Papatheodorou (PhD of Computer Science) is teaching at the
+Athens School of Fine Arts (<a
+href="mailto:address@hidden";>address@hidden</a>)</p>
+
+<!-- If needed, change the copyright block at the bottom. In general,
+     pages on the GNU web server should be under CC BY-ND 3.0 US.
+     Please do NOT change or remove this without talking
+     with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+     Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the document.
+     For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the document
+     was modified, or published.
+     
+     If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+     Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+     years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+     year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+     being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+     
+     There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+     Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
+
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:address@hidden";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>.
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
+the FSF.  Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to <a href="mailto:address@hidden";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+        replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+        We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+        translations.  However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+        Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+        to <a href="mailto:address@hidden";>
+        &lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>.</p>
+
+        <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+        our web pages, see <a
+        href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+        README</a>. -->
+
+For information on coordinating and submitting translations of this
+article, see <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations README</a>.
+</p>
+
+<p>Copyright &copy; 2012 Richard Stallman, Theodoros Papatheodorou</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/";>Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>.</p>
+
+<p>Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2012/06/08 04:09:42 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>

Index: philosophy/po/ough-interview.translist
===================================================================
RCS file: philosophy/po/ough-interview.translist
diff -N philosophy/po/ough-interview.translist
--- /dev/null   1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
+++ philosophy/po/ough-interview.translist      8 Jun 2012 04:09:58 -0000       
1.1
@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+<!-- begin .translist file -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/select-skip-translations.html" -->
+<div id="translations">
+<ul class="translations-list">
+<!-- English -->
+<li><a href="/philosophy/ough-interview.en.html">English</a>&nbsp;[en]</li>
+</ul>
+</div> <!-- id="translations" -->
+<div class="netscape4" id="skiptrans"></div>
+<!-- end .translist file -->

Index: philosophy/ouch-interview.html
===================================================================
RCS file: philosophy/ouch-interview.html
diff -N philosophy/ouch-interview.html
--- philosophy/ouch-interview.html      6 Jun 2012 16:28:10 -0000       1.2
+++ /dev/null   1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
@@ -1,1064 +0,0 @@
-<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
-<!-- Parent-Version: 1.68 -->
-<title>An interview for OUGH!
-- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
-<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
- <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/ouch-interview.translist" -->
-<h2>An interview for OUGH!</h2>
-
-<blockquote><p>This is a transcript of an interview with Richard
-Stallman conducted by Theodoros Papatheodorou in May,
-2012.</p></blockquote>
-
-<p>Richard Stallman, the free software activist and software
-developer, maintains a legendary status in the computing community.  He
-addresses all our questions in an interview of epic proportions that he
-gave to OUGH! in two parts.</p>
-
-<h3>Part one</h3>
-
-<p>While working as a &ldquo;system hacker&rdquo; in MIT's AI Lab (i.e.
-a member of the team developing the Lab's own operating system) he
-experienced the profound change that overtook the software industry.  Up
-until that point the general practice was for people to freely share,
-modify and reuse operating system software developed for the machines of
-the day.  In the 1970's the software industry stopped distributing the
-source code of these programs, making it impossible for computer users
-to study and modify them.  Furthermore new copyright laws made it
-illegal to do so.</p>
-
-<p>The change struck him as unethical, and it affected him personally as
-the hacker community in which he thrived was broken up as two competing
-companies hired most of the talent in the Lab to develop nonfree
-products.  Stallman went against the trend and decided to devote his
-life to the development of free software, where the user has the right
-to use the program in any way he sees fit, study the source code, modify
-it and even redistribute his modified versions to others.  In 1984 he
-quit the MIT AI Lab and started developing GNU, the first free operating
-system which today, with the addition of a piece of software developed
-by a young Finish student, Linus Torvalds, forms GNU/Linux.</p>
-
-<p>Today, it is run on the majority of servers on the Internet, academic
-institutions, large enterprises, the military, and on desktops of
-millions of people around the world who have rejected software licenses
-that come with Windows and Mac OS.  They choose to run a system that was
-started by Stallman and further developed by thousands of others over
-the Internet.  GNU/Linux is superior to proprietary software from a
-technical point of view, and it's available gratis, but Stallman insists
-that these are welcome, but secondary features.  Freedom is the key.  We
-start the conversation talking about electronic rights.</p>
-
-<dl>
-<dt>You've said &ldquo;in the Internet age we have less rights that in
-the physical world.&rdquo;</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>Yes.  For instance in The US, Internet service providers can
-disconnect you without going to court, they don't have to prove that
-there is a reason.  And as a result they can censor you.  If you want to
-print papers and stand on the street handing them out you can do that,
-you don't have to beg some company to &ldquo;please cooperate&rdquo; so
-that you can do it.  But to do this on the Internet you need the
-cooperation of an ISP and a domain name registrar and maybe a hosting
-service, and if they don't like what you're doing or somebody threatens
-them who has a lot of power and doesn't like what you're doing, then they
-can just terminate your service and censor you.</p>
-
-<p>People should have a legal right to continued service of any of these
-kinds as long as they fulfill their side of the bargain.  I believe it's
-the case in the US that the phone company can't arbitrarily disconnect
-your phone line as long as you continue paying your bill and so on, then
-they have to keep giving you phone service, it's not their choice.  It
-should be the same with Internet connectivity.  It shouldn't be their
-choice, they shouldn't be allowed to set their own conditions for
-continuing to give you service.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt>They should provide the service as a public utility?</dt>
-
-<dd><p>Exactly.</p></dd>
-
-<dt>This dependence on a corporation also extends to financial 
transactions.</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>That's the other aspect in which the digital world gives us less
-rights than the physical world.  Suppose in addition to handing out
-papers on the street, you'd like to ask people to give money to the
-cause.  They can give cash, and you can accept the cash, and you don't
-need the cooperation of any company in order to do so.  Once you receive
-the cash, it's valid money, and you can spend it.  But, to do the same
-thing in the digital world you need the services of a payment company,
-and those companies might arbitrarily disconnect you also.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt>This is what happened with <em>WikiLeaks</em>.  After it released 
information
-that embarrassed the US government (among others), <em>MasterCard</em>
-and <em>Visa</em> stop accepting donations for the site.</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>Exactly.  <em>WikiLeaks</em> showed all these vulnerabilities
-because the US government decided to silence them and did everything
-they could to do so.  It has caused a lot of harm although you can still
-access the <em>WikiLeaks</em> pages if you use the right domain name.
-They did manage to cut off most of the donations to <em>WikiLeaks</em>,
-and now it's having trouble operating.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt>The organization has received a lot of bad publicity in the US.
-What's your view?</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p><em>WikiLeaks</em> is doing something heroic.  A lot of the press in
-the US is subservient to the government, this is true in a lot of
-countries.  Or you might better say that it's subservient to business,
-but the US government works for business, so business wants to say good
-things about it.  I think we need laws stopping the payment companies
-from disconnecting anybody's service, except when they prove that they
-have cause.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt>Technology has spawned new forms of control, but it has also
-resulted in new ways of protest, self-organization, and dissent.
-<em>Anonymous</em> stands out as an example of hacktivists.</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p><em>Anonymous</em> does various different things.  Most often
-<em>Anonymous</em> has a lot of people go to the door of an
-organization's website, they're a crowd, and so they may get in
-somebody's way.  This is comparable to protesting in front of the
-organization's building in the physical world.  And that we recognize as
-democratic political activity.  So <em>Anonymous</em>' web protests are
-also democratic political activity.  Of course, the forces of oppression
-want to define this as a crime rather than a protest, and they're using
-the change in technology as an opportunity effectively to criminalize
-protests.</p>
-
-<p>Another thing that I think maybe <em>Anonymous</em>' members have
-done, is changing the text in the websites so as to criticize the
-organization whose site it is.  This is the virtual equivalent of
-writing a critical slogan on a poster, which is pretty normal democratic
-political activity, but they call it &ldquo;attacking&rdquo; the site.
-The word &ldquo;attack&rdquo; is meant to give people the idea that this
-is something other than a political protest and put people in prison for
-protesting.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt>Among hackers the term &ldquo;hacker&rdquo; means something
-completely different than what it means to the general public.  Could
-you explain that difference?</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>Starting from 40 years ago, when I joined the hacker community at
-MIT, I've been proud to call myself a hacker.  I was hired by MIT to be
-a system hacker, meaning to make the system better.  At the time, we
-used an operating system called ITS, the Incompatible Timesharing
-System, which had been developed by the team of hackers at the
-Artificial Intelligence Lab; and then they hired me to be part of the
-team.  My job was to make the system better.  Hacking had a more general
-meaning, which meant basically being playfully clever and pushing the
-limits of what was possible.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt>Hacking doesn't even have to involve computers.</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>Hacking was not limited in improving the operating system.  You could
-hack in any media, it didn't have to involve computers.  Hacking, as a
-general concept, is an attitude towards life.  What's fun for you?  If
-finding playful clever ways that were thought impossible is fun then
-you're a hacker.  One thing that was supposed to be impossible was
-breaking the security on computers.  So some people who were inclined to
-be hackers got into that medium of breaking security.  Then journalists
-found about hackers around 1981, misunderstood them, and they thought
-hacking was breaking security.  That's not generally true: first of all,
-there are many ways of hacking that have nothing to do with security,
-and second, breaking security is not necessarily hacking.  It's only
-hacking if you're being playfully clever about it.</p>
-</dd>
-</dl>
-
-<h4>Software Patents</h4>
-
-<dl>
-
-<dt>Apart from electronic rights you are also a campaigner against
-software patents.  Companies like Amazon, Google, and Apple, to name a
-few, are currently engaged in heated patent wars.</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>Patents are like land mines for software developers.  It doesn't
-surprise me that a product such as an <em>Android</em> phone is accused
-of violating a tremendous number of patents, because it's a complicated
-software system.  Any such complicated software system is going to have
-thousands of ideas in it, and if 10% of these ideas are patented that
-means hundreds of those ideas are patented.  So any large program is
-likely to run afoul of hundreds of patents, and a system that's a
-combination of many programs is likely to run afoul of thousands of
-patents or more.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt>As the law stands, these patents have an expiration date of 20 years
-from the moment they were filed.</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>This is a very long time in the software field.  Keep in mind that
-any time the technological context changes, then we need to adapt our
-way of doing many things to fit the new context.  Which means they will
-all need new ideas, and if those new ideas are patented it's yet another
-disaster.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt>What's special about software that you think it should not have the
-patent system apply to it?</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>Software is not the usual kind of case for patents.  Let's look at
-the usual case: patents for something that's made in a factory.  Those
-patents only affect the companies that have the factories and make the
-products.  If they can all live with the patent system the rest of us
-have no reason to care. But with software, the problem is that it is
-much more complicated than anything else.  The reason is software is
-inherently easier to design than physical products.</p>
-
-<p>Software is simply mathematics, whereas physical products have to
-cope with the perversity of matter.  And lots of unexpected things will
-happen, we have models to try to predict what will happen with physical
-systems, but they're not guaranteed to be right.</p>
-
-<p>With software you're using mathematical constructs, and they do what
-they're defined to do, and if they don't then you go to the compiler
-developer, and you say, &ldquo;There's a bug in your compiler.  Fix it
-so that this construct does what is supposed to do.&rdquo;</p>
-
-<p>You can't do that to the physical world, but you can do that to the
-compiler developer.  Because of this it's easier to design software, but
-people push every ability to its limit.  So you give people an easier
-kind of design, and they make bigger systems.</p>
-
-<p>So with software, a few people in a few years can design something
-that has a million elements in its design.  That would be a mega-project
-if it had to be made with physical matter.  So you make the system so
-complicated, and it's going to have lots of ideas in it, and that means
-that it's going to infringe lots of patents or at least be accused of
-infringing lots of patents.</p>
-
-<p>In other words, the burden of the patent system on software is much
-higher that it is on anything else.  All software developers are in
-danger, and what you see with the patent wars that have broken out in
-the past year or so is if you develop a big complicated software package
-you're going to be sued.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt>How is it different, say, to the patent for a drug?</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>Patents on medicine are another special case.  Because when you force
-poor countries to have patents on medicines, which is what the World
-Trade Organization does, that makes medicine so expensive that people
-can't afford it and they die.</p>
-
-<p>The people who founded the WTO and its executives should be sent to
-the Hague to be tried for mass murder.  We should organize to demand
-that our governments stop their support for the WTO; there are thousands
-of reasons for that.  That organization's purpose is to give business
-more power to turn democracy into a sham.</p>
-
-<p>All so-called &ldquo;free trade treaties&rdquo; are actually aimed to
-weaken democracy and transfer political power to business.  Therefore in
-the name of democracy we must abolish those treaties.  There are good
-arguments that international trade can make both countries wealthier,
-and if these countries are democratic enough that the wealth will spread
-to everyone in both countries then they really are better off.  However,
-the so-called &ldquo;free trade treaties&rdquo; are designed to make the
-countries less democratic and ensure that the wealth won't spread
-around.</p>
-
-<p>That means that they cancel out whatever benefit they might produce
-<em>even if the GNP of both countries increases</em>.  What good is that
-if the increases all go to the rich, which is what they've done in the
-US <em>at least</em> since 1980.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt>These patent wars have seen companies buying up an arsenal of
-software patents just to protect themselves from litigation&hellip;</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>You know they might be, but it could be that <em>Google</em> has
-fewer patents because it hasn't existed so long.  This may be one case
-where they're not all in the same position and not all interdependent,
-and if so, that would be unfortunate, because after all <em>
-Android</em> is the only smartphone operating system still in use that
-is mostly free software, and that at least gives us a starting point to
-try to run phones without proprietary software.</p>
-
-<p>If <em>Android</em> becomes dangerous and is crushed by patents, then
-we might never be able to run smartphones with free software.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt>Google is about to buy Motorola, which is not doing great
-financially, just in order to get access to its patents.</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>This shows how the patent system becomes an obstruction to progress.
-When there are enough patents applying to one product it becomes hard to
-cope with the patent system at all.  I hope that they (Google) succeed
-that way, in protecting themselves, because by doing so they are to some
-extent sheltering the free software community as well.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt>Do you believe in the complete abolition of software patents?</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>Right, patents should not apply to software.  Keep in mind that you
-can't always classify patents as either software patents or non-software
-patents.  Sometimes the same patent will apply both to programs and to
-circuits.  What I recommend is to change the law to say &ldquo;by
-definition, if it's a program, it does not infringe any
-patents.&rdquo;</p>
-</dd>
-</dl>
-
-<h4>P2P File Sharing and the Music/Film Industry</h4>
-
-<dl>
-<dt>You've often spoken against the use of the word
-&ldquo;piracy&rdquo;.</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>It's a smear term!  They want to say that sharing is the moral
-equivalent of attacking ships.  I don't agree with that position, so I
-don't call sharing &ldquo;piracy&rdquo;.  I call it
-&ldquo;sharing&rdquo;.</p>
-
-<p>I am not against profit in general.  I'm against mistreating people.
-Any given way of doing business may or may not involve mistreating
-people.</p>
-
-<p>The example of the struggling artist is a ridiculous example because
-the existing system does very little for struggling artists.  It's
-lousy.  And if we just legalize sharing it won't make any difference to
-struggling artists.  It might even help them.</p>
-
-<p>I think artists should release music with licenses that explicitly
-permit sharing, and some of them do.  The point is that this argument
-against sharing is bogus.</p>
-
-<p>These giant multinational companies want more money for themselves,
-and they use the artist as an excuse.  Little bit trickles down to the
-artists, and then there are few stars that get treated very well.  But
-we don't need to make them richer.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt>People should have the right to non-commercially share and
-redistribute music?</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>Music and any published work.  Because sharing is good, sharing
-builds community, so sharing must be legal, now that sharing is feasible
-and easy.</p>
-
-<p>Fifty years ago making copies and redistributing them
-non-commercially was so hard that it didn't matter whether it was legal
-or not.  But now that it's so easy, to stop people from doing it can
-only be achieved using nasty, draconian measures, and even those don't
-always work.</p>
-
-<p>But, I guess, when they get nasty enough they may work, but why
-should we tolerate such nastiness?</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt>The music and film industry campaigned very hard on PIPA, SOPA, and
-ACTA.</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>They want unjust laws all around the world, and in some countries
-they've succeeded getting them.  I read that Ireland adopted a law
-similar to SOPA, at least described that way, but I don't know any
-details yet.</p>
-
-<p>These laws are an injustice.  They are meant to subject people more
-to the media companies, so of course they're wrong, of course people
-hate them.  The only question is; is there enough democracy left in any
-given country for people to be able to stop them?</p>
-
-<p>European citizens should take action and organize with others so as
-to get your country not to ratify ACTA and convince the European
-Parliament to vote it down.  Save the world from that injustice.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt>Recently government agencies acted to shut down a few sites, such as
-Mega-Upload.</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>I don't know whether Mega-Upload ultimately would deserve to be shut
-down.  Remember Mega-Upload is a business, not an example of sharing.
-Sharing means non-commercial redistribution of exact copies.  So I don't
-have a conclusion about Mega-Upload in particular.</p>
-
-<p>I do think there was something outrageous about the way it was shut
-down, before a court got to decide whether it's legal or not.  But
-meanwhile there's been a law suit against (I guess it's called) Hotfile
-and the plaintiffs are claiming that &ldquo;this has to be bad because
-it's similar to Mega-Upload which we shut down.&rdquo;  Which is a
-swindle because no court has decided whether Mega-Upload was legal.  So
-they're citing this premature shutdown as proof that it's bad.</p>
-
-<p>I don't know, maybe it is bad.  That's not the issue I'm strongly
-concerned with.  I'm more concerned with peer-to-peer sharing because
-that's clearly good.</p>
-</dd>
-</dl>
-
-<h4>On Privacy</h4>
-
-<dl>
-<dt>What about services like Facebook and Gmail?</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>There are many issues of freedom in life, and having control of your
-computing is my contribution&mdash;I hope&mdash;to the idea of what
-human rights are.  There are many other human rights people deserve, and
-many of them that apply in other areas of life carry over to the virtual
-world.</p>
-
-<p>So for instance, what are the bad things about Facebook? Well, it
-gives people a false impression of privacy.  It lets you think that you
-can designate something as to be seen only by your friends, not
-realizing that it's actually to be seen by your Facebook friends and not
-your actual friends.  And any of them could publish it, so it could be
-seen by anybody; it could be published in the newspaper.  Facebook can't
-prevent that.</p>
-
-<p>What it could do is warn the users every time they start a session
-&ldquo;Watch out, anything you post here&mdash;even if you say that only
-certain people should see it&mdash;it could get published due to events
-beyond your control.  So think twice about anything you are going to
-post here.  And remember that, the next time you try to apply for a job,
-the company might demand that you show everything in your account.  Your
-school might also demand this.  And if you really want your
-communication to be private, do not send it this way.&rdquo;  That's one
-thing that they should do.</p>
-
-<p>Facebook is a surveillance engine and collects tremendous amounts of
-personal data, and its business model is to abuse that data.  So you
-shouldn't use Facebook at all.</p>
-
-<p>And worse than that, Facebook even does surveillance on people that
-don't have Facebook accounts.  If you see a &ldquo;Like&rdquo; button in
-a page then Facebook knows that your computer visited that page.  And
-it's not the only company that's doing this; I believe that Twitter does
-this and Google+ does this, so it's a practice that's being imitated.
-And it's wrong no matter who does it.</p>
-
-<p>The other thing that Facebook does, is that it uses people's pictures
-in commercial advertisement and gives them no way to refuse.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt>Eric Schmidt of Google fame said a couple of years ago that if you
-have something you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be
-doing it.</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>That's ridiculous.  What kind of things would you not anyone to
-know?</p>
-
-<p>Maybe you are planning a protest.  It is common nowadays for
-governments to label dissidents as terrorists and use electronic
-surveillance on them to sabotage their protests in order to effectively
-sabotage democracy.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt>These social media also claim that they have had a very strong,
-subversive role in the Middle-East uprisings.</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>Maybe they do, but remember that these are not located in these
-Middle-Eastern countries so they have no strong motive to care to those
-governments.</p>
-
-<p>When, say, the US government wants to crush dissent these companies
-are likely to volunteer to help.  If they don't, they will be compelled
-to anyway.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt>You're also known to not use a mobile phone in order to protect your
-privacy.</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>Of course.  Every mobile phone is a tracking and surveillance device.
-You could stop your phone from transmitting your GPS location if you've
-got a phone that's controlled by free software, although those are very
-few.  Still the system can determine pretty accurately where the phone
-is even without any active cooperation from the phone.</p>
-
-<p>The US government says it should be able to collect all that
-information without even a warrant.  Not even a court order, that is.
-So that shows how much US government respects human rights.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt>Some people have been using <em>TOR</em> and other software to hide
-their identities online.</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p><em>TOR</em> is a very good thing.  It helps protect people from Big
-Brother.  And by Big Brother I mean perhaps the government of Iran or
-Syria or the US or any other country that doesn't recognize human
-rights.</p>
-</dd>
-</dl>
-
-<h3>Part two</h3>
-
-<p>The second part of the interview is about free software and its
-functions.</p>
-
-<p>In the second part of the interview we started off by speaking about
-free software and asked for a definition.</p>
-
-<p>Free software means software that respects user's freedom and user's
-community.  With software there are just two possibilities; either the
-user controls the program or the program controls the users.</p>
-
-<p>The first case is free software because, in order for the users to
-have effective control of the programs, we need certain freedoms.  Those
-freedoms are the criteria of free software.</p>
-
-<p>If the users don't control the program, then the program controls the
-users, and the developer controls the program.  That means that program
-is an instrument of unjust power.</p>
-
-<p>So free software is software that respects user's freedom, and the
-idea of the free software movement is: nonfree software is an injustice,
-let's put an end to it.  First let's escape, and then let's help
-everyone else escape.  Let's put an end to that injustice.</p>
-
-<dl>
-<dt>And by free of course, you don't just mean just
-&ldquo;gratis&rdquo;, you mean a lot more than that.</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>I mean &ldquo;free&rdquo; as in freedom.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt>You mentioned that there are certain freedoms that a piece
-of software should respect in order to be called free.  What are these
-freedoms?</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<dl>
-<dt>Freedom zero</dt>
-<dd>The freedom to run the program as you wish.</dd>
-
-<dt>Freedom one</dt>
-<dd>The Freedom to study the source code and change it to make the
-program do your computing the way you wish.</dd>
-
-<dt>Freedom two</dt>
-<dd>The freedom to help others, which means, redistribute exact copies
-when you wish.</dd>
-
-<dt>Freedom three</dt>
-<dd>The freedom to contribute to your community&mdash;the freedom to
-distribute copies of your modified versions when you wish.  (That's
-assuming that you've made modified version, because not everybody does
-that.)</dd>
-</dl>
-</dd>
-
-<dt>And in order to support this you started a foundation, the Free
-Software Foundation.</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>Well, remember the goal is not just theoretical.  I wanted to make it
-possible to use a computer in freedom.  That's impossible if you're
-required to use nonfree software, and when I started this in 1983 that
-was the only way you could make a computer run.  It had to have an
-operating system, and all the operating systems were proprietary, so you
-had to have nonfree software.  (Proprietary means nonfree; they're
-synonymous.)</p>
-
-<p>So to make freedom a real option it was necessary to develop a free
-software operating system.  I wanted to make it a real possibility to
-use a computer and have freedom, and that meant launching a software
-developing project to develop all the software that you need to have,
-and that's an operating system called GNU.  That's why there was actual
-work to be done.  I wanted to go beyond simply stating a philosophical
-point in the abstract, and proceed to the practical work of making
-freedom a real possibility.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt>And why do you feel that it's an inherent right of people to have
-access to the source code of a program?</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>Why should people be free? There are people that don't believe in
-freedom, and you can't logically argue with them.  There's a fundamental
-difference in values.  Once you recognize that having control over your
-software is the only way to live in freedom and use computers, if you
-want freedom you've got to insist on free software.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt>But why is software unlike other products? When a vendor sells a
-chair he expects&hellip; [Stallman interrupts]</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>Software isn't like those things.  Software does complicated things,
-and chairs don't.  There's no way to design a chair to do things to you
-and control what you do.  You normally sit on a chair and you control
-how you sit.  The chair might be more or less comfortable, but it's not
-going to move you into a different building or dump you into the street
-or all sorts of other surprising things that you might not expect.  It's
-not likely to have a needle hidden in it which would inject some kind of
-drug into you.</p>
-
-<p>Software, on the other hand, does things far more complicated than
-that, and proprietary software commonly has malicious features
-comparable to that needle.  In Windows, people have found spy features.
-There are also back doors which allow those who know how to control them
-to do things to the user.</p>
-
-<p>In other words, Microsoft can do absolutely anything to the users of
-Windows: it has total control over their computers, it can take anything
-from them, it can sabotage them in any way at all.  If you use nonfree
-programs you are defenseless against its developer, and the developers
-basically say &ldquo;you should simply trust us because of course a big
-corporation like this would never hurt you.&rdquo;</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt>Apart from software, companies today try to interfere with what
-users can actually store in their devices.  One of their tools for
-controlling the user is by using proprietary e-book formats.</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>These are attacks on the traditional freedoms of readers.  The
-example I would use is the Amazon &ldquo;swindle&rdquo; (a play on words
-on Amazon's e-book tablet, the &ldquo;Kindle&rdquo;) because that's the
-one I know the most facts about.  I call it the &ldquo;swindle&rdquo;
-because it is set up so that it swindles readers out of the traditional
-freedoms of readers of books.</p>
-
-<p>For instance, there is the freedom to own a book, which Amazon says
-the users can't.  They can only get a license to read the book under
-Amazon's choice of conditions.  Then there's the freedom to acquire the
-book anonymously, which is basically impossible for most well-known
-books with the &ldquo;swindle&rdquo;.</p>
-
-<p>They're only available from Amazon, and Amazon requires users to
-identify themselves, as it doesn't allow any way to pay anonymously with
-cash, the way you could buy a printed book.  As a result Amazon
-maintains a database showing all the books that each user has ever read.
-That database is a threat to human rights.  Then there's the freedom to
-give the book to someone else, perhaps after reading it, the freedom to
-lend the book to people when you wish, and the freedom to sell the book
-to a used book store.</p>
-
-<p>Amazon eliminates these freedoms, partially by means of digital
-handcuffs (malicious features in the software designed to restrict users
-so they can't do these things) and partially through having said that
-users can't own a book, because Amazon makes them sign a contract saying
-they won't give away, lend or sell the book.  And then there's the
-freedom to keep the book as long as you wish.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt>There was an Orwellian twist to the tale&hellip;</dt>
-<dd>
-<p>Yes, because they deleted thousands of copies of &ldquo;1984&rdquo;.
-That was in 2009.  Those copies were authorized copies until the day
-Amazon decided to delete them.  After this, there was a lot of
-criticism, and so Amazon promised it would never do this again unless
-ordered to by the state. I do not find that comforting.</p>
-
-<p>Any one of these makes the &ldquo;swindle&rdquo;&mdash;an outrageous
-attack on our freedom and something that we must refuse to use.  I don't
-know all the details about the competitors, but all of them share at
-least some of these unacceptable characteristics.  Except for some where
-you can only install books that are in documented, non-secret
-formats.</p>
-
-<p>Some of them maybe you could buy with cash somewhere if the author is
-selling copies.  But the problem is, for digital books in general, there
-is no way to buy them for cash, or anonymously, because of the fact that
-there is no anonymous payment system on the Internet.</p>
-
-<p>Bitcoin can be used for that, but Bitcoin is somewhat speculative
-because its value fluctuates.  I don't think it has arrived at the point
-of being a convenient easy, anonymous, digital payment system.</p>
-
-<p>And it's not inherently anonymous.  You can make a Bitcoin payment
-anonymously but you have to go to some extra trouble.  I don't remember
-the details, but it was complicated enough that I didn't think I would
-do it.  I would just continue not buying things online.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt>There is another aspect to using nonfree software: you are being a
-bad neighbor as well.</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>When you are asked to promise not to share with other people, what
-does that mean?  You are being asked to betray your community.  Now,
-what's your community?  It's the people you know, the people you
-normally cooperate with.  These software licenses invite you to betray
-the people you normally cooperate with.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt>People use the terms free &amp; open source indiscriminately, but
-they are different things.</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>The term &ldquo;open source&rdquo; was coined in 1998 by people in
-the free software community.  Remember that I started the free software
-movement in 1983.  By 1998 we had already achieved a considerable
-amount, there were many people writing free software and many people
-using it.</p>
-
-<p>But not all of them agreed with the philosophy of the free software
-movement.  Many of them, although they liked using and developing free
-software, considered our philosophy too radical and shocking.  They
-coined a different term so that they could avoid any reference to our
-philosophy and avoid presenting the issue as a matter of justice versus
-injustice.</p>
-
-<p>So that's the purpose of the term &ldquo;open source&rdquo;.  It's to
-talk about more or less the same category of software but without
-presenting it as an ethical issue.  They don't say that if a program is
-not open source then it's an injustice and you must try to escape from
-it.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt>You've said in the past that the &ldquo;the agenda of the free
-software movement has been subverted and even nearly lost.&rdquo;  Are
-you referring to cases such as Android (the mobile phone operating
-system)?</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>Android is just one example of the general tendency for most people
-in a community not to think of this in terms of freedom and justice.
-&ldquo;Open source&rdquo; is a large part of that too.</p>
-
-<p>And then look at the more than 1000 different distributions of the
-GNU/Linux OS: there around ten of them which are entirely free software,
-whose developers keep them free software as a matter of principle, and
-the other thousand-or-so include nonfree software or steer the user
-towards nonfree software, which in an instant grants legitimacy to the
-nonfree software and directly rejects the philosophy of the free
-software movement.</p>
-
-<p>And these speak a very loud voice.  Most people coming into the
-community formulate their ideas of what it's all about based on those
-distributions and from other people who are happy with those, and
-basically only a minority of the free software community regards nonfree
-software as an injustice that we shouldn't tolerate.  And these views,
-of course, propagate.</p>
-
-<p>Strictly speaking Android is free software but it's not complete: in
-order to actually run a phone you need other software which isn't free.
-Every Android phone needs some nonfree software too.</p>
-
-<p>In addition, many of those are &ldquo;tyrant products&rdquo; which
-don't allow users to replace the system.  So the software in them may
-have been made from free source code, but if the user can't replace the
-software, then those executable programs are not free.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt>Despite your technical achievements when it comes to coding, one of
-your greatest hacks was the inception of GNU GPL, a seminal license that
-influenced a lot of others.</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>Well, it's better to say that most other free software licenses were
-written as reaction against the ideas of GNU GPL.</p>
-
-<p>You see, the GNU GPL is a copyleft license.  Every free software
-license, in order to be one, has to give you the four freedoms.  The
-only way to get these freedoms is if the work is released under a
-license that gives them to you.</p>
-
-<p>Copyright law today has been made too restricted, everything is
-copyrighted by default.  Therefore the only way a program can be free is
-if the copyright holders put on a formal declaration that gives the four
-freedoms.  This formal declaration is what we call a free software
-license.</p>
-
-<p>There are many ways to do that.  Copyleft says that there is a
-condition placed on freedoms two and three (remember those were the
-freedoms to distribute exact copies and copies of your modified
-versions).  The condition which is copyleft says that when you're
-distributing them, you have to do it respecting the same freedoms for
-the next person.</p>
-
-<p>So people who get copies from you, whether they're modified or not,
-must get the same four freedoms.  If you put some of this code into
-another program with other code so that you've made changes, the
-conditions say that that entire program must give people the four
-freedoms, so you can convert the code into effectively proprietary with
-the excuse that you've made some changes in it.  If you want to use any
-of this code in your program, you must make your whole program free.</p>
-
-<p>I did this because I realized that there was a choice: either people
-would be able to convert my code into nonfree software and use it to
-subjugate others, perhaps by making changes in it, or I would stop them
-from doing that.</p>
-
-<p>I realized then, if I didn't stop them, then my code would be
-converted to nonfree software, users would get my code, but they
-wouldn't get freedom, and that would be self defeating, it would defeat
-the whole purpose of writing the code, which was to make a system that
-they could use in freedom.</p>
-
-<p>So I invented a way to prevent that, and that way is copyleft.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt>And how do these ideas of copyleft translate in today's world of
-web services and so called &ldquo;cloud computing&rdquo;?</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>These issues apply to a program, which is a work you can have a copy
-of; but a service isn't something you get a copy of, so these issues
-don't apply to it.</p>
-
-<p>On the other hand, when you're doing your own computing you must not
-use any web service to do that, because if you do so you lose control of
-that computing.  If your computing is done on somebody else's server, he
-controls it and you don't.</p>
-
-<p>So the general issue that the user should have control on their
-computing does apply to web services but in a different way.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt>Despite it's practical advantages there isn't yet mass migration to
-free software in the public sector.</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>Proprietary software developers have lots of money.  They use that
-money to buy governments.  There are two ways that they can use money to
-influence governments.</p>
-
-<p>One way is by bribing specific officials.  That's typically illegal
-but in many countries they can do it anyway.</p>
-
-<p>The other way is bribing the state itself or some other jurisdiction,
-and that's not illegal, but it is equally corrupt.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt>Despite being in dire financial straights, there is no national
-policy in Greece regarding the use of free software in the public
-sector.</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>I don't want to focus narrowly on the agendas of possibly saving
-money because that's a secondary reason.  The real reason why the Greek
-and any other government should insist on using free software is to have
-control of its own computing, in other words, its information and
-computing sovereignty.  And this is worth spending money for.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt>Let's talk a bit about the role that free software should have in
-education.  There's been a lot of debate recently.</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>Schools must teach exclusively free software because schools have a
-social mission: to educate good citizens for a strong, capable,
-independent, cooperating and free society.  In the computing field that
-means teaching people to be skilled free software users.</p>
-
-<p>Teaching the proprietary program is implanting dependence.  Why do
-you think many software companies hand gratis copies of their nonfree
-programs to schools? Because they want schools to spread this
-dependence.  That's the opposite of the social mission of schools, they
-shouldn't do it.</p>
-
-<p>It's like giving students addictive drugs.  The companies that make
-these drugs would love the schools to do that, but it's the school's
-responsibility to refuse even if the drugs are gratis.  But there is a
-deeper reason too: for education and citizenship.</p>
-
-<p>Schools are supposed to teach not just facts and skills, but also the
-spirit of good will.  A habit of helping others.  Every class should
-have this rule: &ldquo;Students, if you bring software to class you may
-not keep it for yourself.  You must share copies with the rest of the
-class, including the source code, in case someone here wants to learn
-about that software.  Which means bringing nonfree software to class is
-not permitted.&rdquo;  For the school to set a good example, it must
-follow its own rule: it should bring only free software and share copies
-with everyone in the class.</p>
-
-<p>There is also another reason, for the sake of education, specifically
-education of the best programmers.  For natural born programmers to
-become good programmers, they need to read lots of code and write lots
-of code.  Only free software gives you the chance to read the code of
-large programs that people really use.  Then you have to write lots of
-code.  Which means you've got to write code in large programs.</p>
-
-<p>You have to start small.  That doesn't mean writing small programs,
-because small programs do not even start to present the difficulties of
-large programs.  So the way you start small is by writing small changes
-in existing large programs, and only free software gives you the chance
-to do that.</p>
-
-<p>So, for several reasons, doing an ethical and good education means
-doing education with free software and only free software.  There are
-many who say, &ldquo;Let's give the children Windows and the GNU+Linux
-system so that they can learn both.&rdquo;  This is like saying
-&ldquo;let's give children at lunchtime some whiskey or ouzo as well as
-water, so they can learn both.&rdquo;</p>
-
-<p>The school is supposed to teach good habits, not addiction, not
-dependence.  Microsoft knows that if you deliver computer with Windows
-and GNU+Linux, most of the kids in their families see Windows in use, so
-they are going to mostly use Windows.</p>
-
-<p>We need to change that, that's a bad habit of society, it's
-dependence.  A school should actively put an end to that dependence.
-They should redirect society down to a path where people have
-freedom.</p>
-
-<p>But remember, the problem we want to correct is bigger than
-Microsoft.  Apple is actually nastier than Microsoft, and it seems to be
-having a very disappointing success in the area of mobile devices with
-the iThings.</p>
-
-<p>And remember that the iThings pioneered a tyrannical practice that
-Microsoft only tried afterwards.  That is designing products as jails,
-so that users can't even choose what applications to install freely,
-they can only install programs that have been approved by the
-dictator.</p>
-
-<p>And the horrible thing is that the evil genius Steve Jobs found a way
-to make lots of people clamor to be imprisoned by these products.  He
-made jails and made them so shiny that people want to be locked up.</p>
-
-<p>There's been a tremendous PR industry keen to make him sound good,
-and Apple was working very hard to take advantage of his death.  Of
-course Apple's PR worked while he was alive also, and there seem to be a
-lot of people in magazines and newspapers who want to direct the public
-attention away from these issues of freedom.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt>Speaking of education, when you were part of the MIT AI Lab,
-you were part of a community. This was eventually broken up and you
-were the only one to go against the trend and not work for a big
-company developing proprietary software. What gave you the strength to
-fight, alone, like a guerrilla in the mountains?</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>I was alone already.  The community I've been part of had already
-split up in a rather hostile fashion.  So I was most definitely alone no
-matter what I was going to do.</p>
-
-<p>But the other thing was that the revulsion of my mind to the idea of
-using and developing proprietary software meant that that was even
-worse.  I had no alternative that would lead to a life I wouldn't be
-ashamed of and disgusted with.</p> </dd>
-
-<dt>What were your major influences in your upbringing and education
-would you credit for influencing your belief system?</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>I don't know.  I guess the ideas of free software were
-formulated from the community around me at MIT, because we practiced
-free software, and they were doing that before I joined them.</p>
-
-<p>What was different for me was that whereas the others liked doing
-free software, but they were willing to do nonfree software when that
-was somehow more convenient or satisfied other goals such as to make the
-software successful or whatever.</p>
-
-<p>For me that was the thing that made it good rather than bad, and it
-was useless to throw that away.  But it took years for me to formulate
-those ideas, something like ten years.  In the mid-70's, even late 70's,
-I still hadn't reached the conclusion that nonfree software was simply
-unjust.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt>You've described yourself as a pessimist so I won't ask you to look
-into your crystal ball&hellip;</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>I wouldn't see anything, anyway.  The future depends on you.  If I
-could tell you what's going to happen then it would be futile for you to
-try to change it.</p>
-</dd>
-
-<dt>So, what software projects or social movements are you excited to
-see emerging?</dt>
-
-<dd>
-<p>At the moment there isn't an existing software project that's making
-me excited, but I'm trying to convince someone to work on a particular,
-rather specialized piece of free software that is the last thing we need
-in order to make the use of ATI video accelerators possible in the Free
-World.</p>
-
-<p>As for social movements, I'm very excited by the Occupy movement, by
-the opposition to austerity in Greece and Spain, and the movements
-against corporate tax-evasion, and basically I'm excited to see more
-people fighting against the domination of society by the rich few.</p>
-</dd>
-</dl>
-
-<p>Theodoros Papatheodorou (PhD of Computer Science) is teaching at the
-Athens School of Fine Arts (<a
-href="mailto:address@hidden";>address@hidden</a>)</p>
-
-<!-- If needed, change the copyright block at the bottom. In general,
-     pages on the GNU web server should be under CC BY-ND 3.0 US.
-     Please do NOT change or remove this without talking
-     with the webmasters or licensing team first.
-     Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the document.
-     For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the document
-     was modified, or published.
-     
-     If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
-     Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
-     years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
-     year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
-     being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
-     
-     There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
-     Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
-
-
-</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
-<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
-<div id="footer">
-
-<p>Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to
-<a href="mailto:address@hidden";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>.
-There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
-the FSF.  Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
-to <a href="mailto:address@hidden";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>.</p>
-
-<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
-        replace it with the translation of these two:
-
-        We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
-        translations.  However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
-        Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
-        to <a href="mailto:address@hidden";>
-        &lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>.</p>
-
-        <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
-        our web pages, see <a
-        href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
-        README</a>. -->
-
-For information on coordinating and submitting translations of this
-article, see <a
-href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations README</a>.
-</p>
-
-<p>Copyright &copy; 2012 Richard Stallman, Theodoros Papatheodorou</p>
-
-<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
-href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/";>Creative
-Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>.</p>
-
-<p>Updated:
-<!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2012/06/06 16:28:10 $
-<!-- timestamp end -->
-</p>
-</div>
-</div>
-</body>
-</html>

Index: philosophy/po/ouch-interview.translist
===================================================================
RCS file: philosophy/po/ouch-interview.translist
diff -N philosophy/po/ouch-interview.translist
--- philosophy/po/ouch-interview.translist      6 Jun 2012 16:28:21 -0000       
1.1
+++ /dev/null   1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
@@ -1,10 +0,0 @@
-<!-- begin .translist file -->
-<!--#include virtual="/server/select-skip-translations.html" -->
-<div id="translations">
-<ul class="translations-list">
-<!-- English -->
-<li><a href="/philosophy/ouch-interview.en.html">English</a>&nbsp;[en]</li>
-</ul>
-</div> <!-- id="translations" -->
-<div class="netscape4" id="skiptrans"></div>
-<!-- end .translist file -->

Index: philosophy/po/ouch-interview.pot
===================================================================
RCS file: philosophy/po/ouch-interview.pot
diff -N philosophy/po/ouch-interview.pot
--- philosophy/po/ouch-interview.pot    6 Jun 2012 16:28:21 -0000       1.1
+++ /dev/null   1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 -0000
@@ -1,1456 +0,0 @@
-# LANGUAGE translation of http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ouch-interview.html
-# Copyright (C) YEAR Free Software Foundation, Inc.
-# This file is distributed under the same license as the original article.
-# FIRST AUTHOR <address@hidden>, YEAR.
-#
-#, fuzzy
-msgid ""
-msgstr ""
-"Project-Id-Version: ouch-interview.html\n"
-"POT-Creation-Date: 2012-06-06 12:25-0300\n"
-"PO-Revision-Date: YEAR-MO-DA HO:MI+ZONE\n"
-"Last-Translator: FULL NAME <address@hidden>\n"
-"Language-Team: LANGUAGE <address@hidden>\n"
-"MIME-Version: 1.0\n"
-"Content-Type: text/plain; charset=CHARSET\n"
-"Content-Transfer-Encoding: ENCODING"
-
-#. type: Content of: <title>
-msgid "An interview for OUGH! - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <h2>
-msgid "An interview for OUGH!"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <blockquote><p>
-msgid ""
-"This is a transcript of an interview with Richard Stallman conducted by "
-"Theodoros Papatheodorou in May, 2012."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Richard Stallman, the free software activist and software developer, "
-"maintains a legendary status in the computing community.  He addresses all "
-"our questions in an interview of epic proportions that he gave to OUGH! in "
-"two parts."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <h3>
-msgid "Part one"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"While working as a &ldquo;system hacker&rdquo; in MIT's AI Lab (i.e.  a "
-"member of the team developing the Lab's own operating system) he experienced "
-"the profound change that overtook the software industry.  Up until that "
-"point the general practice was for people to freely share, modify and reuse "
-"operating system software developed for the machines of the day.  In the "
-"1970's the software industry stopped distributing the source code of these "
-"programs, making it impossible for computer users to study and modify them.  "
-"Furthermore new copyright laws made it illegal to do so."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"The change struck him as unethical, and it affected him personally as the "
-"hacker community in which he thrived was broken up as two competing "
-"companies hired most of the talent in the Lab to develop nonfree products.  "
-"Stallman went against the trend and decided to devote his life to the "
-"development of free software, where the user has the right to use the "
-"program in any way he sees fit, study the source code, modify it and even "
-"redistribute his modified versions to others.  In 1984 he quit the MIT AI "
-"Lab and started developing GNU, the first free operating system which today, "
-"with the addition of a piece of software developed by a young Finish "
-"student, Linus Torvalds, forms GNU/Linux."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Today, it is run on the majority of servers on the Internet, academic "
-"institutions, large enterprises, the military, and on desktops of millions "
-"of people around the world who have rejected software licenses that come "
-"with Windows and Mac OS.  They choose to run a system that was started by "
-"Stallman and further developed by thousands of others over the Internet.  "
-"GNU/Linux is superior to proprietary software from a technical point of "
-"view, and it's available gratis, but Stallman insists that these are "
-"welcome, but secondary features.  Freedom is the key.  We start the "
-"conversation talking about electronic rights."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dt>
-msgid ""
-"You've said &ldquo;in the Internet age we have less rights that in the "
-"physical world.&rdquo;"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"Yes.  For instance in The US, Internet service providers can disconnect you "
-"without going to court, they don't have to prove that there is a reason.  "
-"And as a result they can censor you.  If you want to print papers and stand "
-"on the street handing them out you can do that, you don't have to beg some "
-"company to &ldquo;please cooperate&rdquo; so that you can do it.  But to do "
-"this on the Internet you need the cooperation of an ISP and a domain name "
-"registrar and maybe a hosting service, and if they don't like what you're "
-"doing or somebody threatens them who has a lot of power and doesn't like "
-"what you're doing, then they can just terminate your service and censor you."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"People should have a legal right to continued service of any of these kinds "
-"as long as they fulfill their side of the bargain.  I believe it's the case "
-"in the US that the phone company can't arbitrarily disconnect your phone "
-"line as long as you continue paying your bill and so on, then they have to "
-"keep giving you phone service, it's not their choice.  It should be the same "
-"with Internet connectivity.  It shouldn't be their choice, they shouldn't be "
-"allowed to set their own conditions for continuing to give you service."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dt>
-msgid "They should provide the service as a public utility?"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid "Exactly."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dt>
-msgid "This dependence on a corporation also extends to financial 
transactions."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"That's the other aspect in which the digital world gives us less rights than "
-"the physical world.  Suppose in addition to handing out papers on the "
-"street, you'd like to ask people to give money to the cause.  They can give "
-"cash, and you can accept the cash, and you don't need the cooperation of any "
-"company in order to do so.  Once you receive the cash, it's valid money, and "
-"you can spend it.  But, to do the same thing in the digital world you need "
-"the services of a payment company, and those companies might arbitrarily "
-"disconnect you also."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dt>
-msgid ""
-"This is what happened with <em>WikiLeaks</em>.  After it released "
-"information that embarrassed the US government (among others), "
-"<em>MasterCard</em> and <em>Visa</em> stop accepting donations for the site."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"Exactly.  <em>WikiLeaks</em> showed all these vulnerabilities because the US "
-"government decided to silence them and did everything they could to do so.  "
-"It has caused a lot of harm although you can still access the "
-"<em>WikiLeaks</em> pages if you use the right domain name.  They did manage "
-"to cut off most of the donations to <em>WikiLeaks</em>, and now it's having "
-"trouble operating."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dt>
-msgid ""
-"The organization has received a lot of bad publicity in the US.  What's your "
-"view?"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"<em>WikiLeaks</em> is doing something heroic.  A lot of the press in the US "
-"is subservient to the government, this is true in a lot of countries.  Or "
-"you might better say that it's subservient to business, but the US "
-"government works for business, so business wants to say good things about "
-"it.  I think we need laws stopping the payment companies from disconnecting "
-"anybody's service, except when they prove that they have cause."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dt>
-msgid ""
-"Technology has spawned new forms of control, but it has also resulted in new "
-"ways of protest, self-organization, and dissent.  <em>Anonymous</em> stands "
-"out as an example of hacktivists."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"<em>Anonymous</em> does various different things.  Most often "
-"<em>Anonymous</em> has a lot of people go to the door of an organization's "
-"website, they're a crowd, and so they may get in somebody's way.  This is "
-"comparable to protesting in front of the organization's building in the "
-"physical world.  And that we recognize as democratic political activity.  So "
-"<em>Anonymous</em>' web protests are also democratic political activity.  Of "
-"course, the forces of oppression want to define this as a crime rather than "
-"a protest, and they're using the change in technology as an opportunity "
-"effectively to criminalize protests."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"Another thing that I think maybe <em>Anonymous</em>' members have done, is "
-"changing the text in the websites so as to criticize the organization whose "
-"site it is.  This is the virtual equivalent of writing a critical slogan on "
-"a poster, which is pretty normal democratic political activity, but they "
-"call it &ldquo;attacking&rdquo; the site.  The word &ldquo;attack&rdquo; is "
-"meant to give people the idea that this is something other than a political "
-"protest and put people in prison for protesting."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dt>
-msgid ""
-"Among hackers the term &ldquo;hacker&rdquo; means something completely "
-"different than what it means to the general public.  Could you explain that "
-"difference?"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"Starting from 40 years ago, when I joined the hacker community at MIT, I've "
-"been proud to call myself a hacker.  I was hired by MIT to be a system "
-"hacker, meaning to make the system better.  At the time, we used an "
-"operating system called ITS, the Incompatible Timesharing System, which had "
-"been developed by the team of hackers at the Artificial Intelligence Lab; "
-"and then they hired me to be part of the team.  My job was to make the "
-"system better.  Hacking had a more general meaning, which meant basically "
-"being playfully clever and pushing the limits of what was possible."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dt>
-msgid "Hacking doesn't even have to involve computers."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"Hacking was not limited in improving the operating system.  You could hack "
-"in any media, it didn't have to involve computers.  Hacking, as a general "
-"concept, is an attitude towards life.  What's fun for you? If finding "
-"playful clever ways that were thought impossible is fun then you're a "
-"hacker.  One thing that was supposed to be impossible was breaking the "
-"security on computers.  So some people who were inclined to be hackers got "
-"into that medium of breaking security.  Then journalists found about hackers "
-"around 1981, misunderstood them, and they thought hacking was breaking "
-"security.  That's not generally true: first of all, there are many ways of "
-"hacking that have nothing to do with security, and second, breaking security "
-"is not necessarily hacking.  It's only hacking if you're being playfully "
-"clever about it."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <h4>
-msgid "Software Patents"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dt>
-msgid ""
-"Apart from electronic rights you are also a campaigner against software "
-"patents.  Companies like Amazon, Google, and Apple, to name a few, are "
-"currently engaged in heated patent wars."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"Patents are like land mines for software developers.  It doesn't surprise me "
-"that a product such as an <em>Android</em> phone is accused of violating a "
-"tremendous number of patents, because it's a complicated software system.  "
-"Any such complicated software system is going to have thousands of ideas in "
-"it, and if 10% of these ideas are patented that means hundreds of those "
-"ideas are patented.  So any large program is likely to run afoul of hundreds "
-"of patents, and a system that's a combination of many programs is likely to "
-"run afoul of thousands of patents or more."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dt>
-msgid ""
-"As the law stands, these patents have an expiration date of 20 years from "
-"the moment they were filed."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"This is a very long time in the software field.  Keep in mind that any time "
-"the technological context changes, then we need to adapt our way of doing "
-"many things to fit the new context.  Which means they will all need new "
-"ideas, and if those new ideas are patented it's yet another disaster."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dt>
-msgid ""
-"What's special about software that you think it should not have the patent "
-"system apply to it?"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"Software is not the usual kind of case for patents.  Let's look at the usual "
-"case: patents for something that's made in a factory.  Those patents only "
-"affect the companies that have the factories and make the products.  If they "
-"can all live with the patent system the rest of us have no reason to "
-"care. But with software, the problem is that it is much more complicated "
-"than anything else.  The reason is software is inherently easier to design "
-"than physical products."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"Software is simply mathematics, whereas physical products have to cope with "
-"the perversity of matter.  And lots of unexpected things will happen, we "
-"have models to try to predict what will happen with physical systems, but "
-"they're not guaranteed to be right."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"With software you're using mathematical constructs, and they do what they're "
-"defined to do, and if they don't then you go to the compiler developer, and "
-"you say, &ldquo;There's a bug in your compiler.  Fix it so that this "
-"construct does what is supposed to do.&rdquo;"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"You can't do that to the physical world, but you can do that to the compiler "
-"developer.  Because of this it's easier to design software, but people push "
-"every ability to its limit.  So you give people an easier kind of design, "
-"and they make bigger systems."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"So with software, a few people in a few years can design something that has "
-"a million elements in its design.  That would be a mega-project if it had to "
-"be made with physical matter.  So you make the system so complicated, and "
-"it's going to have lots of ideas in it, and that means that it's going to "
-"infringe lots of patents or at least be accused of infringing lots of "
-"patents."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"In other words, the burden of the patent system on software is much higher "
-"that it is on anything else.  All software developers are in danger, and "
-"what you see with the patent wars that have broken out in the past year or "
-"so is if you develop a big complicated software package you're going to be "
-"sued."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dt>
-msgid "How is it different, say, to the patent for a drug?"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"Patents on medicine are another special case.  Because when you force poor "
-"countries to have patents on medicines, which is what the World Trade "
-"Organization does, that makes medicine so expensive that people can't afford "
-"it and they die."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"The people who founded the WTO and its executives should be sent to the "
-"Hague to be tried for mass murder.  We should organize to demand that our "
-"governments stop their support for the WTO; there are thousands of reasons "
-"for that.  That organization's purpose is to give business more power to "
-"turn democracy into a sham."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"All so-called &ldquo;free trade treaties&rdquo; are actually aimed to weaken "
-"democracy and transfer political power to business.  Therefore in the name "
-"of democracy we must abolish those treaties.  There are good arguments that "
-"international trade can make both countries wealthier, and if these "
-"countries are democratic enough that the wealth will spread to everyone in "
-"both countries then they really are better off.  However, the so-called "
-"&ldquo;free trade treaties&rdquo; are designed to make the countries less "
-"democratic and ensure that the wealth won't spread around."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"That means that they cancel out whatever benefit they might produce <em>even "
-"if the GNP of both countries increases</em>.  What good is that if the "
-"increases all go to the rich, which is what they've done in the US <em>at "
-"least</em> since 1980."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dt>
-msgid ""
-"These patent wars have seen companies buying up an arsenal of software "
-"patents just to protect themselves from litigation&hellip;"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"You know they might be, but it could be that <em>Google</em> has fewer "
-"patents because it hasn't existed so long.  This may be one case where "
-"they're not all in the same position and not all interdependent, and if so, "
-"that would be unfortunate, because after all <em> Android</em> is the only "
-"smartphone operating system still in use that is mostly free software, and "
-"that at least gives us a starting point to try to run phones without "
-"proprietary software."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"If <em>Android</em> becomes dangerous and is crushed by patents, then we "
-"might never be able to run smartphones with free software."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dt>
-msgid ""
-"Google is about to buy Motorola, which is not doing great financially, just "
-"in order to get access to its patents."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"This shows how the patent system becomes an obstruction to progress.  When "
-"there are enough patents applying to one product it becomes hard to cope "
-"with the patent system at all.  I hope that they (Google) succeed that way, "
-"in protecting themselves, because by doing so they are to some extent "
-"sheltering the free software community as well."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dt>
-msgid "Do you believe in the complete abolition of software patents?"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"Right, patents should not apply to software.  Keep in mind that you can't "
-"always classify patents as either software patents or non-software patents.  "
-"Sometimes the same patent will apply both to programs and to circuits.  What "
-"I recommend is to change the law to say &ldquo;by definition, if it's a "
-"program, it does not infringe any patents.&rdquo;"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <h4>
-msgid "P2P File Sharing and the Music/Film Industry"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dt>
-msgid "You've often spoken against the use of the word &ldquo;piracy&rdquo;."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"It's a smear term! They want to say that sharing is the moral equivalent of "
-"attacking ships.  I don't agree with that position, so I don't call sharing "
-"&ldquo;piracy&rdquo;.  I call it &ldquo;sharing&rdquo;."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"I am not against profit in general.  I'm against mistreating people.  Any "
-"given way of doing business may or may not involve mistreating people."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"The example of the struggling artist is a ridiculous example because the "
-"existing system does very little for struggling artists.  It's lousy.  And "
-"if we just legalize sharing it won't make any difference to struggling "
-"artists.  It might even help them."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"I think artists should release music with licenses that explicitly permit "
-"sharing, and some of them do.  The point is that this argument against "
-"sharing is bogus."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"These giant multinational companies want more money for themselves, and they "
-"use the artist as an excuse.  Little bit trickles down to the artists, and "
-"then there are few stars that get treated very well.  But we don't need to "
-"make them richer."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dt>
-msgid ""
-"People should have the right to non-commercially share and redistribute "
-"music?"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"Music and any published work.  Because sharing is good, sharing builds "
-"community, so sharing must be legal, now that sharing is feasible and easy."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"Fifty years ago making copies and redistributing them non-commercially was "
-"so hard that it didn't matter whether it was legal or not.  But now that "
-"it's so easy, to stop people from doing it can only be achieved using nasty, "
-"draconian measures, and even those don't always work."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"But, I guess, when they get nasty enough they may work, but why should we "
-"tolerate such nastiness?"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dt>
-msgid "The music and film industry campaigned very hard on PIPA, SOPA, and 
ACTA."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"They want unjust laws all around the world, and in some countries they've "
-"succeeded getting them.  I read that Ireland adopted a law similar to SOPA, "
-"at least described that way, but I don't know any details yet."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"These laws are an injustice.  They are meant to subject people more to the "
-"media companies, so of course they're wrong, of course people hate them.  "
-"The only question is; is there enough democracy left in any given country "
-"for people to be able to stop them?"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"European citizens should take action and organize with others so as to get "
-"your country not to ratify ACTA and convince the European Parliament to vote "
-"it down.  Save the world from that injustice."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dt>
-msgid ""
-"Recently government agencies acted to shut down a few sites, such as "
-"Mega-Upload."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"I don't know whether Mega-Upload ultimately would deserve to be shut down.  "
-"Remember Mega-Upload is a business, not an example of sharing.  Sharing "
-"means non-commercial redistribution of exact copies.  So I don't have a "
-"conclusion about Mega-Upload in particular."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"I do think there was something outrageous about the way it was shut down, "
-"before a court got to decide whether it's legal or not.  But meanwhile "
-"there's been a law suit against (I guess it's called) Hotfile and the "
-"plaintiffs are claiming that &ldquo;this has to be bad because it's similar "
-"to Mega-Upload which we shut down.&rdquo; Which is a swindle because no "
-"court has decided whether Mega-Upload was legal.  So they're citing this "
-"premature shutdown as proof that it's bad."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"I don't know, maybe it is bad.  That's not the issue I'm strongly concerned "
-"with.  I'm more concerned with peer-to-peer sharing because that's clearly "
-"good."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <h4>
-msgid "On Privacy"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dt>
-msgid "What about services like Facebook and Gmail?"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"There are many issues of freedom in life, and having control of your "
-"computing is my contribution&mdash;I hope&mdash;to the idea of what human "
-"rights are.  There are many other human rights people deserve, and many of "
-"them that apply in other areas of life carry over to the virtual world."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"So for instance, what are the bad things about Facebook? Well, it gives "
-"people a false impression of privacy.  It lets you think that you can "
-"designate something as to be seen only by your friends, not realizing that "
-"it's actually to be seen by your Facebook friends and not your actual "
-"friends.  And any of them could publish it, so it could be seen by anybody; "
-"it could be published in the newspaper.  Facebook can't prevent that."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"What it could do is warn the users every time they start a session "
-"&ldquo;Watch out, anything you post here&mdash;even if you say that only "
-"certain people should see it&mdash;it could get published due to events "
-"beyond your control.  So think twice about anything you are going to post "
-"here.  And remember that, the next time you try to apply for a job, the "
-"company might demand that you show everything in your account.  Your school "
-"might also demand this.  And if you really want your communication to be "
-"private, do not send it this way.&rdquo; That's one thing that they should "
-"do."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"Facebook is a surveillance engine and collects tremendous amounts of "
-"personal data, and its business model is to abuse that data.  So you "
-"shouldn't use Facebook at all."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"And worse than that, Facebook even does surveillance on people that don't "
-"have Facebook accounts.  If you see a &ldquo;Like&rdquo; button in a page "
-"then Facebook knows that your computer visited that page.  And it's not the "
-"only company that's doing this; I believe that Twitter does this and Google+ "
-"does this, so it's a practice that's being imitated.  And it's wrong no "
-"matter who does it."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"The other thing that Facebook does, is that it uses people's pictures in "
-"commercial advertisement and gives them no way to refuse."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dt>
-msgid ""
-"Eric Schmidt of Google fame said a couple of years ago that if you have "
-"something you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid "That's ridiculous.  What kind of things would you not anyone to know?"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"Maybe you are planning a protest.  It is common nowadays for governments to "
-"label dissidents as terrorists and use electronic surveillance on them to "
-"sabotage their protests in order to effectively sabotage democracy."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dt>
-msgid ""
-"These social media also claim that they have had a very strong, subversive "
-"role in the Middle-East uprisings."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"Maybe they do, but remember that these are not located in these "
-"Middle-Eastern countries so they have no strong motive to care to those "
-"governments."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"When, say, the US government wants to crush dissent these companies are "
-"likely to volunteer to help.  If they don't, they will be compelled to "
-"anyway."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dt>
-msgid ""
-"You're also known to not use a mobile phone in order to protect your "
-"privacy."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"Of course.  Every mobile phone is a tracking and surveillance device.  You "
-"could stop your phone from transmitting your GPS location if you've got a "
-"phone that's controlled by free software, although those are very few.  "
-"Still the system can determine pretty accurately where the phone is even "
-"without any active cooperation from the phone."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"The US government says it should be able to collect all that information "
-"without even a warrant.  Not even a court order, that is.  So that shows how "
-"much US government respects human rights."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dt>
-msgid ""
-"Some people have been using <em>TOR</em> and other software to hide their "
-"identities online."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"<em>TOR</em> is a very good thing.  It helps protect people from Big "
-"Brother.  And by Big Brother I mean perhaps the government of Iran or Syria "
-"or the US or any other country that doesn't recognize human rights."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <h3>
-msgid "Part two"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid "The second part of the interview is about free software and its 
functions."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"In the second part of the interview we started off by speaking about free "
-"software and asked for a definition."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Free software means software that respects user's freedom and user's "
-"community.  With software there are just two possibilities; either the user "
-"controls the program or the program controls the users."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"The first case is free software because, in order for the users to have "
-"effective control of the programs, we need certain freedoms.  Those freedoms "
-"are the criteria of free software."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"If the users don't control the program, then the program controls the users, "
-"and the developer controls the program.  That means that program is an "
-"instrument of unjust power."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"So free software is software that respects user's freedom, and the idea of "
-"the free software movement is: nonfree software is an injustice, let's put "
-"an end to it.  First let's escape, and then let's help everyone else "
-"escape.  Let's put an end to that injustice."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dt>
-msgid ""
-"And by free of course, you don't just mean just &ldquo;gratis&rdquo;, you "
-"mean a lot more than that."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid "I mean &ldquo;free&rdquo; as in freedom."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dt>
-msgid ""
-"You mentioned that there are certain freedoms that a piece of software "
-"should respect in order to be called free.  What are these freedoms?"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><dl><dt>
-msgid "Freedom zero"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><dl><dd>
-msgid "The freedom to run the program as you wish."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><dl><dt>
-msgid "Freedom one"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><dl><dd>
-msgid ""
-"The Freedom to study the source code and change it to make the program do "
-"your computing the way you wish."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><dl><dt>
-msgid "Freedom two"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><dl><dd>
-msgid ""
-"The freedom to help others, which means, redistribute exact copies when you "
-"wish."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><dl><dt>
-msgid "Freedom three"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><dl><dd>
-msgid ""
-"The freedom to contribute to your community&mdash;the freedom to distribute "
-"copies of your modified versions when you wish.  (That's assuming that "
-"you've made modified version, because not everybody does that.)"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dt>
-msgid ""
-"And in order to support this you started a foundation, the Free Software "
-"Foundation."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"Well, remember the goal is not just theoretical.  I wanted to make it "
-"possible to use a computer in freedom.  That's impossible if you're required "
-"to use nonfree software, and when I started this in 1983 that was the only "
-"way you could make a computer run.  It had to have an operating system, and "
-"all the operating systems were proprietary, so you had to have nonfree "
-"software.  (Proprietary means nonfree; they're synonymous.)"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"So to make freedom a real option it was necessary to develop a free software "
-"operating system.  I wanted to make it a real possibility to use a computer "
-"and have freedom, and that meant launching a software developing project to "
-"develop all the software that you need to have, and that's an operating "
-"system called GNU.  That's why there was actual work to be done.  I wanted "
-"to go beyond simply stating a philosophical point in the abstract, and "
-"proceed to the practical work of making freedom a real possibility."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dt>
-msgid ""
-"And why do you feel that it's an inherent right of people to have access to "
-"the source code of a program?"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"Why should people be free? There are people that don't believe in freedom, "
-"and you can't logically argue with them.  There's a fundamental difference "
-"in values.  Once you recognize that having control over your software is the "
-"only way to live in freedom and use computers, if you want freedom you've "
-"got to insist on free software."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dt>
-msgid ""
-"But why is software unlike other products? When a vendor sells a chair he "
-"expects&hellip; [Stallman interrupts]"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"Software isn't like those things.  Software does complicated things, and "
-"chairs don't.  There's no way to design a chair to do things to you and "
-"control what you do.  You normally sit on a chair and you control how you "
-"sit.  The chair might be more or less comfortable, but it's not going to "
-"move you into a different building or dump you into the street or all sorts "
-"of other surprising things that you might not expect.  It's not likely to "
-"have a needle hidden in it which would inject some kind of drug into you."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"Software, on the other hand, does things far more complicated than that, and "
-"proprietary software commonly has malicious features comparable to that "
-"needle.  In Windows, people have found spy features.  There are also back "
-"doors which allow those who know how to control them to do things to the "
-"user."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"In other words, Microsoft can do absolutely anything to the users of "
-"Windows: it has total control over their computers, it can take anything "
-"from them, it can sabotage them in any way at all.  If you use nonfree "
-"programs you are defenseless against its developer, and the developers "
-"basically say &ldquo;you should simply trust us because of course a big "
-"corporation like this would never hurt you.&rdquo;"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dt>
-msgid ""
-"Apart from software, companies today try to interfere with what users can "
-"actually store in their devices.  One of their tools for controlling the "
-"user is by using proprietary e-book formats."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"These are attacks on the traditional freedoms of readers.  The example I "
-"would use is the Amazon &ldquo;swindle&rdquo; (a play on words on Amazon's "
-"e-book tablet, the &ldquo;Kindle&rdquo;) because that's the one I know the "
-"most facts about.  I call it the &ldquo;swindle&rdquo; because it is set up "
-"so that it swindles readers out of the traditional freedoms of readers of "
-"books."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"For instance, there is the freedom to own a book, which Amazon says the "
-"users can't.  They can only get a license to read the book under Amazon's "
-"choice of conditions.  Then there's the freedom to acquire the book "
-"anonymously, which is basically impossible for most well-known books with "
-"the &ldquo;swindle&rdquo;."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"They're only available from Amazon, and Amazon requires users to identify "
-"themselves, as it doesn't allow any way to pay anonymously with cash, the "
-"way you could buy a printed book.  As a result Amazon maintains a database "
-"showing all the books that each user has ever read.  That database is a "
-"threat to human rights.  Then there's the freedom to give the book to "
-"someone else, perhaps after reading it, the freedom to lend the book to "
-"people when you wish, and the freedom to sell the book to a used book store."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"Amazon eliminates these freedoms, partially by means of digital handcuffs "
-"(malicious features in the software designed to restrict users so they can't "
-"do these things) and partially through having said that users can't own a "
-"book, because Amazon makes them sign a contract saying they won't give away, "
-"lend or sell the book.  And then there's the freedom to keep the book as "
-"long as you wish."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dt>
-msgid "There was an Orwellian twist to the tale&hellip;"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"Yes, because they deleted thousands of copies of &ldquo;1984&rdquo;.  That "
-"was in 2009.  Those copies were authorized copies until the day Amazon "
-"decided to delete them.  After this, there was a lot of criticism, and so "
-"Amazon promised it would never do this again unless ordered to by the "
-"state. I do not find that comforting."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"Any one of these makes the &ldquo;swindle&rdquo;&mdash;an outrageous attack "
-"on our freedom and something that we must refuse to use.  I don't know all "
-"the details about the competitors, but all of them share at least some of "
-"these unacceptable characteristics.  Except for some where you can only "
-"install books that are in documented, non-secret formats."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"Some of them maybe you could buy with cash somewhere if the author is "
-"selling copies.  But the problem is, for digital books in general, there is "
-"no way to buy them for cash, or anonymously, because of the fact that there "
-"is no anonymous payment system on the Internet."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"Bitcoin can be used for that, but Bitcoin is somewhat speculative because "
-"its value fluctuates.  I don't think it has arrived at the point of being a "
-"convenient easy, anonymous, digital payment system."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"And it's not inherently anonymous.  You can make a Bitcoin payment "
-"anonymously but you have to go to some extra trouble.  I don't remember the "
-"details, but it was complicated enough that I didn't think I would do it.  I "
-"would just continue not buying things online."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dt>
-msgid ""
-"There is another aspect to using nonfree software: you are being a bad "
-"neighbor as well."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"When you are asked to promise not to share with other people, what does that "
-"mean? You are being asked to betray your community.  Now, what's your "
-"community? It's the people you know, the people you normally cooperate "
-"with.  These software licenses invite you to betray the people you normally "
-"cooperate with."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dt>
-msgid ""
-"People use the terms free &amp; open source indiscriminately, but they are "
-"different things."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"The term &ldquo;open source&rdquo; was coined in 1998 by people in the free "
-"software community.  Remember that I started the free software movement in "
-"1983.  By 1998 we had already achieved a considerable amount, there were "
-"many people writing free software and many people using it."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"But not all of them agreed with the philosophy of the free software "
-"movement.  Many of them, although they liked using and developing free "
-"software, considered our philosophy too radical and shocking.  They coined a "
-"different term so that they could avoid any reference to our philosophy and "
-"avoid presenting the issue as a matter of justice versus injustice."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"So that's the purpose of the term &ldquo;open source&rdquo;.  It's to talk "
-"about more or less the same category of software but without presenting it "
-"as an ethical issue.  They don't say that if a program is not open source "
-"then it's an injustice and you must try to escape from it."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dt>
-msgid ""
-"You've said in the past that the &ldquo;the agenda of the free software "
-"movement has been subverted and even nearly lost.&rdquo; Are you referring "
-"to cases such as Android (the mobile phone operating system)?"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"Android is just one example of the general tendency for most people in a "
-"community not to think of this in terms of freedom and justice.  &ldquo;Open "
-"source&rdquo; is a large part of that too."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"And then look at the more than 1000 different distributions of the GNU/Linux "
-"OS: there around ten of them which are entirely free software, whose "
-"developers keep them free software as a matter of principle, and the other "
-"thousand-or-so include nonfree software or steer the user towards nonfree "
-"software, which in an instant grants legitimacy to the nonfree software and "
-"directly rejects the philosophy of the free software movement."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"And these speak a very loud voice.  Most people coming into the community "
-"formulate their ideas of what it's all about based on those distributions "
-"and from other people who are happy with those, and basically only a "
-"minority of the free software community regards nonfree software as an "
-"injustice that we shouldn't tolerate.  And these views, of course, "
-"propagate."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"Strictly speaking Android is free software but it's not complete: in order "
-"to actually run a phone you need other software which isn't free.  Every "
-"Android phone needs some nonfree software too."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"In addition, many of those are &ldquo;tyrant products&rdquo; which don't "
-"allow users to replace the system.  So the software in them may have been "
-"made from free source code, but if the user can't replace the software, then "
-"those executable programs are not free."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dt>
-msgid ""
-"Despite your technical achievements when it comes to coding, one of your "
-"greatest hacks was the inception of GNU GPL, a seminal license that "
-"influenced a lot of others."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"Well, it's better to say that most other free software licenses were written "
-"as reaction against the ideas of GNU GPL."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"You see, the GNU GPL is a copyleft license.  Every free software license, in "
-"order to be one, has to give you the four freedoms.  The only way to get "
-"these freedoms is if the work is released under a license that gives them to "
-"you."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"Copyright law today has been made too restricted, everything is copyrighted "
-"by default.  Therefore the only way a program can be free is if the "
-"copyright holders put on a formal declaration that gives the four freedoms.  "
-"This formal declaration is what we call a free software license."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"There are many ways to do that.  Copyleft says that there is a condition "
-"placed on freedoms two and three (remember those were the freedoms to "
-"distribute exact copies and copies of your modified versions).  The "
-"condition which is copyleft says that when you're distributing them, you "
-"have to do it respecting the same freedoms for the next person."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"So people who get copies from you, whether they're modified or not, must get "
-"the same four freedoms.  If you put some of this code into another program "
-"with other code so that you've made changes, the conditions say that that "
-"entire program must give people the four freedoms, so you can convert the "
-"code into effectively proprietary with the excuse that you've made some "
-"changes in it.  If you want to use any of this code in your program, you "
-"must make your whole program free."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"I did this because I realized that there was a choice: either people would "
-"be able to convert my code into nonfree software and use it to subjugate "
-"others, perhaps by making changes in it, or I would stop them from doing "
-"that."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"I realized then, if I didn't stop them, then my code would be converted to "
-"nonfree software, users would get my code, but they wouldn't get freedom, "
-"and that would be self defeating, it would defeat the whole purpose of "
-"writing the code, which was to make a system that they could use in freedom."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid "So I invented a way to prevent that, and that way is copyleft."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dt>
-msgid ""
-"And how do these ideas of copyleft translate in today's world of web "
-"services and so called &ldquo;cloud computing&rdquo;?"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"These issues apply to a program, which is a work you can have a copy of; but "
-"a service isn't something you get a copy of, so these issues don't apply to "
-"it."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"On the other hand, when you're doing your own computing you must not use any "
-"web service to do that, because if you do so you lose control of that "
-"computing.  If your computing is done on somebody else's server, he controls "
-"it and you don't."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"So the general issue that the user should have control on their computing "
-"does apply to web services but in a different way."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dt>
-msgid ""
-"Despite it's practical advantages there isn't yet mass migration to free "
-"software in the public sector."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"Proprietary software developers have lots of money.  They use that money to "
-"buy governments.  There are two ways that they can use money to influence "
-"governments."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"One way is by bribing specific officials.  That's typically illegal but in "
-"many countries they can do it anyway."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"The other way is bribing the state itself or some other jurisdiction, and "
-"that's not illegal, but it is equally corrupt."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dt>
-msgid ""
-"Despite being in dire financial straights, there is no national policy in "
-"Greece regarding the use of free software in the public sector."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"I don't want to focus narrowly on the agendas of possibly saving money "
-"because that's a secondary reason.  The real reason why the Greek and any "
-"other government should insist on using free software is to have control of "
-"its own computing, in other words, its information and computing "
-"sovereignty.  And this is worth spending money for."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dt>
-msgid ""
-"Let's talk a bit about the role that free software should have in "
-"education.  There's been a lot of debate recently."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"Schools must teach exclusively free software because schools have a social "
-"mission: to educate good citizens for a strong, capable, independent, "
-"cooperating and free society.  In the computing field that means teaching "
-"people to be skilled free software users."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"Teaching the proprietary program is implanting dependence.  Why do you think "
-"many software companies hand gratis copies of their nonfree programs to "
-"schools? Because they want schools to spread this dependence.  That's the "
-"opposite of the social mission of schools, they shouldn't do it."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"It's like giving students addictive drugs.  The companies that make these "
-"drugs would love the schools to do that, but it's the school's "
-"responsibility to refuse even if the drugs are gratis.  But there is a "
-"deeper reason too: for education and citizenship."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"Schools are supposed to teach not just facts and skills, but also the spirit "
-"of good will.  A habit of helping others.  Every class should have this "
-"rule: &ldquo;Students, if you bring software to class you may not keep it "
-"for yourself.  You must share copies with the rest of the class, including "
-"the source code, in case someone here wants to learn about that software.  "
-"Which means bringing nonfree software to class is not permitted.&rdquo; For "
-"the school to set a good example, it must follow its own rule: it should "
-"bring only free software and share copies with everyone in the class."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"There is also another reason, for the sake of education, specifically "
-"education of the best programmers.  For natural born programmers to become "
-"good programmers, they need to read lots of code and write lots of code.  "
-"Only free software gives you the chance to read the code of large programs "
-"that people really use.  Then you have to write lots of code.  Which means "
-"you've got to write code in large programs."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"You have to start small.  That doesn't mean writing small programs, because "
-"small programs do not even start to present the difficulties of large "
-"programs.  So the way you start small is by writing small changes in "
-"existing large programs, and only free software gives you the chance to do "
-"that."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"So, for several reasons, doing an ethical and good education means doing "
-"education with free software and only free software.  There are many who "
-"say, &ldquo;Let's give the children Windows and the GNU+Linux system so that "
-"they can learn both.&rdquo; This is like saying &ldquo;let's give children "
-"at lunchtime some whiskey or ouzo as well as water, so they can learn "
-"both.&rdquo;"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"The school is supposed to teach good habits, not addiction, not dependence.  "
-"Microsoft knows that if you deliver computer with Windows and GNU+Linux, "
-"most of the kids in their families see Windows in use, so they are going to "
-"mostly use Windows."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"We need to change that, that's a bad habit of society, it's dependence.  A "
-"school should actively put an end to that dependence.  They should redirect "
-"society down to a path where people have freedom."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"But remember, the problem we want to correct is bigger than Microsoft.  "
-"Apple is actually nastier than Microsoft, and it seems to be having a very "
-"disappointing success in the area of mobile devices with the iThings."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"And remember that the iThings pioneered a tyrannical practice that Microsoft "
-"only tried afterwards.  That is designing products as jails, so that users "
-"can't even choose what applications to install freely, they can only install "
-"programs that have been approved by the dictator."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"And the horrible thing is that the evil genius Steve Jobs found a way to "
-"make lots of people clamor to be imprisoned by these products.  He made "
-"jails and made them so shiny that people want to be locked up."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"There's been a tremendous PR industry keen to make him sound good, and Apple "
-"was working very hard to take advantage of his death.  Of course Apple's PR "
-"worked while he was alive also, and there seem to be a lot of people in "
-"magazines and newspapers who want to direct the public attention away from "
-"these issues of freedom."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dt>
-msgid ""
-"Speaking of education, when you were part of the MIT AI Lab, you were part "
-"of a community. This was eventually broken up and you were the only one to "
-"go against the trend and not work for a big company developing proprietary "
-"software. What gave you the strength to fight, alone, like a guerrilla in "
-"the mountains?"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"I was alone already.  The community I've been part of had already split up "
-"in a rather hostile fashion.  So I was most definitely alone no matter what "
-"I was going to do."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"But the other thing was that the revulsion of my mind to the idea of using "
-"and developing proprietary software meant that that was even worse.  I had "
-"no alternative that would lead to a life I wouldn't be ashamed of and "
-"disgusted with."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dt>
-msgid ""
-"What were your major influences in your upbringing and education would you "
-"credit for influencing your belief system?"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"I don't know.  I guess the ideas of free software were formulated from the "
-"community around me at MIT, because we practiced free software, and they "
-"were doing that before I joined them."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"What was different for me was that whereas the others liked doing free "
-"software, but they were willing to do nonfree software when that was somehow "
-"more convenient or satisfied other goals such as to make the software "
-"successful or whatever."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"For me that was the thing that made it good rather than bad, and it was "
-"useless to throw that away.  But it took years for me to formulate those "
-"ideas, something like ten years.  In the mid-70's, even late 70's, I still "
-"hadn't reached the conclusion that nonfree software was simply unjust."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dt>
-msgid ""
-"You've described yourself as a pessimist so I won't ask you to look into "
-"your crystal ball&hellip;"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"I wouldn't see anything, anyway.  The future depends on you.  If I could "
-"tell you what's going to happen then it would be futile for you to try to "
-"change it."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dt>
-msgid ""
-"So, what software projects or social movements are you excited to see "
-"emerging?"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"At the moment there isn't an existing software project that's making me "
-"excited, but I'm trying to convince someone to work on a particular, rather "
-"specialized piece of free software that is the last thing we need in order "
-"to make the use of ATI video accelerators possible in the Free World."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <dl><dd><p>
-msgid ""
-"As for social movements, I'm very excited by the Occupy movement, by the "
-"opposition to austerity in Greece and Spain, and the movements against "
-"corporate tax-evasion, and basically I'm excited to see more people fighting "
-"against the domination of society by the rich few."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <p>
-msgid ""
-"Theodoros Papatheodorou (PhD of Computer Science) is teaching at the Athens "
-"School of Fine Arts (<a "
-"href=\"mailto:address@hidden";>address@hidden</a>)"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't have notes.
-#. type: Content of: <div>
-msgid "*GNUN-SLOT: TRANSLATOR'S NOTES*"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <div><p>
-msgid ""
-"Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to <a "
-"href=\"mailto:address@hidden";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>.  There are also <a "
-"href=\"/contact/\">other ways to contact</a> the FSF.  Broken links and "
-"other corrections or suggestions can be sent to <a "
-"href=\"mailto:address@hidden";>&lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>."
-msgstr ""
-
-#.  TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
-#.         replace it with the translation of these two:
-#
-#.         We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
-#.         translations.  However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
-#.         Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
-#.         to <a href="mailto:address@hidden";>
-#
-#.         &lt;address@hidden&gt;</a>.</p>
-#
-#.         <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
-#.         our web pages, see <a
-#.         href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
-#.         README</a>. 
-#. type: Content of: <div><p>
-msgid ""
-"For information on coordinating and submitting translations of this article, "
-"see <a href=\"/server/standards/README.translations.html\">Translations "
-"README</a>."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <div><p>
-msgid "Copyright &copy; 2012 Richard Stallman, Theodoros Papatheodorou"
-msgstr ""
-
-#. type: Content of: <div><p>
-msgid ""
-"This page is licensed under a <a rel=\"license\" "
-"href=\"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/\";>Creative Commons "
-"Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>."
-msgstr ""
-
-#. TRANSLATORS: Use space (SPC) as msgstr if you don't want credits.
-#. type: Content of: <div><div>
-msgid "*GNUN-SLOT: TRANSLATOR'S CREDITS*"
-msgstr ""
-
-#.  timestamp start 
-#. type: Content of: <div><p>
-msgid "Updated:"
-msgstr ""



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]